Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2009, pp. 307-340
Existential theory and previous qualitative research have suggested that a lack of life
meaning and purpose causes boredom, as well as other types of negative affect such
as depression or anxiety. Although these variables have been shown to be correlated at
one point in time, the relationships among these constructs have not been investigated
using a controlled, quantitative research design. In Study 1a (N= 131), boredom was
shown to be related to, yet psychometrically distinct from, life meaning, depression, and
anxiety. In Study 1b (N = 88), life meaning significantly predicted changes in boredom
across time while depression and anxiety did not. In addition, boredom was a significant
predictor of changes in life meaning across time, while depression and anxiety were
not. Finally, in Study 2 (N = 102), manipulating perceptions of life meaning significantly
changed boredom, while a manipulation of mood did not. The nature of the relationship
between life meaning and boredom, as well as some clinical implications, are
discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
308
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
309
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
310
Drob and Bernard (1987), on the basis of clinical case studies, challenged the classic psychoanalytic assumption that chronic boredom is
a consequence of defensive operations (i.e., that boredom develops
after instinctual aims are blocked from awareness, resulting in
impoverished desire, fantasy and emotion, e.g., Wangh, 1975).
Instead, Drob and Bernard concluded that the chronically bored individual is devoid of purpose: he or she has failed to achieve a fundamental life project that gives meaning to his or her life. Although
this lack of direction may, in part, result from defensive factors, it is
the lack of purpose or meaning which is the critical causal factor in
the development of chronic boredom. Accordingly, Drob and Bernard
suggest that it is only when the individual has adopted a meaningful
life project or theme that boredom can be overcome.
More recently, Bargdill (2000) has adopted a similar view of boredom. In conducting interviews with individuals who were bored with
their lives, Bargdill found that emotional ambivalence is a key element
of life boredomambivalence which developed after these
individuals had compromised their personal life projects, goals, or
dreams. After replacing their desires with less desired projects, they
became emotionally torn. On the one hand, they felt anger and blame
toward the world and others, particularly toward those whom they felt
had "forced" them to compromise their personal projects; on the other
hand, they felt shame and self-blame, realizing they had sold short
their own dreams to pursue those of others. Moreover, the boredom
they felt toward their modified projects spread to other aspects of their
lives. This chronic boredom was accompanied by feelings of
emptiness, and eventually individuals became passive and avoidant
toward their lives. Bargdill thus concluded that losing or turning away
from personally meaningful life goals leads to feeling "stuck" in a
chronic state of boredom. In short, the work of Bargdill (2000), like
that of Drob and Bernard (1987), suggests that the loss of or failure to
develop meaningful life goals causes the experience of chronic
boredom.
Existential theory and these two qualitative studies suggest that
boredom arises from a lack of life meaning. Although previous research has shown that these variables are significantly related when
measured at one point in time (e.g., MacDonald & Holland, 2002;
Weinstein, Xie, & Cleanthous, 1995), cause cannot be inferred from
correlations alone. In order to remedy this gap in existing research, the
present research evaluated the relationships among these vari-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL
311
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
312
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMANETAL.
313
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
314
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMANETAL.
315
.640
3.SDS
.754
.625
Boredom
4. Boredom Proneness
.466
.445
.578
-.200
-.266
-.294
-.595
6. Purpose in Life
-.654
-.550
-.659
-.574
.327
-.541
-.455
-.571
-.572
.375
8. HADS Anxiety
.556
.524
.527
.235
-.181
-.399
-.258
.618
.474
.566
.387
-.171
-.501
-.454
.488
15.06
3.45
38.38
96.18
6.30
104.63
102.43
7.50
21.15
7.32
2.37
6.62
17.79
2.04
15.13
14.41
3.10
3.57
5. Boredom Coping
Meaning/ Purpose
.806
Anxiety
Means
Standard deviations
Note. All correlations p < .05. CESD = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; SDS = SelfRating Depression Scale.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
316
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
317
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
318
TABLE 2. Study la Fit Indices for Four-Factor Model and Nested Models (N = 131)
Model
xMdf)
4-factor
3-factorA
3-factorB
3-factorC
3-factorD
28.02 (22)
32.61 (25)
150.48(25)
307.37(25)
134.10(25)
p value
.175
.141
.000
.000
.000
TLI
.99
.99
.82
.72
.87
CFI
.99
.99
.88
.81
.91
RMSEA
RMSEA
CI
90%
X2 difference (df)
p value
.046
.048
.196
.295
.183
.000-.091
.000-.090
.170-.230
.270-.320
.150-.21O
4.59 (3)
122.46(3)
279.35(3)
106.08(3)
.204
.000
.000
.000
Note. Model 3-factorA = depression/anxiety, boredom and meaning; 3-factorB = depression, anxiety,
boredom/meaning; 3-factorC = boredom/depression, meaning, and anxiety; and 3-factorD = boredom/anxiety,
depression, and meaning. TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation.
