Effect of Circadian Preferences and Personality Traits on Academic Achievement in Active Students

Article information

Chronobiol Med. 2023;5(2):87-92
Publication date (electronic) : 2023 June 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.33069/cim.2023.0008
Multidisciplinary Laboratory In Education Sciences and Training Engineering (LMSEIF), Sport Science Assessment and Physical Activity Didactic, Normal Higher School (ENS-C), Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
Corresponding author: Anas El-Jaziz, PhD, Normal Higher School, Hassan II University of Casablanca, BP 50069, Ghandi, Morocco. Tel: 212-690959414, E-mail: anas.eljaziz@enscasa.ma
Received 2023 March 16; Accepted 2023 April 16.



During the past decades, several studies have explored individuals’ differences and their impact on scholarly achievement. The effect of circadian preference and personality on academic performance has been studied in different countries. However, studies have yet to analyze these variables in the Moroccan context (North West Africa) and test whether academic performance relates to circadian types and personality traits. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between those variables in young active students.


This study included 167 Moroccan active students (age=16.34 years; SD=1.2). The personality trait was measured with Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C). We also assessed the circadian typology by using Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). School grades were used to calculate academic success (grade point average [GPA]). We investigated the relationships between all the parameters.


This study indicates a significant difference in Big Five factors between athlete groups of chronotype. GPA is significantly related positively to MEQ score and openness but negatively to neuroticism. However, no correlation was observed with the other significant five factors.


Professionals must consider circadian preferences and personality traits when looking to facilitate students’ scholarly achievement.


Many studies have investigated possible links between academic performance and individual differences. Biological rhythm and personality traits are also some of these individual differences [1,2]. This biological rhythm, which can change in seconds, includes annual, seasonal, monthly, weekly, daily, and hourly [3]. The most crucial of these rhythms is the circadian rhythm (daily). It affects many human activities, including sleep, cognition, physical school performance, and well-being [4-7]. A large volume of published studies describes it as multidimensional, with the two relatively independent dimensions of morningness and eveningness [8-11]. Morningness–eveningness (M-E) preference can change with age and gender [12-14]. In addition, children are more morning-oriented, and adolescents are more evening oriented [15,16]. Various scales can measure the M-E preferences: the Composite Scale of Morningness [17], Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire [18], Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children [19], and Munich Chronotype [1]. The literature has emphasized the importance of chronotype on academic achievement. Recently, researchers have shown that a lower academic performance is related to having an evening type (E-type) [20,21], and adolescents can learn better with more motivation in the afternoon [22]. Other studies consistently show that morning-type (M-type) and academic achievement positively relate to children and university students [23-25]. To explore the relationship between the chronotype and the personality, significant analysis and discussion on the subject are done by using the Big Five Model of personality [26,27]. Indeed, E-type are more extroverted than M-type [28] with a high score on neuroticism [29]. In contrast, M-type is more agreeable [30] and conscientious than E-type, with a positive correlation with stability.

In conclusion, there is evidence for a direct and an indirect effect of chronotype and personality on school performance. Then this study aimed to assess the relationship between school performance with personality and the chronotype.



This study is based on a sample of 167 participants. It represents 54% of students in the same Sidi Taibi high school (Morocco). It is a rural area known for its agricultural activities. Of the participating high school students, 95 were females 72 were males. The mean age was 16.34±1.2 years. All participants were tested in the school schedule and their classroom. All high school students can participate in the study. The data was collected between spring and summer (April–July 2019). The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (IPR: 0017/2018), and all participants were informed about the experimental design and provided written consent to participate before the intervention. Appropriate ethical standards were followed [31].

Measurement instruments

Academic performances

Grades were taken from the official student database “MASSAR” run by the Ministry of National Education in Morocco, ranging from 0 to 20 in each school subject, with higher values indicating better performance and 10 being the passing grade. Each participant should follow the same course, and all students must take exams in the same form. The overall average is the sum of 11 teaching subjects.

Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire

Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) consists of 19 items for self-report. Each field requested the respondents to choose their desired time for sleeping and rising. Each response is assigned a score and is presented on an ordinal scale. Lower scores suggest E-type, whereas higher scores indicate M-type [18].

Big Five Questionnaire for Children

Barbaranelli et al. [32] created the Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C), a questionnaire adapted from the BFQ for adults. It consists of five subtests: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, which were created to describe the individual. The questionnaire has 65 items with five possible answers, rated from 5 to 1 (5, almost always; 1, hardly ever). We calculated the score for each dimension.

Data analysis

The chi-square (χ2) test was used with Bonferroni correction (p<0.05) to compare the frequencies of categorical variables, so we examined the effect of anthropometrics parameters on the other factors. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to find differences in academic performance between chronotype categories. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to evaluate whether there are differences in the Big Five scores of students based on circadian preference. The associations between the variables were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Then we used the partial correlations by controlling the age. All data analyses were performed with SPSS 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).


Using the original classification of MEQ [18], our study comprised 51 M-type (31 females, 20 males), 110 intermediates (60 females, 50 males), and 6 E-type (4 females, 2 males). The circadian type difference is insignificant (χ2=2.101, df=3, p=0.552). It can be concluded that sex does not influence circadian typology differences (Table 1). One-way ANOVA (Table 2) revealed that there were no significant differences among the sex in the extraversion score (F=0.352, p=0.554, η2=0.002); agreeableness score (F=1.744, p=0.188, η2=0.010); conscientiousness score (F=1.414, p=0.236, η2=0.008); and intellect openness (F=1.403, p=0.238, η2=0.008). We can therefore conclude that sex does not influence these variables. However, there is a significant difference in the neuroticism score by sex (F=4.220, p=0.042, η2=0.025), and we can conclude that sex influence just this variable of the Big Five model. Table 3 shows a statistically significant difference in Big five factors score between groups of circadian typologies. Indeed, the agreeableness score changed significantly between more ET than MT (p=0.034). Also, the conscientiousness score changed significantly between NT and more MT (p=0.016).

The circadian typology differences by the sex

One-way ANOVA of the Big Five model by the sex

Differences between the Big Five factors scores and circadian typologies

The correlation matrix table (Table 4) presents the correlation between 8 parameters (academic performance, MEQ score, sex, and Big Five factors). We noticed that, out of the 28 coefficients of correlations calculated, 17 relationships were significant, or 60.71%. Firstly, sex is associated negatively with neuroticism (r=-0.158, p=0.043) and grade point average (GPA) (r=-0.29, p<0.001). The academic performance shows 3 (17.65%) significant correlations. Table 4 shows that GPA is significantly related positively to MEQ score (r=0.187, p=0.016) and openness (r=0.208, p=0.007) but negatively to neuroticism (r=-0.218, p=0.005). The MEQ score shows 5 (29.41%) significant correlations. Indeed, the MEQ score is significantly correlated positively with extraversion (r=0.157, p=0.042), agreeableness (r=0.174, p=0.025), conscientiousness (r=0.300, p<0.001), and openness (r=0.251, p=0.001), but negatively with neuroticism (r=-0.159, p=0.04). The extraversion shows 3 (17.65%) significant correlations. Table 4 shows that extraversion is significantly related positively and moderately with agreeableness (r=0.574, p<0.001), conscientiousness (r=0.458, p<0.001), and openness (r=0.460, p<0.001). Agreeableness shows two relationships (11.76%) strongly significant positive correlations with conscientiousness (r=0.445, p<0.001) and openness (r=0.350, p<0.001). The last, conscientiousness, shows two relationships (11.76%): positive correlations with openness (r=0.475, p<0.001) and a moderate negative relationship with neuroticism (r=-0.168, p=0.03). Partial correlations (controlling for sex) between MEQ score and Big Five factors were 0.155, 0.17, 0.297, -0.169, and 0.247 for extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, respectively (p<0.01, for conscientiousness and openness dimensions). And the correlation between MEQ score and academic performance (by sex control) is 0.181. From Table 5, the correlation between extraversion and agreeableness is more robust in males than females (r=0.699 vs. r=0.493) and between extraversion and conscientiousness (r=0.622 vs. r=0.356). Nevertheless, the correlation between extraversion and circadian typology was significant for males. The link between agreeableness and conscientiousness is more robust in males than females (r=0.586 vs. r=0.323) and between agreeableness and openness (r=0.440 vs. r=0.278). Nonetheless, the other significant correlations are relatively close in intensity.

The matrix correlation between all parameters

The matrix of the correlation between the Big Five model and the MEQ score by the sex


This study verified the association between circadian preference, personality traits, and academic performance among Moroccan high school students. Our results indicate that sex does not influence the circadian typology differences. These results seem consistent with other research, which found no sex differences in the frequency of M-type or E-type [20,33-35]. Although these results differ from some published studies [14,36-39], they found a weak but significant effect of sex on M-type, and women were significantly more oriented to M-type than men. A possible explanation for this inconsistent finding might be that many physical changes during puberty and adolescence [12,40] may change the behavior differently for boys and girls within the family sphere.

Concerning personality traits, we here focus on the concept of the Big Five because it is one of the most widely used conceptualizations of personality [41]. Our study confirms no significant differences among the sex in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and intellect openness. However, there is a significant difference in the neuroticism score. These results agree with other research [42,43] findings, which showed females scored significantly higher than males. A possible explanation for these results may be that women have higher levels of anxiety, depression, selfconsciousness, and vulnerability than men. In contrast to other studies [44,45], they found significant gender differences in conscientiousness; again, females scored significantly higher than males. However, other research has found that sex differences were only for neuroticism, agreeableness, and extraversion [46].

The current study found that sex also has an impact on GPA. This finding corroborates the ideas of other research teams [47,48] that confirm girls and women outperform men in academic success, and men outperform women on vocational success criteria. Several possible explanations for this result in our field suggested that girls and boys differ in particular cognitive abilities and school domains [49].

Assessing the relationship between individual differences (biological, psychological) and academic achievement has always been an attractive topic for experts. A fascinating finding in our study was that academic achievement was substantially linked positively with chronotype. This data confirms the hypothesis of the previous studies that confirm that morningness is positively associated with academic achievement and that eveningness has a negative impact [49,50]. In addition, another study performed in Sudan revealed that height GPA was more likely oriented toward the E-type [51], which is also valid for lower school levels [52]. More research confirmed this relationship in different context [21,53-56]. Yet, these results differ from previously published studies [57-60] that revealed academic achievement was not impacted by chronotype.

Our study noted a positive correlation between academic performance and openness and a negative correlation with Neuroticism. However, no correlation was detected for the other Big Five factors. This result seems consistent with other research [61], which found that openness positively correlates with academic performance. Considering the negative association of neuroticism, a possible explanation for these results may be that high neuroticism increases the probability of having test anxiety, which is, in turn, likely to impair performance on class assignments [62,63]. Nonetheless, this hypothesis must be read cautiously because other studies revealed that the higher levels of concern and perfectionism that characterize neurotic individuals might lead to better preparation and higher performance [64,65].

Another finding is intriguing. The circadian preference correlates positively with extraversion, which contradicts previous studies [4,30,66]. They found no significant correlations or weak correlations between morningness and extraversion. However, our result also aligns with other studies [8,67,68]. Circadian preference and agreeableness are correlated positively. This result concurs with Tsaousis’s meta-analysis [69] that found a positive direct link between morningness and agreeableness. However, findings from other studies reported either no relation [66,70] or minor positive associations with morningness [30,67]. The relationship between conscientiousness and circadian preference was positively significant. This finding matches those observed in earlier studies [66,71,72]. Research has repeatedly indicated minor to medium positive associations between them. The link between conscientiousness and circadian preference is the most well-established [29].

Openness showed moderate unique associations with E-type, whereas relations with MEQ score were relatively weak [8,70]. This confirmation is consistent with our finding; others reported moderate positive relations [67] or no significant relation [29]. The relation between circadian preference and neuroticism was correlated negatively. This result contrasts with previous studies [30,66] that found no significant relationship between morningness and neuroticism or may be a positive relationship [70]. Interestingly, when sex was partially out, correlations between GPA, circadian preference, and Big Five scores demonstrated no change, suggesting that the influence of sex on academic achievement, circadian preference, and personality was independent.

