MORNINGNESS-EVENINGNESS,SEX, AND THE ALTERNATIVE FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

Recent research on personality and circadian typology indicates that evening-type subjects are more extraverted, impulsive, and novelty-seeking, while morning ones tend to be more introverted, conscientious, agreeable, and emotionally stable. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between circadian typologies on the Zuckerman's Alternative Five Factor Model of personality (AFFM), which has a strong biological basis, controlling for sex and age. A sample of 533 university students (168 men) participated in the study. Results showed that morning-type subjects had significant higher scores than evening-type and neither-type subjects in Activity, and in its subscales General Activity and Work Activity. A significant interaction between circadian typology and sex was found for Neuroticism-Anxiety: morning-type men showed higher scores than evening-type and neither-type, who had the lowest scores. Women presented the opposite pattern: neither-type obtained the highest scores, while morning-type showed the lowest. This is the first time the AFFM has been used in the context of circadian rhythms research. The results suggest that activity is the only trait related to extraversion associated with morningness, while Neuroticism-Anxiety was modulated by sex. These results might help highlight previous results on the association between morningness-eveningness and other models of personality assessment, and they offer new data that calls for further research. (Author correspondence: anna.muro@uab.cat)     

Do different circadian typology measures modulate their relationship with personality? A test using the Alternative Five Factor Model

The relationship between personality and circadian typology shows some inconsistent results and it has been hypothesized that the model used to measure personality might have a moderating effect on this relationship. However, it has never been explored if this inconsistency was dependent on the questionnaire used to measure differences in circadian rhythms as well. We explored this issue in a sample of 564 university students (32% men; 19–40 years) using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire, which is based on an evolutionary-biological approach, in combination with the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) and the reduced Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ). Both questionnaires detected differences between circadian typologies in Sociability (highest in evening types; ET) and Impulsive Sensation-Seeking scales (highest in ET), while the CSM also detected differences in Activity (lowest in ET) and Aggression-Hostility (highest in ET). Further, both questionnaires detected differences between circadian typologies in the subscales General Activity (morning types [MT] higher than ET), Impulsivity (ET highest) and Sensation-Seeking (highest in ET). Differences between circadian typologies/groups in the subscales Parties (highest in ET) and Isolation Intolerance (lowest in MT) were only detected by the rMEQ. The CSM clearly separated evening types from neither and morning types while the rMEQ showed that neither types are not intermediate but closer to evening types in General Activity and Isolation Intolerance, and closer to morning types in Impulsive Sensation-Seeking, Parties, Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking. The obtained results indicate that the relationship between circadian typology and personality may be dependent on the instrument used to assess circadian typology. This fact may help to explain some of the conflicting data available on the relationship between these two concepts.