Morningness is associated with better gradings and higher attention in class The role of eveningness in adolescent behaviour
Christian Vollmer & Christoph Randler
[email protected],
[email protected]
The role of eveningness in adolescent behaviour: impact on gradings and attention Preview • Background ❶ Theoretical background ❷ Previous studies by the authors ❸ Previous studies on chronotype, gradings and attention • Present study ❶ Sample ❷ Variables • Results ❶ Bar graphs ❷ Correlations ❸ Structural equation model • Conclusion Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
2
Chronotype ❶ Theoretical background
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype ❶ Theoretical background
Geophysical environment
Individual differences Social environment Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype ❶ Theoretical background
Photoperiod
Natale 1997 Vollmer et al. 2012
Light at night
Danilenko et al. 2011 Vollmer et al. 2012
Genes
Hormones
Carskadon 2002
Stress
Grandin et al. 2006 Vollmer et al. 2011 Jankowski 2013
Stimulants Adan 2004
Age Roenneberg et al. 2004 Gender Chelminski et al. 1997 Personality
Jankowski 2013, Muro et al. 2009 Tsaousis 2010, Vollmer & Randler 2012
Circadian preferences
Social Background Nixon et al. 2008
Background ❶❷❸
Hur et al. 1998
Present study ❶❷
Gradings
Randler & Frech 2009 Roeser et al. 2013 Results ❶❷❸
Screen media Higuchi et al. 2005
Attention
Clarisse et al. 2010 Vollmer et al. 2013 Conclusion
Chronotype ❷ Previous studies by the authors
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype ❶ Theoretical background
Photoperiod
Natale 1997 Vollmer et al. 2012
Light at night
Danilenko et al. 2011 Vollmer et al. 2012
Genes
Hormones
Carskadon 2002
Stress
Grandin et al. 2006 Vollmer et al. 2011 Jankowski 2013
Stimulants Adan 2004
Age Roenneberg et al. 2004 Gender Chelminski et al. 1997 Personality
Jankowski 2013, Muro et al. 2009 Tsaousis 2010, Vollmer & Randler 2012
Circadian preferences
Social Background Nixon et al. 2008
Background ❶❷❸
Hur et al. 1998
Present study ❶❷
Gradings
Screen media Higuchi et al. 2005
Attention
Clarisse et al. 2010
Randler & Frech 2009 Roeser et al. 2013 Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Previous studies on chronotype, gradings and attention
Early chronotype
Better gradings
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Higher attention
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Previous studies on chronotype, gradings and attention
Early chronotype
Better gradings
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Higher attention
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Previous studies on chronotype, gradings and attention
Early chronotype
Better gradings
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Higher attention
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❶ Sample 1977 pupils from Heidelberg region 51,8 % boys 48,2 % girls
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❷ Variables Control variables
Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) Smith 1989 scale 13-55 (55 = extreme morning type) mean 34.3 (SD ± 7.1)
Age in months mean 13.4 (SD ± 1.6)
Chronotype
Class level level 5-9 in secondary school
Gradings Self-report from last school certificate scale 1-6 (6=outstanding) mean 4.27 (SD ± 0.7) Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Attention D2 (letter crossing-out test), Brickenkamp 1994 range -37 to 265 (high scores = high attention) mean 136.0 (SD ± 34.5) Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❷ Variables Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) Smith 1989
Control variables Age
scale 13-55 (55 = extreme morning type) mean 34.3 (SD ± 7.1)
in months mean 13.4 (SD ± 1.6)
Chronotype
Class level level 5-9 in secondary school
Gradings Self-report from last school certificate scale 1-6 (6=outstanding) mean 4.27 (SD ± 0.7) Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Attention D2 (letter crossing-out test), Brickenkamp 1994 range -37 to 265 (high scores = high attention) mean 136.0 (SD ± 34.5) Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM), Smith et al. 1989
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❷ Variables Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) Smith 1989
Control variables Age
scale 13-55 (55 = extreme morning type) mean 34.3 (SD ± 7.1)
in months mean 13.4 (SD ± 1.6)
Chronotype
Class level level 5-9 in secondary school
Academic performance Gradings Self-report from last school certificate scale 1-6 (6=outstanding) mean 4.27 (SD ± 0.7) Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Attention D2 (letter crossing-out test), Brickenkamp 1994 range -37 to 265 (high scores = high attention) mean 136.0 (SD ± 34.5) Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❷ Variables Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) Smith 1989
Control variables Age
scale 13-55 (55 = extreme morning type) mean 34.3 (SD ± 7.1)
in months mean 13.4 (SD ± 1.6)
Chronotype
Class level level 5-9 in secondary school
Academic performance Gradings Self-report from last school certificate scale 1-6 (6=outstanding) mean 4.27 (SD ± 0.7) Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Attention D2 (letter crossing-out test), Brickenkamp 1994 range -37 to 265 (high scores = high attention) mean 136.0 (SD ± 34.5) Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
D2 attention test, Brickenkamp 1994
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Present study ❷ Variables Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) Smith 1989
Control variables Age
scale 13-55 (55 = extreme morning type) mean 34.3 (SD ± 7.1)
in months mean 13.4 (SD ± 1.6)
Chronotype
Class level level 5-9 in secondary school
Gradings Self-report from last school certificate scale 1-6 (6=outstanding) mean 4.27 (SD ± 0.7) Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Attention D2 (letter crossing-out test), Brickenkamp 1994 range -37 to 265 (high scores = high attention) mean 136.0 (SD ± 34.5) Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❶ Bar graphs
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❷ Partial correlations
Chronotype
Gradings
Gradings 0.227 *** Attention 0.085 ***
0.178 ***
Person’s partial correlation coefficients, controlling for age & gender. ***, p < 0.001.
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
RMSEA = .011 (PCLOSE = .867), χ2/df = 1.235 Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Chronotype, gradings and attention ❸ Structual equation model
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Conclusion
• Sleep deprivation in evening types on school days
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Conclusion
• Sleep deprivation in evening types on school days • Different coping strategies for highly focused work • Evening types work faster but manage to maintain high concentration for a shorter time and work less pedantic, less stable, under the risk of making more errors than morning types. • Conscientiousness (m-types) vs. impulsivity (e-types) Adan et al. 2012; Russo et al. 2012
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Conclusion
• Sleep deprivation in evening types on school days • Different coping strategies for highly focused work • Evening types work faster but manage to maintain high concentration for a shorter time and work less pedantic, less stable, under the risk of making more errors than morning types. • Conscientiousness (m-types) vs. impulsivity (e-types) Adan et al. 2012; Russo et al. 2012 • Solutions • School intervention program on sleep hygiene behaviour • Delay of school start times
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Conclusion
• Sleep deprivation in evening types on school days • Different coping strategies for highly focused work • Evening types work faster but manage to maintain high concentration for a shorter time and work less pedantic, less stable, under the risk of making more errors than morning types. • Conscientiousness (m-types) vs. impulsivity (e-types) Adan et al. 2012; Russo et al. 2012 • Solutions • School intervention program on sleep hygiene behaviour • Delay of school start times • Limitations • Self-report nature of the data • German school schedules are limited to morning hours; there is no easy way to measure attention in the late afternoon and evening.
Background ❶❷❸
Present study ❶❷
Results ❶❷❸
Conclusion
Thank you for listening! Vollmer C, Randler C, Di Milia L (2012). Further evidence for the influence of photoperiod at birth on chronotype in a sample of German adolescents. Chronobiology International 29: 1345-1351. Vollmer C, Michel U, Randler C (2012). Outdoor light at night (LAN) is correlated with eveningness in adolescents. Chronobiology International 29: 502-508. Vollmer C, Randler C (2012). Circadian preferences and personality values: Morning types prefer social values, evening types prefer individual values. Personality and Individual Differences 52: 738-743. Vollmer C, Schaal S, Hummel E, Randler C (2011). Association among school‐related, parental and self‐related problems and morningness–eveningness in adolescents. Stress & Health 27: 413-419. Vollmer C, Pötsch F, Randler C (unpublished). Morningness is associated with better gradings and higher attention in class. Submitted to Learning and Individual Differences, first revision.
