Limited and Varying Consumer Attention: Evidence from Shocks to the Salience of Bank Overdraft Fees
By Victor Stango, Jonathan Zinman. 2011
286 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Finance
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d6c7c7c9617d3fb4edc07c337ba4af60c7ae1ac6
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Accounting
- Felipe Kast
- Dina Pomeranz
- Dennis Philip
- Mark Armstrong
- John Vickers
- Sendhil Mullainathan
- Kamlesh Kumar
- Stephan Meier
In Economics and Econometrics
- Mark Armstrong
- S. Datta
- Dina Pomeranz
- Felipe Kast
- John Vickers
- Dennis Philip
- Sendhil Mullainathan
- Kamlesh Kumar
In Finance
- Felipe Kast
- Dina Pomeranz
- Dennis Philip
- Mark Armstrong
- Sendhil Mullainathan
- Kamlesh Kumar
- Stephan Meier
- S. Datta
Citations in the corpus
- Financial literacy and fraud detection* (2019, methodology): “Using survey and transactions data, Stango & Zinman (2014) find that checking-account holders incur overdraft fees because they are inattentive to account balances.”
- Behavioral Design: A New Approach to Development Policy (2014, background): “Similarly, Stango and Zinman (2011) find that having their attention drawn to their bank’s policies about fees for overdrawn accounts reduces overdraft fees paid by individuals for up to two years after the reminders were sent.”
- Consumer protection and contingent charges (2012, background): “Stango and Zinman (2011) suggest that annual overdraft fees in the US are roughly £ 30-40 billion, which is about $150 per account.”
- Saving more in groups: Field experimental evidence from Chile (2018, background): “9 Walsh et al. (1991) compare the effect of AA meetings to a hospital treatment.”