The Epidemiology of Morningness/Eveningness: Influence of Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Factors in Adults (30-49 Years)

Feb 8, 2006Journal of biological rhythms

How age, gender, ethnicity, and income relate to being a morning or evening person in adults aged 30-49

AI simplified

Circadian Biology on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

49.8% of New Zealand adults aged 30 to 49 years were classified as morning type using traditional criteria.

5.6% of the population was classified as having an evening-type preference with the original classification.
New cutoffs revealed 24.7% as morning type and 26.4% as evening type among the same population.
Participants aged 30 to 34 years were more likely to be classified as definitely evening type compared to those aged 45 to 49 years.
Night workers had a higher likelihood of being definitely evening type, while the unemployed were less likely to be moderately morning type.
Evening types reported poorer general health compared to morning types, being 2.5 times more likely to rate their health as only poor or fair.
Chronotype preference appears to be largely independent of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic position.

AI simplified

The Horne and Ostberg Morningness/Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) is widely used to differentiate between morning and evening types, but there is very little epidemiological evidence about the distribution of MEQ chronotypes in the general population. The purpose of the present study was to simultaneously investigate the influence of demographic, socioeconomic, and work factors on the distribution of morningness/eveningness. A New Zealand version of the MEQ was mailed to 5000 New Zealand adults, ages 30 to 49 years, who were randomly selected from the electoral rolls (55.7% response rate). A total of 2526 questionnaires were included in the analyses. According to the Horne and Ostberg classification, 49.8% of the total population was classified as morning type compared to 5.6% having an evening-type preference. However, using new cutoffs for middle-aged working adults described by Taillard et al. (2004), 24.7% of the population was morning type and 26.4% was evening type. After controlling for ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation, participants ages 30 to 34 years were more likely to be definitely evening type (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, p < 0.05) and less likely to be morning type (moderately morning type, OR = 0.59, p < 0.01, or definitely morning type, OR = 0.59, p < 0.05) compared to those ages 45 to 49 years. Work schedules were also important predictors of chronotype, with night workers more likely to be definitely evening type (OR = 1.49, p = 0.05) and the unemployed less likely to be moderately morning type (OR = 0.64, p < 0.05) compared to other workers. Evening types were 2.5 times more likely to report that their general health was only poor or fair compared to morning types (p < 0.01). This study confirms that the original criteria of Horne and Ostberg (1976) are not useful for classifying chronotypes in a middle-aged population. The authors conclude that morningness/eveningness preference is largely independent of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic position, indicating that it is a stable characteristic that may be better explained by endogenous factors.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text (PDF) ↗View full text ↗

The Epidemiology of Morningness/Eveningness: Influence of Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Factors in Adults (30-49 Years)

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief

Abstract

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief