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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: The interest in the extent to which time-of-day preferences affect school performance is increasing. Apart from
Received 25 June 2015 biological factors, Morning and Evening types differ in their lifestyle and personality traits which may have
Received in revised form 21 August 2015 implications into diverse areas such as their motivation to learn. Taking into account available data, the aim of
Accepted 22 August 2015
the present study was to investigate achievement goals which Morning-, Neither- and Evening-type adolescents
Available online 7 September 2015
accomplish at school. Participants were 342 students aged 12 to 15 (53.5% girls). Morning-types showed higher
Keywords:
Learning and Performance Goals than Evening-types, and these goals were positively related to self-reported
Morningness–eveningness academic performance. Achievement goals were more associated to self-reported grades in Evening-types
Learning goals than in Neither- and Morning-types. It seems that encouraging pupils to achieve good results in order to advance
Performance goals in their studies may improve school performance, especially among Evening-types.
Academic performance © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Morningness/eveningness has also been related to personality traits

In recent years, the interest in the influence of individual time-of-
day 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: cescribano@psi.ucm.es (C. Escribano), juanfcodiaz@psi.ucm.es
(J.F. Díaz-Morales).
(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 rela-
tionship between learning–thinking styles and chronotype has demon-
strated 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 cul-
tural 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 left-
thinkers the group who reported the highest subjective level of achieve-
ment 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 (Díaz-
Morales & Escribano, 2013) or sleep patterns (Dewald, Meijer, Oort,
Kerkhof, & Bögels, 2010; Fallone, Acebo, Seifer, & Carskadon, 2005),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.032
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
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 the-
ory 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). Motiva-
tion 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. Insuffi-
cient 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 de-
pressed 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 pres-
ent 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 Rein-
forcement Goals would be negatively related. Moreover, M-types would
show higher Learning and Performance Goals oriented to learn and ad-
vance in their studies, whereas E-types would show more Social Rein-
forcement Goals referred to the interest in avoiding rejection from
others since they would be less motivated to learn trying to increase
their own competence.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
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.
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 (Díaz-
Morales, 2015) which showed a satisfactory internal consistency for the
present sample (Cronbach's alpha) was α = 0.73.
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).
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”). Perfor-
mance Goals scale consists of 6 items which assess the interest in
studying in order to achieve good results and advance in their stud-
ies (e.g. “I study because I want to get good grades”). AGTQ was ini-
tially created by Hayamizu, Ito, and Yoshizaki (1989) and designed
to measure achievement goal tendencies in Japanese high school stu-
dents. 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
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 self-
reported grades separately for each chronotype. Effect size was calculated
using the following procedure [ f 2 = R2 / (1 − R2)] (Cohen, 1992).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analysis: age and sex differences
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
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 59

Table 1 Results indicated that in E-types, the linear combination of age,

Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) according to age and sex for morningness/ Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals accounted for
eveningness (M/E), achievement goals and self-reported grades.
43.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a large effect
12 13 14 15 Total size (adjusted R2 = 0.431, f2 = 0.856). Sex and Learning Goals were
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD not significant variables in the model. In N-types, the linear combination
of age, Learning Goals, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance
M/E
Girls 25.32 3.89 25.61 4.43 25.25 4.64 23.23 4.83 25.23 4.44 Goals accounted for 28.7% of the variance in self-reported grades indi-
Boys 26.88 5.11 25.61 4.05 25.02 4.48 23.80 5.67 25.51 4.85 cating a medium effect size (adjusted R2 = 0.287, f2 = 0.455). Sex
Total 26.21 4.67 25.61 4.27 25.15 4.54 23.00 5.23 25.36 4.63 was not a significant variable in the model. Finally, in M-types, the linear
GPA combination of age, Social Reinforcement Goals and Performance Goals
Girls 7.50 1.21 7.01 1.54 6.76 1.80 5.42 2.15 6.89 1.69
Boys 7.72 1.43 6.23 1.79 5.93 1.70 4.96 1.72 6.46 1.88
accounted for 17.1% of the variance in self-reported grades indicating a
Total 7.62 1.33 6.71 1.68 6.40 1.80 5.17 1.91 6.69 1.79 medium effect size (adjusted R2 = .171, f2 = 0.263). Sex and Learning
LG Goals were not significant variables in the model.
Girls 19.70 6.23 20.04 5.10 20.61 5.42 17.94 4.60 19.93 5.40
Boys 22.46 5.03 19.92 5.63 19.82 6.13 20.48 5.46 20.48 5.69
4. Discussion
Total 21.29 5.70 19.99 5.29 20.26 5.72 20.19 5.01 20.19 5.53
SRG
Girls 11.21 5.13 10.38 5.08 11.06 5.01 11.47 3.99 10.84 4.96 This study demonstrated that morningness/eveningness was related
Boys 14.08 5.45 12.22 5.10 12.02 6.14 11.40 5.48 12.65 5.57 to self-reported grades; M-types reported higher Learning and Perfor-
Total 12.86 5.47 11.09 5.15 11.48 5.53 11.43 4.79 11.68 5.32 mance Goals than E-types, both of which were positively related to
PG
Girls 21.46 3.75 20.94 3.20 21.78 2.38 19.53 4.62 21.15 3.31
self-reported academic performance. Social Reinforcement Goals and
Boys 21.44 2.70 20.39 2.98 20.70 3.24 18.45 5.16 20.55 3.40 Performance Goals were more associated to academic performance
Total 21.45 3.16 20.72 3.12 21.31 2.82 18.95 4.89 20.87 3.36 among E-types, group who reported the lowest Performance Goals
Note: GPA, Grade Point Average (average of self-reported grades for common subjects to scores.
all classes); LG, Learning Goals; SRG, Social Reinforcement Goals; PG, Performance Goals. Inglés et al. (2009) found that general academic success was more
Number of participants (total: girls and boys): 12 (87: 37 and 50), 13 (127: 78 and 49), likely every time that Learning and Performance Goals scores increased,
14 (91: 51 and 40), 15 (37: 17 and 20). whereas was less likely every time that Social Reinforcement Goals
increased. Students with high Learning and Performance Goals are
and Performance Goals (r = .30, p b .01), and negatively related to Social students concerned with increasing their own competence and they
Reinforcement Goals (r = −.16, p b .01). want to learn in order to achieve good results and advance in their
studies. M-types reported higher Learning and Performance Goals
3.3. Differences in achievement goals according to circadian preference than N- and E-types and E-types, respectively. In this line, Önder,
Beşoluk, İskender, Masal, and Demirham (2014) found that academic
MESC values of 22/29, corresponding to 25/75th percentiles, were motivations were better in M-types than N- and E-types without signif-
used to categorize M-, N- and E-types (93, 136 and 113 adolescents, icant differences between N- and E-types. Contrary to what was expect-
respectively). Regarding Learning Goals, M-types showed higher scores ed, in the current study M- and E-types did not differ in Social
than N- and E-types, F(2,335) = 20.01, p b .001, η2p = .107. E-types Reinforcement Goals, in line with Roeser et al. (2013) who found that
showed the lowest scores. chronotypes did not differ in their motivation to appear competent
Regarding Social Reinforcement Goals, no differences among and to conceal incompetence from others, which may be compared
chronotypes were found, F(2,335) = 0.96, p = 0.91. with Social Reinforcement Goals assessed here.
Finally, regarding Performance Goals, M-types showed higher scores As in previous research (Escribano et al., 2012; Tonetti et al., 2015a;
than E-types without significant differences between N-types and M- or Tonetti et al., 2015b), morningness was slightly but positively related
E-types, F(2,335) = 5.23 p b .01, η2p = .030. No sex ∗ chronotype to self-reported grades; furthermore, morningness was positively relat-
interaction effects were found. ed to Learning Goals and Performance Goals, which in turn were related
to self-reported grades. Similar results were obtained by Roeser et al.
3.4. The influence of achievement goals on self-reported grades according to (2013). In their sample, chronotype was not directly related to school
chronotype performance but morningness/eveningness exerted influence on perfor-
mance indirectly by affecting daytime sleepiness and learning motiva-
Previous analyses indicated that self-reported grades were positive- tion. In the same line, Short et al. (2013) found an indirect effect of
ly related to morningness/eveningness and achievement goals, which chronotype in school performance through its relation with depressed
differed among chronotypes. The next step was to test to what extent mood.
achievement goals had an influence on academic performance in In general, being younger, higher scores on Performance Goals and
different chronotypes, also considering age and sex (see Table 2). lower scores on Social Reinforcement Goals were significantly associated

Table 2
Regression analysis on self-reported grades separated by chronotype.

Evening types Neither types Morning types

β t R2 β t R2 β t R2

Age −.521 −6.39⁎⁎⁎ .431 −.291 −3.91⁎⁎⁎ .287 −.262 −3.01⁎⁎ .171
Sex −.098 −1.23 .052 .68 −.176 −1.97
LG .118 1.18 .210 2.28⁎ .152 1.59
SRG −.326 −3.67⁎⁎⁎ −.274 −3.41⁎⁎⁎ −.216 −2.35⁎
PG .257 2.61* .314 3.47⁎⁎⁎ .196 2.02⁎

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 consci-
entiousness; nevertheless, it was best explained by low levels of need
for cognition and facilitating anxiety. Academic motivation was a signif-
icant 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, so-
cial 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 self-
reported 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 compe-
tence, 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 intellec-
tually curious, disciplined, organized and show low scores on neuroti-
cism 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 learn-
ing 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 conscien-
tious 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 associa-
tion 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.