Associations Among Chronotype, Big Five Personality Factors, and Sensation-Seeking in Two Adult Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronotype, or an individual's preference for morningness or eveningness, has been widely studied across medicine, genetics, and psychology. Chronotype has been linked to personality traits, academic performance, and a variety of behaviors, with evening-types often displaying higher levels of impulsivity, disinhibition, and sensation-seeking, traits that are often found among the criminal population. Despite these associations, few studies have directly examined the link between chronotype, personality, and criminal behavior, even though some traits are prevalent within both evening-type and criminal populations. The present research consists of two studies exploring the relationships between the Big Five personality traits, chronotype, and sensation-seeking. We hypothesized that evening-types would score higher on sensation-seeking, a personality trait commonly associated with criminal behavior. Study 1 included 219 adults, and Study 2 included 83 adults. Participants completed the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the Lark-Owl Chronotype Indicator (LOCI), with Study 2 also including the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). Results showed that morning-types were more conscientious, emotionally stable, and extraverted, while evening-types were less conscientious and more disinhibited. These findings support existing research on chronotype and personality and highlight the potential role of chronotype in behavioral tendencies related to risk-taking and impulsivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".