No abstract

No abstract

Recent reports highlight that human decision-making is influenced by the time of day and whether one is a morning or evening person (i.e., chronotype). Here, we test whether these behavioral effects are associated with endogenous biological rhythms. We asked participants to complete two well-established decision-making tasks in the morning or evening: the matrix task (an ethical decision task) and the balloon analog risk task (BART; a risk-taking task), and we measured their chronotype in two ways. First, participants completed a self-report measure, the Horne-Östberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). Second, we measured the expression of two circadian clock-regulated genes—Per3 and Nr1d2—from peripheral clock cells in participants’ hair follicle samples. Using a cosinor model, we estimated the phase of the peripheral clock and assigned RNA chronotypes to participants with advanced (larks) or delayed (owls) phases. The behavioral data were analyzed independently for self-reported (MEQ) and RNA-based chronotypes. We find that significant chronotype and/or time-of-day effects between larks and owls in decision-making tasks occur only in RNA-based chronotypes. Our results provide evidence that time-of-day effects on decision-making can be explained by phase differences in oscillating clock genes and suggest that variation in the molecular clockwork may influence inter-individual differences in decision-making behavior.

Purpose: Extant reports on states'policy differences are mostly descriptive and largely ignore the pervasive role of political culture on their educational policy-making processes. This article examines the effect of policy culture on states' policy-making mechanisms. There is evidence that a state's political culture is a significant mediating influence on its educational policy making and leadership practices at the state, district, and local level. Data Collection and Analysis: We conducted an empirical, comparative case study of educational leadership and policy-making mechanisms in three states—Indiana, Nebraska, and Oregon. Those three states, chosen because of their similarities in size but differences in educational policy histories, were part of a larger leadership study of nine states. Within each state, researchers interviewed between 8 and 11 educational policymakers who represented a diverse array of positions and organizations. The interviews were 1 hr in length, conducted in a semistructured format, and revolved around their states' accountability and school leadership policies, key educational stakeholders, and levels of collaboration among those stakeholders. Findings: Each state in the study had very different means through which they pursued educational policies. Indiana had centralized decision-making structures that sought to promote leadership and accountability through policies that revolved around equity and efficiency. Oregon had a high level of participation and collaboration at all levels in the state's mostly decentralized but very open educational policy-making process that emphasized quality. Nebraska's policy culture, which was more independent and decentralized than Oregon's, was highly collaborative but had comparatively low levels of support for state-supported leadership and accountability initiatives. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that political culture is a mediating factor for states' responses to increasing demands for leadership and accountability initiatives; it is therefore necessary to account for the impact of each state's unique political culture when planning for and explaining results of these initiatives.

No abstract