0824 Putting a Price on Sleep: Two Distinct Ways People Value Sleep Gains and Losses

Abstract Introduction Money is a central system for expressing value in modern society, extending even to health and life. We previously identified five broad factors of sleep value using the Sleep Value Item Bank (SVIB-2.0) —Wanting, Appreciating, Prioritizing, Preferring, and Devaluing—but how these relate to the monetary value of sleep remains unknown. Using a novel Monetary Sleep Value Questionnaire (MSQ), we examined how demographic and sleep-value factors relate to the monetary worth individuals assign to gaining or losing sleep. Methods This secondary analysis used data from the SRVIV survey study. Participants (N=455) across the continental US completed demographics questions (age: M=45±17; 53% female; 82% White; Education: Mdn=some college; 50% married), the SVIB-2.0, and the MSQ. The MSQ included eight self-report items assessing how much participants would need to be paid to lose increasing amounts of sleep and eight items assessing how much they would pay for increasing amounts of guaranteed sleep quality (each ranging from one hour to one hour nightly for life). Factor analysis evaluated the two proposed MSQ factors, and structural equation modeling tested their associations with demographics and the five SVIB-2.0 factors. Results Two factors were identified from the MSQ, which did not significantly correlate with one another. Factor 1, the amount one would need to be paid to sleep less, was associated with higher income, lower age, and more Sleep Devaluation (p<.05, for all). Factor 2, the amount one would pay for more sleep, was associated with higher levels of Education, more Sleep Appreciation, and lower Sleep Devaluation (p<.05, for all). Conclusion Our results suggest that the MSQ captures two distinct valuation processes: sacrificing sleep for money and paying for quality sleep. Greater education and appreciation for sleep increase the value placed on quality sleep, whereas lower income, older age, and sleep devaluation predict trading sleep for money. Future research with the MSQ may help advance our understanding of sleep value as a potential target for sleep health promotion. Support (if any)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SLEEP
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsag091.0823
Primary Topic
Sleep and related disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

0824 Putting a Price on Sleep: Two Distinct Ways People Value Sleep Gains and Losses

Kara Duraccio, Dustin Sherriff-Clayton, Brandon Pattillo, Davis Paxton et al.
SLEEP
Sleep and related disorders
article

0824 Putting a Price on Sleep: Two Distinct Ways People Value Sleep Gains and Losses

Kara Duraccio, Dustin Sherriff-Clayton, Brandon Pattillo, Davis Paxton, Daniel Kay, Bryce Beeton, Abigail Woolley
article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Money is a central system for expressing value in modern society, extending even to health and life. We previously identified five broad factors of sleep value using the Sleep Value Item Bank (SVIB-2.0) —Wanting, Appreciating, Prioritizing, Preferring, and Devaluing—but how these relate to the monetary value of sleep remains unknown. Using a novel Monetary Sleep Value Questionnaire (MSQ), we examined how demographic and sleep-value factors relate to the monetary worth individuals assign to gaining or losing sleep. Methods This secondary analysis used data from the SRVIV survey study. Participants (N=455) across the continental US completed demographics questions (age: M=45±17; 53% female; 82% White; Education: Mdn=some college; 50% married), the SVIB-2.0, and the MSQ. The MSQ included eight self-report items assessing how much participants would need to be paid to lose increasing amounts of sleep and eight items assessing how much they would pay for increasing amounts of guaranteed sleep quality (each ranging from one hour to one hour nightly for life). Factor analysis evaluated the two proposed MSQ factors, and structural equation modeling tested their associations with demographics and the five SVIB-2.0 factors. Results Two factors were identified from the MSQ, which did not significantly correlate with one another. Factor 1, the amount one would need to be paid to sleep less, was associated with higher income, lower age, and more Sleep Devaluation (p<.05, for all). Factor 2, the amount one would pay for more sleep, was associated with higher levels of Education, more Sleep Appreciation, and lower Sleep Devaluation (p<.05, for all). Conclusion Our results suggest that the MSQ captures two distinct valuation processes: sacrificing sleep for money and paying for quality sleep. Greater education and appreciation for sleep increase the value placed on quality sleep, whereas lower income, older age, and sleep devaluation predict trading sleep for money. Future research with the MSQ may help advance our understanding of sleep value as a potential target for sleep health promotion. Support (if any)

SLEEPVol. 49(Supplement_1)
Brigham Young University (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Sleep and related disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.