Psychological Reports, 1991, 69, 1139-1146. O Psychological Reports 1991
BOREDOM PRONENESS: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT ' STEPHEN J. VODANOVICH, KATHRYN M. VERNER University of West Florida THOMAS V. GILBRIDE Veterans Administration Medical Center, New Orleans Summary .-I70 undergraduate students completed the Boredom Proneness Scale by Farmer and Sundberg and the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist by Zuckerman and Lubin. S~gruflcantnegative relationships were found between boredom proneness and negative affect scores (i.e., Depression, Hostility, Anxiety). Significant positive correlations also obtained between boredom proneness and positive affect (i.e., Positive Affect, Sensation Seeking). The correlations between boredom proneness "subscales" and positive and negative affect were congruent with those obtained using total boredom proneness scores. Implications for counseling are discussed.
Boredom has been conceptualized as an affective construct (e.g., Hamilton, 1981; Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum, 1984), and one that is associated with depressed mood (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Other definitions of boredom center on the existence of less than optimal arousal levels (e.g., Berlyne, 1760; Zuckerman, 1979), a concentration on the passage of time (Drory, 1982; Grubb, 1975; Ornstein, 1970), situations that produce a perception of constraint (Fenichel, 1951; Geiwitz, 1966, Stagner, 1975), and the inability to keep oneself entertained (e.g., Hamilton, 1981; Czikszentimihalyi, 1975). The onset of boredom is usually considered to be a temporary condition; however, some individuals have been identified who have a propensity to be bored across time and situations. For instance, Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale (1979) contains a 10-item scale which assesses the trait of boredom susceptibility. Zuckerman (1777) has defined boredom susceptibility as ". . . an aversion for repetitive experience of any kind, routine work, or dull and boring people and extreme restlessness under conditions when escape from constancy is impossible" (p. 103). The boredom susceptibility subscale concentrates on measuring one's inability to tolerate monotonous environmental stimulation (e.g., "I get bored seeing the same old faces"). Recently, Farmer and Sundberg (1986) developed the Boredom Proneness Scale which ". . . emphasizes one's connectedness with one's environment on many situational dimensions, as well as the abSty to access adap'Please send correspondence to Dr. Stephen J. Vodanovich, Psychology Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL 32514.
1140
S. J. VODANOVICH, ET AL.
tive resources and realize competencies" (p. 10). At present, the instrument is the only full-scale measure of an individual's tendency to be bored. The authors have offered a profile of the boredom-prone individual which includes distractibility, depression, dissatisfaction with work, low motivation, and a lack of autonomy. Although the construct of boredom shares common characteristics with other unpleasant affective conditions, it possesses unique qualities. For instance, Farmer and Sundberg (1986) state that even though boredom and depression possess similar symptomatology, they are distinct constructs. They are considered to be different in both ". . . quality and intensity of mood." Further, depression is typified by "feelings of sadness or personal loss," whereas "boredom is characterized by a lack of interest, which can exist independently of sadness" (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986, p. 15). The identification of people with a tendency toward experiencing boredom appears to be important, given the undesirable outcomes which have been shown to relate to the construct. For instance, boredom has been related to lowered academic achievement (e.g., Maroldo, 1986; Robinson, 1975) and poor work performance in industry (Drory, 1982; Gardell, 1971). Boredom has also been implicated as a contributing factor in cases of substance abuse (Carrol & Zuckerman, 1977; Johnston & O'Mdey, 1986; Pascale & Sylvester, 1988; Paulson, Coombs, & Richardson, 1990; Watt & Vodanovich, 1991), eating disorders (Abramson & Stinson, 1977; Ganley, 1989; Martin, 1989; Sahakian, 1983; Wilson, 1986), pathological gambling (e.g., Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & Frankova, 1990; Kuley & Jacobs, 1988), and excessive cigarette smoking (e.g., Ferguson, 1973). Although boredom has been defined in affective terms, limited empirical research has been conducted to assess the relationship between boredom and well-established mood dimensions. One of the few studies conducted in this area (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) reported that boredom-proneness scores were significantly and positively correlated with depression (r = .44) as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), hopelessness (r = .41) as assessed on the Hopelessness Scale (Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974), and loneliness (r = .53)employing the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978). Another study indicated Boredom Proneness total scores were significantly correlated .31 to scores on the MMPI Depression scale (Ahmed, 1990). The purpose of the present study was to investigate empirically the relationship between boredom proneness and a variety of affective traits. Specifically, a measure was used (i.e., the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist, MAACL), which allowed the assessment of both negative and positive affect. The relationship between positive and negative affect and specific components ("factors") of Boredom Proneness were also examined since recent
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
114 1
factor analytic evidence has suggested that Boredom Proneness may be a multidimensional construct (Ahmed, 1990; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). Given the previous review, it was anticipated that significant and positive correlations would be found between boredom proneness and negative affect scores. Furthermore, significant and negative relationships were expected between boredom proneness and positive affect. Similar correlations in both magnitude and direction were anticipated between negative and positive affect and boredom-proneness "factor" scores.
Particzpants The participants were 170 undergraduate students at a medium-sized university in the southeast United States. In the sample were 95 women and 75 men whose average age was 26 years, with a standard deviation of 8.4. The distributions of age and gender within the sample were representative of the university community. Instruments The tendency toward boredom was assessed by the Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; see their Table 1) which has 28 true-false items. In the present investigation, the scale was revised to a 7-point Likert format to allow more variability in the responses to each item. Several researchers have reported the reliability of the Boredom Proneness Scale sufficient for research purposes. The internal consistency of the true-false format has been reported by Farmer and Sundberg (1986) as .79 and by Ahmed (1990) as .73. Similar internal consistency estimates have been noted using the 7-point Likert format of McLeod and Vodanovich (1991) as .79 and by Vodanovich and Kass (1990) as .83. Finally, test-retest reliability has been reported by Farmer and Sundberg (1986) after a oneweek interval to be .83. Comparable test-retest reliability after a two-week interval (.79) was found by McGiboney and Carter (1988). In the present investigation the reliability of the Boredom Proneness Scale (coefficient alpha) was .79. Several studies have provided support for the validity of the Boredom Proneness Scale. As mentioned earlier, boredom proneness has been significantly related to depression, hopelessness, and loneliness (see Ahmed, 1990; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Boredom-proneness scores have also been shown to possess significant relationships with sensation seelung, Type A behavior pattern, and self-actualization scores (e.g., McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). Finally, factor analytic studies have indicated that the Boredom Proneness Scale may possess multiple factors. For instance, Ahmed (1990), using a sample of Canadian undergraduate students, reported the existence of two
1142
S. J. VODANOVICH, ETAL.
factors labeled Apathy and Inattention. Vodanovich and Kass (1990) employed a sample of American undergraduates and found the Boredom Proneness Scale to be comprised of the following five factors, namely, External Stimulation, Internal Stimulation, Affective Responses, Passage of Time, and Constraint. Affect was measured by using the trait form of the revised Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman, Lubin, & Rinck, 1983). The checklist contains 132 adjectives, arranged in alphabetical order and measures five dimensions of affect (Anxiety, Depression, Hostility, Positive Affect, and Sensation Seelung). Scores are also available for general negative affect (Dysphoria) which is a combination of the Anxiety, Depression, and Hostility scores as well as a composite score of Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking (PASS). The reliability and validity of these MAACL subscales varies by sample size and type but has generally been quite satisfactory (see Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). For instance, the reliabilities of the MAACL subscales computed on two samples of college students (Ns = 60 and 183) ranged from .61 (Sensation Seeking) to .95 (Positive Affect). The reliabilities of the two composite scores (PASS, Dysphoria) estimated from the same two samples were from .86 to .93. A vast array of data on the validity of the MAACL has been offered (see Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). For example, MAACL scores from two samples of college students (Ns = 37 and 43) were significantly related to positive and negative affect as measured by the Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, & Droppelman, 1971). I n clinical samples (e.g., state hospitals, community clinics) the MAACL possesses significant correlations with self-ratings of positive and negative affect, counselors' ratings of negative affect, and a variety of MMPI scales.
Procedure The participants were requested to complete a packet which contained the Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) and the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). The packet also contained a short demographic sheet which requested information regarding age, gender, and race. Responses on the questionnaires were anonymous, and special course credit was given for participation in the study. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between Boredom Proneness total and "subscale" scores and affect scores on the MAACL. Scores on the MAACL factors were converted to T scores to control for the total number of items checked on the instrument. As anticipated, significant positive correlations were observed between
1143
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
Boredom Proneness total scores and negative affect scores (i.e., Anxiety, Depression, Hostility, Dysphoria). Also, total scores on the Boredom Proneness Scale were significantly and negatively related to positive affect scores (i.e., Positive Affect, Sensation Seeking, Composite Positive Affect-Sensation Seeking). Pearson correlations between Boredom Proneness "subscale" scores and MAACL scale scores were as expected, that is, the majority of Boredom Proneness "subscales" were significantly and positively related to negative affect scores and significantly and negatively related to positive affect scores (see Table 1). Significant correlations were more frequent between Boredom Proneness and the composite negative (Dysphoria) and positive affect (Positive Affect-Sensation Seeking) scores. A high proportion of significant correlations was also found between boredom-proneness "subscales" and the individual MAACL scales of Depression, Hostility, Positive Affect, and Sensation Seeking. TABLE 1 PEAFSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEENBOREDOM PRONENESS AND MAACL SCORES (N= 153)
MAACL scores Total
Boredom Proneness Scores External Internal Affective Perce tion Stimulation Stimulation Exper~ence of +me
Anxiety .23* .18 Depression .33* .29t Hoschty .37t .18* Positive Affect -.39t -.34t Sensation Seeking -.19* .13 Dysphoria .40t .24t PASS$ -.37t -.18* *p < .05. t p < .Ol. $PASS is the Composite score of positive affect
.08 .09 .15 -.09 -.35t .15 -.23t
13
Constraint
.18* -.21*
.14 .27t .39t - 3
.38* .15 .38t -.28t
-.32t .24t -.31t
-.21t .34t -.33t
.18* ,407 -.I1
.26t
and sensation seeking.
DISCUSSION The results of the present study indicate that individuals high on boredom proneness possess significantly higher scores on other measures of negative affect. Conversely, our analysis also suggests that those with a greater tendency to be bored report lower levels of positive affect. The present findings provide further support for the validity of the Boredom Proneness Scale. That is, if boredom (or boredom proneness) is considered to be a dissatisfying state, then Boredom Proneness scores ought to be positively related to other measures of negative affect, while being negatively related to measures of positive affect. I t should be noted that the relationship between boredom proneness and the MAACL measure of sensation seeking is not clear. That is, some of
1144
S. J. VODANOVICH, ETAL.
the correlations between boredom-proneness "subscales" (i.e., External Stimulation and Constraint) and sensation seeking are positive, while others (Internal Stimulation, Affective Responses, Perception of Time) are negative. Boredom Proneness total scores were significantly and negatively related to sensation seeking. The previous subscale findings are somewhat congruent with the work of Kass and Vodanovich (1990). They found the Boredom Proneness "subscales" of External Stimulation and Constraint to be significantly and positively related to total scores on Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale. However, unlike the findings of the present study, Kass and Vodanovich found boredom-proneness and sensation-seeking total scores significantly and positively related. The above results indicate that the relationship between boredom proneness and sensation seeking may be relatively complex and may partially depend on the extent to which one is bored. For instance, if the level of boredom is relatively mild, an individual may search for a novel and varied environment. The positive correlations reported in the literature between sensation seeking and the Boredom Proneness "subscale" of External Stimulation and Zuckerman's Boredom Susceptib~LityScale (which essentially assesses a need for a varied environment) offers partial support for this hypothesis. However, if the symptoms of boredom are severe and thereby more closely resemble those of depression, one may be inclined to avoid stimulation. Obviously, it would be beneficial to investigate further the boredom proneness-sensation seeking relationship. Knowledge of Boredom Proneness scores may help guide therapeutic interventions. Ellis (1988) has suggested that active and forceful therapy may prove useful for individuals who are bored and depressed. DeChenne and Moody (1988) comment that bored clients may be best served by therapy that focuses on need frustration, repression, and specific skill deficits. A related topic is that of the therapist who becomes bored during therapy. It has been suggested that such boredom may be due to the clinical setting, the therapist (e.g., countertransference), or the client (see DeChenne & Moody, 1988; McLaughlin, 1975; Morrant, 1984; Taylor, 1984). Indeed, some authors (e.g., Morrant, 1984; McLaughlin, 1975) have suggested that clients with certain diagnoses (e.g., obsessionals) are likely to be boring. Finally, our results stress that it is important for therapists to assess the accuracy of a client's self-reported affective experience. For instance, a report of depression may actually represent a condition of boredom, or vice versa. As Spacks (1989, p. 587) has stated, "If boredom disguises depression, the symptoms of depression may obscure the presence of boredom."
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
1145
REFERENCES ABRAMSON, E. E., & STINSON,S. G. (1977) Boredom and eating in obese and nonobese individuals. Addictive Behaviors.. 2.. 181-185. AHMED, S. M. S. (1990) Psychometric properties of the Boredom Proneness Scale. Perceptual and Motor SkilLr, 71, 963-966. BECK,A. T., WARD,C. H., MENDELSON, M., MOCK,J. E., & ERBAUGH, J. K. (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. BECK,A. T., WEISSMAN,A,, LESTER,D., & TREXLER,L. (1974) The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861865. BERLYNE, D. E. (1960) Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. BLASZCZYNSKI, A,, MCCONAGHY, N., & FRANKOVA, A. (1990) Boredom proneness in pathological gambling. Psychological Reports, 67, 35-42. CARROL,E. N., & ZUCKERMAN, M. (1977) Psychopathology and sensation seeking in "downers," "speeders," and "trippers": a study of the relationship between personality and drug choice. International Journal of Addictions, 12, 591-601. C ~ S Z E N ~ A L M. Y I(1975) , Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. DECHENNE,T. K., & MOODY,A. J. (1988) Boredom: theory and therapy. The Psychotherapy Patient, 3, 17-29. DRORY,A. (1982) Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work. Personnel Psychology, 35, 141-151. ELLIS, A. (1988) Treating the bored client with Rational-Emotive Therapy. The Psychotherapy Patient, 3, 75-86. F A F ~ E RR., , & SUNDBEXG, N. D. (1986) Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4-17. FENICHEL,0 . (1951) O n the psychology of boredom. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought. New York: Columbia Univer. Press. Pp. 349-361. FERGUSON, D. (1973) A study of occupational stress and health. Ergonomics, 16, 649-663. GARDELL, B. (1971) Alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment. In L. Levi (Ed.), Society, stress, and disease. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 148-180. GANLEY,R. M. (1989) Emotion and eating in obesity: a review of the literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 343-361. G ~ m z F!, J. (1966) Structure of boredom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 592-600. GRUBB,E. A. (1975) Assembly line boredom and individual diFferences in recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 7, 256-269. HAMILTON,J. A. (1981) Attention, personality, and the self-regulation of mood: absorbing interest and boredom. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 10, 281-315. HAMILTON, J. A,, HAIER, R. J., & BUCHSBAUM, M. S. (1984) Intrinsic enjoyment and boredom coping scales: vahdation with personality, evoked potential, and attention measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 183-193. JOHNSTON, L. D., & O'MALLEY, P. M. (1986) Why do the nation's students use drugs and alcohol: self-reported reasons from nine national surveys. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 29-66. KASS, S. J., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1990) Boredom proneness: its relationship to Type A Behavior Pattern and sensation seeking. Psychology, a Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 7-16. KULEY,N. B., & JACOBS,D. F. (1988) The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and sensation seeking among social and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 197-207. MAROLW,G . K. (1986) Shyness, boredom, and grade point average among college students. Psychological Reports, 59, 395-398. MARTIN,J. E. (1989) The role of body image in the development of bulimia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 262-265. MCGBONEY,G . W., & CARTER,C. (1988) Boredom proneness and adolescents' personalities. Psychological Reports, 63, 741-742.
1146
S. J. VODANOVICH, E T A L .
MCLAUGHLM, J. T.(1975) The sleep analyst: some observations on states of consciousness of the analyst at work. Journal o)lrhe American Psychoanalytic Association, 23, 363-383. MCLEOD,C. R., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1991) The relationship berween self-actualization and boredom proneness. In A. Jones & T. Crandall (Eds.), Handbook of self-actualization. [Special Issue] Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 , 137-146. MCNAIR,D. M., LORR,M., & DROPPELMAN, L. F, (1971) Profile ofMood States, manual. San Diego, CA: Educational & Industrial Testing Service. MORRANT, J. C. (1984) Boredom in psychiatric practice. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 431-434. ORNSTEIN, R. E. (1970) On the experience of time. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books. PASCU, P. J., & SYLVESTER, J. (1988) Trend analysis of four large-scale surveys of high school drug use 1977-1986. Journal of Drug Education, 18, 221-233. PAULSON, M. J., COOMBS,R. H . , & RICHARDSON, M. A. (1990) School performance, academic aspirations, and drug use among children and adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 20, 289-303. ROBINSON, W. P. (1975) Boredom ar school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 141152. RUSSELL,D., PEPLAU,L. A,, & FERGUSON, M. L. (1978) Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personalio Assessment, 42, 290-294. SAHAKIAN, B. J. (1983) Psychological factors in childhood obesity: aeriology and treatment. Journal of Obesity and Weight Regulation, 2, 181-194. SPACKS, P. M. (1989) The necessity of boredom. Virginia Quarterly Review, 65, 581-599. STAGNER, R. (1975) Boredom on the assembly line: age and personality variables. Industrial Gerontology, 2, 23-44. TAYLOR, G. T (1981) Psychotherapy with the boring patient. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 217-222. VODANOVICH, S. J., & KASS, S. J. (1990) Examining the factor structure of the Boredom Proneness Scale. Journal of Personality Aamment, 55, 115-123. WATT, J. D., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1991) The effects of boredom proneness and impulsivity on sel£-reported drug use. Manuscript under review. WILSON,G. D. (1986) Eating style, obesity, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 215-224. ZUCKERMAN, M. (1979) Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal leuel of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ZUCKERMAN, M., & LLIBM, B. (1985) Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised. San Diego, CA: Educational & Industrial Testing Service. ZUCKERMAN, M., LUBIN, B., & RMcK, C. M. (1983) Construcrion of new scales for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Journal of Behavioral Anessment, 5, 119-129.
Accepted November 25, 1991.
BOREDOM PRONENESS: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT ' STEPHEN J. VODANOVICH, KATHRYN M. VERNER University of West Florida THOMAS V. GILBRIDE Veterans Administration Medical Center, New Orleans Summary .-I70 undergraduate students completed the Boredom Proneness Scale by Farmer and Sundberg and the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist by Zuckerman and Lubin. S~gruflcantnegative relationships were found between boredom proneness and negative affect scores (i.e., Depression, Hostility, Anxiety). Significant positive correlations also obtained between boredom proneness and positive affect (i.e., Positive Affect, Sensation Seeking). The correlations between boredom proneness "subscales" and positive and negative affect were congruent with those obtained using total boredom proneness scores. Implications for counseling are discussed.
Boredom has been conceptualized as an affective construct (e.g., Hamilton, 1981; Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum, 1984), and one that is associated with depressed mood (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Other definitions of boredom center on the existence of less than optimal arousal levels (e.g., Berlyne, 1760; Zuckerman, 1979), a concentration on the passage of time (Drory, 1982; Grubb, 1975; Ornstein, 1970), situations that produce a perception of constraint (Fenichel, 1951; Geiwitz, 1966, Stagner, 1975), and the inability to keep oneself entertained (e.g., Hamilton, 1981; Czikszentimihalyi, 1975). The onset of boredom is usually considered to be a temporary condition; however, some individuals have been identified who have a propensity to be bored across time and situations. For instance, Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale (1979) contains a 10-item scale which assesses the trait of boredom susceptibility. Zuckerman (1777) has defined boredom susceptibility as ". . . an aversion for repetitive experience of any kind, routine work, or dull and boring people and extreme restlessness under conditions when escape from constancy is impossible" (p. 103). The boredom susceptibility subscale concentrates on measuring one's inability to tolerate monotonous environmental stimulation (e.g., "I get bored seeing the same old faces"). Recently, Farmer and Sundberg (1986) developed the Boredom Proneness Scale which ". . . emphasizes one's connectedness with one's environment on many situational dimensions, as well as the abSty to access adap'Please send correspondence to Dr. Stephen J. Vodanovich, Psychology Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL 32514.
1140
S. J. VODANOVICH, ET AL.
tive resources and realize competencies" (p. 10). At present, the instrument is the only full-scale measure of an individual's tendency to be bored. The authors have offered a profile of the boredom-prone individual which includes distractibility, depression, dissatisfaction with work, low motivation, and a lack of autonomy. Although the construct of boredom shares common characteristics with other unpleasant affective conditions, it possesses unique qualities. For instance, Farmer and Sundberg (1986) state that even though boredom and depression possess similar symptomatology, they are distinct constructs. They are considered to be different in both ". . . quality and intensity of mood." Further, depression is typified by "feelings of sadness or personal loss," whereas "boredom is characterized by a lack of interest, which can exist independently of sadness" (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986, p. 15). The identification of people with a tendency toward experiencing boredom appears to be important, given the undesirable outcomes which have been shown to relate to the construct. For instance, boredom has been related to lowered academic achievement (e.g., Maroldo, 1986; Robinson, 1975) and poor work performance in industry (Drory, 1982; Gardell, 1971). Boredom has also been implicated as a contributing factor in cases of substance abuse (Carrol & Zuckerman, 1977; Johnston & O'Mdey, 1986; Pascale & Sylvester, 1988; Paulson, Coombs, & Richardson, 1990; Watt & Vodanovich, 1991), eating disorders (Abramson & Stinson, 1977; Ganley, 1989; Martin, 1989; Sahakian, 1983; Wilson, 1986), pathological gambling (e.g., Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & Frankova, 1990; Kuley & Jacobs, 1988), and excessive cigarette smoking (e.g., Ferguson, 1973). Although boredom has been defined in affective terms, limited empirical research has been conducted to assess the relationship between boredom and well-established mood dimensions. One of the few studies conducted in this area (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) reported that boredom-proneness scores were significantly and positively correlated with depression (r = .44) as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), hopelessness (r = .41) as assessed on the Hopelessness Scale (Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974), and loneliness (r = .53)employing the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978). Another study indicated Boredom Proneness total scores were significantly correlated .31 to scores on the MMPI Depression scale (Ahmed, 1990). The purpose of the present study was to investigate empirically the relationship between boredom proneness and a variety of affective traits. Specifically, a measure was used (i.e., the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist, MAACL), which allowed the assessment of both negative and positive affect. The relationship between positive and negative affect and specific components ("factors") of Boredom Proneness were also examined since recent
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
114 1
factor analytic evidence has suggested that Boredom Proneness may be a multidimensional construct (Ahmed, 1990; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). Given the previous review, it was anticipated that significant and positive correlations would be found between boredom proneness and negative affect scores. Furthermore, significant and negative relationships were expected between boredom proneness and positive affect. Similar correlations in both magnitude and direction were anticipated between negative and positive affect and boredom-proneness "factor" scores.
Particzpants The participants were 170 undergraduate students at a medium-sized university in the southeast United States. In the sample were 95 women and 75 men whose average age was 26 years, with a standard deviation of 8.4. The distributions of age and gender within the sample were representative of the university community. Instruments The tendency toward boredom was assessed by the Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; see their Table 1) which has 28 true-false items. In the present investigation, the scale was revised to a 7-point Likert format to allow more variability in the responses to each item. Several researchers have reported the reliability of the Boredom Proneness Scale sufficient for research purposes. The internal consistency of the true-false format has been reported by Farmer and Sundberg (1986) as .79 and by Ahmed (1990) as .73. Similar internal consistency estimates have been noted using the 7-point Likert format of McLeod and Vodanovich (1991) as .79 and by Vodanovich and Kass (1990) as .83. Finally, test-retest reliability has been reported by Farmer and Sundberg (1986) after a oneweek interval to be .83. Comparable test-retest reliability after a two-week interval (.79) was found by McGiboney and Carter (1988). In the present investigation the reliability of the Boredom Proneness Scale (coefficient alpha) was .79. Several studies have provided support for the validity of the Boredom Proneness Scale. As mentioned earlier, boredom proneness has been significantly related to depression, hopelessness, and loneliness (see Ahmed, 1990; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Boredom-proneness scores have also been shown to possess significant relationships with sensation seelung, Type A behavior pattern, and self-actualization scores (e.g., McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). Finally, factor analytic studies have indicated that the Boredom Proneness Scale may possess multiple factors. For instance, Ahmed (1990), using a sample of Canadian undergraduate students, reported the existence of two
1142
S. J. VODANOVICH, ETAL.
factors labeled Apathy and Inattention. Vodanovich and Kass (1990) employed a sample of American undergraduates and found the Boredom Proneness Scale to be comprised of the following five factors, namely, External Stimulation, Internal Stimulation, Affective Responses, Passage of Time, and Constraint. Affect was measured by using the trait form of the revised Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman, Lubin, & Rinck, 1983). The checklist contains 132 adjectives, arranged in alphabetical order and measures five dimensions of affect (Anxiety, Depression, Hostility, Positive Affect, and Sensation Seelung). Scores are also available for general negative affect (Dysphoria) which is a combination of the Anxiety, Depression, and Hostility scores as well as a composite score of Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking (PASS). The reliability and validity of these MAACL subscales varies by sample size and type but has generally been quite satisfactory (see Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). For instance, the reliabilities of the MAACL subscales computed on two samples of college students (Ns = 60 and 183) ranged from .61 (Sensation Seeking) to .95 (Positive Affect). The reliabilities of the two composite scores (PASS, Dysphoria) estimated from the same two samples were from .86 to .93. A vast array of data on the validity of the MAACL has been offered (see Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). For example, MAACL scores from two samples of college students (Ns = 37 and 43) were significantly related to positive and negative affect as measured by the Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, & Droppelman, 1971). I n clinical samples (e.g., state hospitals, community clinics) the MAACL possesses significant correlations with self-ratings of positive and negative affect, counselors' ratings of negative affect, and a variety of MMPI scales.
Procedure The participants were requested to complete a packet which contained the Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) and the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985). The packet also contained a short demographic sheet which requested information regarding age, gender, and race. Responses on the questionnaires were anonymous, and special course credit was given for participation in the study. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between Boredom Proneness total and "subscale" scores and affect scores on the MAACL. Scores on the MAACL factors were converted to T scores to control for the total number of items checked on the instrument. As anticipated, significant positive correlations were observed between
1143
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
Boredom Proneness total scores and negative affect scores (i.e., Anxiety, Depression, Hostility, Dysphoria). Also, total scores on the Boredom Proneness Scale were significantly and negatively related to positive affect scores (i.e., Positive Affect, Sensation Seeking, Composite Positive Affect-Sensation Seeking). Pearson correlations between Boredom Proneness "subscale" scores and MAACL scale scores were as expected, that is, the majority of Boredom Proneness "subscales" were significantly and positively related to negative affect scores and significantly and negatively related to positive affect scores (see Table 1). Significant correlations were more frequent between Boredom Proneness and the composite negative (Dysphoria) and positive affect (Positive Affect-Sensation Seeking) scores. A high proportion of significant correlations was also found between boredom-proneness "subscales" and the individual MAACL scales of Depression, Hostility, Positive Affect, and Sensation Seeking. TABLE 1 PEAFSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEENBOREDOM PRONENESS AND MAACL SCORES (N= 153)
MAACL scores Total
Boredom Proneness Scores External Internal Affective Perce tion Stimulation Stimulation Exper~ence of +me
Anxiety .23* .18 Depression .33* .29t Hoschty .37t .18* Positive Affect -.39t -.34t Sensation Seeking -.19* .13 Dysphoria .40t .24t PASS$ -.37t -.18* *p < .05. t p < .Ol. $PASS is the Composite score of positive affect
.08 .09 .15 -.09 -.35t .15 -.23t
13
Constraint
.18* -.21*
.14 .27t .39t - 3
.38* .15 .38t -.28t
-.32t .24t -.31t
-.21t .34t -.33t
.18* ,407 -.I1
.26t
and sensation seeking.
DISCUSSION The results of the present study indicate that individuals high on boredom proneness possess significantly higher scores on other measures of negative affect. Conversely, our analysis also suggests that those with a greater tendency to be bored report lower levels of positive affect. The present findings provide further support for the validity of the Boredom Proneness Scale. That is, if boredom (or boredom proneness) is considered to be a dissatisfying state, then Boredom Proneness scores ought to be positively related to other measures of negative affect, while being negatively related to measures of positive affect. I t should be noted that the relationship between boredom proneness and the MAACL measure of sensation seeking is not clear. That is, some of
1144
S. J. VODANOVICH, ETAL.
the correlations between boredom-proneness "subscales" (i.e., External Stimulation and Constraint) and sensation seeking are positive, while others (Internal Stimulation, Affective Responses, Perception of Time) are negative. Boredom Proneness total scores were significantly and negatively related to sensation seeking. The previous subscale findings are somewhat congruent with the work of Kass and Vodanovich (1990). They found the Boredom Proneness "subscales" of External Stimulation and Constraint to be significantly and positively related to total scores on Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale. However, unlike the findings of the present study, Kass and Vodanovich found boredom-proneness and sensation-seeking total scores significantly and positively related. The above results indicate that the relationship between boredom proneness and sensation seeking may be relatively complex and may partially depend on the extent to which one is bored. For instance, if the level of boredom is relatively mild, an individual may search for a novel and varied environment. The positive correlations reported in the literature between sensation seeking and the Boredom Proneness "subscale" of External Stimulation and Zuckerman's Boredom Susceptib~LityScale (which essentially assesses a need for a varied environment) offers partial support for this hypothesis. However, if the symptoms of boredom are severe and thereby more closely resemble those of depression, one may be inclined to avoid stimulation. Obviously, it would be beneficial to investigate further the boredom proneness-sensation seeking relationship. Knowledge of Boredom Proneness scores may help guide therapeutic interventions. Ellis (1988) has suggested that active and forceful therapy may prove useful for individuals who are bored and depressed. DeChenne and Moody (1988) comment that bored clients may be best served by therapy that focuses on need frustration, repression, and specific skill deficits. A related topic is that of the therapist who becomes bored during therapy. It has been suggested that such boredom may be due to the clinical setting, the therapist (e.g., countertransference), or the client (see DeChenne & Moody, 1988; McLaughlin, 1975; Morrant, 1984; Taylor, 1984). Indeed, some authors (e.g., Morrant, 1984; McLaughlin, 1975) have suggested that clients with certain diagnoses (e.g., obsessionals) are likely to be boring. Finally, our results stress that it is important for therapists to assess the accuracy of a client's self-reported affective experience. For instance, a report of depression may actually represent a condition of boredom, or vice versa. As Spacks (1989, p. 587) has stated, "If boredom disguises depression, the symptoms of depression may obscure the presence of boredom."
BOREDOM PRONENESS AND AFFECT
1145
REFERENCES ABRAMSON, E. E., & STINSON,S. G. (1977) Boredom and eating in obese and nonobese individuals. Addictive Behaviors.. 2.. 181-185. AHMED, S. M. S. (1990) Psychometric properties of the Boredom Proneness Scale. Perceptual and Motor SkilLr, 71, 963-966. BECK,A. T., WARD,C. H., MENDELSON, M., MOCK,J. E., & ERBAUGH, J. K. (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571. BECK,A. T., WEISSMAN,A,, LESTER,D., & TREXLER,L. (1974) The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861865. BERLYNE, D. E. (1960) Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. BLASZCZYNSKI, A,, MCCONAGHY, N., & FRANKOVA, A. (1990) Boredom proneness in pathological gambling. Psychological Reports, 67, 35-42. CARROL,E. N., & ZUCKERMAN, M. (1977) Psychopathology and sensation seeking in "downers," "speeders," and "trippers": a study of the relationship between personality and drug choice. International Journal of Addictions, 12, 591-601. C ~ S Z E N ~ A L M. Y I(1975) , Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. DECHENNE,T. K., & MOODY,A. J. (1988) Boredom: theory and therapy. The Psychotherapy Patient, 3, 17-29. DRORY,A. (1982) Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work. Personnel Psychology, 35, 141-151. ELLIS, A. (1988) Treating the bored client with Rational-Emotive Therapy. The Psychotherapy Patient, 3, 75-86. F A F ~ E RR., , & SUNDBEXG, N. D. (1986) Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4-17. FENICHEL,0 . (1951) O n the psychology of boredom. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought. New York: Columbia Univer. Press. Pp. 349-361. FERGUSON, D. (1973) A study of occupational stress and health. Ergonomics, 16, 649-663. GARDELL, B. (1971) Alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment. In L. Levi (Ed.), Society, stress, and disease. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 148-180. GANLEY,R. M. (1989) Emotion and eating in obesity: a review of the literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 343-361. G ~ m z F!, J. (1966) Structure of boredom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 592-600. GRUBB,E. A. (1975) Assembly line boredom and individual diFferences in recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 7, 256-269. HAMILTON,J. A. (1981) Attention, personality, and the self-regulation of mood: absorbing interest and boredom. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 10, 281-315. HAMILTON, J. A,, HAIER, R. J., & BUCHSBAUM, M. S. (1984) Intrinsic enjoyment and boredom coping scales: vahdation with personality, evoked potential, and attention measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 183-193. JOHNSTON, L. D., & O'MALLEY, P. M. (1986) Why do the nation's students use drugs and alcohol: self-reported reasons from nine national surveys. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 29-66. KASS, S. J., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1990) Boredom proneness: its relationship to Type A Behavior Pattern and sensation seeking. Psychology, a Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 7-16. KULEY,N. B., & JACOBS,D. F. (1988) The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and sensation seeking among social and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 197-207. MAROLW,G . K. (1986) Shyness, boredom, and grade point average among college students. Psychological Reports, 59, 395-398. MARTIN,J. E. (1989) The role of body image in the development of bulimia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 262-265. MCGBONEY,G . W., & CARTER,C. (1988) Boredom proneness and adolescents' personalities. Psychological Reports, 63, 741-742.
1146
S. J. VODANOVICH, E T A L .
MCLAUGHLM, J. T.(1975) The sleep analyst: some observations on states of consciousness of the analyst at work. Journal o)lrhe American Psychoanalytic Association, 23, 363-383. MCLEOD,C. R., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1991) The relationship berween self-actualization and boredom proneness. In A. Jones & T. Crandall (Eds.), Handbook of self-actualization. [Special Issue] Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 , 137-146. MCNAIR,D. M., LORR,M., & DROPPELMAN, L. F, (1971) Profile ofMood States, manual. San Diego, CA: Educational & Industrial Testing Service. MORRANT, J. C. (1984) Boredom in psychiatric practice. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 431-434. ORNSTEIN, R. E. (1970) On the experience of time. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books. PASCU, P. J., & SYLVESTER, J. (1988) Trend analysis of four large-scale surveys of high school drug use 1977-1986. Journal of Drug Education, 18, 221-233. PAULSON, M. J., COOMBS,R. H . , & RICHARDSON, M. A. (1990) School performance, academic aspirations, and drug use among children and adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 20, 289-303. ROBINSON, W. P. (1975) Boredom ar school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 141152. RUSSELL,D., PEPLAU,L. A,, & FERGUSON, M. L. (1978) Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personalio Assessment, 42, 290-294. SAHAKIAN, B. J. (1983) Psychological factors in childhood obesity: aeriology and treatment. Journal of Obesity and Weight Regulation, 2, 181-194. SPACKS, P. M. (1989) The necessity of boredom. Virginia Quarterly Review, 65, 581-599. STAGNER, R. (1975) Boredom on the assembly line: age and personality variables. Industrial Gerontology, 2, 23-44. TAYLOR, G. T (1981) Psychotherapy with the boring patient. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 217-222. VODANOVICH, S. J., & KASS, S. J. (1990) Examining the factor structure of the Boredom Proneness Scale. Journal of Personality Aamment, 55, 115-123. WATT, J. D., & VODANOVICH, S. J. (1991) The effects of boredom proneness and impulsivity on sel£-reported drug use. Manuscript under review. WILSON,G. D. (1986) Eating style, obesity, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 215-224. ZUCKERMAN, M. (1979) Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal leuel of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ZUCKERMAN, M., & LLIBM, B. (1985) Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised. San Diego, CA: Educational & Industrial Testing Service. ZUCKERMAN, M., LUBIN, B., & RMcK, C. M. (1983) Construcrion of new scales for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Journal of Behavioral Anessment, 5, 119-129.
Accepted November 25, 1991.