This study presents some limitations. First, the small number of the samples—morning- and evening-type students—could limit the results obtained. Second, it is important to note that our study was conducted in a single high school. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution, as they may not be applicable to all high schools (in Kenitra). Finally, the study is based on the psychological dimension; the measurement was subjective. Future research has not ignored objective measurements, especially since famous genes control circadian rhythms.

To conclude, chronotype is associated with academic performance and many Big Five personality factors. Future research may focus on another way to measure personality and circadian preferences to compare and confirm the validity of these results. One practical implication may be considering circadian type and personality when looking to facilitate the student’s scholarly achievement.


Funding Statement


The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Data curation: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Formal analysis: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Investigation: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Methodology: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Resources: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Software: Anas ElJaziz, Said Lotfi. Supervision: Said Lotfi. Validation: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Visualization: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi. Writing—original draft: Anas El-Jaziz. Writing—review & editing: Anas El-Jaziz, Said Lotfi.


1. Roenneberg T, Wirz-Justice A, Merrow M. Life between clocks: daily temporal patterns of human chronotypes. J Biol Rhythms 2003;18:80–90.
2. Matthews G. Morningness–eveningness as a dimension of personality: trait, state, and psychophysiological correlates. Eur J Pers 1988;2:277–293.
3. Beşoluk Ş, Önder I. Do seasonal changes and teaching time affect academic performance of pre-service teachers? Biol Rhythm Res 2011;42:445–456.
4. Adan A, Archer SN, Hidalgo MP, Di Milia L, Natale V, Randler C. Circadian typology: a comprehensive review. Chronobiol Int 2012;29:1153–1175.
5. Escribano C, Díaz-Morales JF, Delgado P, Collado MJ. Morningness/eveningness and school performance among Spanish adolescents: further evidence. Learn Individ Differ 2012;22:409–413.
6. Prieto PD, Díaz-Morales JF, Barreno CE, Mateo MJC, Randler C. Morningness-eveningness and health-related quality of life among adolescents. Span J Psychol 2012;15:613–623.
7. Roeser K, Brückner D, Schwerdtle B, Schlarb AA, Kübler A. Health-related quality of life in adolescent chronotypes--a model for the effects of sleep problems, sleep-related cognitions, and self-efficacy. Chronobiol Int 2012;29:1358–1365.
8. Lipnevich AA, Credè M, Hahn E, Spinath FM, Roberts RD, Preckel F. How distinctive are morningness and eveningness from the Big Five factors of personality? A meta-analytic investigation. J Pers Soc Psychol 2017;112:491–509.
9. Putilov AA. Owls, larks, swifts, woodcocks and they are not alone: a historical review of methodology for multidimensional self-assessment of individual differences in sleep-wake pattern. Chronobiol Int 2017;34:426–437.
10. Randler C, Vollmer C. Epidemiological evidence for the bimodal chronotype using the composite scale of morningness. Chronobiol Int 2012;29:1–4.
11. Scherrer V, Roberts R, Preckel F. Parents› assessment of circadian preference in elementary school-aged children: validity and relations to educational outcomes. Chronobiol Int 2016;33:1188–1207.
12. Díaz-Morales JF, Sánchez-Lopez MP. Morningness-eveningness and anxiety among adults: a matter of sex/gender? Pers Individ Dif 2008;44:1391–1401.
13. Randler C. Gender differences in morningness–eveningness assessed by self-report questionnaires: a meta-analysis. Pers Individ Differ 2007;43:1667–1675.
14. Hasan MM, Díaz-Morales JF, Khan MHA. Sex differences in the relationship between morningness-eveningness components, mood and well-being among Bangladeshi university students. Chronobiol Int 2022;39:725–734.
15. Díaz-Morales JF, Gutiérrez Sorroche M. Morningness-eveningness in adolescents. Span J Psychol 2008;11:201–206.
16. Werner H, Lebourgeois MK, Geiger A, Jenni OG. Assessment of chronotype in four- to eleven-year-old children: reliability and validity of the children›s chronotype questionnaire (CCTQ). Chronobiol Int 2009;26:992–1014.
17. Smith CS, Reilly C, Midkiff K. Evaluation of three circadian rhythm questionnaires with suggestions for an improved measure of morningness. J Appl Psychol 1989;74:728–738.
18. Horne JA, Ostberg O. A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. Int J Chronobiol 1976;4:97–110.
19. Carskadon MA, Vieira C, Acebo C. Association between puberty and delayed phase preference. Sleep 1993;16:258–262.
20. Preckel F, Fischbach A, Scherrer V, Brunner M, Ugen S, Lipnevich AA, et al. Circadian preference as a typology: latent-class analysis of adolescents› morningness/eveningness, relation with sleep behavior, and with academic outcomes. Learn Individ Differ 2020;78:101725.
21. Jongte L, Trivedi AK. Chronotype, sleep quality and academic performances among Mizo students. Chronobiol Int 2022;39:398–408.
22. Itzek-Greulich H, Randler C, Vollmer C. The interaction of chronotype and time of day in a science course: adolescent evening types learn more and are more motivated in the afternoon. Learn Individ Differ 2016;51:189–198.
23. Giannotti F, Cortesi F, Sebastiani T, Ottaviano S. Circadian preference, sleep and daytime behaviour in adolescence. J Sleep Res 2002;11:191–199.
24. Kirby E, Kirby S. Improving task performance: the relationship between morningness and proactive thinking. J Appl Soc Psychol 2006;36:2715–2729.
25. Randler C, Frech D. Correlation between morningness–eveningness and final school leaving exams. Biol Rhythm Res 2006;37:233–239.
26. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Individ Differ 1992;13:653–665.
27. Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10- item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J Res Pers 2007;41:203–212.
28. Jackson LA, Gerard DA. Diurnal types, the “Big Five” personality factors, and other personal characteristics. J Soc Behav Pers 1996;11:273–283.
29. Tonetti L, Fabbri M, Natale V. Relationship between circadian typology and big five personality domains. Chronobiol Int 2009;26:337–347.
30. DeYoung CG, Hasher L, Djikic M, Criger B, Peterson JB. Morning people are stable people: circadian rhythm and the higher-order factors of the big five. Pers Individ Differ 2007;43:267–276.
31. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Am Psychol 2002;57:1060–1073.
32. Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Rabasca A, Pastorelli C. A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Pers Individ Differ 2003;34:645–664.
33. Arrona-Palacios A, Díaz-Morales JF. Morningness-eveningness is not associated with academic performance in the afternoon school shift: preliminary findings. Br J Educ Psychol 2018;88:480–498.
34. Fonseca AG, Genzel L. Sleep and academic performance: considering amount, quality and timing. Curr Opin Behav Sci 2020;33:65–71.
35. Kim KM, Han SM, Heo K, Kim WJ, Chu MK. Sex differences in the association between chronotype and risk of depression. Sci Rep 2020;10:18512.
36. Tonetti L, Pascalis VD, Fabbri M, Martoni M, Russo PM, Natale V. Circadian typology and the alternative five-factor model of personality. Int J Psychol 2016;51:332–339.
37. Randler C, Engelke J. Gender differences in chronotype diminish with age: a meta-analysis based on morningness/chronotype questionnaires. Chronobiol Int 2019;36:888–905.
38. Fischer D, Lombardi DA, Marucci-Wellman H, Roenneberg T. Chronotypes in the US - Influence of age and sex. PLoS One 2017;12e0178782.
39. Chellappa SL. Individual differences in light sensitivity affect sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep 2021;44:zsaa214.
40. Randler C, Bilger S. Associations among sleep, chronotype, parental monitoring, and pubertal development among German adolescents. J Psychol 2009;143:509–520.
41. Randler C, Schredl M, Göritz AS. Chronotype, sleep behavior, and the Big Five personality factors. SAGE Open 2017;7:2158244017728321.
42. Vedel A, Thomsen DK, Larsen L. Personality, academic majors and performance: revealing complex patterns. Pers Individ Differ 2015;85:69–76.
43. Clariana M. Personality, procrastination and cheating in students from different university degree programs. Electron J Res Educ Psychol 2013;11:451–472.
44. Larson L, Wei M, Wu TF, Borgen FH, Bailey DC. Discriminating among educational majors and career aspirations in Taiwanese undergraduates: the contribution of personality and self-efficacy. J Couns Psychol 2007;54:395–408.
45. Rubinstein G. The Big Five among male and female students of different faculties. Pers Individ Differ 2005;38:1495–1503.
46. Weisberg YJ, Deyoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Front Psychol 2011;2:178.
47. Voyer D, Voyer SD. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a metaanalysis. Psychol Bull 2014;140:1174–1204.
48. Steinmayr R, Kessels U. Good at school=successful on the job? Explaining gender differences in scholastic and vocational success. Pers Individ Differ 2017;105:107–115.
49. Rahafar A, Randler C, Vollmer C, Kasaeian A. Prediction of school achievement through a multi-factorial approach–The unique role of chronotype. Learn Individ Differ 2017;55:69–74.
50. Kolomeichuk SN, Randler C, Shabalina I, Fradkova L, Borisenkov M. The influence of chronotype on the academic achievement of children and adolescents–evidence from Russian Karelia. Biol Rhythm Res 2016;47:873–883.
51. Mirghani HO. The effect of chronotype (morningness/eveningness) on medical students’ academic achievement in Sudan. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2017;12:512–516.
52. Tonetti L, Natale V, Randler C. Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiol Int 2015;32:792–801.
53. Montaruli A, Castelli L, Galasso L, Mulè A, Bruno E, Esposito F, et al. Effect of chronotype on academic achievement in a sample of Italian university students. Chronobiol Int 2019;36:1482–1495.
54. Goldin AP, Sigman M, Braier G, Golombek DA, Leone MJ. Interplay of chronotype and school timing predicts school performance. Nat Hum Behav 2020;4:387–396.
55. Castelli L, Galasso L, Mulè A, Caumo A, Roveda E, Montaruli A. Effect of chronotype on academic achievement in a sample of Italian university students: an update on sex effect. Chronobiol Int 2022;39:613–615.
56. Hershner S. Sleep and academic performance: measuring the impact of sleep. Curr Opin Behav Sci 2020;33:51–56.
57. Akram N, Khan N, Ameen M, Mahmood S, Shamim K, Amin M, et al. Morningness-eveningness preferences, learning approach and academic achievement of undergraduate medical students. Chronobiol Int 2018;35:1262–1268.
58. Reddy IY, Nagothu RS. Academic performance depends on chronotype: myth or reality? Indian J Clin Anat Physiol 2019;6:471–474.
59. Balcı Ö, Çalışkan M. Investigation of the relationship between chronotype, learning style and academic achievement of university students during distance education in the pandemic period. Chronobiol Int 2022;39:858–871.
60. Lan A, Stukalin Y, Fountoulakis K, Einat H. Chronotypes, sleep and wellbeing in Israeli college students. Neurosci Appl 2022;1(Suppl 2):100301.
61. Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A. Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2005.
62. Busato VV, Prins FJ, Elshout JJ, Hamaker C. Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Pers Individ Differ 2000;29:1057–1068.
63. Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A. Personality predicts academic performance: evidence from two longitudinal university samples. J Res Pers 2003;37:319–338.
64. Metzger U. Human performance: cognition, stress and individual differences by Gerald Matthews, D. Roy Davies, Stephen J. Westerman, & Rob B. Stammers 2000, 416 pages, $69.95 (hbk.), $34.95 (pbk.) Hove, UK: Psychology Press ISBN 0-415-04406-5 (hbk.) ISBN 0-415-04407-3 (pbk.). Ergon Des 2001;9:30.
65. Zeidner M. Test anxiety: the state of the art. New York: Plenum Press; 1998.
66. Russo PM, Leone L, Penolazzi B, Natale V. Circadian preference and the big five: the role of impulsivity and sensation seeking. Chronobiol Int 2012;29:1121–1126.
67. Randler C. Morningness–eveningness, sleep–wake variables and big five personality factors. Pers Individ Differ 2008;45:191–196.
68. Ruffing S, Hahn E, Spinath FM, Brünken R, Karbach J. Predicting students’ learning strategies: the contribution of chronotype over personality. Pers Individ Differ 2015;85:199–204.
69. Tsaousis I. Circadian preferences and personality traits: a meta-analysis. Eur J Pers 2010;24:356–373.
70. Cavallera GM, Giampietro M. Morning and evening personality characteristics in a sample of young Italians. Percept Mot Skills 2007;104:277–286.
71. Díaz-Morales JF, de León MC, Sorroche MG. Validity of the MorningnessEveningness Scale for children among Spanish adolescents. Chronobiol Int 2007;24:435–447.
72. Preckel F, Lipnevich AA, Boehme K, Brandner L, Georgi K, Könen T, et al. Morningness-eveningness and educational outcomes: the lark has an advantage over the owl at high school. Br J Educ Psychol 2013;83(Pt 1):114–134.

Article information Continued

Table 1.

The circadian typology differences by the sex

Circadian type Sex
Pearson’s chi-square test
Female Male χ2 df p
MT 0 0 2.101 3 0.552
More MT 4 2
NT 60 50
More ET 29 20
ET 2 0

ET, evening types; MT, morning types; NT, neither type

Table 2.

One-way ANOVA of the Big Five model by the sex

F p η2
Female Male Total
Extraversion 36.84±8.14 36.13±6.87 36.54±7.61 0.352 0.554 0.002
Agreeableness 39.03±7.56 37.39±8.39 38.32±7.95 1.744 0.188 0.010
Conscientiousness 39.23±7.59 37.84±7.34 38.63±7.49 1.414 0.236 0.008
Neuroticism 25.33±9.26 22.51±8.12 24.11±8.87 4.220 0.042* 0.025
Intellect openness 35.02±7.19 33.77±6.22 34.48±6.80 1.403 0.238 0.008

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.



Table 3.

Differences between the Big Five factors scores and circadian typologies

ET* More ET NT More MT MT
Extraversion - 35.55±10.72 36.14±7.53 37.28±7.47 43.28±4.64
Agreeableness - 34.21±7.47 38.36±8.18 38.36±7.35 48.00±4.24
Conscientiousness - 36.68±10.14 37.72±7.65 40.81±6.56 41.19±1.15
Neuroticism - 29.97±10.10 24.19±8.03 23.34±10.46 21.50±3.54
Intellect openness - 32.24±6.83 33.87±6.48 36.02±7.42 37.29±3.24

Values are presented as mean±standard deviaion.


no evening type was identified.

ET, evening types; MT, morning types; NT, neither type

Table 4.

The matrix correlation between all parameters

MEQ score Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Intellect openness GPA
MEQ score 1
Extraversion 0.157* 1
Agreeableness 0.174* 0.574** 1
Conscientiousness 0.301** 0.458** 0.445** 1
Neuroticism -0.159* -0.076 -0.056 -0.168* 1
Intellect openness 0.251* 0.459* 0.348** 0.475* -0.135 1
GPA 0.187* 0.049 0.071 0.126 -0.218* 0.208* 1
Sex -0.049 -0.046 -0.102 -0.092 -0.158* -0.092 -0.294**




GPA, grade point average; MEQ, Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire

Table 5.

The matrix of the correlation between the Big Five model and the MEQ score by the sex

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscienctiousness Neuroticism Openness
 Female 1
 Male 1
 Female 0.493** 1
 Male 0.699** 1
 Female 0.356** 0.323** 1
 Male 0.622** 0.586** 1
 Female -0.073 -0.121 -0.179 1
 Male -0.106 -0.009 -0.198 1
 Female 0.411** 0.278** 0.475** -0.162 1
 Male 0.543** 0.440** 0.464** -0.135 1
MEQ score
 Female 0.094 0.163 0.273** -0.174 0.214*
 Male 0.261* 0.18 0.333** -0.162 0.303**




MEQ, Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire