- Email: [email protected]
Cognitive failures and circadian typology
Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Cognitive failures and circadian typology Luciano Mecacci a
a,*
, Stefania Righi a, Gastone Rocchetti
b
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, via s. Niccol o 93, 50125 Firenze, Italy b Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR, viale Marx 15, 00137 Roma, Italy Received 9 September 2002; received in revised form 23 July 2003; accepted 24 August 2003 Available online 20 October 2003
Abstract The relationship between the occurrence of cognitive failures, personality, anxiety, and morningness– eveningness dimensions was investigated in a sample of Italian undergraduate students (N ¼ 390). Participants were administered the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire by Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald, and Parkes (1982), the Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and the State-Trait Anxiety Test. Participants having higher scores in neuroticism and anxiety reported to experience cognitive failures more frequently than participants with lower scores. Moreover extreme morning-types reported more cognitive failures than extreme-evening-types. The difference between the two circadian types was also related to the time of day when the failures usually happen: in extreme morningtypes cognitive failures occurred especially in the evening hours, whereas in extreme-evening-types the occurrence was distributed more uniformly through all the day. Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Cognitive failures questionnaire; Circadian typology; Time of day; Anxiety; Neuroticism
1. Introduction Self-reported minor deficits, slips or errors in perception, attention, memory, and motor functions in everyday life were thoroughly investigated by using the cognitive failure questionnaire or CFQ (Broadbent et al., 1982). A wide literature has shown that self-reported cognitive failures as measured by CFQ correlate with objective indices of performance, especially in attention tasks (Manly, Robertson, Galloway, & Hawkins, 1999; Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997; Tipper & Baylis, 1987), and frequency of involvement in traffic *
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-2491628; fax: +39-055-2345326. E-mail address: [email protected]fi.it (L. Mecacci).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.004
108
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
accidents (Broadbent, Broadbent, & Jones, 1986; Klumb, 1995; Larson, Adelrton, Neideffer, & Underhill, 1997; Martin, 1986; Martin & Jones, 1983), as well as with personality traits, anxiety, stress, and boredom (Broadbent et al., 1982; Houston, 1989; Mahoney, Dalby, & King, 1998; Matthews, Coyle, & Craig, 1990; Matthews & Wells, 1988; Merckelbach, Muris, Nijman, & de Jing, 1996; Wallace, Vodanovich, & Restino, 2003). Although CFQ was originally supposed to measure a general factor of cognitive failure (Broadbent et al., 1982), recent studies have shown that CFQ consists of several factors (Larson et al., 1997; Matthews et al., 1990; Pollina, Greene, Tunick, & Puckett, 1992; Wallace, Kass, & Stanny, 2002). The heritability of patterns of cognitive failures as indexed by CFQ scores was also investigated (Boomsma, 1998). One may expect that cognitive failures occur at different hours of the day because a large variety of studies has shown that levels of performance and amount and/or types of errors are related to the time of day (Broadbent, 1971; Folkard & Monk, 1985; Monk, 1991). On the other hand a complementary line of research has pointed out that circadian typology is a relevant factor in determining the individual level and quality of performance through the day. Indeed two circadian types, morning-types (so-called ‘‘larks’’) and evening-types (‘‘owls’’), have been described as two extreme groups of population in relation to their preferences for habitual activities at the morning and evening, respectively. The circadian typology reflects individual differences in human circadian biological rhythms, as shown by the differential diurnal variation in several physiological variables (Folkard & Monk, 1985; Kerkhof, 1985; Tankova, Adan, & Buela-Casal, 1994). Individual differences in circadian variations were taken into account in various fields of basic and applied psychological research (e.g., shiftwork, sport, education, etc.) by using the € morningness–eveningness questionnaire or MEQ (Horne & Ostberg, 1976) associated to measures of physiological and behavioral variables (Kerkhof, 1985; Matthews, 1988; Mecacci & Rocchetti, 1998; Mecacci, Scaglione, & Vitrano, 1991; Mecacci, Zani, Rocchetti, & Lucioli, 1986; Natale, Alzani, & Cicogna, 2003; Natale & Cicogna, 2002; Smith et al., 2002; Tankova et al., 1994; Wilson, 1990). The hypothesis may be advanced that a differential daily distribution of cognitive failures might be reported in relation to the individual circadian typology: those who prefer or feel themselves more comfortable in doing habitual activities in the morning, for instance, might have experienced that cognitive failures occurred more frequently in the evening (vice versa for the evening-types). Negative feedbacks from having been engaged in activities at a time of the day, not corresponding to own circadian typology, might reinforce the individual diurnal preferences. Thus a correlation between the self expressed preferential circadian typology and the self-reported cognitive failures in relation to the time of day may be expected. To explore this relationship a group of young adults was administered a set of questionnaires relative to circadian typology, the occurrence of cognitive failures, personality traits and anxiety levels.
2. Method 2.1. Participants A sample of 390 Italian undergraduate university students (247 females and 143 males; age range ¼ 19–26 years) was investigated. Each subject completed the following questionnaires.
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
109
2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Cognitive Failures Questionnaire CFQ consists of 25 items related to everyday slips or errors in perception, memory, and motor functions (Broadbent et al., 1982). Participants are asked to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale (0 ¼ never, 4 ¼ always), how often they experience the particular error described by the question (e.g., ‘‘Do you bump into people?’’, ‘‘Do you fail to listen to peopleÕs names when you are meeting them?’’, ‘‘Do you forget where you put something like a newspaper or a book?’’). Total scores range from 0 to 100, from total absence to highly frequent occurrence of lapses. A further item was added to the present Italian translation of CFQ: participants were requested to answer at what time of day cognitive failures, as reported in the questionnaire, were more frequently experienced on the whole (in the morning: 8.00–13.00; in the evening: 20.00–24.00; or indifferently through the day). CronbachÕs alpha: 0.81. 2.2.2. Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire MEQ consists of 19 items related to preferred time of day for engaging in habitual physical and € mental activities (Horne & Ostberg, 1976). Total scores range from 16 to 86, from extreme-eveningness to extreme-morningness. The Italian version (Mecacci & Zani, 1982) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.87. 2.2.3. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire EPQ consists of a series of items to assess the three independent dimensions or scales of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The Italian version (Eysenck, 1985; Sanavio & Soresi, 1979) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.78 (extraversion), 0.82 (neuroticism), 0.58 (psychoticism). 2.2.4. State-Trait Anxiety Test STAT consists of a series of items measuring anxiety in the two distinct dimensions of state and trait (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1980). The Italian version (Sanavio, Bertolotti, Michielin, Vidotto, & Zotti, 1997) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.92 (state anxiety), 0.90 (trait anxiety).
3. Results Mean scores (and SDs) for each scale are reported in Table 1. No significant gender differences were found except that for Neuroticism, with females having higher scores. Significant positive correlations were found between CFQ scores and MEQ, neuroticism, state anxiety, and trait anxiety (Table 2). Moreover a multiple regression analysis was calculated, with the dependent variable being the CFQ-score and the predictors being the scales of personality, anxiety, and morningness–eveningness. Results were significant (F6;383 ¼ 20:58, P < 0:0001; R2 ¼ 0:24), with neuroticism weighting the most (b ¼ 0:27), followed by trait anxiety (b ¼ 0:25), and morningness–eveningness (b ¼ 0:16).
110
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
Table 1 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of scores for Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (E ¼ extraversion, N ¼ neuroticism, P ¼ psychoticism), State-Trait Anxiety Test (SA ¼ state anxiety, TA ¼ trait anxiety) in females (F) and males (M) N
CFQ
MEQ
EPQ(E)
EPQ(N)
EPQ(P)
SA
TA
F
247
43.2 (9.4)
50.7 (7.0)
10.4 (4.2)
14.6 (4.7)
4.6 (2.1)
37.7 (6.3)
38.9 (6.4)
M
143
41.4 (10.8)
49.6 (7.6)
11.0 (4.3)
12.6 (3.9)
4.2 (1.9)
36.9 (6.2)
37.7 (6.6)
1.674 n.s.
1.475 n.s.
1.429 n.s.
4.153 <0.0001
1.445 n.s.
1.14 n.s.
1.861 n.s.
t P
Table 2 Pearson correlations among scores for Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (E ¼ extraversion, N ¼ neuroticism, P ¼ psychoticism), StateTrait Anxiety Test (SA ¼ state anxiety, TA ¼ trait anxiety) CFQ CFQ MEQ EPQ(E) EPQ(N) EPQ(P) SA TA
P < 0:05;
MEQ
EPQ(E)
EPQ(N)
EPQ(P)
SA
TA
– 0.07 0.10 0.15
– 0.05 0.04
– 0.69
–
– 0.17 )0.003 0.36 0.045 0.30 0.39
– 0.003 )0.05 )0.22 0.075 0.035
– 0.008 0.05 )0.03 0.03
P < 0:01.
To analyse the relationship between the circadian typology and the daily occurrence of cognitive failures, two groups of extreme morning-types and evening-types were obtained from the distribution of MEQ scores (extreme morning-types having z-scores >1, and extreme eveningtypes having z-scores <1; on this procedure see Mecacci & Zani, 1982; Natale & Cicogna, 2002). CFQ scores of extreme morning-types (N ¼ 47; M ¼ 46:9, SD ¼ 12.1) and extreme evening-types (N ¼ 48; M ¼ 40:7, SD ¼ 10.9) were significantly different (t ¼ 2:609; P < 0:01), with extreme morning-types reporting a larger occurrence of cognitive failures than extreme evening-types. Moreover extreme morning-types reported to have cognitive failures more frequently during the evening, while for extreme-evening-types cognitive failures were more frequent during the morning (v2 ¼ 15:182; d.f. ¼ 2; P < 0:0001). The distribution of the three time-of-day subgroups for the two extreme circadian groups is shown in Fig. 1. However looking separately at the two groups, one may see that in the extreme morning-group the occurrence of cognitive failures had a significant peak at the evening (v2 ¼ 26:8; d.f. ¼ 2; P < 0:0001) whereas in the extreme eveninggroup cognitive failures were more uniformly distributed through the day, and the three subgroups did not differ (v2 ¼ 4:689; d.f. ¼ 2; P ¼ 0:09). To verify whether the three time-of-day subgroups of the two extreme-type groups had different scores in trait anxiety and neuroticism, that is the two predictors weighted the most in the multiple regression analysis, an analysis of
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
111
Fig. 1. Number of extreme morning and extreme evening participants who reported to have experienced cognitive failures more frequently in the morning (8.00–13.00) or evening (20.00–24.00 h), or through all the day.
variance was run with main factors being the Circadian typology (2 levels: extreme morning vs. extreme evening-types) and the time-of-day subgroups (3 levels: morning, evening, through all the day). The statistical analysis showed that the three time-of-day subgroups did not differ either for trait anxiety scores (F2;89 ¼ 1:088, n.s.) or for neuroticism scores (F2;89 < 1).
4. Discussion Cognitive failures were found to occur more frequently in participants having higher scores in neuroticism and anxiety dimensions. As regards the positive correlation between CFQ scores and anxiety (both state and trait dimensions in STAT), already described by Broadbent et al. (1982), Klumb (1995), Mahoney et al. (1998), Matthews et al. (1990), and Matthews and Wells (1988), the hypothesis is generally advanced that anxious participants are less self-confident and adopt cognitive strategies not suitable for coping with stressful situations. Self-evaluation of ones own cognitive abilities would be relatively negative in participants who are more anxious and more vulnerable to environmental stress. This negative self-esteem would produce in turn a decrease in performance level on cognitive tasks, giving rise to a kind of vicious circle. However the hypothesis that CFQ high scores predict low performance levels was not always verified in conditions of objective tasks (Broadbent et al., 1986; Smith, Peck, & Clatworthy, 1989), and the question has to be studied further. The same interpretation may be applied to the positive correlation between CFQ scores and neuroticism, a result already found by Broadbent et al. (1982). High-neuroticism participants reported a larger amount of cognitive failures than low-neuroticism participants, probably because of their higher emotional instability and anxiety levels that do not permit an adaptive planning of their cognitive resources. The individual differences found in self-reported cognitive failures appeared to depend on another factor, the circadian typology, so that morning-types reported cognitive failures more than evening-types. However the positive correlation between CFQ scores and MEQ scores was related to the time of day, with morning-types claiming to experience cognitive failures especially in the evening hours and evening-types showing a more distributed occurrence of failures through the day. Other results from the circadian-typology literature have shown that morning-types are more linked to the time-of-day factor (the minimal level of performance is for them in the evening) whereas evening-types seem to cope with cognitive tasks also in hours opposite to the preferred
112
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
time, that is the evening (Costa, Lievore, Casalleti, Gaffuri, & Folkard, 1989; Folkard, Monk, & Lobban, 1979). One may expect that morning-types should be made anxious by the demand of performing tasks in the evening more than evening-types when they are requested to do the same in the morning. In tasks that require special attentional and motor skills, as for example driving during a storm, the cognitive self-evaluation of morning- and evening-types in relation to the time of day would play a relevant role in both producing a state of arousal and anxiety, and in determining strategies and behavioral plans to cope with environmental stressful situations (on diurnal and monthly variations of arousal and stress in the two circadian types see Mecacci & Rocchetti, 1998; Mecacci et al., 1991). In conclusion the hypothesis is advanced that cognitive failures appear to result from a complex of factors that link cognition and personality dimensions, on one hand, and circadian individual differences and time of day, on the other.
References Boomsma, D. I. (1998). Genetic analysis of cognitive failures (CFQ): a study of Dutch adolescent twins and their parents. European Journal of Personality, 12, 321–330. Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress. London, New York: Academy Press. Broadbent, D. E., Broadbent, M. H. P., & Jones, J. L. (1986). Performance correlates of self-reported cognitive failure and obsessionality. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 285–299. Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. J., Fitzgerald, P. F., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1–16. Costa, G., Lievore, F., Casalleti, G., Gaffuri, E., & Folkard, S. (1989). Circadian characteristics influencing interindividual differences in tolerance and adjustment to shiftwork. Ergonomics, 32, 373–385. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Eysenck, S. B. G. (1985). Confronti transculturali tra le personalit a di soggetti italiani continentali, siciliani e inglesi. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 176, 11–16. Folkard, S.& Monk, T. H. (Eds.). (1985). Hours of work: temporal factors in work scheduling. New York: Wiley. Folkard, S., Monk, T. H., & Lobban, M. C. (1979). Towards a predictive test of adjustment to shift work. Ergonomics, 22, 79–91. € Horne, J. A., & Ostberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness–eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4, 97–110. Houston, D. M. (1989). The relationship between cognitive failure and self-focused attention. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 85–86. Kerkhof, G. A. (1985). Inter-individual differences in the human circadian system: a review. Ergonomics, 20, 83– 112. Klumb, P. L. (1995). Cognitive failures and performance differences: validation studies of a German version of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics, 38, 1456–1467. Larson, G. E., Adelrton, D. L., Neideffer, M., & Underhill, E. (1997). Further evidence on dimensionality and correlates of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 29–38. Mahoney, A. M., Dalby, J. T., & King, M. C. (1998). Cognitive failures and stress. Psychological Reports, 82, 1432– 1434. Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670. Martin, M. (1986). Aging and patterns of change in everyday memory and cognition. Human Learning, 5, 63–74. Martin, M., & Jones, G. V. (1983). Distribution of attention in cognitive failure. Human Learning, 2, 221–226. Matthews, G. (1988). Morningness–eveningness as a dimension of personality: trait, state, and psychophysiological correlates. European Journal of Personality, 2, 277–293.
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
113
Matthews, G., Coyle, K., & Craig, A. (1990). Multiple factors of cognitive failures and their relationship with stress vulnerability. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 12, 49–65. Matthews, G., & Wells, A. (1988). Relationships between anxiety, self-consciousness and cognitive failure. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 123–132. Mecacci, L., & Rocchetti, G. (1998). Morning and evening types: stress-related aspects. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 537–542. Mecacci, L., Scaglione, M. R., & Vitrano, I. (1991). Diurnal and monthly variations of temperature and self-reported activation in relation to sex and circadian typology. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 819–824. Mecacci, L., & Zani, A. (1982). Morningness–eveningness preferences and sleep-waking diary data of morning and evening types in student and worker samples. Ergonomics, 26, 1147–1153. Mecacci, L., Zani, A., Rocchetti, G., & Lucioli, R. (1986). The relationship between morningness–eveningness, ageing and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 911–913. Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Nijman, H., & de Jing, P. J. (1996). Self-reported cognitive failures and neurotic symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 715–724. Monk, T. H. (Ed.). (1991). Sleep, sleepiness and performance. New York: Wiley & Sons. Natale, V., Alzani, A., & Cicogna, P. (2003). Cognitive efficiency and circadian typologies: a diurnal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1–17. Natale, V., & Cicogna, P. (2002). Morningness–eveningness dimension: is it really a continuum? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 809–816. Pollina, L. K., Greene, A. L., Tunick, R. H., & Puckett, J. M. (1992). Dimensions of everyday memory in young adulthood. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 305–321. Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ÔOops!Õ: performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. Sanavio, E., Bertolotti, G., Michielin, P., Vidotto, G., & Zotti, A. M. (1997). CBA-2.0. Cognitive Behavioural Assessment 2.0. Scale primarie. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali. Sanavio, E., & Soresi, S. (1979). LÕEysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): prime analisi per un adattamento italiano. AP. Rivista di Applicazioni Psicologiche, 1(1), 45–64. Smith, A. P., Peck, D., & Clatworthy, T. (1989). After-effects of working at visual display units. Work and Stress, 3, 195–201. Smith, C. S., Folkard, S., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L., Spelren, E., Almiral, H., Sen, R. N., Sahu, S., Perez, L. M., & Tisak, J. (2002). Investigation of morning–evening orientation in six countries using the preferences scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 949–968. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, D. E. (1980). Questionario di autovalutazione dellÕansia di stato e di tratto. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali. Tankova, I., Adan, A., & Buela-Casal, G. (1994). Circadian typology and individual differences: a review. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 671–684. Tipper, S. P., & Baylis, G. C. (1987). Individual differences in selective attention: the relation of priming and interference to cognitive failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 667–675. Wallace, J. C., Kass, S. J., & Stanny, C. J. (2002). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire revisited: dimensions and correlates. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 238–256. Wallace, J. C., Vodanovich, S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2003). Predicting cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: an investigation within military and undergraduate samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 635–644. Wilson, G. D. (1990). Personality, time of day and arousal. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 153–168.
Cognitive failures and circadian typology Luciano Mecacci a
a,*
, Stefania Righi a, Gastone Rocchetti
b
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, via s. Niccol o 93, 50125 Firenze, Italy b Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR, viale Marx 15, 00137 Roma, Italy Received 9 September 2002; received in revised form 23 July 2003; accepted 24 August 2003 Available online 20 October 2003
Abstract The relationship between the occurrence of cognitive failures, personality, anxiety, and morningness– eveningness dimensions was investigated in a sample of Italian undergraduate students (N ¼ 390). Participants were administered the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire by Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald, and Parkes (1982), the Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and the State-Trait Anxiety Test. Participants having higher scores in neuroticism and anxiety reported to experience cognitive failures more frequently than participants with lower scores. Moreover extreme morning-types reported more cognitive failures than extreme-evening-types. The difference between the two circadian types was also related to the time of day when the failures usually happen: in extreme morningtypes cognitive failures occurred especially in the evening hours, whereas in extreme-evening-types the occurrence was distributed more uniformly through all the day. Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Cognitive failures questionnaire; Circadian typology; Time of day; Anxiety; Neuroticism
1. Introduction Self-reported minor deficits, slips or errors in perception, attention, memory, and motor functions in everyday life were thoroughly investigated by using the cognitive failure questionnaire or CFQ (Broadbent et al., 1982). A wide literature has shown that self-reported cognitive failures as measured by CFQ correlate with objective indices of performance, especially in attention tasks (Manly, Robertson, Galloway, & Hawkins, 1999; Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997; Tipper & Baylis, 1987), and frequency of involvement in traffic *
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-2491628; fax: +39-055-2345326. E-mail address: [email protected]fi.it (L. Mecacci).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.004
108
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
accidents (Broadbent, Broadbent, & Jones, 1986; Klumb, 1995; Larson, Adelrton, Neideffer, & Underhill, 1997; Martin, 1986; Martin & Jones, 1983), as well as with personality traits, anxiety, stress, and boredom (Broadbent et al., 1982; Houston, 1989; Mahoney, Dalby, & King, 1998; Matthews, Coyle, & Craig, 1990; Matthews & Wells, 1988; Merckelbach, Muris, Nijman, & de Jing, 1996; Wallace, Vodanovich, & Restino, 2003). Although CFQ was originally supposed to measure a general factor of cognitive failure (Broadbent et al., 1982), recent studies have shown that CFQ consists of several factors (Larson et al., 1997; Matthews et al., 1990; Pollina, Greene, Tunick, & Puckett, 1992; Wallace, Kass, & Stanny, 2002). The heritability of patterns of cognitive failures as indexed by CFQ scores was also investigated (Boomsma, 1998). One may expect that cognitive failures occur at different hours of the day because a large variety of studies has shown that levels of performance and amount and/or types of errors are related to the time of day (Broadbent, 1971; Folkard & Monk, 1985; Monk, 1991). On the other hand a complementary line of research has pointed out that circadian typology is a relevant factor in determining the individual level and quality of performance through the day. Indeed two circadian types, morning-types (so-called ‘‘larks’’) and evening-types (‘‘owls’’), have been described as two extreme groups of population in relation to their preferences for habitual activities at the morning and evening, respectively. The circadian typology reflects individual differences in human circadian biological rhythms, as shown by the differential diurnal variation in several physiological variables (Folkard & Monk, 1985; Kerkhof, 1985; Tankova, Adan, & Buela-Casal, 1994). Individual differences in circadian variations were taken into account in various fields of basic and applied psychological research (e.g., shiftwork, sport, education, etc.) by using the € morningness–eveningness questionnaire or MEQ (Horne & Ostberg, 1976) associated to measures of physiological and behavioral variables (Kerkhof, 1985; Matthews, 1988; Mecacci & Rocchetti, 1998; Mecacci, Scaglione, & Vitrano, 1991; Mecacci, Zani, Rocchetti, & Lucioli, 1986; Natale, Alzani, & Cicogna, 2003; Natale & Cicogna, 2002; Smith et al., 2002; Tankova et al., 1994; Wilson, 1990). The hypothesis may be advanced that a differential daily distribution of cognitive failures might be reported in relation to the individual circadian typology: those who prefer or feel themselves more comfortable in doing habitual activities in the morning, for instance, might have experienced that cognitive failures occurred more frequently in the evening (vice versa for the evening-types). Negative feedbacks from having been engaged in activities at a time of the day, not corresponding to own circadian typology, might reinforce the individual diurnal preferences. Thus a correlation between the self expressed preferential circadian typology and the self-reported cognitive failures in relation to the time of day may be expected. To explore this relationship a group of young adults was administered a set of questionnaires relative to circadian typology, the occurrence of cognitive failures, personality traits and anxiety levels.
2. Method 2.1. Participants A sample of 390 Italian undergraduate university students (247 females and 143 males; age range ¼ 19–26 years) was investigated. Each subject completed the following questionnaires.
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
109
2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Cognitive Failures Questionnaire CFQ consists of 25 items related to everyday slips or errors in perception, memory, and motor functions (Broadbent et al., 1982). Participants are asked to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale (0 ¼ never, 4 ¼ always), how often they experience the particular error described by the question (e.g., ‘‘Do you bump into people?’’, ‘‘Do you fail to listen to peopleÕs names when you are meeting them?’’, ‘‘Do you forget where you put something like a newspaper or a book?’’). Total scores range from 0 to 100, from total absence to highly frequent occurrence of lapses. A further item was added to the present Italian translation of CFQ: participants were requested to answer at what time of day cognitive failures, as reported in the questionnaire, were more frequently experienced on the whole (in the morning: 8.00–13.00; in the evening: 20.00–24.00; or indifferently through the day). CronbachÕs alpha: 0.81. 2.2.2. Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire MEQ consists of 19 items related to preferred time of day for engaging in habitual physical and € mental activities (Horne & Ostberg, 1976). Total scores range from 16 to 86, from extreme-eveningness to extreme-morningness. The Italian version (Mecacci & Zani, 1982) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.87. 2.2.3. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire EPQ consists of a series of items to assess the three independent dimensions or scales of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The Italian version (Eysenck, 1985; Sanavio & Soresi, 1979) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.78 (extraversion), 0.82 (neuroticism), 0.58 (psychoticism). 2.2.4. State-Trait Anxiety Test STAT consists of a series of items measuring anxiety in the two distinct dimensions of state and trait (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1980). The Italian version (Sanavio, Bertolotti, Michielin, Vidotto, & Zotti, 1997) was used. CronbachÕs alpha: 0.92 (state anxiety), 0.90 (trait anxiety).
3. Results Mean scores (and SDs) for each scale are reported in Table 1. No significant gender differences were found except that for Neuroticism, with females having higher scores. Significant positive correlations were found between CFQ scores and MEQ, neuroticism, state anxiety, and trait anxiety (Table 2). Moreover a multiple regression analysis was calculated, with the dependent variable being the CFQ-score and the predictors being the scales of personality, anxiety, and morningness–eveningness. Results were significant (F6;383 ¼ 20:58, P < 0:0001; R2 ¼ 0:24), with neuroticism weighting the most (b ¼ 0:27), followed by trait anxiety (b ¼ 0:25), and morningness–eveningness (b ¼ 0:16).
110
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
Table 1 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of scores for Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (E ¼ extraversion, N ¼ neuroticism, P ¼ psychoticism), State-Trait Anxiety Test (SA ¼ state anxiety, TA ¼ trait anxiety) in females (F) and males (M) N
CFQ
MEQ
EPQ(E)
EPQ(N)
EPQ(P)
SA
TA
F
247
43.2 (9.4)
50.7 (7.0)
10.4 (4.2)
14.6 (4.7)
4.6 (2.1)
37.7 (6.3)
38.9 (6.4)
M
143
41.4 (10.8)
49.6 (7.6)
11.0 (4.3)
12.6 (3.9)
4.2 (1.9)
36.9 (6.2)
37.7 (6.6)
1.674 n.s.
1.475 n.s.
1.429 n.s.
4.153 <0.0001
1.445 n.s.
1.14 n.s.
1.861 n.s.
t P
Table 2 Pearson correlations among scores for Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ), Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (E ¼ extraversion, N ¼ neuroticism, P ¼ psychoticism), StateTrait Anxiety Test (SA ¼ state anxiety, TA ¼ trait anxiety) CFQ CFQ MEQ EPQ(E) EPQ(N) EPQ(P) SA TA
P < 0:05;
MEQ
EPQ(E)
EPQ(N)
EPQ(P)
SA
TA
– 0.07 0.10 0.15
– 0.05 0.04
– 0.69
–
– 0.17 )0.003 0.36 0.045 0.30 0.39
– 0.003 )0.05 )0.22 0.075 0.035
– 0.008 0.05 )0.03 0.03
P < 0:01.
To analyse the relationship between the circadian typology and the daily occurrence of cognitive failures, two groups of extreme morning-types and evening-types were obtained from the distribution of MEQ scores (extreme morning-types having z-scores >1, and extreme eveningtypes having z-scores <1; on this procedure see Mecacci & Zani, 1982; Natale & Cicogna, 2002). CFQ scores of extreme morning-types (N ¼ 47; M ¼ 46:9, SD ¼ 12.1) and extreme evening-types (N ¼ 48; M ¼ 40:7, SD ¼ 10.9) were significantly different (t ¼ 2:609; P < 0:01), with extreme morning-types reporting a larger occurrence of cognitive failures than extreme evening-types. Moreover extreme morning-types reported to have cognitive failures more frequently during the evening, while for extreme-evening-types cognitive failures were more frequent during the morning (v2 ¼ 15:182; d.f. ¼ 2; P < 0:0001). The distribution of the three time-of-day subgroups for the two extreme circadian groups is shown in Fig. 1. However looking separately at the two groups, one may see that in the extreme morning-group the occurrence of cognitive failures had a significant peak at the evening (v2 ¼ 26:8; d.f. ¼ 2; P < 0:0001) whereas in the extreme eveninggroup cognitive failures were more uniformly distributed through the day, and the three subgroups did not differ (v2 ¼ 4:689; d.f. ¼ 2; P ¼ 0:09). To verify whether the three time-of-day subgroups of the two extreme-type groups had different scores in trait anxiety and neuroticism, that is the two predictors weighted the most in the multiple regression analysis, an analysis of
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
111
Fig. 1. Number of extreme morning and extreme evening participants who reported to have experienced cognitive failures more frequently in the morning (8.00–13.00) or evening (20.00–24.00 h), or through all the day.
variance was run with main factors being the Circadian typology (2 levels: extreme morning vs. extreme evening-types) and the time-of-day subgroups (3 levels: morning, evening, through all the day). The statistical analysis showed that the three time-of-day subgroups did not differ either for trait anxiety scores (F2;89 ¼ 1:088, n.s.) or for neuroticism scores (F2;89 < 1).
4. Discussion Cognitive failures were found to occur more frequently in participants having higher scores in neuroticism and anxiety dimensions. As regards the positive correlation between CFQ scores and anxiety (both state and trait dimensions in STAT), already described by Broadbent et al. (1982), Klumb (1995), Mahoney et al. (1998), Matthews et al. (1990), and Matthews and Wells (1988), the hypothesis is generally advanced that anxious participants are less self-confident and adopt cognitive strategies not suitable for coping with stressful situations. Self-evaluation of ones own cognitive abilities would be relatively negative in participants who are more anxious and more vulnerable to environmental stress. This negative self-esteem would produce in turn a decrease in performance level on cognitive tasks, giving rise to a kind of vicious circle. However the hypothesis that CFQ high scores predict low performance levels was not always verified in conditions of objective tasks (Broadbent et al., 1986; Smith, Peck, & Clatworthy, 1989), and the question has to be studied further. The same interpretation may be applied to the positive correlation between CFQ scores and neuroticism, a result already found by Broadbent et al. (1982). High-neuroticism participants reported a larger amount of cognitive failures than low-neuroticism participants, probably because of their higher emotional instability and anxiety levels that do not permit an adaptive planning of their cognitive resources. The individual differences found in self-reported cognitive failures appeared to depend on another factor, the circadian typology, so that morning-types reported cognitive failures more than evening-types. However the positive correlation between CFQ scores and MEQ scores was related to the time of day, with morning-types claiming to experience cognitive failures especially in the evening hours and evening-types showing a more distributed occurrence of failures through the day. Other results from the circadian-typology literature have shown that morning-types are more linked to the time-of-day factor (the minimal level of performance is for them in the evening) whereas evening-types seem to cope with cognitive tasks also in hours opposite to the preferred
112
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
time, that is the evening (Costa, Lievore, Casalleti, Gaffuri, & Folkard, 1989; Folkard, Monk, & Lobban, 1979). One may expect that morning-types should be made anxious by the demand of performing tasks in the evening more than evening-types when they are requested to do the same in the morning. In tasks that require special attentional and motor skills, as for example driving during a storm, the cognitive self-evaluation of morning- and evening-types in relation to the time of day would play a relevant role in both producing a state of arousal and anxiety, and in determining strategies and behavioral plans to cope with environmental stressful situations (on diurnal and monthly variations of arousal and stress in the two circadian types see Mecacci & Rocchetti, 1998; Mecacci et al., 1991). In conclusion the hypothesis is advanced that cognitive failures appear to result from a complex of factors that link cognition and personality dimensions, on one hand, and circadian individual differences and time of day, on the other.
References Boomsma, D. I. (1998). Genetic analysis of cognitive failures (CFQ): a study of Dutch adolescent twins and their parents. European Journal of Personality, 12, 321–330. Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress. London, New York: Academy Press. Broadbent, D. E., Broadbent, M. H. P., & Jones, J. L. (1986). Performance correlates of self-reported cognitive failure and obsessionality. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 285–299. Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. J., Fitzgerald, P. F., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1–16. Costa, G., Lievore, F., Casalleti, G., Gaffuri, E., & Folkard, S. (1989). Circadian characteristics influencing interindividual differences in tolerance and adjustment to shiftwork. Ergonomics, 32, 373–385. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Eysenck, S. B. G. (1985). Confronti transculturali tra le personalit a di soggetti italiani continentali, siciliani e inglesi. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 176, 11–16. Folkard, S.& Monk, T. H. (Eds.). (1985). Hours of work: temporal factors in work scheduling. New York: Wiley. Folkard, S., Monk, T. H., & Lobban, M. C. (1979). Towards a predictive test of adjustment to shift work. Ergonomics, 22, 79–91. € Horne, J. A., & Ostberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness–eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4, 97–110. Houston, D. M. (1989). The relationship between cognitive failure and self-focused attention. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 85–86. Kerkhof, G. A. (1985). Inter-individual differences in the human circadian system: a review. Ergonomics, 20, 83– 112. Klumb, P. L. (1995). Cognitive failures and performance differences: validation studies of a German version of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics, 38, 1456–1467. Larson, G. E., Adelrton, D. L., Neideffer, M., & Underhill, E. (1997). Further evidence on dimensionality and correlates of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 29–38. Mahoney, A. M., Dalby, J. T., & King, M. C. (1998). Cognitive failures and stress. Psychological Reports, 82, 1432– 1434. Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670. Martin, M. (1986). Aging and patterns of change in everyday memory and cognition. Human Learning, 5, 63–74. Martin, M., & Jones, G. V. (1983). Distribution of attention in cognitive failure. Human Learning, 2, 221–226. Matthews, G. (1988). Morningness–eveningness as a dimension of personality: trait, state, and psychophysiological correlates. European Journal of Personality, 2, 277–293.
L. Mecacci et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 107–113
113
Matthews, G., Coyle, K., & Craig, A. (1990). Multiple factors of cognitive failures and their relationship with stress vulnerability. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 12, 49–65. Matthews, G., & Wells, A. (1988). Relationships between anxiety, self-consciousness and cognitive failure. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 123–132. Mecacci, L., & Rocchetti, G. (1998). Morning and evening types: stress-related aspects. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 537–542. Mecacci, L., Scaglione, M. R., & Vitrano, I. (1991). Diurnal and monthly variations of temperature and self-reported activation in relation to sex and circadian typology. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 819–824. Mecacci, L., & Zani, A. (1982). Morningness–eveningness preferences and sleep-waking diary data of morning and evening types in student and worker samples. Ergonomics, 26, 1147–1153. Mecacci, L., Zani, A., Rocchetti, G., & Lucioli, R. (1986). The relationship between morningness–eveningness, ageing and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 911–913. Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Nijman, H., & de Jing, P. J. (1996). Self-reported cognitive failures and neurotic symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 715–724. Monk, T. H. (Ed.). (1991). Sleep, sleepiness and performance. New York: Wiley & Sons. Natale, V., Alzani, A., & Cicogna, P. (2003). Cognitive efficiency and circadian typologies: a diurnal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1–17. Natale, V., & Cicogna, P. (2002). Morningness–eveningness dimension: is it really a continuum? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 809–816. Pollina, L. K., Greene, A. L., Tunick, R. H., & Puckett, J. M. (1992). Dimensions of everyday memory in young adulthood. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 305–321. Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ÔOops!Õ: performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. Sanavio, E., Bertolotti, G., Michielin, P., Vidotto, G., & Zotti, A. M. (1997). CBA-2.0. Cognitive Behavioural Assessment 2.0. Scale primarie. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali. Sanavio, E., & Soresi, S. (1979). LÕEysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): prime analisi per un adattamento italiano. AP. Rivista di Applicazioni Psicologiche, 1(1), 45–64. Smith, A. P., Peck, D., & Clatworthy, T. (1989). After-effects of working at visual display units. Work and Stress, 3, 195–201. Smith, C. S., Folkard, S., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L., Spelren, E., Almiral, H., Sen, R. N., Sahu, S., Perez, L. M., & Tisak, J. (2002). Investigation of morning–evening orientation in six countries using the preferences scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 949–968. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, D. E. (1980). Questionario di autovalutazione dellÕansia di stato e di tratto. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali. Tankova, I., Adan, A., & Buela-Casal, G. (1994). Circadian typology and individual differences: a review. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 671–684. Tipper, S. P., & Baylis, G. C. (1987). Individual differences in selective attention: the relation of priming and interference to cognitive failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 667–675. Wallace, J. C., Kass, S. J., & Stanny, C. J. (2002). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire revisited: dimensions and correlates. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 238–256. Wallace, J. C., Vodanovich, S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2003). Predicting cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: an investigation within military and undergraduate samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 635–644. Wilson, G. D. (1990). Personality, time of day and arousal. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 153–168.