Personality traits relate to chronotype at both the phenotypic and genetic level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diurnal preferences have been linked to personality but often with mixed results. The present study examines the relationships between sleep timing (chronotype), diurnal preferences, and the Five-Factor Model of personality traits at the phenotypic and genetic level. METHODS: = 45.76 years; 59% females). Genetic correlations were obtained through summary statistics of genome-wide association studies. RESULTS: Results showed that higher Conscientiousness and lower Openness to Experience were significant predictors of earlier chronotype. At the level of facets, we found that more straightforward (A2) and excitement-seeking (E5), yet less self-disciplined (C5) people were more likely to have later chronotypes. The nuance-level Polypersonality score was correlated with chronotype at r = .28 (p < .001). Conscientiousness and Openness were genetically related with diurnal preferences. The polygenic score for morningness-eveningness significantly predicted the Polypersonality score. CONCLUSION: Phenotypic measures of chronotype and personality showed significant associations at all three of levels of the personality hierarchy. Our findings indicate that the relationship between personality and morningness-eveningness is partly due to genetic factors. Future studies are necessary to further refine the relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".