Chronobiology International, 27(1): 181–193, (2010)

Copyright © Informa UK Ltd.

ISSN 0742-0528 print/1525-6073 online
DOI: 10.3109/07420520903398559

CIRCADIAN TYPOLOGY AND TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER

PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

Ana Adan,1 Judit Lachica,1 Hervé Caci,2 and Vincenzo Natale3

1
Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychobiology, School of Psychology, University of
Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
2
CHU de Nice, Hôpital Archet 2, Service de Pédiatrie, Nice, France
3
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

The purpose of the present study is to explore the relationships between circadian
typology and Cloninger’s model of the seven dimensions of personality, taking into
account the possible sex interactions. This model considers four temperament dimen-
sions (viz., HA, harm avoidance; NS, novelty seeking; RD, reward dependence; and
For personal use only.

PS, persistence) and three character dimensions (viz., SD, self-directedness; C, coop-
erativeness; and ST, self-transcendence). A sample of 862 university students (500
women), between 18 and 30 (21.94 ± 2.64) yrs of age completed the short versions of
the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI-56) and the reduced Morningness-
Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ). Women showed higher values for HA, RD, and
C, while men showed higher values for NS. Evening-type subjects had higher NS but
lower HA, PS, and SD scores. Moreover, circadian typology modulated the sex differ-
ences in HA and NS, and only evening-type men showed a lower HA score and
higher NS score. Circadian typology is related to Cloninger’s model of Temperament
and Character personality dimensions. Future studies should further examine poss-
ible implications, regarding both the vulnerability of developing psychopathological
disorders and the prognosis of response to different treatments. (Author correspon-
dence: aadan@ub.edu)

Keywords Circadian typology; Personality; Temperament; Character; Cloninger;

TCI-56; Sex

INTRODUCTION
During the past few decades, interest in the study of the individual
differences, known as circadian typology (morning-type, neither-type,
and evening-type), has increased, both regarding health and illness.

Submitted May 27, 2009, Returned for revision July 9, 2009, Accepted July 31, 2009
Address correspondence to Ana Adan, Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychobiology,
School of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Passeig Vall d’Hebron, 171 08035 Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail: aadan@ub.edu

181
 182 A. Adan et al.

Generally speaking, expression of the circadian rhythm in the morning-

type subjects appears as a phase advancement of both biological and
behavioral parameters by 2 to 12 h (for a review, see Adan et al., 2008).
Girls and women are more morning-type-oriented than are boys and
men, as determined both by self-reported questionnaire studies with
large samples (Adan & Natale, 2002; Lehnkering & Siegmund, 2007;
Randler, 2007, 2008a; Tonetti et al., 2008) and by their expression of cir-
cadian rhythms (Adan & Sánchez-Turet, 2001; Klei et al., 2005; Natale &
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

Danesi, 2002). Moreover, it is widely agreed that there is a positive associ-

ation between morningness and age, whereby the older a person is, the
greater the tendency toward morningness (Adan & Natale, 2002; Di Milia
& Bohle, 2009; Natale et al., 2005; Randler, 2007; Tankova et al., 1994).
With respect to personality traits, there is a tendency of morning-type
subjects to score towards the introversion pole, while the association with
the neuroticism or anxiety trait is less obvious, considering Eysenck’s per-
sonality model (Adan et al., 2008; Cavallera & Giudici, 2008; Tankova
et al., 1994). More detailed research of the association between circadian
typology and extraversion suggests this can be attributed to the impulsiv-
ity component inherent to Eysenck’s model (DeYoung et al., 2007;
For personal use only.

Hogben et al., 2007). Measuring personality using the Big Five model
(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Rammstedt & John, 2007), several studies have
found differences between extreme groups of circadian typology
(Hogben et al., 2007; Jackson & Gerard, 1996; Randler, 2008c; Tonetti
et al., 2009). Thus, morning-types tend to be more agreeable and con-
scientious than evening-types, while evening-types tend to be more neu-
rotic and open. Using the Millon Index of Personality Styles, it has been
found that evening-type subjects express less affinity in their relationships
with other people (acquiescence) and less respect for customs and social
norms than morning- and neither-types (Díaz-Morales, 2007). Although
none of these variables in itself is a disorder, it is true that all of them
co-occurring in extreme cases may constitute risk factors for behavioral
problems and addiction (Adan, 1994; Adan et al., 2008; Cavallera &
Giudici, 2008; Gau et al., 2007). Therefore, it is essential to study in
depth the personality characteristics associated with circadian typology.
Cloninger (Cloninger, 1987, 1999a; Cloninger et al., 1993) developed
a model of personality that conceives of personality as the interaction
between temperament (harm avoidance [HA], novelty seeking [NS],
reward dependence [RD], and persistence [PS]) and character (self-direct-
edness [SD], cooperativeness [C], and self-transcendence [ST]). This
model tries to integrate the biological basis of personality with develop-
ment produced by experience and socio-cultural learning. Temperament
is considered to be a biological predisposition that remains stable
throughout development, while character is considered to be set of
characteristics that are structured during development through learned,
 Circadian Typology and Personality 183

socio-cultural mechanisms resulting from experience, introspective learn-

ing, and reorganization of self-concepts. Although both the temperament
and character traits appear to be influenced by genetic and environmental
factors (Ando et al., 2004; Markon et al., 2005), Cloninger’s model
has proven its cross-cultural validity (Miettunen et al., 2006, 2008) and
usefulness regarding both normal personality description and clinical pur-
poses in different psychopathological disorders (Bora & Vezsnedaroglu,
2007; Cloninger, 1987, 1999a; Cloninger et al., 2006; Gurpegui et al.,
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

2007; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006; Le Bon et al., 2004; Martinotti et al., 2008;
Mörtberg et al., 2007; Svrakic et al., 2002).
Sex effects on the temperament and character dimensions of
Cloninger’s model have been quite large in most of the previous studies
(Miettunen et al., 2006, 2007). Age is known to affect NS scores, in par-
ticular, and it has been estimated that such scores decrease by one point
per 10 yrs of aging; this is also the case for HA, SD, and C scores, with
which the variable age shows positive associations (Fossati et al., 2007;
Miettunen et al., 2006). Caci et al. (2004) developed the only study pub-
lished to date intended to explore the relationships between circadian
typology and temperament and character personality dimensions. For
For personal use only.

the eveningness pole, they obtained a higher NS score (that includes an

impulsivity aspect) and lower PS, although the sample was composed
only of men and the analysis correlational.
The present work aims to explore the relationships between circadian
typology groups and the seven personality dimensions of Cloninger’s
model, using the recently developed reduced Temperament and
Character Inventory (TCI-56; Adan et al., 2009), in a large sample of
Spanish university students. In addition, we analyze if there are inter-
actions with the variable of sex, an aspect that has never been studied
before, even though sex affects personality traits and circadian typology.

METHODS
Participants
Participants were 862 undergraduate psychology students, aged
between 18 and 30 (mean ± SD: 21.94 ± 2.64) yrs, of which 362 were
men (42%) and 500 women (58%). There were no significant differences
between the age of men (22.12 ± 2.61 yr) and women (21.81 ± 2.65 yr)
[t (1, 860) = 1.67; p = 0.095]. Subjects were not paid for participating, and
their informed consent was obtained prior to their inclusion in the
study. Subjects completed personality and circadian typology question-
naires in a morning session of a psychology class at the University of
Barcelona. Only the subjects that completed the questionnaires were
included in the analysis; 21 questionnaires were not considered because
 184 A. Adan et al.

of missing data. The Research Committee of the University approved

the protocol, and the study met the international standards for ethical
chronobiological research on human beings (Portaluppi et al., 2008).

Measurement Instruments
Circadian typology was assessed using the reduced morningness-
eveningness questionnaire scale (rMEQ), standardized for the Spanish
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

population (Adan & Almirall, 1991). This test has five items, and the total
score ranges from 4 to 25. Subjects are assigned to one of the three
possible circadian typologies (viz., evening-type, neither-type, or
morning-type) according to the cutoff score: from 4 to 11 points for the
evening-type, 12 to 17 for the neither-type, and 18 to 25 points for the
morning-type (Adan & Almirall, 1991). The Spanish rMEQ is a reliable
measure that shows high sensitivity in classifying subjects in the dimen-
sion of morningness-eveningness, and the internal reliability for the
present sample is high (Cronbach’s a = 0.76).
The TCI-56 (Adan et al., 2009) consists of a selection of items from the
Temperament and Character Inventory—Revised (TCI-R; see Cloninger,
For personal use only.

1999b, and http://psychobiology.wustl.edu/research/inResearch.htm),

which is currently the most used questionnaire to study the Cloninger’s
personality model. The abbreviated questionnaire has 56 items, eight for
each of the seven dimensions it measures (four of temperament and three
of character). The four dimensions of temperament are harm avoidance
(HA), which reflects the activity of the system of behavioral inhibition or
punishment; novelty seeking (NS), related to the system of behavioral acti-
vation or reward; reward dependence (RD), related to social reinforce-
ment and sensitivity to social stimuli; and persistence (PS), which involves
the tendency to maintain behavior in extinction conditions. The three
dimensions of character are self-directedness (SD), seen as the capacity to
regulate behavior in order to adjust it to one’s principles, goals, and per-
sonal beliefs; cooperativeness (C), which involves the subject’s pro-social
behavior as a measure of social adaptation; and self-transcendence (ST),
related to the subject’s identification with everything conceived as essential
and consequential parts of a unified whole. The subjects must respond on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitively false) to 5 (definitively
true). Scores for each dimension range from 1 to 40. The TCI-56 has good
psychometric properties and acceptable internal consistency, and it sub-
stantially reduces administration time (Adan et al., 2009).

Data Analysis
The internal consistency of the scales was estimated using Cronbach’s α
coefficient, 0.70 being the minimum acceptable criterion (Cortina, 1993).
 Circadian Typology and Personality 185

Pearson’s correlations were computed between the scores in the different

dimensions of personality, as well as between these and direct scoring on
the rMEQ. Multiple analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were performed
considering the total score of each dimension of the TCI-56 as a depen-
dent variable and taking circadian typology and sex as factors, while age
was considered as a covariable to control for possible effects. Two
MANCOVA were performed, one with dimensions of temperament and
the other with dimensions of character of the TCI-56. The partial eta-
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

squared (η2p) was obtained as a measure of effect size, considering that a

partial eta-squared of 0.01 was small, 0.04 moderate, and 0.1 large
(Huberty, 2002), and the observed statistical power for significant effects
was >0.90. Moreover, for each personality dimension a multiple regression
analysis was performed to detect which factor (i.e., rMEQ score, sex, or
their interaction) was the best predictor. Data analysis was performed
using the SPSS/PC+ statistics package (version 14.0; Chicago, Illinois,
USA), and statistical tests were bilateral with type I error set at 5%.

RESULTS
For personal use only.

The distribution of subjects in the circadian typology groups was 155 in

the morning-type (18%; 60 men/95 women), 523 in the neither-type
(60.7%; 216 men/307 women), and 184 in the evening-type (21.3%; 86
men/98 women). The distribution of total scores in the rMEQ was skewed
towards eveningness (z = 2.46, p < 0.001). Moreover, circadian typology
groups differed significantly in age [F(2, 859) = 13.13; p = 0.0001; η2p = .030].
Post-hoc comparisons showed that morning-type subjects were older
(22.91 ± 3.44 yr) than neither-type (21.73 ± 2.38 yr) and evening-type
(21.71 ± 2.37 yr).
The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the dimensions of tempera-
ment was (from lower to higher): 0.70 for NS, 0.74 for PS, 0.80 for HA,
and 0.82 for RD. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the dimen-
sions of character was 0.76 for C, 0.77 for SD, and 0.85 for ST. All the
dimensions of the TCI-56 met the minimum acceptable criterion of
instrument internal reliability, although NS showed the lowest value.
The correlation matrices of the seven dimensions of the TCI-56, as
well as between them and the total rMEQ score, are shown in Table 1.
rMEQ scores showed a significant positive association with HA, PS, and
SD, as well as a higher score in morningness and in the three personality
dimensions. In contrast, rMEQ scores showed a negative correlation with
NS, whereby the higher the morningness score, the lower the NS score.
There were high negative correlations between HA and the dimensions
of NS and SD, and also between NS and PS. In contrast, there were high
positive correlations between SD and the dimensions of RD and
C. Subjects who contributed high HA scores tended to present lower NS
 186 A. Adan et al.

TABLE 1 Correlations among temperament and character scales of the TCI-56, as well as between
these and the total score of the reduced morningness-eveningness questionnaire

rMEQ HA NS RD PS SD C

HA .108∗
NS −.208† −.329†
RD −.012 −.107∗ −.043
PS .150† −.013 −.298† .003
SD .197† −.420† −.073 .331† .152†
C .017 −.080 .009 .274† .029 .256†
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

ST −.022 −.071 .168† −.057 .015 −.197† −.011

∗
p < 0.001; †p < 0.0001.
Abbreviations: HA = harm avoidance, NS = novelty seeking, RD = reward dependence, PS =
persistence, SD = self-directedness, C = cooperativeness, ST = self-transcendence.

and SD scores, while those with high NS scores obtained lower scores in
PS. In contrast, those with high SD scores also presented high RD and C
scores.
The MANCOVA analyses contributed significant differences with
regard to sex for four of the personality dimensions of the TCI-56, but
For personal use only.

there were no effects on the PS dimension of temperament or on the ST

and SD dimensions of character. Women presented higher average scores
in HA (F(1,855) = 31.32; p < 0.0001; η2p = .035), RD (F(1,855) = 46.21; p <
0.0001; η2p = .051), and C (F(1,855) = 55.07; p < 0.0001; η2p = .061), while
men scored higher in NS (F(1,855) = 28.76; p < 0.0001; η2p = .033). See
Table 2 for the descriptors (average ± SEM) for men and women.
Circadian typology presented significant differences in the
MANCOVA for the dimensions HA (F(2,855) = 8.55; p < 0.0001; η2p =
.020), NS (F(2,855) = 21.07; p < 0.0001; η2p = .047), and PS (F(2,855) = 6.31;
p < 0.002; η2p = .015) of temperament. Post-hoc comparisons between

TABLE 2 Table 2 Descriptive statistics (mean ± SEM) for the scores in each dimension of
temperament and character personality (TCI-56) according to sex and circadian typology groups

Sex Circadian typology

Men Women Evening-type Neither-type Morning-type
TCI-56 (N = 362) (N = 500) (N = 184) (N = 523) (N = 155)

HA 24.60 ± 0.27 26.63 ± 0.23 24.52 ± 0.33 25.89 ± 0.20 26.45 ± 0.38
NS 23.64 ± 0.26 21.79 ± 0.22 24.35 ± 0.32 22.16 ± 0.19 21.63 ± 0.36
RD 28.26 ± 0.29 30.93 ± 0.25 29.80 ± 0.36 30.03 ± 0.22 28.96 ± 0.41
PS 26.64 ± 0.26 27.27 ± 0.22 26.10 ± 0.32 26.94 ± 0.19 27.83 ± 0.36
SD 28.00 ± 0.28 28.69 ± 0.24 27.16 ± 0.34 28.29 ± 0.21 29.59 ± 0.39
C 30.32 ± 0.24 32.69 ± 0.20 31.48 ± 0.29 31.81 ± 0.18 31.22 ± 0.33
ST 19.08 ± 0.36 18.24 ± 0.31 18.73 ± 0.44 18.44 ± 0.27 18.81 ± 0.50

Abbreviations: HA = harm avoidance, NS = novelty seeking, RD = reward dependence, PS =

persistence, SD = self-directedness, C = cooperativeness, ST = self-transcendence.
 Circadian Typology and Personality 187

circadian typology groups for HA and NS contributed differences

between the evening-type and the other two groups (from –1.37 to –2.71,
p < 0.0001), the scores for the evening-type being higher for NS and
lower for HA (see Table 2). All post-hoc comparisons between circadian
typology groups were significant for PS (from –0.88 to –1.06, P < 0.02).
Morning-type subjects showed the highest scores, the neither-type sub-
jects medium scores, and evening-type subjects lowest scores (see
Table 2). Circadian typology had a significant effect only on the SD
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

dimension (F(2,855) = 10.79; p < 0.0001; η2p = .025) of character. Post-hoc

comparisons between circadian typology groups for SD contributed
differences between all groups (from –1.13 to –2.43, p < 0.005), the scores
for the morning-type being superior, those of the neither-type medium,
and those of the evening-type lowest (see Table 2).
A significant interaction was seen between sex and circadian typology
in the dimensions of HA (F(2,855) = 12.74; p < 0.0001; η2p = .029) and NS
(F(2,855) = 6.46; p < 0.002; η2p = .015) of temperament. Men’s lower scores
in HA were observed in the evening-type group, while in the neither-type
and morning-type groups, there were no significant differences between
men and women (see Figure 1). Similarly, men’s highest score in NS
For personal use only.

appears only in the evening-type group, as both the neither-types and

FIGURE 1 Circadian typology (ET: evening-type, NT: neither-type, and MT: morning-type) and
sex interactions in harm avoidance (HA) and novelty seeking (NS) personality dimensions of the TCI-
56. In both cases, scores range from 1 to 40.
 188 A. Adan et al.

morning-types show differences in sex (see Figure 1). No interactive

effect between sex and circadian typology was obtained for the dimen-
sions of character.
The multiple regression analyses performed in order to consider
morningness-eveningness as a continuous variable provided similar
results as those obtained with the MANCOVA, where the morningness-
eveningness scores were trichotomized in circadian typologies. The
change statistics obtained with this approach are shown in Table 3.
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

DISCUSSION
Our study involved a convenience sample of non-clinical subjects with
a good representation of both sexes, including as well subjects belonging
to the extreme circadian typologies. Distribution of subjects according to
circadian typology, skewed to the eveningness pole, was in accordance
with earlier investigations using samples of young people and students
(Adan & Natale, 2002; Adan et al., 2008).
The correlational analyses among the different personality dimen-
sions gives us discrete values, in accordance with previous data, regardless
For personal use only.

of the version of the inventory used (Caci et al., 2004; Fossati et al., 2007;
Hansenne et al., 2005; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006; Miettunen et al., 2008).
The HA and SD scores presented a negative association, which could
imply that the more anxious subjects have more difficulties in choosing
goals and personal values, and that they do not accept themselves.
Moreover, there were also positive relations between C and the dimen-
sions RD and SD. The subjects who tend toward social tolerance,
empathy, helpfulness, and compassion are also those who tend to senti-
mentality, social attachment, and dependence on approval from others

TABLE 3 Change statistics (R2, F) from multiple regression performed for each scale of the TCI-56

rMEQ scores Sex rMEQ scores × sex

R2 F R2 F R2 F

HA .010 8.86† .032 28.67‡ .020 17.73‡

NS .043 38.73‡ .030 28.19‡ .011 28.19†
RD .000 0.12∗ .061 56.35‡ .004 3.59∗
PS .022 19.67‡ .002 1.79∗ .001 0.83∗
SD .039 34.70‡ .004 3.71∗ .000 0.03∗
C .000 0.25∗ .064 59.23‡ .000 0.01∗
ST .000 0.41∗ .003 2.79∗ .002 2.10∗

The variables considered were the reduced morningness-eveningness questionnaire scores, sex,
and their interaction computed as the product of the two centered variables.
∗
Non-significant; †p < 0.001; ‡p < 0.0001.
Abbreviations: HA = harm avoidance, NS = novelty seeking, RD = reward dependence, PS =
persistence, SD = self-directedness, C = cooperativeness, ST = self-transcendence.
 Circadian Typology and Personality 189

(RD). The same subjects also showed more ability to control, regulate,
and adapt their behavior in accordance with their chosen goals and
values (SD).
Sex exerted an influence on four of the personality dimensions pro-
posed by Cloninger (Adan et al., 2009; Gutiérrez-Zotes et al., 2004;
Hansenne et al., 2005; Miettunen et al., 2007, 2008). Women had superior
scores for the scales of HA (worry and fear of the uncertain) and RD (senti-
mentality, warmness, and bond/openness) and lower scores for the scale
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

of NS (exploratory excitability, impulsivity, and untidiness) of tempera-

ment. Women also present higher scores in dimension C (empathy, com-
passion, and integrity) of character. Although the scores for both sexes in
the personality dimensions that are significant cannot be considered
outside the average values, they have to be seen as estimates of risk or pro-
tection for mental health related to one’s sex, as different studies have
already noted (Ando et al., 2004; Bora & Vezsnedaroglu, 2007; Cloninger
et al., 2006; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006; Miettunen et al., 2007).
The circadian typology scores rendered significant correlations in the
HA, NS, and PS (temperament) and SD (character) dimensions. Those in
the eveningness pole (evening-type) were associated with higher scores in
For personal use only.

NS and lower scores in HA, PS, and SD. Our work confirms the results of
Caci et al. (2004) and allows us to extend the differences found between
circadian typology groups to the HA and SD dimensions. Considering
morningness-eveningness as a continuum (Natale & Cicogna, 2002), both
under correlational and regression analyses, the findings coincide with
the results obtained by categorizing the scores in the circadian typology
groups. This allows us to determine, for the first time, significant inter-
actions with sex using the model of the seven personality factors. Thus,
evening-type subjects showed a greater tendency towards exploratory
activity in response to novelty, impulsive decision-making, and active
avoidance of monotony (NS), and lower behavioral inhibition in the
face of potentially dangerous stimuli and anticipation of negative effects
(HA). In contrast, morning-type subjects showed more industriousness,
ambitious overachievement, and perseveration despite frustration (PS),
together with more ability to control, regulate, and adapt their behavior
in accordance with chosen goals and values (SD).
The associations found between circadian typology and personality
characteristics are relevant in two ways. First, they are relevant from the
perspective of implementing differential therapeutic management possi-
bilities according to the circadian characteristics. Second, they may be
useful in the design of more effective prevention programs. The high
scores in NS, which are hypothesized to be associated with low basal
dopaminergic tone, have to be considered as risk markers for addictive
behaviors (Cloninger, 1987; Gurpegui et al., 2007; Le Bon et al., 2004)
and greater withdrawal symptoms and craving (Leventhal et al., 2007).
 190 A. Adan et al.

This agrees with the higher consumption of psychoactive substances in

evening-type subjects (Adan, 1994; Adan et al., 2008), and our results
suggest that men may be more vulnerable than women. The PS scores
are positively associated with morningness (Caci et al., 2004). Thus, it is
suggested that low PS scores (eveningness pole) may indicate a tendency
toward reactions of frustration, emotional lability, fickleness (Martinotti
et al., 2008), and depression (Cloninger et al., 2006), an aspect also
observed with the metatrait Stability in the Big Five model (DeYoung
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

et al., 2007; Tonetti et al., 2009). Moreover, high HA scores have to be

considered as a marker of emotional vulnerability for anxiety disorders
(Cloninger et al., 2006; Hansenne et al., 2005; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006),
and when coupled with high PS, they could predict obsessive compulsive
traits (Svrakic et al., 2002), an aspect that may be more likely observed in
the morningness pole.
It should be highlighted that the low scores in the SD character
dimension have been associated with a higher degree of immaturity and
ineffectiveness, with reduced ability to recover from mood disorders,
more healthcare use, and poorer quality of life (Fossati et al., 2007;
Hansenne et al., 2005; Jylhä & Isometsä, 2006; Mörtberg et al., 2007;
For personal use only.

Svrakic et al., 2002). SD scores provided the most robust prediction of

depression and its longitudinal course (Cloninger et al., 2006), and they
also were a predictor of personality psychopathology (Fossati et al., 2007).
This aspect should be further explored in the future, given that recent
works have found a higher prevalence of mood disorders in evening-type
subjects (Adan et al., 2008; Lewy et al., 2006; Natale et al., 2005).
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged and
addressed in future research. The reduced range of age of our subjects
did not allow us to assess the impact of this variable adequately, although
preceding studies point to relations both in the temperament and charac-
ter dimensions of personality (Cloninger et al., 1993; Gutiérrez-Zotes
et al., 2004; Hansenne et al., 2005; Miettunen et al., 2006) and in circa-
dian typology (Adan & Natale, 2002; Natale et al., 2005; Randler, 2007;
Tankova et al., 1994). Moreover, the relationships between circadian
typology and temperament and character personality should also be
studied in a general population sample, and not just in college students,
as they have particular demographic characteristics that may prevent our
findings from being generalized. Similarly, cross-cultural data from differ-
ent samples around the world are also needed to contrast the possible
effects of environmental factors (Randler, 2008a, 2008b) in the association
between circadian typology and personality. Finally, the use of the TCI-
56 allows us to assess only the main dimensions of personality, but not
their different subscales or aspects, an assessment that is possible with the
longer questionnaires of Cloninger’s model (TCI, TCI-R). However, our
results encourage incorporating circadian typology into the study of the
 Circadian Typology and Personality 191

associations between personality characteristics and psychopathological

disorders, as this circadian typology may explain certain contradictory
data and become a predictor both of vulnerability to psychiatric disorders
and of prognosis in response to different treatments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

responsible for the content and writing of this paper.

REFERENCES
Adan A. (1994). Chronotype and personality factors in the daily consumptions of alcohol and
psychostimulants. Addiction 89:455–462.
Adan A, Almirall H. (1991). Horne & Östberg morningness-eveningness questionnaire: A reduced
scale. Pers. Individ. Differ. 12:241–253.
Adan A, Natale V. (2002). Gender differences in morningness-eveningness preference. Chronobiol. Int.
19:709–720.
Adan A, Sánchez-Turet M. (2001). Gender differences on diurnal variations of subjective activation
and mood. Chronobiol. Int. 18:491–502.
Adan A, Natale V, Caci H. (2008). Cognitive strategies and circadian typology. In Léglise AL (ed.).
For personal use only.

Progress in circadian rhythms research. New York: Nova Biomedical Books, Nova Science
Publishers, Inc., pp. 141–161.
Adan A, Serra-Grabulosa JM, Caci H, Natale V. (2009). A reduced Temperament and Character
Inventory (TCI-56). Psychometric properties in a non-clinical sample. Pers. Individ. Differ.
46:687–692.
Ando J, Suzuki A, Yamagata S, Kijima N, Maekawa H, Ono Y, Jang KL. (2004). Genetic and environ-
mental structure of Cloninger’s temperament and character dimensions. J. Person. Disord.
18:379–393.
Bora E, Vezsnedaroglu B. (2007). Temperament and character dimensions of the relatives of schizo-
phrenia patients and controls: The relationship between schizotypical features and personality.
Eur. Psychiatry 22:27–31.
Caci H, Robert P, Boyer P. (2004). Novelty seekers and impulsive subjects are low in morningness.
Eur. Psychiatry 19:79–84.
Cavallera GM, Giudici S. (2008). Morningness and eveningness personality: A survey in literature
from 1995 up till 2006. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 44:3–21.
Cloninger CR. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality
variants. A proposal. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 44:573–588.
Cloninger CR. (1999a). A new conceptual paradigm from genetics and psychobiology for the science
of mental health. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiat. 33:174–186.
Cloninger CR. (1999b). The Temperament and Character Inventory—Revised. St, Louis, Mo.: Center for
Psychobiology of the Personality, Washington University.
Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and
character. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 50:975–990.
Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. (2006). Can personality assessment predict future
depression? A twelve-month follow-up of 631 subjects. J. Affective Disord. 92:35–44.
Cortina JM. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl.
Psychol. 78:98–104.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Pers. Individ. Differ. 13:653–665.
DeYoung C, Hasher L, Djikic M, Criger B, Peterson JB. (2007). Morning people are stable people:
Circadian rhythm and the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Pers. Individ. Differ. 43:267–276.
Di Milia L, Bohle P. (2009). Morningness or morning affect? A short composite scale of morningness.
Chronobiol. Int. 26:494–509.
 192 A. Adan et al.

Díaz-Morales JF. (2007). Morning and evening-types: Exploring their personality styles. Pers. Individ.
Differ. 43:769–778.
Fossati A, Cloninger CR, Villa D, Borroni S, Grazioli F, Giarolli L, Battaglia M, Maffei C. (2007).
Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Temperament and Character
Inventory—Revised in an outpatient sample. Compr. Psychiatry 48:380–387.
Gau SS, Shang CY, Merikangas KR, Chiu YN, Soong WT, Cheng AT. (2007). Association between
morningness-eveningness and behavioral/emotional problems among adolescents. J. Biol.
Rhythms 22:268–274.
Gurpegui M, Jurado D, Luna JD, Fernández-Molina C, Moreno-Abril O, Gálvez R. (2007).
Personality traits associated with caffeine intake and smoking. Prog. Neuro-psych. Biol. Psych.
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

31:997–1005.
Gutiérrez-Zotes JA, Bayón C, Montserrat C, Labad A, Cloninger CR, Fernández-Aranda F. (2004).
Inventario del Temperamento y el Carácter—Revisado (TCI-R). Baremación y datos normativos
en una muestra de población general. Actas Esp. Pichiatr. 32:8–15.
Hansenne M, Delhez M, Cloninger CR. (2005). Psychometric properties of the temperament and
character inventory—revised (TCI-R) in a Belgiam sample. J. Personal. Assess. 85:40–49.
Hogben AL, Ellis J, Archer SN, von Schantz M. (2007). Conscientiousness is a predictor of diurnal
preference. Chronobiol. Int. 24:1249–1254.
Huberty CJ. (2002). A history of effect sizes indices. Ed. Psy. Meas. 62:227–240.
Jackson LA, Gerard DA. (1996). Diurnal types, the “big five” personality factors, and other personal
characteristics. J. Soc. Behav. Person. 11:273–284.
Jylhä P, Isometsä E. (2006). Temperament, character and symptoms of anxiety and depression in the
general population. Eur. Psychiatry 21:389–395.
Klei L, Reitz P, Miller M, Wood J, Maendel S, Gross D, Waldner T, Eaton J, Monk TH, Nimgoankor
VL. (2005). Heritability of morningness-eveningness and self-report sleep measures in a family-
For personal use only.

based sample of 521 hutterites. Chronobiol. Int. 22:1041–1054.

Le Bon O, Basiaux P, Streel E, Tecco J, Hanak C, Hansenne M, Ansseau M, Pelc I, Verbanck P,
Dupont S. (2004). Personality profile and drug of choice: A multivariate analysis using
Cloninger’s TCI on heroin addicts, alcoholics, and a random population group. Drug Alcohol
Depend. 73:175–182.
Lehnkering H, Siegmund R. (2007). Influence of chronotype, season and sex of subject on sleep
behavior of young adults. Chronobiol. Int. 24:875–888.
Leventhal AM, Waters AJ, Boyd S, Moolchan ET, Heishman SJ, Lerman C, Pickworth WB. (2007).
Associations between Cloninger’s temperament dimensions and acute tobacco withdrawal. Addict.
Behav. 32:2976–2989.
Lewy AJ, Lefler BJ, Emens JS, Bauer VK. (2006). The circadian basis of winter depression. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 103:7414–7419.
Markon KE, Krueger RF, Watson D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal per-
sonality: An integrative hierarchical approach. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 88:139–157.
Martinotti G, Mandelli L, Di Nicola M, Serretti A, Fossati A, Borroni S, Cloninger CR, Janiri L.
(2008). Psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the Temperament and Character
Inventory—Revised, personality, psychopathology, and attachment styles. Compr. Psychiatry
49:514–522.
Miettunen J, Kantojärvi L, Veijola J, Järvelin M-R, Joukamaa M. (2006). International comparison of
Cloninger’s temperament dimensions. Pers. Individ. Differ. 41:1515–1526.
Miettunen J, Veijola J, Lauronen E, Kantojärvi L, Joukamaa M. (2007). Sex differences in
Cloninger’s temperament dimensions—a meta-analysis. Compr. Psychiatry 48:161–169.
Miettunen J, Lauronen E, Kantojärvi L, Veijola J, Joukamaa M. (2008). Inter-correlations between
Cloninger’s temperament dimensions—a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 160:106–114.
Mörtberg E, Bejerot S, Wistedt AA. (2007). Temperament and character dimensions in patients with
social phobia: Patterns of change following treatments? Psychiatry Res. 152:81–90.
Natale V, Cicogna PC. (2002). Morningness-eveningness dimension: Is it really a continuum? Pers.
Indiv. Differ. 32:809–816.
Natale V, Danesi E. (2002). Gender and circadian typology. Biol. Rhythm Res. 33:261–269.
Natale V, Adan A, Scapellato P. (2005). Are seasonality of mood and eveningness closely associated?
Psychiat. Res. 136:51–60.
 Circadian Typology and Personality 193

Portaluppi F, Touitou Y, Smolensky MH. (2008). Ethical and methodological standards for laboratory
and medical biological rhythm research. Chronobiol. Int. 25:999–1016.
Rammstedt B, John OP. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version
of the big five inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41:203–212.
Randler C. (2007). Gender differences in morningness-eveningness assessed by self-report question-
naires: A meta-analysis. Pers. Individ. Differ. 43:1667–1675.
Randler C. (2008a). Differences in sleep and circadian preference between eastern and western
German adolescents. Chronobiol. Int. 25:565–575.
Randler C. (2008b). Morningness-eveningness comparison in adolescents from different countries
around the world. Chronobiol. Int. 25:1017–1018.
Randler C. (2008c). Morningness-eveningness, sleep-wake variables and big five personality factors.
Chronobiol Int Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Memorial University of Newfoundland on 09/21/13

Pers. Individ. Differ. 45:191–196.

Svrakic DM, Draganic S, Hill K, Bayon C, Przybeck TR, Cloninger CR. (2002). Temperament, char-
acter, and personality disorders: Etiologic, diagnostic, treatment issues. Acta Psychiatr. Scand.
106:189–195.
Tankova I, Adan A, Buela-Casal G. (1994). Circadian typology and individual differences. A review.
Pers. Individ. Differ. 16:671–684.
Tonetti L, Fabbri M, Natale V. (2008). Sex differences in sleep-time preference and sleep need: A
cross-sectional survey among Italian pre-adolescent, adolescent, and adults. Chronobiol. Int.
25:745–759.
Tonetti L, Fabbri M, Natale V. (2009). Relationship between circadian typology and big five personality
domains. Chronobiol. Int. 26:337–347.
For personal use only.