Since emotions and regulatory control are relevant for decision-making, their circadian fluctuation should influence the outcome of such decisions, but this question has been rarely addressed. A review of the literature suggests that the evidence regarding circadian synchrony effects (better performance at optimal vs. non-optimal times of day according to chronotype) on decision-making is mixed, likely due to the use of different approaches to estimate chronotype. The current experiment studied economic decision-making as a function of both chronotype and the time of day when decisions are made. The influence of chronotype (Morning-type: N = 28 vs. Evening-type: N = 30) and time of day (8 am vs. 10 pm) on decision-making was measured by the acceptance rate of unfair and fair offers in the Ultimatum Game, and the event-related potentials time-locked to such offers. Subjective affect (PANAS), and appraisal of emotional images (IAPS) were also measured. Chronotype was estimated through questionnaires (MEQ, rMEQ, MCTQ) and the circadian rhythm of wrist temperature. Synchrony effects were found for both wrist temperature and subjective affect, but not for behavioral performance. Morning-types showed earlier phases of circadian rhythms in temperature, reported better sleep quality, more positive affective balance, accepted more unfair offers, and their frontal P200 potential was attenuated as compared to Evening-types in the Ultimatum Game. Acceptance rate of unfair offers correlated with the chronotype measured by questionnaires (positive correlation with rMEQ and MEQ scores, and negative correlation with Midsleep time in workdays -MSWsc from MCTQ) but not with midsleep time estimated through wrist temperature. Finally, participants who accepted more unfair offers later judged positive IAPS stimuli as more pleasant. We did not observe a synchrony effect in the Ultimatum Game, but morningness was related to rational decision-making as indexed by increased acceptance of unfair offers. Since morning-types show higher emotional regulation and positive mood than evening-types, it is possible that unfair offers did not elicit negative emotions as intense in morning-types as in evening-types, making it easier for them to accept.ACC: anterior cingulate cortex; ANOVA: analysis of variance; BART: Balloon Analogue Risk Task; DLPFC: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; EEG: electroencephalography; IAPS: International Affective Picture System; ICA: Independent component analysis; KSS: Karolinska Sleepiness Scale; LPP: Late Positive Potential; M: mean; MCTQ: Munich Chronotype Questionnaire; MEQ: Morningness Eveningness Questionnaire; MFN: Medial Frontal Negativity; MSWsc: midsleep time for working days corrected for sleep debt; MSFsc: midsleep time for free days corrected for sleep debt; N: number of participants; PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PVT: Psychomotor Vigilance Task; rMEQ: reduced Morningness Eveningness Questionnaire; RNA: Ribonucleic acid; RT: reaction time; SAM: Self-Assessment Manikin; SD: standard deviation; UG: Ultimatum Game. Abbreviations:
