Randler Christoph, Gomà-i-Freixanet Montserrat, Muro Anna, Knauber Christina, Adan Ana
Department of Biology, University of Education Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld , Heidelberg , Germany .
Chronobiol Int. 2015 Mar;32(2):281-8. doi: 10.3109/07420528.2014.968282. Epub 2014 Oct 7.
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.
人格与昼夜节律类型之间的关系呈现出一些不一致的结果,并且有人推测用于测量人格的模型可能会对这种关系产生调节作用。然而,从未有人探究过这种不一致是否也取决于用于测量昼夜节律差异的问卷。我们在564名大学生(32%为男性;年龄在19至40岁之间)的样本中探讨了这个问题,使用基于进化生物学方法的朱克曼 - 库尔曼人格问卷,同时结合晨型综合量表(CSM)和简化的晨型 - 夜型问卷(rMEQ)。两份问卷均检测到昼夜节律类型在社交性(夜型最高;ET)和冲动性寻求刺激量表(夜型最高)方面存在差异,而CSM还检测到活动水平(夜型最低)和攻击性 - 敌意(夜型最高)方面的差异。此外,两份问卷都检测到昼夜节律类型在一般活动(晨型[MT]高于夜型)、冲动性(夜型最高)和寻求刺激(夜型最高)等分量表上存在差异。只有rMEQ检测到昼夜节律类型/组在聚会(夜型最高)和不耐孤独(晨型最低)分量表上的差异。CSM未能清晰区分夜型与其他类型以及晨型,而rMEQ显示在一般活动和不耐孤独方面,其他类型并非处于中间状态,而是更接近夜型,在冲动性寻求刺激、聚会、冲动性和寻求刺激方面更接近晨型。所得结果表明,昼夜节律类型与人格之间的关系可能取决于用于评估昼夜节律类型的工具。这一事实可能有助于解释关于这两个概念之间关系的一些相互矛盾的数据。