Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31120931›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Chronotype mediates gender differences in risk propensity and risk-taking.

Rebecca Gowen, Allan Filipowicz, Krista K Ingram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Silent Scars: Distinguishing the Psychiatric Morbidities Following Burn Injuries Between Males and Females.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Chronotype and mental health: timing seems to matter, but how, why, and for whom?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. When the clock ticks wrong with COVID-19.Clinical and translational medicine · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca GowenBiology Department, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, United States of America.
Allan FilipowiczS.C. Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Krista K IngramBiology Department, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4512-1549
Colgate University · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk-taking is a complex form of decision-making that involves calculated assessments of potential costs and rewards that may be immediate or delayed. Thus, making predictions about inter-individual variation in risk-taking due to personality traits, decision styles or other attributes can be difficult. The association of risk-taking with gender is well-supported; males report higher propensity for risk-taking and show higher risk-taking on tasks measuring actual risk-taking behavior. Risk-taking also appears to be associated with circadian phenotypes (chronotypes), with evening-types reporting higher levels of risk-taking-but this association may be confounded by the fact that, in certain age groups, males are more likely to be evening-types. Here, we test for gender by chronotype effects on risk-taking in young adults (n = 610) using a self-reported risk propensity questionnaire, the health domain of the DOSPERT, and a behavioral task measuring risk-taking, the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART). Our results show that males report and take significantly more risks than females in this population. In addition, evening-type individuals have significantly higher self-reported risk propensity and tend to take more risks on the BART. Interestingly, there is no significant difference in risk propensity or risk-taking behavior across male circadian phenotypes, but evening-type females significantly report and take more risk than female intermediate and morning types. In regression analyses, we found both gender and chronotype predict risk propensity and risk-taking. Path analysis confirms that chronotype has an indirect effect on gender differences in both risk propensity and risk-taking. Furthermore, we found that trait anxiety (STAI) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS), significantly correlate with chronotype and gender in the complete dataset, but do not independently predict differences in female risk-taking. These results suggest that chronotype mediates gender effects on risk-taking and that these effects are driven primarily by morning-type females, but are not related to gender-specific differences in trait anxiety or sleep quality.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmRisk-TakingAdolescentAdultAnxiety DisordersFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsSleep Wake DisordersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31120931
PMCPMC6532857
OpenAlexW2946789041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.