The present study aims to explore gender differences in the association between circadian preference and attachment style in a community sample.
A total of 171 community-dwelling adults (98 males and 73 females, mean age=41.06±8.21 years) were recruited. The Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) was used to measure the circadian preferences, and attachment style was assessed by the Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ). The Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D) was used to assess depressive symptoms. The association between circadian preference and attachment style was examined by gender.
The MEQ significantly predicted dismissing attachment (β=−0.254, p=0.001) and fearful attachment (β=−0.177, p=0.016) after controlling for age, gender, and the CES-D score. The MEQ predicted dismissing attachment (β=−0.372, p=0.002) and fearful attachment (β=−0.237, p=0.040) in males, but not in females after controlling for age and CES-D score.
The current finding suggests an association between circadian preference and attachment style, which differed by gender.
The circadian preference, i.e., a preference for morningness (i.e., morning/day activity) or eveningness (i.e., evening/night activity), is an indicator of the circadian rhythm. The circadian preference has been reported to be related to various personality traits [
Among theories of personality traits, attachment theory posits that caregiving experiences are represented by internal working models (IWMs) [
Many studies have investigated the associations between circadian preference and personality style, among other psychological factors [
Thus, the present study aimed to explore gender differences in the association between morningness-eveningness and attachment style in a community sample. We hypothesized that circadian preference predicts an individual’s attachment style. We also hypothesized that there would be a gender difference in the relationship between morningness-eveningness and attachment style.
Initially, 207 participants were recruited by advertisements placed in apartment blocks, churches, universities, and a public health center. Data from 171 participants [98 males (47.4%) and 73 females (52.6%), mean age=41.06±8.21 years] were included in the final analysis; 36 participants who did not complete the questionnaire were excluded. No significant difference in age was observed between the males and females. All participants provided informed consent, and this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gachon University of Medicine and Science.
The Korean version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) was used to measure the preference for morningness or eveningness. The MEQ consists of 19 items, with higher scores suggesting a tendency toward morningness [
The Korean version [
The Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D) [
The independent t-test was used to detect gender differences. Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships among continuous variables. Regression analysis was used to determine whether there was any association between circadian preference and attachment style after controlling for age, gender, and depression. Three regression models were devised: Model 1 (dependent variable: MEQ score; independent variable: RSQ score), Model 2 (dependent variables: MEQ score, age, and gender; independent variable: RSQ score), and Model 3 (dependent variables: MEQ score, age, gender, and CES-D score; independent variable: RSQ score). The analyses were repeated for each gender. All analyses were conducted with SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
The circadian preference and attachment style of all participants are described in
The multiple regression analysis indicated an independent association between the RSQ and MEQ scores (
The results of the multiple regression analyses conducted separately for each gender are presented in
The present study was aimed to test for an association between circadian preference and attachment style. Consistent with our first hypothesis, circadian preference predicted attachment style, independent of age, gender, and depression status. Consistent with our second hypothesis, a gender difference was detected in the association between circadian preference and attachment style. An independent association between eveningness and higher dismissing and fearful attachment was only seen in males, and persisted after controlling for age and depression.
The current findings indicate that the circadian preference may have psychological effects, including attachment style. Previous studies have reported significant associations between circadian preference and psychological factors [
Previous studies have reported gender differences in circadian preference [
The present study also showed that dismissing attachment was highly associated with eveningness, even after controlling for gender, age, and depression, suggesting that those with higher eveningness tend to have dismissing attachment regardless of their demographic characteristics or mood. The key traits of dismissing attachment are a lack of interpersonal relationships and emotional indifference [
Fearful attachment was also independently related to eveningness. Individuals with fearful attachment tend to show unpredictable behavior in interpersonal relationships and their judgment criteria are not related to interpersonal relationships [
Additionally, separate analyses by gender showed that the association between circadian preference and dismissing/fearful attachment was present only in males. This gender difference may be related to the higher morningness of females. In addition, females with the eveningness preference may not avoid interpersonal relationships during the daytime or have an unstable life rhythm, as seen in males with the eveningness preference.
Several limitations of this study should also be discussed. First, measuring circadian preference, attachment style, and depression through self-report questionnaires might not fully reflect the characteristics of the individual. Second, the sample size was not sufficiently large to represent the entire population. A future study should include a larger and more diverse sample with respect to age. Finally, the circadian preference does not completely represent biological circadian rhythms in the absence of measurement of biological markers of circadian rhythms, such as melatonin or cortisol.
In conclusion, in the present study circadian preference was independently associated with a specific attachment style. Moreover, there were gender differences in the association between circadian preference and attachment style.
This research was supported by the Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korean govoerment (MSIT) (No. 2016M3C7A1904338), National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1F1A1049200), and the Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020M3E5D908056111).
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Conceptualization: Seog Ju Kim. Data curation: Seog Ju Kim, Jooyoung Lee, Seahyun O. Formal analysis: Seog Ju Kim, Jooyoung Lee, Seahyun O. Funding acquisition: Seog Ju Kim. Investigation: Seog Ju Kim, Seahyun O. Methodology: Seog Ju Kim, Jooyoung Lee, Seahyun O. Project administration: Seog Ju Kim. Resources: Seog Ju Kim. Software: Seog Ju Kim, Jooyoung Lee. Supervision: Seog Ju Kim. Validation: Jooyoung Lee, Seahyun O. Visualization: Seahyun O. Writing—original draft: Seahyun O. Writing— review & editing: Seog Ju Kim, Jooyoung Lee.
Differences in circadian preference and attachment style between males and females
Total (n=171) | Male (n=98) | Female (n=73) | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (yr) | 41.06±8.21 | 40.03±8.70 | 41.84±7.78 | 1.430 | 0.154 |
MEQ score | 50.40±7.79 | 48.73±8.91 | 51.64±6.61 | 2.458 | 0.015 |
RSQ score | |||||
Secure attachment | 17.34±2.40 | 16.95±2.54 | 17.63±2.25 | 1.869 | 0.063 |
Dismissing attachment | 14.44±2.64 | 14.59±2.56 | 14.33±2.70 | −0.642 | 0.522 |
Preoccupied attachment | 11.59±1.92 | 12.01±1.78 | 11.28±1.96 | −2.533 | 0.012 |
Fearful attachment | 10.86±2.54 | 11.03±2.70 | 10.73±2.42 | −0.744 | 0.458 |
CES-D score | 11.68±9.24 | 11.22±8.43 | 12.03±9.83 | 0.567 | 0.572 |
p<0.05.
MEQ: Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, RSQ: Relationship Style Questionnaire, CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale
Association between attachment style and circadian preferences in the entire cohort
Secure attachment | Dismissing attachment | Preoccupied attachment | Fearful attachment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | β=0.135 | β=−0.226 |
β=−0.033 | β=−0.159 |
p=0.078 | p=0.003 | p=0.666 | p=0.038 | |
Model 2 | β=0.136 | β=−0.257 |
β=0.016 | β=−0.186 |
p=0.085 | p=0.001 | p=0.842 | p=0.019 | |
Model 3 | β=0.134 | β=−0.254 |
β=0.021 | β=−0.177 |
p=0.090 | p=0.001 | p=0.781 | p=0.016 |
p<0.05,
p<0.01.
Model 1—Dependent variable: MEQ score; independent variable: attachment score. Model 2—Dependent variables: MEQ score, age, and gender; independent variable: attachment score. Model 3—Dependent variables: MEQ score, age, gender, and CES-D score; independent variable: attachment score. MEQ: Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale
Association between attachment style and circadian preference by gender
Male | Female | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
Secure | Dismissing | Preoccupied | Fearful | Secure | Dismissing | Preoccupied | Fearful | |
Model 1 | β=0.161 | β=−0.340 |
β=0.066 | β=−0.209 | β=0.057 | β=−0.114 | β=−0.055 | β=−0.088 |
p=0.172 | p=0.003 | p=0.580 | p=0.076 | p=0.578 | p=0.263 | p=0.589 | p=0.387 | |
Model 2 | β=0.188 | β=−0.375 |
β=0.075 | β=−0.242 | β=0.065 | β=−0.125 | β=−0.050 | β=−0.099 |
p=0.139 | p=0.002 | p=0.559 | p=0.055 | p=0.525 | p=0.214 | p=0.625 | p=0.324 | |
Model 3 | β=0.186 | β=−0.372 |
β=0.078 | β=−0.237 |
β=0.062 | β=−0.123 | β=−0.041 | β=−0.086 |
p=0.138 | p=0.002 | p=0.537 | p=0.040 | p=0.540 | p=0.223 | p=0.677 | p=0.355 |
p<0.05,
p<0.01.
Model 1—Dependent variable: MEQ score; independent variable: attachment score. Model 2—Dependent variables: MEQ score, and age; independent variable: attachment score. Model 3—Dependent variables: MEQ score, age, and CES-D score; independent variable: attachment score. MEQ: Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale