- Email: [email protected]
Are achievement goals different among morning and evening-type adolescents?
Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Are achievement goals different among morning and evening-type adolescents? Cristina Escribano ⁎, Juan Francisco Díaz-Morales Departamento de Psicología Diferencial y del Trabajo, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, s/n, 28223 Madrid, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 25 June 2015 Received in revised form 21 August 2015 Accepted 22 August 2015 Available online 7 September 2015 Keywords: Morningness–eveningness Learning goals Performance goals Academic performance
a b s t r a c t The interest in the extent to which time-of-day preferences affect school performance is increasing. Apart from biological factors, Morning and Evening types differ in their lifestyle and personality traits which may have implications into diverse areas such as their motivation to learn. Taking into account available data, the aim of the present study was to investigate achievement goals which Morning-, Neither- and Evening-type adolescents accomplish at school. Participants were 342 students aged 12 to 15 (53.5% girls). Morning-types showed higher Learning and Performance Goals than Evening-types, and these goals were positively related to self-reported academic performance. Achievement goals were more associated to self-reported grades in Evening-types than in Neither- and Morning-types. It seems that encouraging pupils to achieve good results in order to advance in their studies may improve school performance, especially among Evening-types. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In recent years, the interest in the influence of individual time-ofday preferences on academic performance has been increased (Horzum, Önder, & Beşoluk, 2014; Tonetti, Natale & Randler, 2015). Morning-types (M-types) or “larks” prefer to wake up and go to bed early and feel at their best moment during the morning (mental, physical, and social activities) whereas Evening-types (E-types) or “owls” have difficulty in waking up early as they prefer later bedtimes and rise times, become progressively more alert throughout the day and feel at their best moment at the end of the day. Neither-types (N-types) show an intermediate position and represent the majority of the population. Morningness/eveningness is usually assessed by self-reported measures (Adan et al., 2012; Díaz-Morales, 2015; Tonetti, Adan, Di Milia, Randler & Natale, 2015). A change toward eveningness appears during puberty, consequence of both the maturation processes typical of puberty (Hagenauer, Perryman, Lee, & Carskadon, 2009), and the many changes in the adolescent's life such as school demands, new social relationships, and family atmosphere (Crowley et al., 2014; Díaz-Morales & Escribano 2014; Díaz-Morales, Escribano, Jankowski, Vollmer, & Randler, 2014). Students are usually taught and tested during the morning school day despite the shift toward eveningness during adolescence. For this reason, morning school schedules seem to be an advantage for M-types, who tend to obtain higher grades and better attention levels (Escribano & Díaz-Morales, 2014a; Vollmer, Pötsch, & Randler, 2013). ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Escribano), [email protected] (J.F. Díaz-Morales).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.032 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Morningness/eveningness has also been related to personality traits (Adan et al., 2012). Previous studies indicated that conscientiousness was positively related with morningness followed by agreeableness. Openness to experience, extraversion and neuroticism were negatively associated (see Tsaousis, 2010). Furthermore, E-types showed a more pronounced intolerance for repetitive experiences and routine tasks (Muro, Gomà-i-Freixanet, & Adan, 2012), and lower persistence scores (Randler & Saliger, 2011), characteristics that, a priori, are relevant to an adequate performance at school. In addition, the study of the relationship between learning–thinking styles and chronotype has demonstrated that M- and E-types differ in cerebral hemisphere preference and E-types were described as right-thinkers (i.e. right-hemisphere preference) who were creative, intuitive, affective, and inclined to cultural individualism, and M-types as left-thinkers (i.e. left-hemisphere preference) who preferred verbal and analytic strategies in processing information, and cultural collectivism (Díaz-Morales, 2007; Fabbri, Antonietti, Giorgetti, Tonetti, & Natale, 2007). Hemisphere preference has been related to academic performance being M-types and leftthinkers the group who reported the highest subjective level of achievement and E-types and right-thinkers the group who reported the lowest level (Díaz-Morales & Escribano, 2013). Several researchers have reported that E-types obtain worse school performance (e.g. Beşoluk, Önder, & Deveci, 2011; Escribano, Díaz-Morales, Delgado, & Collado, 2012; Preckel et al., 2013; Randler & Frech, 2009) even though they tend to achieve higher scores on intelligence tests (Díaz-Morales & Escribano, 2015; Kanazawa & Perina, 2009; Roberts & Kyllonen, 1999). Apart from the time at which they attend classes (Beşoluk, 2011; Beşoluk et al., 2011; Vollmer et al., 2013), thinking styles (DíazMorales & Escribano, 2013) or sleep patterns (Dewald, Meijer, Oort, Kerkhof, & Bögels, 2010; Fallone, Acebo, Seifer, & Carskadon, 2005),
58
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61
another factor that may contribute to explain why E-types report lower academic performance may be the role of motivation and achievement goals (Arbabi, Vollmer, Dörfler, & Randler, 2015). Achievement goal theory supports the existence of purposes that guide students to engage with their school work in order to increase their own competence (Learning Goals) or not appear incompetent in front of others and/or oneself (Performance Goals) (Dweck, 1986; Inglés et al., 2009). Motivation and achievement goals contribute to explain learning and academic achievement (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009) even in early adolescents after controlling for important predictors of achievement (Arbabi et al., 2015). Morningness is associated to less sleepiness, which in turn is associated to higher motivation to learn whereas eveningness seems to be associated to dysfunctional attitudes toward work. Insufficient motivation may promote learning difficulties and lower school performance (Roeser, Schlarb, & Kübler, 2013). According to Short, Gradisar, Lack, and Wright (2013) adolescents who reported poor sleep quality, reduced alertness and more evening orientation were more likely to report worse grades through the association with depressed mood. Moreover, E-types exhibited the lowest mood levels throughout the school day (Díaz-Morales, Escribano, & Jankowski, 2015). Taking into account available data about lifestyle, personality traits, thinking styles, sleep patterns and school schedule, the aim of the present study was to investigate achievement goals which are accomplished in school and the way in which they are associated to self-reported grades considering chronotype in order to test the way in which achievement goals have an influence on school performance in different chronotypes. In this study, the association between achievement goals and academic performance will be tested per chronotype in order to avoid masking individual effects related to circadian preferences. As it is known, it was hypothesised that Learning and Performance Goals would be positively related to self-reported grades whereas Social Reinforcement Goals would be negatively related. Moreover, M-types would show higher Learning and Performance Goals oriented to learn and advance in their studies, whereas E-types would show more Social Reinforcement Goals referred to the interest in avoiding rejection from others since they would be less motivated to learn trying to increase their own competence.
Learning Goals scale consists of 8 items related to student interest in acquiring new knowledge and increasing their competence (e.g. “I study because I like knowing new things”). Social Reinforcement Goals scale consists of 6 items related to the interest of the students in obtaining approval and avoiding rejection from others (e.g. “I study because I don't want to be disliked by the teacher”). Performance Goals scale consists of 6 items which assess the interest in studying in order to achieve good results and advance in their studies (e.g. “I study because I want to get good grades”). AGTQ was initially created by Hayamizu, Ito, and Yoshizaki (1989) and designed to measure achievement goal tendencies in Japanese high school students. Later, a revised American version was developed by Hayamizu and Weiner (1991). In this study, the Spanish version was used (see Inglés et al., 2009). Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the present sample was: Learning Goals = 0.81, Social Reinforcement Goals = 0.77, and Performance Goals = 0.77. 2.2.3. School performance Self-reported grades: students reported last year grades in common subjects for all grades of Compulsory Secondary Education (Spanish language, mathematics, English language and social sciences) and the mean of grades was calculated (GPA). Several studies have also used this method (see Wolfson & Carskadon, 2003).The Spanish grading system is coded from 0 (the worst) to 10 (the best), for this, the same scale (0 to 10) was used to self-reported grades. 2.3. Procedure and data analysis
2. Method
All participants were tested in groups ranging in size from 20 to 25 students in school schedule and in their own classroom. Assessment took about 40 min. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was run in order to test age and sex differences in all variables and Partial correlations (age as covariate) to test the relationship among all variables. MANCOVA (controlling for age) was run to test differences in achievement goals according to chronotype (M-, N- and E-types). Finally, multiple regression analysis was run to detect the contribution of age, sex and achievement goals (Learning, Social Reinforcement and Performance Goals) to selfreported grades separately for each chronotype. Effect size was calculated using the following procedure [ f 2 = R2 / (1 − R2)] (Cohen, 1992).
2.1. Participants
3. Results
Participants in this study were 342 students aged 12–15 (M = 13.23, SD = 0.95) attending three high-schools of Madrid (Spain). 53.5% were girls. The board of directors authorized the study after obtaining the parents' consent. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
3.1. Preliminary analysis: age and sex differences
2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Morningness–eveningness The Morningness–Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC, Carskadon, Vieira, & Acebo, 1993) has 10 items about the preferred timing of certain activities such as free time, tests, sleep timing, and so forth. Items have a response scale with four or five options and the total score ranges from 10 (eveningness) to 43 (morningness). Spanish version was used (DíazMorales, 2015) which showed a satisfactory internal consistency for the present sample (Cronbach's alpha) was α = 0.73.
Regarding age, MANOVA indicated differences in morningness/ eveningness, F(3,334) = 4.16, p b .01, η2p = .036; self-reported grades, F(3,334) = 20.53, p b .001, η2p = 0.156; Learning Goals, F(3,334) = 2.59, p b .05, η2p = 0.23, and Performance Goals, F(3,334) = 5.41, p b .001, η2p = 0.046. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that pupils aged 15 showed the lowest Learning and Performance Goals, and reported lower morningness than pupils aged 12 or 13; self-reported grades decreased progressively with age. With respect to sex, girls reported higher grades than boys, F(1,334) = 5.47, p b .05, η2p = 0.016, whereas boys showed higher Social Reinforcement Goals than girls, F(1,334) = 4.87, p b .05, η2p = 0.014. No effects of sex ∗ chronotype interaction were found (see Table 1). 3.2. Relationship among variables
2.2.2. Achievement goals 2.2.2.1. Achievement Goal Tendencies Questionnaire (AGTQ, Hayamizu & Weiner, 1991). The AGTQ is a self-report measure which consists of 20 items to measure three academic goal tendencies: Learning Goals, Social Reinforcement Goals, and Performance Goals. Students rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always).
Given that correlations separated by sex were similar, only data for total sample are reported. Since age effects were found in preliminary analyses, age was controlled as a covariate. Morningness was positively related to self-reported grades (r = .11, p b .05), Learning Goals (r = .36, p b .001), and Performance Goals (r = .23, p b .001); self-reported grades were positively related to Learning Goals (r = .22, p b .001),
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61 Table 1 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) according to age and sex for morningness/ eveningness (M/E), achievement goals and self-reported grades. 12
13
14
15
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Girls Boys Total
25.32 26.88 26.21
3.89 5.11 4.67
25.61 25.61 25.61
4.43 4.05 4.27
25.25 25.02 25.15
4.64 4.48 4.54
23.23 23.80 23.00
4.83 5.67 5.23
25.23 25.51 25.36
4.44 4.85 4.63
Girls Boys Total
7.50 7.72 7.62
1.21 1.43 1.33
7.01 6.23 6.71
1.54 1.79 1.68
6.76 5.93 6.40
1.80 1.70 1.80
5.42 4.96 5.17
2.15 1.72 1.91
6.89 6.46 6.69
1.69 1.88 1.79
Girls Boys Total
19.70 22.46 21.29
6.23 5.03 5.70
20.04 19.92 19.99
5.10 5.63 5.29
20.61 19.82 20.26
5.42 6.13 5.72
17.94 20.48 20.19
4.60 5.46 5.01
19.93 20.48 20.19
5.40 5.69 5.53
Girls Boys Total
11.21 14.08 12.86
5.13 5.45 5.47
10.38 12.22 11.09
5.08 5.10 5.15
11.06 12.02 11.48
5.01 6.14 5.53
11.47 11.40 11.43
3.99 5.48 4.79
10.84 12.65 11.68
4.96 5.57 5.32
Girls Boys Total
21.46 21.44 21.45
3.75 2.70 3.16
20.94 20.39 20.72
3.20 2.98 3.12
21.78 20.70 21.31
2.38 3.24 2.82
19.53 18.45 18.95
4.62 5.16 4.89
21.15 20.55 20.87
3.31 3.40 3.36
M/E
GPA
LG
59
Results indicated that in E-types, the linear combination of age, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 43.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a large effect size (adjusted R2 = 0.431, f2 = 0.856). Sex and Learning Goals were not significant variables in the model. In N-types, the linear combination of age, Learning Goals, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 28.7% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a medium effect size (adjusted R2 = 0.287, f2 = 0.455). Sex was not a significant variable in the model. Finally, in M-types, the linear combination of age, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 17.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a medium effect size (adjusted R2 = .171, f2 = 0.263). Sex and Learning Goals were not significant variables in the model. 4. Discussion
SRG
PG
Note: GPA, Grade Point Average (average of self-reported grades for common subjects to all classes); LG, Learning Goals; SRG, Social Reinforcement Goals; PG, Performance Goals. Number of participants (total: girls and boys): 12 (87: 37 and 50), 13 (127: 78 and 49), 14 (91: 51 and 40), 15 (37: 17 and 20).
and Performance Goals (r = .30, p b .01), and negatively related to Social Reinforcement Goals (r = −.16, p b .01). 3.3. Differences in achievement goals according to circadian preference MESC values of 22/29, corresponding to 25/75th percentiles, were used to categorize M-, N- and E-types (93, 136 and 113 adolescents, respectively). Regarding Learning Goals, M-types showed higher scores than N- and E-types, F(2,335) = 20.01, p b .001, η2p = .107. E-types showed the lowest scores. Regarding Social Reinforcement Goals, no differences among chronotypes were found, F(2,335) = 0.96, p = 0.91. Finally, regarding Performance Goals, M-types showed higher scores than E-types without significant differences between N-types and M- or E-types, F(2,335) = 5.23 p b .01, η2p = .030. No sex ∗ chronotype interaction effects were found. 3.4. The influence of achievement goals on self-reported grades according to chronotype Previous analyses indicated that self-reported grades were positively related to morningness/eveningness and achievement goals, which differed among chronotypes. The next step was to test to what extent achievement goals had an influence on academic performance in different chronotypes, also considering age and sex (see Table 2).
This study demonstrated that morningness/eveningness was related to self-reported grades; M-types reported higher Learning and Performance Goals than E-types, both of which were positively related to self-reported academic performance. Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals were more associated to academic performance among E-types, group who reported the lowest Performance Goals scores. Inglés et al. (2009) found that general academic success was more likely every time that Learning and Performance Goals scores increased, whereas was less likely every time that Social Reinforcement Goals increased. Students with high Learning and Performance Goals are students concerned with increasing their own competence and they want to learn in order to achieve good results and advance in their studies. M-types reported higher Learning and Performance Goals than N- and E-types and E-types, respectively. In this line, Önder, Beşoluk, İskender, Masal, and Demirham (2014) found that academic motivations were better in M-types than N- and E-types without significant differences between N- and E-types. Contrary to what was expected, in the current study M- and E-types did not differ in Social Reinforcement Goals, in line with Roeser et al. (2013) who found that chronotypes did not differ in their motivation to appear competent and to conceal incompetence from others, which may be compared with Social Reinforcement Goals assessed here. As in previous research (Escribano et al., 2012; Tonetti et al., 2015a; Tonetti et al., 2015b), morningness was slightly but positively related to self-reported grades; furthermore, morningness was positively related to Learning Goals and Performance Goals, which in turn were related to self-reported grades. Similar results were obtained by Roeser et al. (2013). In their sample, chronotype was not directly related to school performance but morningness/eveningness exerted influence on performance indirectly by affecting daytime sleepiness and learning motivation. In the same line, Short et al. (2013) found an indirect effect of chronotype in school performance through its relation with depressed mood. In general, being younger, higher scores on Performance Goals and lower scores on Social Reinforcement Goals were significantly associated
Table 2 Regression analysis on self-reported grades separated by chronotype. Evening types
Age Sex LG SRG PG
Neither types
Morning types
β
t
R2
β
t
R2
β
t
R2
−.521 −.098 .118 −.326 .257
−6.39⁎⁎⁎ −1.23 1.18 −3.67⁎⁎⁎ 2.61*
.431
−.291 .052 .210 −.274 .314
−3.91⁎⁎⁎ .68 2.28⁎ −3.41⁎⁎⁎ 3.47⁎⁎⁎
.287
−.262 −.176 .152 −.216 .196
−3.01⁎⁎ −1.97 1.59 −2.35⁎ 2.02⁎
.171
Note: Sex: 0 = girls; 1 = boys. LG = Learning Goals; SRG = Social Reinforcement Goals; PG = Performance Goals; R2 = Adjusted R2. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05.
60
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61
with higher self-reported grades. It is worth noting the high contribution of achievement goals to self-reported grades. Preckel, Holling, and Vock (2006) found that underachievement correlated with low levels of need for cognition, achievement motivation, facilitating anxiety, and conscientiousness; nevertheless, it was best explained by low levels of need for cognition and facilitating anxiety. Academic motivation was a significant predictor of academic outcomes after controlling for traditional predictors related to academic performance; specifically, intelligence and intrinsic motivation predicted school grades (R2 = .26) (Vecchioni, Alessandri, & Marsicano, 2014). Önder et al. (2014) found a medium effect size (predictors explaining 15.1% of the variance of Cumulative GPA) considering corrected mid-point of sleep, academic motivation, social jetlag, conscientiousness, intrinsic motivation to surpass themselves, intrinsic motivation to experience pleasant sensations, and neuroticism. In the present study, in which regression model was run split into chronotype, achievement goals appear to have a greater role on selfreported grades among E-types, since the regression model accounted for 43% of the variance in self-reported grades compared to 17% of explained variance in M-types. In both extreme chronotypes, Learning Goals related to student's concerns about increasing their own competence, were not significant predictors. It could be explained because Learning Goals and task value are more distinct across academic domains as Inglés et al. (2009) described when considering the predictive power of Learning Goals for general performance (number of failing grades at the end of the school year) but not for specific subjects (Spanish language and maths); nevertheless, the reason why in this study Learning Goals were more associated to self-reported grades among N-types needs to be further explored. Differences among chronotypes in personality traits might explain why E-types tend to get lower school grades. Students who are intellectually curious, disciplined, organized and show low scores on neuroticism tended to have higher academic motivation (Önder et al., 2014). Academic performance has been found to correlate positively with agreeableness and conscientiousness (Poropat, 2009), more frequent among M-types, while neuroticism and psychoticism, more typical of E-types, may impair academic success (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). E-type adolescents show a higher preference toward individual values and are the ones with the highest risk for being engaged in non-normative behaviours (Muro et al., 2012; Vollmer & Randler, 2012) what may affect the way in which they cope with school performance. According to Roeser et al. (2013) M-types presented stronger learning motivation whereas refusal to work, which was associated to poorer school performance, was more pronounced in E-types. In the same line, avoidant procrastination is related to eveningness, that is to say, E-types tend to avoid some duties during the day making them less conscientious and less likely to fulfil certain tasks which require immediate attention (Díaz-Morales, Ferrari, & Cohen, 2008). This study has some limitations that require further research. First of all, academic performance was self-reported. Although recent studies found that self-reported grades are a good estimate of actual grades (Escribano & Díaz-Morales, 2014b), it would be interesting to replicate these findings by using actual grades. Another limitation is the sample size and its reduced age range (secondary students). Since the association between academic performance and evening preference changes over time (Tonetti et al., 2015a; Tonetti et al., 2015b), the large effect size of the academic goals in school performance among E-types should be replicated using well-known predictors of academic performance in a higher sample with a wider age range. The reason why Learning and Performance Goals are lower among E-types needs to be further explored.
Conflict of interest The authors indicate no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by both research grants of Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Ref: PSI2008-04086/PSIC) and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ref. PSI2011-26967).
References Adan, A., Archer, S. N., Hidalgo, M. P., Di Milia, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2012). Circadian typology: A comprehensive review. Chronobiology International, 29, 1153–1175. Arbabi, T., Vollmer, C., Dörfler, T., & Randler, C. (2015). The influence of chronotype and intelligence on academic achievement in primary school is mediated by conscientiousness, midpoint of sleep and motivation. Chronobiology International, 32, 349–357. Beşoluk, Ş. (2011). Morningness–eveningness preferences and university entrance examination scores of high school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 248–252. Beşoluk, Ş., Önder, I., & Deveci, I. (2011). Morningness–eveningness preference and academic achievement of university students. Chronobiology International, 28, 118–125. Carskadon, M. A., Vieira, C., & Acebo, C. (1993). Association between puberty and delayed phase preference. Sleep, 16, 258–262. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Crowley, S. J., Van Reen, E., LeBourgeois, M. K., Acebo, C., Tarokh, L., Seifer, R., ... Carskadon, M. A. (2014). A longitudinal assessment of sleep timing, circadian phase, and phase angle of entrainment across human adolescence. PloS One, 9, e112199 http://dx.doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112199. Dewald, J. F., Meijer, A. M., Oort, F. J., Kerkhof, G. A., & Bögels, S. M. (2010). The influence of sleep quality, sleep duration and sleepiness on school performance in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 14, 179–189. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2013). Circadian preference and thinking styles: Implications for school achievement. Chronobiology International, 30, 1231–1239. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2007). Morning and evening-types: Exploring their personality styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 769–778. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2015). Morningness–Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC): Spanish normative data and factorial invariance according to sex and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 116–120. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2014). Consequences of adolescent's evening preferences on psychological functioning: A review. Anales de Psicología, 30, 1096–1104. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2015). Social jetlag, academic achievement and cognitive performance: Understanding sex/gender differences. Chronobiology International, 32, 822–831. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Escribano, C., & Jankowski, K. (2015). Chronotype and time-of-day effects on mood during school day. Chronobiology International, 32, 37–42. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Escribano, C., Jankowski, K., Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2014). Evening adolescents: The role of family relationships and pubertal development. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 425–432. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Ferrari, J. R., & Cohen, J. R. (2008). Indecision and avoidant procrastination: The role of morningness–eveningness and time perspective in chronic delay lifestyles. The Journal of General Psychology, 135, 228–240. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Escribano, C., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2014a). Daily fluctuations at school considering starting time and chronotype: An exploratory study. Chronobiology International, 31, 761–769. Escribano, C., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2014b). Are self-reported grades a good estimate of academic achievement? Studies in Psychology, 35, 168–182. Escribano, C., Díaz-Morales, J. F., Delgado, P., & Collado, M. J. (2012). Morningness– eveningness and school performance among Spanish adolescents: Further evidence. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 409–413. Fabbri, M., Antonietti, A., Giorgetti, M., Tonetti, L., & Natale, V. (2007). Circadian typology and style of thinking differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 175–180. Fallone, G., Acebo, C., Seifer, R., & Carskadon, M. (2005). Experimental restriction of sleep opportunity in children: Effects on teacher ratings. Sleep, 28, 1561–1567. Hagenauer, M. H., Perryman, J. I., Lee, T. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2009). Adolescent changes in the homeostatic and circadian regulation of sleep. Developmental Neuroscience, 31, 276–284. Hayamizu, T., & Weiner, B. (1991). A test of Dweck's model of achievement goals a related to perceptions of ability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 226–234. Hayamizu, T., Ito, A., & Yoshizaki, K. (1989). Cognitive motivational processes mediated by achievement goal tendencies. Japanese Psychological Research, 31, 179–189. Horzum, M. B., Önder, I., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2014). Chronotype and academic achievement among online learning students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 106–111. Inglés, C. J., García-Fernández, J. M., Castejón, J. L., Valle, A., Delgado, B., & Marzo, J. C. (2009). Reliability and validity evidence of scores on the achievement goal tendencies questionnaire in a sample of Spanish students of compulsory secondary education. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1048–1060. Kanazawa, S., & Perina, K. (2009). Why night owls are more intelligent. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 685–690.
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61 Muro, A., Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., & Adan, A. (2012). Circadian typology and sensation seeking in adolescents. Chronobiology International, 29, 1376–1382. Önder, I., Beşoluk, Ş., İskender, M., Masal, E., & Demirham, E. (2014). Circadian preferences, sleep quality and sleep patterns, personality, academic motivation and academic achievement of university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 184–192. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Vock, M. (2006). Academic underachievement: Relationship with cognitive motivation, achievement motivation, and conscientiousness. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 401–411. Preckel, F., Lipnevich, A. A., Boehme, K., Brandner, L., Georgi, K., Könen, T., ... Roberts, R. D. (2013). Morningness–eveningness and educational outcomes: The lark has an advantage over the owl at high school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 114–134. Randler, C., & Frech, D. (2009). Young people's time-of-day preferences affect their school performance. Journal of Youth Studies, 12, 653–667. Randler, C., & Saliger, L. (2011). Relationship between morningness–eveningness and temperament and character dimensions in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 148–152. 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, 27, 1123–1133. Roeser, K., Schlarb, A. A., & Kübler, A. (2013). The Chronotype-Academic Performance Model (CAM): Daytime sleepiness and learning motivation link chronotype and school performance in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 836–840.
61
Short, M. A., Gradisar, M., Lack, L. C., & Wright, H. R. (2013). The impact of sleep on adolescent depress mood, alertness and academic performance. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1025–1033. Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80–90. Tonetti, L., Adan, A., Di Milia, L., Randler, C., & Natale, V. (2015a). Measures of circadian preference in childhood and adolescence: A review. European Psychiatry, 30, 576–582. Tonetti, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2015b). Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiology International, 32, 792–801. Tsaousis, I. (2010). Circadian preferences and personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 24, 356–373. Vecchioni, M., Alessandri, G., & Marsicano, G. (2014). Academic motivation predicts educational attainment: Does gender make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 124–131. Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2012). Circadian preferences and personality values: Morning types prefer social values, evening types individual values. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 738–743. Vollmer, C., Pötsch, F., & Randler, C. (2013). Morningness is associated with better gradings and higher attention in class. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 167–173. Wolfson, A., & Carskadon, M. (2003). Understanding adolescents' sleep patterns and school performance: A critical appraisal. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 7, 491–506.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Are achievement goals different among morning and evening-type adolescents? Cristina Escribano ⁎, Juan Francisco Díaz-Morales Departamento de Psicología Diferencial y del Trabajo, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, s/n, 28223 Madrid, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 25 June 2015 Received in revised form 21 August 2015 Accepted 22 August 2015 Available online 7 September 2015 Keywords: Morningness–eveningness Learning goals Performance goals Academic performance
a b s t r a c t The interest in the extent to which time-of-day preferences affect school performance is increasing. Apart from biological factors, Morning and Evening types differ in their lifestyle and personality traits which may have implications into diverse areas such as their motivation to learn. Taking into account available data, the aim of the present study was to investigate achievement goals which Morning-, Neither- and Evening-type adolescents accomplish at school. Participants were 342 students aged 12 to 15 (53.5% girls). Morning-types showed higher Learning and Performance Goals than Evening-types, and these goals were positively related to self-reported academic performance. Achievement goals were more associated to self-reported grades in Evening-types than in Neither- and Morning-types. It seems that encouraging pupils to achieve good results in order to advance in their studies may improve school performance, especially among Evening-types. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In recent years, the interest in the influence of individual time-ofday preferences on academic performance has been increased (Horzum, Önder, & Beşoluk, 2014; Tonetti, Natale & Randler, 2015). Morning-types (M-types) or “larks” prefer to wake up and go to bed early and feel at their best moment during the morning (mental, physical, and social activities) whereas Evening-types (E-types) or “owls” have difficulty in waking up early as they prefer later bedtimes and rise times, become progressively more alert throughout the day and feel at their best moment at the end of the day. Neither-types (N-types) show an intermediate position and represent the majority of the population. Morningness/eveningness is usually assessed by self-reported measures (Adan et al., 2012; Díaz-Morales, 2015; Tonetti, Adan, Di Milia, Randler & Natale, 2015). A change toward eveningness appears during puberty, consequence of both the maturation processes typical of puberty (Hagenauer, Perryman, Lee, & Carskadon, 2009), and the many changes in the adolescent's life such as school demands, new social relationships, and family atmosphere (Crowley et al., 2014; Díaz-Morales & Escribano 2014; Díaz-Morales, Escribano, Jankowski, Vollmer, & Randler, 2014). Students are usually taught and tested during the morning school day despite the shift toward eveningness during adolescence. For this reason, morning school schedules seem to be an advantage for M-types, who tend to obtain higher grades and better attention levels (Escribano & Díaz-Morales, 2014a; Vollmer, Pötsch, & Randler, 2013). ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Escribano), [email protected] (J.F. Díaz-Morales).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.032 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Morningness/eveningness has also been related to personality traits (Adan et al., 2012). Previous studies indicated that conscientiousness was positively related with morningness followed by agreeableness. Openness to experience, extraversion and neuroticism were negatively associated (see Tsaousis, 2010). Furthermore, E-types showed a more pronounced intolerance for repetitive experiences and routine tasks (Muro, Gomà-i-Freixanet, & Adan, 2012), and lower persistence scores (Randler & Saliger, 2011), characteristics that, a priori, are relevant to an adequate performance at school. In addition, the study of the relationship between learning–thinking styles and chronotype has demonstrated that M- and E-types differ in cerebral hemisphere preference and E-types were described as right-thinkers (i.e. right-hemisphere preference) who were creative, intuitive, affective, and inclined to cultural individualism, and M-types as left-thinkers (i.e. left-hemisphere preference) who preferred verbal and analytic strategies in processing information, and cultural collectivism (Díaz-Morales, 2007; Fabbri, Antonietti, Giorgetti, Tonetti, & Natale, 2007). Hemisphere preference has been related to academic performance being M-types and leftthinkers the group who reported the highest subjective level of achievement and E-types and right-thinkers the group who reported the lowest level (Díaz-Morales & Escribano, 2013). Several researchers have reported that E-types obtain worse school performance (e.g. Beşoluk, Önder, & Deveci, 2011; Escribano, Díaz-Morales, Delgado, & Collado, 2012; Preckel et al., 2013; Randler & Frech, 2009) even though they tend to achieve higher scores on intelligence tests (Díaz-Morales & Escribano, 2015; Kanazawa & Perina, 2009; Roberts & Kyllonen, 1999). Apart from the time at which they attend classes (Beşoluk, 2011; Beşoluk et al., 2011; Vollmer et al., 2013), thinking styles (DíazMorales & Escribano, 2013) or sleep patterns (Dewald, Meijer, Oort, Kerkhof, & Bögels, 2010; Fallone, Acebo, Seifer, & Carskadon, 2005),
58
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61
another factor that may contribute to explain why E-types report lower academic performance may be the role of motivation and achievement goals (Arbabi, Vollmer, Dörfler, & Randler, 2015). Achievement goal theory supports the existence of purposes that guide students to engage with their school work in order to increase their own competence (Learning Goals) or not appear incompetent in front of others and/or oneself (Performance Goals) (Dweck, 1986; Inglés et al., 2009). Motivation and achievement goals contribute to explain learning and academic achievement (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009) even in early adolescents after controlling for important predictors of achievement (Arbabi et al., 2015). Morningness is associated to less sleepiness, which in turn is associated to higher motivation to learn whereas eveningness seems to be associated to dysfunctional attitudes toward work. Insufficient motivation may promote learning difficulties and lower school performance (Roeser, Schlarb, & Kübler, 2013). According to Short, Gradisar, Lack, and Wright (2013) adolescents who reported poor sleep quality, reduced alertness and more evening orientation were more likely to report worse grades through the association with depressed mood. Moreover, E-types exhibited the lowest mood levels throughout the school day (Díaz-Morales, Escribano, & Jankowski, 2015). Taking into account available data about lifestyle, personality traits, thinking styles, sleep patterns and school schedule, the aim of the present study was to investigate achievement goals which are accomplished in school and the way in which they are associated to self-reported grades considering chronotype in order to test the way in which achievement goals have an influence on school performance in different chronotypes. In this study, the association between achievement goals and academic performance will be tested per chronotype in order to avoid masking individual effects related to circadian preferences. As it is known, it was hypothesised that Learning and Performance Goals would be positively related to self-reported grades whereas Social Reinforcement Goals would be negatively related. Moreover, M-types would show higher Learning and Performance Goals oriented to learn and advance in their studies, whereas E-types would show more Social Reinforcement Goals referred to the interest in avoiding rejection from others since they would be less motivated to learn trying to increase their own competence.
Learning Goals scale consists of 8 items related to student interest in acquiring new knowledge and increasing their competence (e.g. “I study because I like knowing new things”). Social Reinforcement Goals scale consists of 6 items related to the interest of the students in obtaining approval and avoiding rejection from others (e.g. “I study because I don't want to be disliked by the teacher”). Performance Goals scale consists of 6 items which assess the interest in studying in order to achieve good results and advance in their studies (e.g. “I study because I want to get good grades”). AGTQ was initially created by Hayamizu, Ito, and Yoshizaki (1989) and designed to measure achievement goal tendencies in Japanese high school students. Later, a revised American version was developed by Hayamizu and Weiner (1991). In this study, the Spanish version was used (see Inglés et al., 2009). Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the present sample was: Learning Goals = 0.81, Social Reinforcement Goals = 0.77, and Performance Goals = 0.77. 2.2.3. School performance Self-reported grades: students reported last year grades in common subjects for all grades of Compulsory Secondary Education (Spanish language, mathematics, English language and social sciences) and the mean of grades was calculated (GPA). Several studies have also used this method (see Wolfson & Carskadon, 2003).The Spanish grading system is coded from 0 (the worst) to 10 (the best), for this, the same scale (0 to 10) was used to self-reported grades. 2.3. Procedure and data analysis
2. Method
All participants were tested in groups ranging in size from 20 to 25 students in school schedule and in their own classroom. Assessment took about 40 min. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was run in order to test age and sex differences in all variables and Partial correlations (age as covariate) to test the relationship among all variables. MANCOVA (controlling for age) was run to test differences in achievement goals according to chronotype (M-, N- and E-types). Finally, multiple regression analysis was run to detect the contribution of age, sex and achievement goals (Learning, Social Reinforcement and Performance Goals) to selfreported grades separately for each chronotype. Effect size was calculated using the following procedure [ f 2 = R2 / (1 − R2)] (Cohen, 1992).
2.1. Participants
3. Results
Participants in this study were 342 students aged 12–15 (M = 13.23, SD = 0.95) attending three high-schools of Madrid (Spain). 53.5% were girls. The board of directors authorized the study after obtaining the parents' consent. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
3.1. Preliminary analysis: age and sex differences
2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Morningness–eveningness The Morningness–Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC, Carskadon, Vieira, & Acebo, 1993) has 10 items about the preferred timing of certain activities such as free time, tests, sleep timing, and so forth. Items have a response scale with four or five options and the total score ranges from 10 (eveningness) to 43 (morningness). Spanish version was used (DíazMorales, 2015) which showed a satisfactory internal consistency for the present sample (Cronbach's alpha) was α = 0.73.
Regarding age, MANOVA indicated differences in morningness/ eveningness, F(3,334) = 4.16, p b .01, η2p = .036; self-reported grades, F(3,334) = 20.53, p b .001, η2p = 0.156; Learning Goals, F(3,334) = 2.59, p b .05, η2p = 0.23, and Performance Goals, F(3,334) = 5.41, p b .001, η2p = 0.046. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that pupils aged 15 showed the lowest Learning and Performance Goals, and reported lower morningness than pupils aged 12 or 13; self-reported grades decreased progressively with age. With respect to sex, girls reported higher grades than boys, F(1,334) = 5.47, p b .05, η2p = 0.016, whereas boys showed higher Social Reinforcement Goals than girls, F(1,334) = 4.87, p b .05, η2p = 0.014. No effects of sex ∗ chronotype interaction were found (see Table 1). 3.2. Relationship among variables
2.2.2. Achievement goals 2.2.2.1. Achievement Goal Tendencies Questionnaire (AGTQ, Hayamizu & Weiner, 1991). The AGTQ is a self-report measure which consists of 20 items to measure three academic goal tendencies: Learning Goals, Social Reinforcement Goals, and Performance Goals. Students rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always).
Given that correlations separated by sex were similar, only data for total sample are reported. Since age effects were found in preliminary analyses, age was controlled as a covariate. Morningness was positively related to self-reported grades (r = .11, p b .05), Learning Goals (r = .36, p b .001), and Performance Goals (r = .23, p b .001); self-reported grades were positively related to Learning Goals (r = .22, p b .001),
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61 Table 1 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) according to age and sex for morningness/ eveningness (M/E), achievement goals and self-reported grades. 12
13
14
15
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Girls Boys Total
25.32 26.88 26.21
3.89 5.11 4.67
25.61 25.61 25.61
4.43 4.05 4.27
25.25 25.02 25.15
4.64 4.48 4.54
23.23 23.80 23.00
4.83 5.67 5.23
25.23 25.51 25.36
4.44 4.85 4.63
Girls Boys Total
7.50 7.72 7.62
1.21 1.43 1.33
7.01 6.23 6.71
1.54 1.79 1.68
6.76 5.93 6.40
1.80 1.70 1.80
5.42 4.96 5.17
2.15 1.72 1.91
6.89 6.46 6.69
1.69 1.88 1.79
Girls Boys Total
19.70 22.46 21.29
6.23 5.03 5.70
20.04 19.92 19.99
5.10 5.63 5.29
20.61 19.82 20.26
5.42 6.13 5.72
17.94 20.48 20.19
4.60 5.46 5.01
19.93 20.48 20.19
5.40 5.69 5.53
Girls Boys Total
11.21 14.08 12.86
5.13 5.45 5.47
10.38 12.22 11.09
5.08 5.10 5.15
11.06 12.02 11.48
5.01 6.14 5.53
11.47 11.40 11.43
3.99 5.48 4.79
10.84 12.65 11.68
4.96 5.57 5.32
Girls Boys Total
21.46 21.44 21.45
3.75 2.70 3.16
20.94 20.39 20.72
3.20 2.98 3.12
21.78 20.70 21.31
2.38 3.24 2.82
19.53 18.45 18.95
4.62 5.16 4.89
21.15 20.55 20.87
3.31 3.40 3.36
M/E
GPA
LG
59
Results indicated that in E-types, the linear combination of age, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 43.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a large effect size (adjusted R2 = 0.431, f2 = 0.856). Sex and Learning Goals were not significant variables in the model. In N-types, the linear combination of age, Learning Goals, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 28.7% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a medium effect size (adjusted R2 = 0.287, f2 = 0.455). Sex was not a significant variable in the model. Finally, in M-types, the linear combination of age, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for 17.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a medium effect size (adjusted R2 = .171, f2 = 0.263). Sex and Learning Goals were not significant variables in the model. 4. Discussion
SRG
PG
Note: GPA, Grade Point Average (average of self-reported grades for common subjects to all classes); LG, Learning Goals; SRG, Social Reinforcement Goals; PG, Performance Goals. Number of participants (total: girls and boys): 12 (87: 37 and 50), 13 (127: 78 and 49), 14 (91: 51 and 40), 15 (37: 17 and 20).
and Performance Goals (r = .30, p b .01), and negatively related to Social Reinforcement Goals (r = −.16, p b .01). 3.3. Differences in achievement goals according to circadian preference MESC values of 22/29, corresponding to 25/75th percentiles, were used to categorize M-, N- and E-types (93, 136 and 113 adolescents, respectively). Regarding Learning Goals, M-types showed higher scores than N- and E-types, F(2,335) = 20.01, p b .001, η2p = .107. E-types showed the lowest scores. Regarding Social Reinforcement Goals, no differences among chronotypes were found, F(2,335) = 0.96, p = 0.91. Finally, regarding Performance Goals, M-types showed higher scores than E-types without significant differences between N-types and M- or E-types, F(2,335) = 5.23 p b .01, η2p = .030. No sex ∗ chronotype interaction effects were found. 3.4. The influence of achievement goals on self-reported grades according to chronotype Previous analyses indicated that self-reported grades were positively related to morningness/eveningness and achievement goals, which differed among chronotypes. The next step was to test to what extent achievement goals had an influence on academic performance in different chronotypes, also considering age and sex (see Table 2).
This study demonstrated that morningness/eveningness was related to self-reported grades; M-types reported higher Learning and Performance Goals than E-types, both of which were positively related to self-reported academic performance. Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals were more associated to academic performance among E-types, group who reported the lowest Performance Goals scores. Inglés et al. (2009) found that general academic success was more likely every time that Learning and Performance Goals scores increased, whereas was less likely every time that Social Reinforcement Goals increased. Students with high Learning and Performance Goals are students concerned with increasing their own competence and they want to learn in order to achieve good results and advance in their studies. M-types reported higher Learning and Performance Goals than N- and E-types and E-types, respectively. In this line, Önder, Beşoluk, İskender, Masal, and Demirham (2014) found that academic motivations were better in M-types than N- and E-types without significant differences between N- and E-types. Contrary to what was expected, in the current study M- and E-types did not differ in Social Reinforcement Goals, in line with Roeser et al. (2013) who found that chronotypes did not differ in their motivation to appear competent and to conceal incompetence from others, which may be compared with Social Reinforcement Goals assessed here. As in previous research (Escribano et al., 2012; Tonetti et al., 2015a; Tonetti et al., 2015b), morningness was slightly but positively related to self-reported grades; furthermore, morningness was positively related to Learning Goals and Performance Goals, which in turn were related to self-reported grades. Similar results were obtained by Roeser et al. (2013). In their sample, chronotype was not directly related to school performance but morningness/eveningness exerted influence on performance indirectly by affecting daytime sleepiness and learning motivation. In the same line, Short et al. (2013) found an indirect effect of chronotype in school performance through its relation with depressed mood. In general, being younger, higher scores on Performance Goals and lower scores on Social Reinforcement Goals were significantly associated
Table 2 Regression analysis on self-reported grades separated by chronotype. Evening types
Age Sex LG SRG PG
Neither types
Morning types
β
t
R2
β
t
R2
β
t
R2
−.521 −.098 .118 −.326 .257
−6.39⁎⁎⁎ −1.23 1.18 −3.67⁎⁎⁎ 2.61*
.431
−.291 .052 .210 −.274 .314
−3.91⁎⁎⁎ .68 2.28⁎ −3.41⁎⁎⁎ 3.47⁎⁎⁎
.287
−.262 −.176 .152 −.216 .196
−3.01⁎⁎ −1.97 1.59 −2.35⁎ 2.02⁎
.171
Note: Sex: 0 = girls; 1 = boys. LG = Learning Goals; SRG = Social Reinforcement Goals; PG = Performance Goals; R2 = Adjusted R2. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05.
60
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61
with higher self-reported grades. It is worth noting the high contribution of achievement goals to self-reported grades. Preckel, Holling, and Vock (2006) found that underachievement correlated with low levels of need for cognition, achievement motivation, facilitating anxiety, and conscientiousness; nevertheless, it was best explained by low levels of need for cognition and facilitating anxiety. Academic motivation was a significant predictor of academic outcomes after controlling for traditional predictors related to academic performance; specifically, intelligence and intrinsic motivation predicted school grades (R2 = .26) (Vecchioni, Alessandri, & Marsicano, 2014). Önder et al. (2014) found a medium effect size (predictors explaining 15.1% of the variance of Cumulative GPA) considering corrected mid-point of sleep, academic motivation, social jetlag, conscientiousness, intrinsic motivation to surpass themselves, intrinsic motivation to experience pleasant sensations, and neuroticism. In the present study, in which regression model was run split into chronotype, achievement goals appear to have a greater role on selfreported grades among E-types, since the regression model accounted for 43% of the variance in self-reported grades compared to 17% of explained variance in M-types. In both extreme chronotypes, Learning Goals related to student's concerns about increasing their own competence, were not significant predictors. It could be explained because Learning Goals and task value are more distinct across academic domains as Inglés et al. (2009) described when considering the predictive power of Learning Goals for general performance (number of failing grades at the end of the school year) but not for specific subjects (Spanish language and maths); nevertheless, the reason why in this study Learning Goals were more associated to self-reported grades among N-types needs to be further explored. Differences among chronotypes in personality traits might explain why E-types tend to get lower school grades. Students who are intellectually curious, disciplined, organized and show low scores on neuroticism tended to have higher academic motivation (Önder et al., 2014). Academic performance has been found to correlate positively with agreeableness and conscientiousness (Poropat, 2009), more frequent among M-types, while neuroticism and psychoticism, more typical of E-types, may impair academic success (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). E-type adolescents show a higher preference toward individual values and are the ones with the highest risk for being engaged in non-normative behaviours (Muro et al., 2012; Vollmer & Randler, 2012) what may affect the way in which they cope with school performance. According to Roeser et al. (2013) M-types presented stronger learning motivation whereas refusal to work, which was associated to poorer school performance, was more pronounced in E-types. In the same line, avoidant procrastination is related to eveningness, that is to say, E-types tend to avoid some duties during the day making them less conscientious and less likely to fulfil certain tasks which require immediate attention (Díaz-Morales, Ferrari, & Cohen, 2008). This study has some limitations that require further research. First of all, academic performance was self-reported. Although recent studies found that self-reported grades are a good estimate of actual grades (Escribano & Díaz-Morales, 2014b), it would be interesting to replicate these findings by using actual grades. Another limitation is the sample size and its reduced age range (secondary students). Since the association between academic performance and evening preference changes over time (Tonetti et al., 2015a; Tonetti et al., 2015b), the large effect size of the academic goals in school performance among E-types should be replicated using well-known predictors of academic performance in a higher sample with a wider age range. The reason why Learning and Performance Goals are lower among E-types needs to be further explored.
Conflict of interest The authors indicate no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by both research grants of Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Ref: PSI2008-04086/PSIC) and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ref. PSI2011-26967).
References Adan, A., Archer, S. N., Hidalgo, M. P., Di Milia, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2012). Circadian typology: A comprehensive review. Chronobiology International, 29, 1153–1175. Arbabi, T., Vollmer, C., Dörfler, T., & Randler, C. (2015). The influence of chronotype and intelligence on academic achievement in primary school is mediated by conscientiousness, midpoint of sleep and motivation. Chronobiology International, 32, 349–357. Beşoluk, Ş. (2011). Morningness–eveningness preferences and university entrance examination scores of high school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 248–252. Beşoluk, Ş., Önder, I., & Deveci, I. (2011). Morningness–eveningness preference and academic achievement of university students. Chronobiology International, 28, 118–125. Carskadon, M. A., Vieira, C., & Acebo, C. (1993). Association between puberty and delayed phase preference. Sleep, 16, 258–262. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Crowley, S. J., Van Reen, E., LeBourgeois, M. K., Acebo, C., Tarokh, L., Seifer, R., ... Carskadon, M. A. (2014). A longitudinal assessment of sleep timing, circadian phase, and phase angle of entrainment across human adolescence. PloS One, 9, e112199 http://dx.doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112199. Dewald, J. F., Meijer, A. M., Oort, F. J., Kerkhof, G. A., & Bögels, S. M. (2010). The influence of sleep quality, sleep duration and sleepiness on school performance in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 14, 179–189. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2013). Circadian preference and thinking styles: Implications for school achievement. Chronobiology International, 30, 1231–1239. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2007). Morning and evening-types: Exploring their personality styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 769–778. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2015). Morningness–Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC): Spanish normative data and factorial invariance according to sex and age. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 116–120. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2014). Consequences of adolescent's evening preferences on psychological functioning: A review. Anales de Psicología, 30, 1096–1104. Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano, C. (2015). Social jetlag, academic achievement and cognitive performance: Understanding sex/gender differences. Chronobiology International, 32, 822–831. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Escribano, C., & Jankowski, K. (2015). Chronotype and time-of-day effects on mood during school day. Chronobiology International, 32, 37–42. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Escribano, C., Jankowski, K., Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2014). Evening adolescents: The role of family relationships and pubertal development. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 425–432. Díaz-Morales, J. F., Ferrari, J. R., & Cohen, J. R. (2008). Indecision and avoidant procrastination: The role of morningness–eveningness and time perspective in chronic delay lifestyles. The Journal of General Psychology, 135, 228–240. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Escribano, C., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2014a). Daily fluctuations at school considering starting time and chronotype: An exploratory study. Chronobiology International, 31, 761–769. Escribano, C., & Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2014b). Are self-reported grades a good estimate of academic achievement? Studies in Psychology, 35, 168–182. Escribano, C., Díaz-Morales, J. F., Delgado, P., & Collado, M. J. (2012). Morningness– eveningness and school performance among Spanish adolescents: Further evidence. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 409–413. Fabbri, M., Antonietti, A., Giorgetti, M., Tonetti, L., & Natale, V. (2007). Circadian typology and style of thinking differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 175–180. Fallone, G., Acebo, C., Seifer, R., & Carskadon, M. (2005). Experimental restriction of sleep opportunity in children: Effects on teacher ratings. Sleep, 28, 1561–1567. Hagenauer, M. H., Perryman, J. I., Lee, T. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2009). Adolescent changes in the homeostatic and circadian regulation of sleep. Developmental Neuroscience, 31, 276–284. Hayamizu, T., & Weiner, B. (1991). A test of Dweck's model of achievement goals a related to perceptions of ability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 226–234. Hayamizu, T., Ito, A., & Yoshizaki, K. (1989). Cognitive motivational processes mediated by achievement goal tendencies. Japanese Psychological Research, 31, 179–189. Horzum, M. B., Önder, I., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2014). Chronotype and academic achievement among online learning students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 106–111. Inglés, C. J., García-Fernández, J. M., Castejón, J. L., Valle, A., Delgado, B., & Marzo, J. C. (2009). Reliability and validity evidence of scores on the achievement goal tendencies questionnaire in a sample of Spanish students of compulsory secondary education. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1048–1060. Kanazawa, S., & Perina, K. (2009). Why night owls are more intelligent. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 685–690.
C. Escribano, J.F. Díaz-Morales / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 57–61 Muro, A., Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., & Adan, A. (2012). Circadian typology and sensation seeking in adolescents. Chronobiology International, 29, 1376–1382. Önder, I., Beşoluk, Ş., İskender, M., Masal, E., & Demirham, E. (2014). Circadian preferences, sleep quality and sleep patterns, personality, academic motivation and academic achievement of university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 184–192. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Vock, M. (2006). Academic underachievement: Relationship with cognitive motivation, achievement motivation, and conscientiousness. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 401–411. Preckel, F., Lipnevich, A. A., Boehme, K., Brandner, L., Georgi, K., Könen, T., ... Roberts, R. D. (2013). Morningness–eveningness and educational outcomes: The lark has an advantage over the owl at high school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 114–134. Randler, C., & Frech, D. (2009). Young people's time-of-day preferences affect their school performance. Journal of Youth Studies, 12, 653–667. Randler, C., & Saliger, L. (2011). Relationship between morningness–eveningness and temperament and character dimensions in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 148–152. 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, 27, 1123–1133. Roeser, K., Schlarb, A. A., & Kübler, A. (2013). The Chronotype-Academic Performance Model (CAM): Daytime sleepiness and learning motivation link chronotype and school performance in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 836–840.
61
Short, M. A., Gradisar, M., Lack, L. C., & Wright, H. R. (2013). The impact of sleep on adolescent depress mood, alertness and academic performance. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1025–1033. Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80–90. Tonetti, L., Adan, A., Di Milia, L., Randler, C., & Natale, V. (2015a). Measures of circadian preference in childhood and adolescence: A review. European Psychiatry, 30, 576–582. Tonetti, L., Natale, V., & Randler, C. (2015b). Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiology International, 32, 792–801. Tsaousis, I. (2010). Circadian preferences and personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 24, 356–373. Vecchioni, M., Alessandri, G., & Marsicano, G. (2014). Academic motivation predicts educational attainment: Does gender make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 124–131. Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2012). Circadian preferences and personality values: Morning types prefer social values, evening types individual values. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 738–743. Vollmer, C., Pötsch, F., & Randler, C. (2013). Morningness is associated with better gradings and higher attention in class. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 167–173. Wolfson, A., & Carskadon, M. (2003). Understanding adolescents' sleep patterns and school performance: A critical appraisal. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 7, 491–506.