Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Longer Communication – Special Review

Morningness and eveningness personality: A survey

in literature from 1995 up till 2006
a,* b
G.M. Cavallera , S. Giudici
a
Università ‘‘G.D’Annunzio’’, Facoltà di Scienze dell’Educazione Motoria, Via dei Vestini 31, 66013 Chieti, Italy
b
Child Neuropsychiatrist, Ospedale San Paolo, Via Di Rudini 8, 20142 Milano, Italy

Received 16 January 2007; received in revised form 29 June 2007; accepted 6 July 2007
Available online 29 September 2007

Abstract

The article investigates central aspects of Morningness–Eveningness personality, focusing on recent lit-
erature in this field from 1995. A review was written by Kerkhof (1985) about interindividual differences in
the human circadian system, where the author reviewed previous studies which had dealt with some aspects
of Morningness–Eveningness personality (questionnaires, circadian rhythms, sleep-wake cycle, introver-
sion–extraversion, age, sex, and the impact of disturbance) and a review was written by Tankova, Adan,
and Buela-Casals (1994) about circadian typology and individual differences, where aspects of personality,
age, sex, shift work, and life habits were examined. This paper, with reference also to previous studies,
attempts to give an updating survey of some issues of the literature in the field of Morningness–Eveningness
personality from 1995 up to 2006; various aspects of Morningness–Eveningness personality are taken into
consideration: personality traits, biological, and genetic issues, Morningness–Eveningness preferences in
Youngs and Adults, gender, cognitive abilities, work schedules, life habits, and cross-cultural research.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Morning type; Evening type; Circadian rhythms; Personality

*
Corresponding author. Address: Università ‘‘G.D’Annunzio’’, Facoltà di Scienze dell’Educazione Motoria,
c/o Fondazione CIAPI, Viale Abruzzo 322, 66013 Chieti. Tel.: +39 0871 58 71 07.
E-mail address: g.cavallera@email.it (G.M. Cavallera).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.009
4 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

1. Introduction

In the field of personality psychology, two types have been studied: the Morning type – called
‘‘lark’’ – who awakes early, is refreshed on waking up, goes to bed early in the evening, is consid-
ered conscientious, trustworthy, and emotionally stable, and the Evening type – called ‘‘owl’’ –
who gets up with difficulty, is tired when waking up, and stays up late at night.
The existence of these two personality types has suggested the development of specific question-
naires. Horne and Östberg (1976) constructed a questionnaire (Morningness–Eveningness Ques-
tionnaire, MEQ) of 19 items concerning rising and bed time, preferred times of physical and
mental performances, and subjective alertness after rising. Scores between 16 and 41 determine def-
inite to moderate Evening types, between 59 and 86 moderate to definite Morning types, and be-
tween 42 and 58 Neither types. Adan and Almirall (1991) proposed a reduced scale of the MEQ
(rMEQ) with 5 items – scores between 4 and 11 identify definitely to moderate Evening type, be-
tween 12 and 17 Neither type and between 18 and 25 moderately to definitely Morning type. The
interest of a reduced questionnaire is twofold: it only contains questions about Morningness – which
helps to define this dimension better – and it allows the collection of information easily, especially
when large samples are used. Versions of the rMEQ have been validated all over the world. Torsvall
and Åkerstedt (1980) developed a Diurnal Type Scale (DTS) with 7 items with the purpose of con-
structing a short diurnal type scale to be used independently of work schedules, considering that
groups on irregular work schedules could have difficulties in answering items concerning habitual
diurnal habits; in DTS higher scores indicate Morningness tendency, and lower scores Eveningness
tendency. Folkard, Monk, and Lobban (1979) formulated a Circadian Type Questionnaire (CTQ)
of 20 questions, aiming to predict the adjustment to shiftwork on the basis of three dimensions:
‘‘Rs’’ (rigidity/flexibility), ‘‘V’’ (vigorosity/languidity), and ‘‘M’’ (Morningness–Eveningness) –
high scores on this last factor indicate Morning types, and low scores Evening types. Moog invented
the Marburger Questionnaire (Neubauer, 1992) with 20 items and consisting of two subscales: sub-
jective circadian phase position (SCP) and perceived stability of the individual circadian phase
(PSCP). The SCP scale refers to the time of feeling best and of maximum alertness, and the PSCP
scale is concerned with the duration of time intervals within which the subjects feel best. The first
part of the questions (time intervals) is used for the evaluation of the PSCP scale (8 items) and
the second part (timepoints) is used for the SCP scale (12 items); the scoring is based on a normal-
izing McCall transformation and subsequent transformation to Stanine values (Moog, 1981).
With the aim of improving previous Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaires and arguing that
psychometric evaluations of MEQ, DTS and CTQ had measurement deficiencies, Smith, Reilly, and
Midkiff (1989) elaborated a Composite Scale with 13 items distilled from MEQ and DTS; cut-offs
were established as follows: less than 23 (Evening types), 23–43 (Intermediate types), and 44 and
above (Morning types). Smith et al. (2002) observed that the wording of some existing scales may
be unsuitable for people who do not have typical diurnal schedules and developed a Preference Scale
made of short questions; scores of the Preference Scale range from 12 (extreme Evening type) to
60 (extreme Morning type). Šverko, Vidaček, and Kaliterna published a Student Morningness–
Eveningness Questionnaire (SMEQ, 1979) for students, with 12 questions concerning student daily
habits – a total score of 0 indicates an extreme Morningness tendency and a total score of 24 indi-
cates an extreme Eveningness preference. The authors have chosen this ‘‘direction’’ of scoring,
assuming that it could be less confusing if lower scores identify an earlier ‘‘phase’’ position and
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 5

higher scores a later ‘‘phase’’ position. Lancry and Arbault (1991) constructed a questionnaire of 17
items for children aged 11–15 based on the MEQ, arguing that the Morningness–Eveningness
dimension in children needed to be better understood with proper questionnaires – higher scores
indicate Morningness preference and lower scores indicate Eveningness preference. Also Carska-
don, Vieira, and Acebo (1993) formulated a questionnaire for children with 10 items, modified from
well-known questionnaires for adults – the scores range from 14 to 42 and higher scores indicate
higher Morningness. Observing that suitable item wording for the population under investigation
should be considered while constructing a Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire, Brown
(1993) produced a Basic Language Morningness Scale (BALM) of 9 items where scores above 44
indicate Morning types, between 43 and 22 Neither types, and below 22 Evening types. A shortened
BALM Scale has also been constructed, by deleting questions thought to be redundant or to have
poor statistical properties; it consists of 7 items and in this scale scores above 21 identify Morning
types, between 21 and 16 Neither types, and below 15 Evening types (Pornpitakpan, 2000).
A review was written by Kerkhof (1985) about interindividual differences in the human circa-
dian system, where the author reviewed studies on some main topics about the Morningness–Eve-
ningness dimension and Tankova, Adan, and Buela-Casal, wrote a review (1994) about circadian
typology and individual differences, presenting studies concerning the relationships between Mor-
ningness–Eveningness personality and age, gender, shift work, and life habits. With reference also
to previous studies, this paper attempts to give an updated survey of some issues in the field of
Morningness–Eveningness personality from 1995 up to 2006 with respect to personality traits,
biological and genetic issues, age and gender, work schedules, life habits, and psychopathology,
covering also areas which were partially addressed in previous reviews, like cognitive abilities,
and cross cultural research.

2. Morningness–Eveningness dimension and personality traits

The Morningness–Eveningness dimension and personality traits had been investigated by sev-
eral studies in the past (Kerkhof, 1985; Tankova, Adan, & Buela-Casals, 1994) and in recent years
some researches have contributed to give further knowledge in this area. Caci, Robert, and Boyer
(2004), studying the relationships between Morningness and TCI by Cloninger, found that Mor-
ningness was independent of trait anxiety, negatively related to impulsivity, extravagance, and dis-
orderliness and positively related to persistence. It should be considered that their research
involved only males, even if the authors suggested that the results could ‘‘probably’’ be extended
to females. A negative correlation between the Morningness dimension and impulsivity was also
found by Caci, Adan, et al. (2005) in a sample of students: the authors noticed a higher degree of
Eveningness in more impulsive subjects.
In a research by McCutcheon (1998), 95 adults rated themselves on a 5-point Likert-type scale –
where items were labelled as unconventionality, irresponsibility, undependability, unpredictabil-
ity, harmlessness, happiness, healthiness, laziness, organization, ‘‘Leader–Follower’’ disposition;
scores of Morning types were not significantly different from scores of Evening types on the ‘‘Lea-
der–Follower’’ scale but Evening types were rated significantly less dependable than Morning
types. It should be observed that McCutcheon unfortunately does not give any statistical infor-
mation about the scales themselves and on how they have been constructed.
6 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

Personality aspects were investigated by Blagrove and Akehurst (2000) in a notable study ex-
tended to various fields (Morningness–Eveningness Dream Recall Frequency, neuroticism, sug-
gestibility, need for cognition, locus of control, and hypochondriasis) and the authors found
very low correlations between Dream Recall Frequency and Morningness–Eveningness person-
ality. Emotional state and Morningness–Eveningness personality of Consumers was investigated
by Chebat, Dube, and Marquis (1997), who studied the effect of circadian orientation on con-
sumers’ emotional state at different times of the day and reported that changes in consumers’
emotional state as a function of the time of the day were moderated by individual differences
in circadian orientation and that Morning types were in a more emotional state during the
morning.

3. Biological and genetic influences on Morningness–Eveningness personality

There has been considerable effort recently to study the biological and genetic basis of circadian
rhythmicity not only in humans but also in blind rats (Avivi et al., 2002), in bacteria (Tomita,
Nakajima, Kondo, & Iwasaki, 2005), in prokaryotes (Dvornyk, Vinogradova, & Nevo, 2003),
and in Drosophila (Lee, Parikh, Itsukaichi, Bae, & Edery, 1996).
In humans the circadian pacemaker is correlated with the Morningness–Eveningness personal-
ity as Duffy, Rimmer, and Czeisler (2001) observed in their research – concerning a particular
sample of subjects, i.e. inpatients – and Morningness–Eveningness preference is related to two
mechanisms, one concerning differences in circadian period and the other associated with chrono-
biology of sleep regulation, as noticed by Mongrain, Lavoie, Selmaoui, Paquet, and Dumont
(2004) – with reference to statistical parameters it should be considered that in this study the
authors examined only 12 Morning types and 12 Evening types.
During the sixties Richter thought that the internal biological clock for circadian rhythms was
situated in the ventral hypothalamus (Richter, 1965) and the suprachiasmatic nucleus was indi-
cated as location of a central pace-maker (Stephan & Zucker, 1972). Broader knowledge of the
structures of the nervous system have given further contributions for a better understanding of
the circadian rhythmicity; actually researchers investigate oscillators working in an integrate feed-
back system (Kerkhof & Van Dongen, 1996): approximately 20,000 neurons in the ventral hypo-
thalamus drive circadian rhythms which are based on complex substructures with inputs from the
retina and outputs to other brain structures but rather little is known of the neurotransmitters
which are involved (Piggins & Loudon, 2005).
Physiological data support the difference between the two personality types; Morning and
Evening types reach the acrophase of body temperature in the second half of the day but Morning
types from 1 to 3 h earlier than Evening types (Natale & Alzani, 2001), acrophases of cortisol lev-
els occur earlier in Morning types – according to Bailey and Heitkemper (2001) whose study
examined a small group of only 19 subjects, and to Kudielka, Federenko, Hellhammer, and Wust
(2006) who analysed a sample of 112 subjects; the acrophase of melatonin occurs earlier in young
Morning than Evening types (Duffy, Dijk, Hall, & Czeisler, 1999).
The gene-expression is involved in the regulation of the 24-h clock (Hayes, Baggs, & Hoge-
nesch, 2005); in a sample of 410 subjects Katzenberg et al. (1998) showed that a single nucleotide
polymorphism located in the 3 0 flanking region of the human CLOCK gene could be a predictor
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 7

of diurnal preference in normal adults: subjects with one of the two CLOCK alleles, 3111C were
shifted toward Eveningness tendency.
Genetic and environmental contributions to personality were studied in a long review by Bouchard
and McGue (2003), who observed that individual psychological differences were moderately to sub-
stantially heritable – as also noticed by Bouchard (2004) – and the influence of genetic factors on indi-
vidual differences in Morningness–Eveningness was researched also by Vink, Groot, Kerkhof, and
Boomsma (2001) in a study concerning only Dutch families, where the authors reported that the cor-
relation between monozygotic twins was more than twice the correlation between dizygotic twins.
The difference of heritability of the Morningness–Eveningness dimension in MZ and DZ can be ob-
served also in work schedules, as Fukuda showed (1997) in a sample of two pairs of female twins (one
pair monozygotic (MZ) and one pair dizygotic (DZ)), working at the same factory under a rotating
work schedule – in this sample values for rising time were quite similar within each pair especially dur-
ing the morning-schedule, while during afternoon-schedule and holidays rising time was more similar
in the MZ pair. It should be pointed out that in this study Fukuda investigated a very small sample of
subjects – two pairs of female twins (one pair monozygotic and one pair dizygotic).
Researches analysing how environment and Morningness–Eveningness personality interact
sometimes have highlighted different percentages data. Hur, Bouchard, and Lykken (1998)
showed that genetic variability accounted for about 54%, age contributed 3% and the remaining
percentage could be explained by non-shared environmental influences; in a sample 521 Hutterites
studied by Klei et al. (2005) the heritability of Morningness–Eveningness was only of 23% – the
difference in percentages might be due to the fact that this study dealt with a specific social com-
munity (Hutterites live in colonies throughout the prairies in North America, they find their roots
in the teachings of Christ, and have endured great persecutions).
Morningness–Eveningness personality is associated with ‘‘month of birth’’ as Caci, Robert,
Dossios, and Boyer observed (2005); they found that birth in March–April was associated with
Eveningness and birth in September–October with Morningness – it should be pointed out that
the sample of subjects analysed in this study was unusual: they were adolescents recruited during
hospitalization in a pediatric department and most of them after attempting suicide. Natale and
Adan (1999) noticed in a sample of 1584 students that there were more Morning types among
the students born in autumn and winter than in spring and summer, while the opposite could be
found among Evening types. The authors suggested that circadian typology could be modulated
by environmental light–dark cycle at the time of birth and that the exposition to a decreasing pho-
toperiod at birth seemed to favour a phase advance of the biological clock (Morning types), while
an increasing photoperiod seemed to favour a phase delay (Evening types) of the human circadian
system. The difference in months and in seasons which are reported in these two studies might be
due also to the different questionnaires which were used – MESC (Morningness–Eveningness scale
for children) was used by Caci et al. and MEQ by Natale and Adan – and to the fact that Caci et al.
used a sample of 392 adolescents, while Natale and Adan a sample of 1584 university students.

4. Morningness–Eveningness personality in youngs and adults

Older age correlates with Morningness preference – as Tankova et al. (1994) and studies in the
recent years in Youngs and Adults have confirmed – an important shift towards Morningness
8 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

preference occurs towards the age of 50 and a shift towards Eveningness preference has been ob-
served towards the age of 13 (Kim, Dueker, Hasher, & Goldstein, 2002; Smith et al., 2002).
Carrier, Monk, Buysse, and Kupfer (1997), studying the effects of Morningness–Eveningness
personality on sleep in a group of 110 adults, found that increasing age was related to earlier
habitual waketime, earlier bedtime, better mood and alertness at waketime – parameters corre-
sponding to the Morningness personality. Similar results were found by Taillard, Philip, Chas-
tang, and Bioulac (2004) in a sample of middle-aged workers: 62.1% were Morning types,
36.6% Neither types, and 2.2% Evening types – this data accorded with previous findings pointing
out that the rhythmicity of the circadian system among people over 50 shifts towards Morning-
ness (Åkerstedt & Torsvall, 1981; Ishihara, Miyake, Miyasita, & Miyata, 1992; Tankova et al.,
1994). The same tendency was observed by Diaz-Morales and Sanchez-Lopez (2004) in a group
of 203 university students (age range 19–30) and of 125 working adults (age range 31–65): a higher
Morningness tendency was noticed in the group of working adults.
In a notable article which examined Morningness–Eveningness preferences and sleep habits in a
large sample of Japanese students, Japanese workers below 25 years of age and Korean students
with mean age of 20.3 years, Park, Matsumoto, Seo, Shinkoda, and Park (1997) reported that
scores of male Japanese students were distributed a little more towards Eveningness than scores
of female students; although the mean scores of the Korean students were not different by sex,
they were skewed totally a little more towards Morningness than those of the Japanese students.
Even if one should be cautious when comparing results across countries, the prevalence of Even-
ing types in the population of Japanese students – observed however only in males – could be re-
lated to differences in socioeconomic conditions: it is common in Japanese society to work late at
night and therefore students can easily work a part-time job. The article by Park et al. (1997) is
interesting for social considerations: the authors observed that social life in Japan is progressing
more rapidly than in Korea, due to progressing industrialization and nowaday school life of Jap-
anese students includes unprecedented ‘‘free-time’’ in which students work at a part-time job,
while Korean students do not yet enjoy the same ‘‘freedom’’.
A tendency towards Intermediate disposition was instead observed by Chelminski, Ferraro,
Petros, and Plaud (1997) in a large sample of student – 1617 subjects, aged 18–53 years: 62.4%
were Neither type, 8.3% Morning types, and 29.3% Evening type. The research by Chelminski
et al. (1997) is the first large scale report of significance concerning Morning–evening types and
gender; the different results in percentages of Morningness–Eveningness in this study – which
showed the prevalence of Neither type – might be attributed to the variance of age of the subjects
analysed. It could be of interest to compare these data with previous studies pointing out that peo-
ple aged 20–50 show the following percentages: 15% Morning-types, 70% Neither-type and 15%
Evening-types (Ishihara et al., 1992; Mecacci, Zani, Rocchetti, & Lucioli, 1986).
The same tendency towards an Intermediate dimension emerged in a study by Košćec, Radoše-
vić-Vidaćek, and Kostović (2001) in a sample of students, studying at the University of Zagreb in
1998 – aged 18 to 34 – and compared to students, studying at the same university in 1977. The
authors noticed that neither of the groups exhibited a tendency towards the extreme poles of the
Morningness–Eveningness dimension and affirmed that results could suggest the stability of the
Morningness–Eveningness dimension across two generations. The different results of this study
when compared with studies by Carrier et al. (1997), Taillard et al. (2004), and Diaz-Morales
and Sanchez-Lopez (2004) could be better understood considering also the particular questionnaire
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 9

used in the research by Košcec et al., the Student Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire

(SMEQ) by Šverko et al., especially constructed for students. From a methodological point of
view, it is of interest that this research is a study across two generations: two decades could have
influenced changes in socioeconomic lifestyles: in Croatia going out in the evening has shifted to-
wards later hours than 20 years ago, working hours start and finish later than 20 years ago and
these changes could have shifted the Morningness–Eveningness preferences towards Eveningness
as a result of exogenous factors; the stability of Morningness–Eveningness preferences across
two generations seems to highlight that Morningness–Eveningness tendencies are more influenced
by endogenous factors.
Morningness–Eveningness personality has been recently studied also in children. Thoman
(1999) suggested that consistency in Morningness–Eveningness from childhood to college-student
age may have its origins at the earliest postnatal age or during the prenatal period and observed
that this suggestion is confirmed by evidence from studies of biological factors. Children’s time of
preference – as well as gender and ethnic differences – was investigated by Kim et al. (2002) in a
sample of Asians, African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics and native Americans; the authors
found that younger children’s time of preference was more skewed towards Morningness, that of
older children was more skewed toward Eveningness and children’s time of preference shifted to-
wards Eveningness at about 13 years of age. The research by Kim et al. (2002) is of great interest,
because it reported comprehensive data on children’s time of day preferences in a larger number
of subjects than had been analysed before.

5. Gender

While Tankova et al. reported (1994) that the results of previous researches on gender were
scanty and inconsistent, in the recent years the relationship between Morningness–Eveningness
personality and gender has been better understood using larger samples than before and data
of most studies confirm that males have a higher Eveningness preference.
In the relevant research by Chelminski et al. (1997) involving 1617 subjects a significant asso-
ciation between scores on the Morningness–Eveningness scale and gender was found: females
showed a stronger tendency toward the Morningness dimension; Natale and Danesi (2002) in
an article which surveyed gender preferences in the sleep-wake cycle in a sample of 1319 university
students aged 18–30 noticed that the percentage of Evening types in men was greater than that of
women, while the percentage of Morning types in females was greater than that in males.
In the large study by Park et al. (1997) no significant differences were found between the mean
scores of males and females either in the group of Korean students or in the group of Japanese
workers, while in the group of Japanese students males showed a significant Eveningness ten-
dency; the significant results only among Japanese students could be partially related, as it has
been previously observed (N. 4: Morningness–Eveningness personality in Youngs and Adults),
to socioeconomic conditions of the Japanese society, where frequently people work late at night
and students can easily have a part-time job, while Korean students do not have the same habits.
In the largest university student population selected so far (2135 subjects of Italian and Spanish
nationality, aged 18–30 years) Adan and Natale (2002) observed Eveningness preferences only in
males – a result which was replicated when the Italian and Spanish samples were considered
10 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

separately; these data – as well as similar results reported by Chelminski et al. (1997); Natale and
Adan (1999), and Natale and Danesi (2002) – could suggest the existence of different synchroni-
zation patterns with the environment in men and women, which could also stem from a different
interplay between CP and SWC processes influenced by female circamensual rhythms.
Only the article by Steele, McNamara, Smith-Coggins, and Watson (1997) showed that males
are more Morningness-oriented than females – these findings should however be examined con-
sidering the subjects of this study: the authors investigated Morningness–Eveningness preferences
of ‘‘emergency medicine residents’’, concluding that results might partially be due to the special
context where the research was conducted.
Some recent studies, on the contrary, have shown no significant gender differences in the Mor-
ningness–Eveningness dimension. Kim et al. (2002) in a large sample of 989 children aged 8–16
years and of four different ethnic groups noticed no significant gender differences in the Morning-
ness–Eveningness dimension and also Takeuchi et al. (2002) in a sample of 1339 Japanese students
aged 12–15 years observed no significant differences in preference between genders. The results of
these researches might be due to the fact that the subjects were younger than the subjects involved
in the other studies: in fact from the age 13–17 years the biological sleep organization becomes
similar to the adults (Lancry & Arbault, 1991; Tankova et al., 1994) and the shift towards Eve-
ningness appears to occur around the age of 13–14.

6. Cognitive abilities

Morningness–Eveningness personality has a relevant role in cognitive performances – as was no-

ticed and reviewed by Kerkhof in 1985; in the recent years intelligence, memory, cognitive failures,
narrative comprehension, alertness, and visual tasks are some aspects which have been explored.
Fahrenberg, Brügner, Foerster, and Käppler (1999) worked on an ambulatory assessment of
subjective states (mood and arousal) and performance in working memory tests and observed that
Evening types tended towards higher levels of performances in working memory tasks. However
reservations about the use of MEQ in this study should be made, since the authors used a provi-
sional translation of MEQ, made years ago without the knowledge at that time of the existence of
a German version of the questionnaire. Better performances concerning immediate memory (i.e.
immediate recall) in Evening subjects were noticed also by Natale and Lorenzetti (1997) in a re-
search about Morningness–Eveningness personality and narrative comprehension; subjects com-
pleted a narrative text with a casual chain of events: Evening types tended to commit less
recognition errors than Morning types, Morning types performed in immediate recall (immediate
memory) more efficiently in the morning, and Evening types had better performances in the after-
noon. It should be however pointed out that a small sample of subjects was investigated in this
study – 11 Morning-types and 11 Evening-types.
Roberts and Kyllonen (1999), examining the relationship between Morningness–Eveningness
personality and intelligence in USA Air Force recruits, noticed that Evening types were more
intelligent, more likely to do well on measures of memory, and in processing speed. This study
is of great interest, because a relevant omission in research concerning Morningness–Eveningness
personality is the investigation of the relationship between intelligence and the Morningness–Eve-
ningness dimension and this research redressed partially this imbalance.
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 11

Memory was also examined in 30 healthy coffee drinkers aged 18–30 years in a visual task by
Kole, Snel, and Lorist (1998), who tested whether Morningness personality played a role in the
effects of caffeine on task performance: electroencephalographic activity and reaction time (RT)
were recorded during the performance and the authors noticed that caffeine speeded RTs indiffer-
ently in Morning and in Evening types.
The relationship between Morningness–Eveningness, time-of-day, speed of information pro-
cessing, and intelligence was studied by Song and Stough (2000), using Multidimensional Apti-
tude Battery IQ (MAB-IQ) and Inspection Time (IT) and the authors found that in spatial
subtests of the MAB Morning types performed significantly worse in the morning session and
Evening types performed significantly better in the morning than in the late afternoon session.
Among four different tasks – visual search, logic, spatial, and mathematical reasoning – investi-
gated by Natale, Alzani, and Cicogna (2003) only in the visual search task significant different
data emerged – the fastest times were recorded in the morning for Morning types and in the sec-
ond part of the day for Evening types.
Curves of alertness were evaluated by Natale and Alzani (2001) who pointed out that the curves
for subjective alertness in the extreme typologies appeared to be specular and differed essentially
in the time of the day in which they reached the minimum values – at 11 p.m. for the Morning and
Intermediate-types and at 8 a.m. for the Evening types; similar results are reported by Smith et al.
(2002) who investigated the curve of alertness in a research where the authors presented a 12-items
scale – the Preference Scale (2002): extreme Morning types showed greater alertness in the morn-
ing hours compared to extreme Evening types. Using the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire by
Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald, and Parkes (1982), Mecacci, Righi, and Rocchetti (2004) investi-
gated the occurrence of cognitive failures in the two personality types and found that extreme
Morning types reported more cognitive failures than extreme Evening types – the difference be-
tween the two circadian types was also related to the time of day when the failures usually hap-
pened: in extreme Morning types especially in the evening hours and in extreme-Evening types the
occurrence was distributed more uniformly through all the day.

7. Work schedules

There is a relevant interaction between Morningness–Eveningness and work schedules which is

not surprising, considering that labour activity is one of the most powerful social synchronizers
for humans; this aspect was researched in the past (Tankova et al., 1994) and has also been recently
the object of investigation. Cicogna, Martoni, and Natale (2003) examined 18 air traffic controllers –
nine Morning- and nine Evening types – working in a shift schedule; Evening types presented more
flexible sleep habits and slept significantly less than Morning types but, regardless of circadian typol-
ogy, night shift generally produced a decrease in daily activity – however from a methodological
point of view it should be considered that in their research the authors examined a sample of only
18 subjects. West (2001) focused on the consequences of the disruption of circadian rhythms as
nurses undertake shiftwork and observed that a disruption was unavoidable when 24 h care is re-
quired, the choice becomes one of determining a preference for tolerable rhythm desynchronization,
or some degree of rhythm synchronization during slightly longer but less frequent episodes of
rhythm disruption. The review by West could be taken as a stimulus to stress the need for rotational
12 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

shift systems during the day in different personality types and could suggest to allow greater flexibil-
ity in how nurses deal with the professional need to care for patients throughout the 24-h period.
Smith et al. (2005) studied shiftworkers on various variables (locus of control, Morningness–
Eveningness personality, workload, and sleep/health-related behaviours): Morning types took less
exercise and showed greater stimulant intake in relation to night shifts and the Morningness
dimension was also linked to higher levels of drowsiness at night, while the Eveningness dimen-
sion led to better daysleep quality. A drawback of this research is that the Morningness–Evening-
ness personality was assessed using a questionnaire made of only one question asking participants:
‘‘which one of these types do you believe yourself to be currently?’’ – the response choices run
from ‘morning type’ through ‘slightly morning type’, ‘neither’, ‘slightly evening type’ to ‘evening
type’.
Di Milia, Smith, and Folkard (2005) studied the construct validity of the Circadian Type Inven-
tory (CTI) in shiftworkers and day workers, arguing that, while student samples are necessary pre-
cursors in developmental measures of individual differences, instruments must subsequently
demonstrate good measurement properties and validity also in working samples. In this article
the authors observed that two factors explained 50.04% of the variance in the 11-items of the
CTI by Folkard (1987): vigorous types/languid types and flexible types/rigid types. Vigorous
and flexible types were significantly more alert than Languid types across the day, showed signif-
icantly less need for sleep, and the authors concluded that these findings suggested that vigorous
and flexible types could best cope with shiftwork.

8. Life habits

As Kerkhof (1985) and Tankova et al. (1994) showed, Morningness–Eveningness personality

can be investigated in areas which are named generally ‘‘Life Habits’’ and which affect various
aspects of daily life – e.g. social and family interactions, emotional functioning, dream and sleep,
addiction, stress, and psychopathology. Aspects of Life Habits with reference to Morningness–
Eveningness personality have frequently been analysed in recent years.
In accordance with other findings in the literature showing that Evening types are less emotion-
ally stable than Morning types (Dogana, 2002; Kerkhof, 1985; Tankova et al., 1994); Mecacci and
Rocchetti (1998) observed that Evening types in their adulthood reported psychological and stress
disturbances and exhibited problems in coping with ‘‘environmental’’ demands more frequently
than Morning types; Achilles and Georgianna (2003) noticed that in adolescence they tended
to have more behavioural problems, low academic performances, and more stress occurrence in
social and family contexts compared to Morning types. This research analysed a large number
of variables besides Morningness–Eveningness personality – e.g. mother ratings of child behav-
ioral and emotional functioning, family conflicts, school achievements, teacher ratings of behav-
ioral functioning, maternal psychological distress, attendance of religious services, family
structure, and economic strain – and participants were drawn from a large database – the Panel
Study of Income Dynamics-Child Development Supplement.
Morningness–Eveningness personality also affects school performances; the fact that children’s
preferences tend to shift towards Eveningness towards 13 years of age (Kim et al., 2002) and that
from 13 to 17 years of age the biological sleep organization becomes similar to the adults (Lancry
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 13

& Arbault, 1991; Tankova et al., 1994) may have negative effects on school performances, since
circadian preference could conflict with the traditional early morning school start time. Giannotti,
Cortesi, Sebastiani, and Ottaviano (2002) studied the relationship between circadian preferences,
regularity of sleep patterns, and daytime sleepiness in a sample of Italian students aged 14–18
years and found that Evening types napped more frequently during school days, complained of
daytime sleepiness, experienced more attention problems, poor school achievement, and were
more emotionally upset than Morning types.
The importance of the effects of timing on scholastic performances was also noticed by Cofer
et al. (1999) who reported that Evening types showed more difficulties in getting up in the morning
and more alertness in the evening than Morning types during school periods. The research by Co-
fer et al. is one of the most relevant in this area (1999), since it bridged partially the gap in devel-
opmental perspectives about Morningness–Eveningness and covered a large area of research
concerning human wake-sleep patterns, family and social interactions, shift work, sleep, and ther-
apy. Pornpitakpan (2000), investigated the relationship between Morningness scores and behav-
iour and examined a Singaporean sample of students aged between 19 and 23; he pointed out that
the percentage of study time in the morning in Morning types was higher than that in Evening
types, whereas the percentage of study time at night in Evening types was higher than that of
Morning types.
Some researches, which refer either to ‘‘healthy subjects’’ or to patients, seem to highlight that
Evening types tend to unhappiness or have depressive tendencies. McCutcheon (1998) in an article
concerning only ‘‘healthy’’ subjects showed that Morning types perceived themselves happier than
Evening types – a major drawback in this study and concerning measurement instruments has
been previously discussed (N. 2: Morningness–Eveningness dimension and personality traits).
Mansour et al. (2005) evaluated Morningness–Eveningness among bipolar disorder (BD) patients
and patients with schizophrenia (SZ) or schizoaffective disorder (SZA) using the Composite Scale
by Smith, Reilly and Midkiff and noticed that younger bipolar disorder patients were significantly
more likely to score in the ’Evening’ range; in younger BD patients, Morningness–Eveningness
scores were positively correlated with the age at onset of the most severe depressive episodes
but these relationships were not observed among the SZ/SZA groups. It should however be con-
sidered that the Composite Scale itself was originally constructed and validated on ‘‘healthy’’ sub-
jects and that medication and chronicity themselves could have had a significant impact on the
results of the study. The Eveningness–Morningness dimension was examined among a group of
1617 students and three depression scales (BDI, GDS-SF, and CESD) were used to determine
‘‘depressiveness’’ (Chelminski, Ferraro, Petros, & Plaud, 1999); concordantly with previous re-
searches (Drennan, Klauber, Kripke, & Goyette, 1991), the authors found a significantly higher
incidence of Evening types among the ‘‘depressives’’.
Researchers pointed out that Eveningness personality types are prone to addiction and show a
tendency towards eating disorders (Dogana, 2002). USA undergraduate students were given the
Caffeine Consumption questionnaire by Shohet and Landrum (2001) in a study which showed
that Evening types consumed more caffeine in the evening than Morning types; the authors sug-
gested that this area of research needs to be developed and the measurements of caffeine consump-
tion should be extended and tested also in different populations.
The hypothesis that greater Eveningness is associated with greater binging was analysed by
Kasof (2001), who noticed that Eveningness was correlated positively with bulimic behavior
14 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

and argued that exposure to the dimmer lighting of evening might promote general behavioral
disinhibition, undermining self-regulatory control and adherence to one’s dietary standards.
Some recent studies have shown that Morningness–Eveningness personality is correlated with
cardiovascular parameters of stress; studying the effects of Morningness–Eveningness upon car-
diovascular activity, Willis, O’Connor, and Smith (2005) highlighted that Eveningness-types
had higher heart rate, while completing two testing sessions which included a battery of three
stress tasks and a measure of anxiety. A time of day effect is also a relevant factor to be con-
sidered, when analysing stress and cardiovascular parameters, as shown by Nebel et al. (1996);
assessing the circadian variation of cardiovascular responses to stress in coronary artery disease
(CAD) subjects, the authors pointed out higher cardiovascular levels during a morning session
in Morning subjects and higher cardiovascular levels during the afternoon session in Evening
subjects – it should be remembered that biological and physiological parameters have generally
higher levels in the morning for the Morning types and later for the Evening types, as has been
observed in N. 3 (Biological and genetic influence of morningness–Eveningness personality). It
is noticeable that in CAD patients, analysis of myocardial wall function – index of myocar-
dial ischemia – did not show a significant interaction between Morningness–Eveningness
personality.
As has been shown under N. 3 (Biological and genetic influence of Morningness–Eveningness
personality), Morningness–Eveningness personality is associated with different patterns of sleep
behaviours. In their study Park et al. (1997) noticed that the Morningness–Eveningness dimension
influenced sleep variables and showed that bedtimes and waking times in their sample were later in
the order of Morning, Intermediate and Evening types and the difference in mean bedtime for Jap-
anese students and workers was likely to increase in the order of Morning type, Intermediate type
and Evening type – only Korean students did not show the same tendencies probably considering
sociocultural characteristics previously discussed in N. 4 (Morningness–Eveningness personality
in Youngs and Adults) and in N. 5 (Gender); naps of Japanese and Korean students were longer
in the order of Morning, Intermediate and Evening types and the proportions of those whose
mood upon waking was bad, increased in the whole sample in the order of Morning, Intermediate,
and Evening types.
With regard to the relationship between body temperature and sleep in the two personality
types, Baehr, Revelle, and Eastman (2000) found that the average temperature minimum occurred
at 03:50 for Morning types, 05:02 for Intermediate types and 06:01 for Evening types. Since the
temperature minimum occurred closer to waking in subjects with later temperature minimum val-
ues and increasing Eveningness, the authors argued that this difference in the phase-relationship
between temperature and sleep could explain why Evening types are more alert at bedtime and
sleepier after waking than Morning types. A noticeable finding in this research was the association
between circadian rhythm temperature phase and amplitude: subjects with more delayed phases
had larger amplitudes and the greater amplitude was due to lower nocturnal temperature. Sleep
and Morningness–Eveningness personality can also have important social consequences in the
Environment, as Hidalgo, De Souza, Zanette, and Nunes pointed out Hidalgo, De Souza, Zan-
ette, and Nunes (2003): they highlighted a negative correlation between Morningness preference
and sleepiness as an important public health problem associated with motor vehicle crashes, occu-
pational accidents and decreased productivity.
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 15

9. Cross-cultural research about Morningness–Eveningness personality

Cross-cultural and ethnic investigation about Morningness–Eveningness personality is an area

of studies seldom investigated in the past and which is now becoming more often an object of
interest by researchers. Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaires have been translated into differ-
ent languages and in his review Kerkhof (1985) commented that differences in score distribution
among translated versions might be a function of sociocultural differences; when using the same
questionnaires in different countries and with different hours of work, different languages, and dif-
ferent mealtimes, this is to be expected. While studying transcultural properties of the Composite
Scale of Morningness by Smith et al. (1989) in samples of adults from five different countries Caci,
Adan, et al. (2005) highlighted that cross-cultural comparisons among the translations of Mor-
ningness–Eveningness Questionnaires are often difficult; there can be national differences in fac-
torial structures and different cut-off scores used to categorize participants as Morning-,
Neither- and Evening-types should be established for each different population. With reference
to ethnic groups, it must be highlighted that up to now little is known about the extent of the dif-
ferences in Morning–evening orientation across ethnic groups and more efforts in this field of re-
search are encouraged.
Kim et al. (2002) examined children’s time of day preference in a sample of 989 subjects aged 8–
16 from five ethnic groups (Asian, African American, Caucasian, Hispanic and native American)
– a larger and more diverse sample than had been explored before – and observed that Hispanic
children changed least with age in their Morningness–Eveningness preference, whereas African
American children changed most. Results suggested also that the Hispanic group was significantly
more Morning oriented than the African American and Caucasian groups and that the Asian
group was more Morning oriented than the African American group. The authors did not discuss
how these inter-group differences in Morningness–Eveningness personality could be interpreted
but they observed the consequences on school performances: since the shift from Morningness
orientation to Eveningness orientation occurs around 13 years of age, early school timing may
create sleep deprivation and children can be sleepy during the morning; moreover, since people
usually perform better on cognitive tasks at their optimal times and children’s time of preference
shifts toward Eveningness as they get older, older children or adolescents will probably be learn-
ing at their non-optimal time of day, resulting in poorer school performances.
A sample of 2526 subjects aged 30–49 years were analysed by Paine, Gander, and Travier
(2006) who investigated the influence of demographic, socioeconomic, and work factors on the
distribution of Morningness–Eveningness with a New Zealand version of the MEQ; after control-
ling for ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic position, the authors noticed that Morningness–Eve-
ningness preference was largely independent of these three dimensions and suggested that it is a
characteristic that may be better explained by endogenous factors – as previously confirmed by
others authors (Kerkhof & Van Dongen, 1996; Košćec et al., 2001).
In cross-cultural research in six different countries (USA, England, The Netherlands, Colom-
bia, Spain and India) with a sample of university students aged 18–22, Smith et al. (2002) made
comparisons between two groups (less temperate climate group: USA, England and the Nether-
lands versus temperate climate group: Colombia, Spain and India) and concluded that students
from countries with a temperate climate perceived themselves to be more Morningness-oriented
16 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

than students from countries with less temperate climates. The authors suggested that one possible
interpretation could be that people living in more temperate climates are forced to arise early to
accomplish daily activities before the warmest part of the day and this may influence their percep-
tion about time of day preference. They observed also that differences might be attributed to cul-
tural heritage, reported that researchers demonstrated that climatic temperature has effects on
performances (Poulton, 1978) and suggested that the rationale underlying these group differences
might be multiply determined by exogenous and endogenous factors.

10. Concluding remarks and suggestions for future research

Researchers have recently extended the investigation about Morningness–Eveningness person-

ality and have published studies which refer either to aspects which have been already explored or
to areas seldom investigated in the past.
Researches about Morningness–Eveningness personality and personality traits – which were re-
viewed by Tankova et al. (1994) – have been recently produced in the area of impulsivity and con-
cerning Consumers and Dream Recall Frequency. As far as age is concerned, Tankova et al.
(1994) had already reported that increasing age correlates with Morningness preference and recent
findings have confirmed this tendency, even if it depends on sociocultural perspectives (Park et al.,
1997), on the width of the sample (Chelminski et al., 1997) and on the questionnaires themselves
(Košćec et al., 2001). To date, there are few studies on children’s Morningness–Eveningness pref-
erences and therefore the findings by Thoman (1999) and by Kim et al. (2002) are of great interest.
Studies on gender – which showed scarce and inconsistent results up to Tankova et al.’s (1994)
study – have recently highlighted Eveningness preferences in males (Chelminski et al., 1997; Park
et al., 1997), although this aspect depends also on other factors like age and social contexts (Kim
et al., 2002; Steele et al., 1997; Takeuchi et al., 2002).
Even if biological and genetic influences on Morningness–Eveningness personality were known
in the past, studies from 1995 up to 2006 contributed to a better comprehension of this aspect; the
study by Bouchard and McGue (2003) is the largest recent research on the relationships between
genetic and environment in the field of psychological differences, confirming that they are moder-
ately to substantially heritable and the studies by Fukuda (1997) and by Vink et al. (2001) allowed
a better understanding of the genetics of Morningness–Eveningness personality in MZ and DZ
twins. Genetic mutations contributing to the understanding of the two personality types have also
been recently examined and actually researchers investigate the oscillators working together to
build the circadian clock in an integrated feedback system. Evidence of the influence of month
of birth on Morningness–Eveningness personality was seldom explored before 1999, when Natale
and Adan wrote an article which showed a relationship between the two variables; this area of
research was investigated also by Caci, Robert, Dossios, and Boyer (2005) and should be inves-
tigated more in the future.
Morningness and Eveningness personality seems to be related to cognitive performances – as
reported by Kerkhof (1985) who reviewed articles mainly concerning subjective alertness and vig-
ilance performance – and also this area of research has been recently an object of interest with
reference to speed of information processing, intelligence, memory, cognitive failures, narrative
comprehension, alertness, and visual tasks. While a relevant number of studies about work sched-
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 17

ules in Morning and Evening types had been produced in the past (Kerkhof, 1985; Tankova et al.,
1994), only a small number of researches have appeared recently on this aspect: they refer to air
traffic controllers nurses and shift workers.
Many studies about the relationship between ‘‘Life Habits’’ and Morningness–Eveningness per-
sonality were published before 1995; this area is of great interest for its involvements in a lot of
aspects of social life and has been often investigated recently: psychological and stress distur-
bances, school performances, family environment, mood states, sleepiness, and cardiovascular
activity, pychopathology, and caffeine consumption are some areas which have been explored
in recent years. Finally some interesting cross-cultural studies on ethnic aspects of Morning-
ness–Eveningness personality were published in the last decade (Kim et al., 2002; Smith et al.,
2002): this is an emerging area of investigation which can be of relevant importance in many social
contexts.
A better understanding of Morningness and Eveningness personality can contribute to modu-
late or correct improper or ‘‘disturbed’’ life habits and behaviours. Further research is needed to
investigate consequences of changes in the ‘‘Zeitgeber’’ and which affect cognitive, social, and
school performances. Neurobiological mechanisms of the two personality types – using also brain
imaging techniques – genetic polymorphisms and the role of CP and SWC in females in their rela-
tionships with circamensual rhythms should be better understood and the research on Morning-
ness–Eveningness personality in children must be encouraged. Recommendations for future
research concern also the relevance of Morningness–Eveningness personality in the field of coping
mechanisms used by Morning and Evening types and the role of Morningness–Eveningness pref-
erences in sport activity – a field rarely investigated (Tankova et al., 1994). Larger samples of sub-
jects and – when possible – longitudinal studies are suggested in every area of research. Further
validations of instruments in different cultural settings are encouraged as well as transcultural
studies; they could help to give a better understanding of how the two different personality types
with different cultural habits interact in the post-modern society where we live and where cross-
cultural interactions are becoming more and more frequent all over the world.

References

Achilles, G. M., & Georgianna, M. (2003). Individual differences in Morningness–eveningness and patterns of
psychological functioning, social adaptation and family stress. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Science and Engineering, 64, 6-B.
Adan, A., & Almirall, H. (1991). Horne and Östberg Morningness–eveningness questionnaire. A reduced scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 241–253.
Adan, A., & Natale, V. (2002). Gender differences in Morningness–eveningness preference. Chronobiology International,
19, 709–720.
Åkerstedt, T., & Torsvall, L. (1981). Shiftwork: Shift dependent wellbeing and individual differences. Ergonomics, 24,
265–273.
Avivi, A., Oster, H., Joel, A., Beiles, A., Albrecht, U., & Nevo, E. (2002). Circadian genes in a blind subterranean
mammal II: conservation and uniqueness of the three Period homologs in the blind subterranean mole rat, Spalax
ehrenbergi superspecies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 11718–11723.
Baehr, E. K., Revelle, W., & Eastman, C. I. (2000). Individual differences in the phase and amplitude of the human
circadian temperature rhythm: With an emphasis on Morningness–eveningness. Journal of Sleep Research, 9, 117–127.
18 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

Bailey, S. L., & Heitkemper, M. M. (2001). Circadian rhythmicity of cortisol and body temperature: Morningness–
eveningness effects. Chronobiology International, 18, 249–261.
Blagrove, M., & Akehurst, L. (2000). Personality and dream recall frequency. Dreaming, 10, 139–148.
Bouchard, J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
13(4), 148–151.
Bouchard, J. T., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences.
Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4–45.
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., Fitzgerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ)
and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1–16.
Brown, F. M. (1993). Psychometric equivalence of an improved Basic Language Morningness (BALM) Scale using
industrial population within comparisons. Ergonomics, 36, 191–197.
Caci, H., Adan, A., Bohle, P., Natale, V., Pornpitakpan, C., & Tilley, A. (2005). Transcultural properties of the
composite scale of Morningness: The relevance of the ‘‘morning affect’’ factor. Chronobiology International, 22,
523–540.
Caci, H., Robert, P., & Boyer, R. (2004). Novelty seekers and impulsive subjects are low in Morningness. European
Psychiatry, 19, 79–84.
Caci, H., Robert, P., Dossios, C., & Boyer, P. (2005). Morningness–eveningness for Children Scale: Psychometric
properties and month of birth effect. Encephale, 31, 56–64.
Carrier, J., Monk, T. H., Buysse, D. J., & Kupfer, D. J. (1997). Sleep and Morningness–eveningness in the ‘middle’
years of life (20–59 yrs). Journal of Sleep Research, 6, 230–237.
Carskadon, M. A., Vieira, C., & Acebo, C. (1993). Association between puberty and delayed phase preference. Sleep,
16, 258–262.
Chebat, J. C., Dube, L., & Marquis, M. (1997). Individual differences in circadian variations of consumers’ emotional
state. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1075–1086.
Chelminski, I., Ferraro, F. R., Petros, T., & Plaud, J. J. (1997). Horne and Östberg Questionnaire: A score distribution
in a large sample of young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 647–652.
Chelminski, I., Ferraro, F. R., Petros, T. V., & Plaud, J. (1999). An analysis of the ‘‘eveningness–morningness’’
dimension in ‘‘depressive’’ college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 52, 19–29.
Cicogna, P., Martoni, M., & Natale, V. (2003). Effects of circadian typology on sleep-wake behavior of air traffic
controllers. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 57, 539–541.
Cofer, L. F., Grice, J. W., Sethre-Hofstad, L., Radi, Ch. J., Zimmermann, L. K., Palmer-Seal, D., et al. (1999).
Development perspectives on Morningness–eveningness and social interactions. Human Development, 169–198.
Diaz-Morales, J. F., & Sanchez-Lopez, M. P. (2004). Composite and preferences scales of Morningness: Reliability and
factor invariance in adult and university samples. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 7, 93–100.
Di Milia, L., Smith, P. A., & Folkard, S. (2005). A validation of the revised circadian type inventory in a working
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1293–1305.
Dogana, F. (2002). Uguali e Diversi. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Drennan, M. D., Klauber, M. R., Kripke, D. F., & Goyette, L. M. (1991). The effects of depression and age on the
Horne–Ostberg morningness–eveningness score. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2, 93–98.
Duffy, J. F., Dijk, D. J., Hall, E. F., & Czeisler, C. A. (1999). Relationship of endogenous circadian melatonin and
temperature rhythms to self-reported preference for morning or evening activity in young and older people. Journal
of Investigating Medicine, 47, 141–150.
Duffy, J. F., Rimmer, D. W., & Czeisler, Ch. A. (2001). Association of intrinsic circadian period with Morningness–
eveningness, usual wake time, and circadian phase. Behavioural Neuroscience, 115, 895–899.
Dvornyk, V., Vinogradova, O. N., & Nevo, E. (2003). Origin and evolution of circadian clock genes in prokaryotes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100, 2495–2500.
Fahrenberg, J., Brügner, G., Foerster, F., & Käppler, C. (1999). Ambulatory assessment of diurnal changes with a
hand-held computer: mood, attention and Morningness–eveningness. Personality and Individual Differences, 26,
641–656.
Folkard, S. (1987). Circadian type inventory. Sheffield, United Kingdom: Department of Psychology, University of
Sheffield.
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 19

Folkard, S., Monk, T. H., & Lobban, M. (1979). Towards a predictive test of adjustment to shift work. Ergonomics,
22(1), 79–91.
Fukuda, K. (1997). Twins under shift work: A case study of sleep log data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 931–
937.
Giannotti, F., Cortesi, F., Sebastiani, T., & Ottaviano, S. (2002). Circadian preference, sleep and daytime behaviour in
adolescence. Journal of Sleep Research, 11, 191–199.
Hayes, K. R., Baggs, J. E., & Hogenesch, J. B. (2005). Circadian clocks are seeing the systems biology light. Genome
Biology, 6, 219.
Hidalgo, M. P., De Souza, C. M., Zanette, C. B., & Nunes, P. V. (2003). Association of daytime sleepiness and the
Morningness–eveningness dimension in young adult subjects in Brazil. Psychological Reports, 93, 427–433.
Horne, J. A., & Östberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine Morningness–eveningness in human
circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4, 97–110.
Hur, Y. M., Bouchard, T. J., & Lykken, D. T. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on Eveningness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 917–925.
Ishihara, K., Miyake, S., Miyasita, A., & Miyata, Y. (1992). Morningness–eveningness preferences and sleep habits in
Japanese office workers of different ages. Chronobiologia, 19, 9–16.
Kasof, J. (2001). Eveningness and bulimic behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 361–369.
Katzenberg, D., Young, T., Finn, L., Lin, L., King, D. P., Takahashi, J. S., et al. (1998). A CLOCK polymorphism
associated with human diurnal preference. Sleep, 569–576.
Kerkhof, G. A. (1985). Interindividual differences in the human circadian system: A review. Biological Psychology, 20,
83–112.
Kerkhof, G. A., & Van Dongen, H. P. (1996). Morning-type and Evening-type individuals differ in the phase position of
their endogenous circadian oscillator. Neuroscience Letters, 218, 153–156.
Kim, S., Dueker, G. L., Hasher, L., & Goldstein, D. (2002). Children’s time of day preference: Age, gender, and ethnic
differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1083–1090.
Klei, L., Reitz, P., Miller, M., Wood, J., Maendel, S., Gross, D., et al. (2005). Heritability of Morningness–eveningness
and self-report sleep measures in a family-based sample of 521 Hutterites. Chronobiology International, 22,
1041–1054.
Kole, A., Snel, J., & Lorist, M. M. (1998). Caffeine, morning–evening type and coffee odour: Attention, memory search
and visual event related potentials. In J. Snel & M. M. Lorist (Eds.), Nicotine, caffeine and social drinking: Behaviour
and brain function. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Košćec, A., Radošević-Vidaćek, B., & Kostović, M. (2001). Morningness–eveningness across two student generations:
would two decades make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 627–638.
Kudielka, B. M., Federenko, I. S., Hellhammer, D. H., & Wust, S. (2006). Morningness and eveningness: The free
cortisol rise after awakening in ‘‘early birds’’ and ‘‘night owls’’. Biological Psychology, 141–146.
Lancry, A., & Arbault, T. (1991). Matinalité-Vesperalité chez des enfants de 11–15 ans. Psychologie francaise, 36,
277–285.
Lee, C., Parikh, V., Itsukaichi, T., Bae, K., & Edery, I. (1996). Resetting the Drosophila clock by photic regulation of
PER and a PER-TIM complex. Science, 27, 1740–1744.
Mansour, H. A., Wood, J., Chowdari, K. V., Dayal, M., Thase, M. E., Kupfer, D. J., et al. (2005). Circadian phase
variation in bipolar disorder. Chronobiology International, 22, 571–584.
McCutcheon, L. E. (1998). Stereotyping the nocturnal person: Findings with some alarming implications. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 138, 411–413.
Mecacci, L., Righi, S., & Rocchetti, G. (2004). Cognitive failures and circadian typology. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 107–113.
Mecacci, L., & Rocchetti, G. (1998). Morning and Evening types: Stress related personality aspects. Personality and
Individual Differences, 25, 537–542.
Mecacci, L., Zani, A., Rocchetti, G., & Lucioli, R. (1986). The relationship between morningness–eveningness, ageing
and evening personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 911–913.
Mongrain, V., Lavoie, S., Selmaoui, B., Paquet, J., & Dumont, M. (2004). Phase relationships between sleep-wake cycle
and underlying circadian rhythms in Morningness–eveningness. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 19, 248–257.
20 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21

Moog, R. (1981). Morning and Evening types and shift work. A questionnaire study. In A. Reinberg, N. Vieux, & P.
Andlauer (Eds.), Night and shift work: Biological and social aspects (pp. 481–488). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Natale, V., & Adan, A. (1999). Season of birth modulates Morningness–Eveningness preferences in humans.
Neuroscience Letters, 274, 139–141.
Natale, V., & Alzani, A. (2001). Additional validity evidence for the composite scale of Morningness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 293–301.
Natale, V., Alzani, A., & Cicogna, P. (2003). Cognitive efficiency and circadian typologies: A diurnal study. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35, 1089–1105.
Natale, V., & Danesi, E. (2002). Gender and circadian typology. Biological and Rhythms Research, 33, 261–269.
Natale, V., & Lorenzetti, R. (1997). Influences on Morningness–eveningness and time of day on narrative
comprehension. Personality and Individual Differences, 685–690.
Nebel, L. E., Howell, R. H., Krantz, D. S., Falconer, J. J., Gottdiener, J. S., & Gabbay, F. H. (1996). The circadian
variation of cardiovascular stress levels and reactivity: Relationship to individual differences in Morningness–
eveningness. Psychophysiology, 33, 273–281.
Neubauer, A. C. (1992). Psychometric comparison of two circadian rhythm questionnaires and their relationship with
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 125–131.
Paine, S. J., Gander, P. H., & Travier, N. (2006). The epidemiology of Morningness–eveningness: Influence of age,
gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors in adults (30–49 years). Journal of Biological Rhythms, 41, 68–76.
Park, Y. M., Matsumoto, K., Seo, Y. J., Shinkoda, H., & Park, K. P. (1997). Scores on Morningness–eveningness and
sleep habits of Korean students, Japanese students and Japanese workers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 143–154.
Piggins, H. D., & Loudon, A. (2005). Circadian biology: Clocks within clocks. Current Biology, 21, 449–450.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2000). Additional validity of the Basic Language Morningness (BALM) Scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 28, 59–72.
Poulton, E. C. (1978). Blue collar stressors. In C. L. Copper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 61–80). Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Richter, C. P. (1965). Biological clocks in medicine and psychiatry. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Roberts, R. D., & Kyllonen, P. C. (1999). Morningness–eveningness and intelligence: Early to bed, early to rise will
likely make you anything but wise! Personality and Individual Differences, 1123–1133.
Shohet, K. L., & Landrum, R. E. (2001). Caffeine consumption questionnaire: A standardized measure for caffeine
consumption in undergraduate students. Psychological Reports, 89, 521–526.
Smith, C. S., Folkard, S., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., Spelten, E., Almiral, H., et al. (2002). Investigation of morning–
evening orientation in sex countries using the preference scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 949–968.
Smith, C. S., Reilly, C., & Midkiff, K. (1989). Evaluation of three circadian rhythm questionnaires with suggestions for
an improved measure of Morningness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 728–738.
Smith, L., Tanigawa, T., Takahashi, M., Mutou, K., Tachibana, N., Kage, Y., et al. (2005). Shiftwork, locus of
control, situational and behavioural effects on sleepiness and fatigue in shiftworkers. Industrial Health, 43, 151–170.
Song, J., & Stough, C. (2000). The relationship between Morningness–eveningness, time-of-day, speed of information
processing, and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1179–1190.
Steele, M. T., McNamara, R. M., Smith-Coggins, R., & Watson, W. A. (1997). Morningness–eveningness preferences
of emergency medicine residents are skewed toward Eveningness. Academy Emergency Medicine, 4, 699–705.
Stephan, F. K., & Zucker, I. (1972). Circadian rhythms in drinking behaviour and locomotor activity of rats are
eliminated by hypothalamic lesions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
69, 1583–1586.
Šverko, B., Vidaček, S., & Kaliterna, L. (1979). Osobine ličnosti i svakodnevne navike života. Revija za psihologiju, 9,
49–58.
Taillard, J., Philip, P., Chastang, J. F., & Bioulac, B. (2004). Validation of Horne and Östberg Morningness–
eveningness questionnaire in a middle-aged population of French workers. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 19, 76–86.
Takeuchi, H., Morisane, H., Iwanaga, A., Hino, N., Matsuoka, A., & Harada, T. (2002). Morningness–eveningness
preference and mood in Japanese junior high school students. Psychiatry clinical Neuroscience, 56, 227–228.
Tankova, I., Adan, A., & Buela-Casals, G. (1994). Circadian typology and individual differences. A review. Personality
and Individual Differences, 16, 671–684.
 G.M. Cavallera, S. Giudici / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 3–21 21

Thoman, E. B. (1999). Morningness and Eveningness: Issues for study of the early ontogeny of these circadian rhythms.
Human Development, 42, 206–212.
Tomita, J., Nakajima, M., Kondo, T., & Iwasaki, H. (2005). No transcription–translation feedback in circadian rhythm
of KaiC phosphorylation. Science, 307, 251–254.
Torsvall, L., & Åkerstedt, T. (1980). A diurnal type scale: Construction, consistency and validation in shift work.
Scandinavian Journal of Environmental Health, 6, 283–290.
Vink, J. M., Groot, A. S., Kerkhof, G. A., & Boomsma, D. I. (2001). Genetic analysis of Morningness and Eveningness.
Chronobiology International, 18, 809–822.
West, S. (2001). Circadian rhythm, shiftwork and you! Collegian, 14–21.
Willis, T. A., O’Connor, D. B., & Smith, L. (2005). The influence of Morningness–eveningness on anxiety and
cardiovascular responses to stress. Physiology and Behaviour, 2, 125–133.