Measures
At time two, participants completed the same questionnaire package
utilized in Study la; however, for the regression analyses, one measure
of each construct was utilized: boredom was measured by the
Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS); depression was measured by the
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD); life
meaning was measured by the Purpose in Life Test (PIL); and anxiety
was measured by the State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety
scale (ANX). See Study la for a description of these measures.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All variables were normally distributed. Four variables had missing
data from one participant each. In addition, two outliers (i.e., greater
than three standard deviations above or below the mean) were
detected: one on CESD1 and one on BPS2. These total scores were
deleted. For each hierarchical regression analysis, plots of standardized residuals were examined to assess for linearity and homoscedasticity, and participants with standardized residuals greater than
three were excluded from each analysis. In addition, the presence of
multicollinearity was assessed by examining the variance inflation
factors, none of which exceeded 5 for any variable in the following
analyses (range 1.46 to 2.28), indicating the absence of multicol-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-.552 -.487
.441
.540
-.228
-.484 -.477
-.495
.543
.684
-.318
-.654 -.630
.432
.521
.648
.710
.794
-.645
-.633 -.617
.411
.419
.505
.385
.588
-.212
-.469
.811
.307
.278
-.200*
-.171*
-.193*
-.279
-.327 -.588
-.626
-.681
-.679
.466
.842
.761
-.481
-.510
-.585
-.544
-.696 -.686
.381
-.469
-.548
-.605
-.583
.454
.765
.885
-.408
-.504
-.541
-.535
-.681
-.713
.371
.790
1 7. HADA2
.514
.610
.646
.359
-.210
-.482
-.475
.702
.589
.529
.657
.599
.372
-.152*
-.515
-.520
18.ANX2
.589
.681
.686
.385
-.258
-.628 -.592
.643
.733
.599
.650
.705
.518
-.220
-.652
-.705
.747
.613
.562
.499
-.269
11.CESD2
.497
.660
.642
.349
12.SDS2
.553
.683
.813
.538
13. BPS2
.447
.489
.558
14. BCS2
-.214
-.160*
15. PIL2
-.540
16. LRI2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10. HADD2
N ET
AL.
1
Depression
AHL
, Boredom,
Life
Boredom
Meaning
Anxiety
.725
Note. All correlations p < .05 unless otherwise noted. For correlations between time one variables, see Table 1. Bolded correlations represent stability of scales across
time. 1 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale (HADS-D), Time one; 2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD), Time one; 3 = SelfRating Depression Scale (SDS), Time one; 4 = Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), Time one; 5 = Boredom Coping Scale (BCS), Time one, 6 = Purpose in Life Test (PIL), Time
one; 7 = Life Regard Index (LRI), Time one; 8 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety Scale (HADS-A), Time one; 9 = State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait
Anxiety scale (ANX), Time one; HADD2 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale, Time two; CESD2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression
Scale, Time two; SDS2 = Self-Rating Depression Scale, Time two; BPS2 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time two; BCS2 = Boredom Coping Scale, Time two; PIL2 = Purpose in
Life Test, Time two; LRI2 = Life Regard Index, Time two; HADA2 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety scale, Time two; ANX2 = State-Trait Personality Inventory
Trait Anxiety scale, Time two. *p > .05.
O
320
linearity. Correlations between all time one and time two variables are
presented in Table 3.
Predicting Boredom Across Time
The first analysis predicted boredom at time two (Table 4). Boredom
at time one was entered first, and meaning, anxiety, and depression
(all at time one) were entered second. Both the step one, F(l,83)
-145.17, p < .001, and step two, F(4,80) = 40.24, p < .001, omnibus
models were statistically significant. Boredom at time one accounted
for 64% (R2 = .64) of the variance in boredom at time two. The
addition of the three variables in step two accounted for an additional
3% of the variance in boredom at time two (AR 2 - .03), which
approached statistical significance, F(3,80) = 2.55, p = .061.
Importantly, an examination of the individual predictors revealed that
both boredom (B = .656, p < .001) and meaning (B = -.196, p = .044)
were statistically significant predictors of boredom at time two, while
anxiety (B = -.023, p = .798) and depression (B = .063, p = .521) were
not.3
Predicting Meaning Across Time
The second analysis predicted life meaning at time two (Table 5).
Meaning at time one was entered first, and boredom, anxiety, and
depression (all at time one) were entered second. Both the step one,
F(l,84) = 206.60, p < .001, and step two, F(4,81) = 63.82, p < .001,
omnibus models were statistically significant. Meaning at time one
accounted for 71% (R2- .71) of the variance in meaning at time two.
The addition of the three variables in step two accounted for an
additional 5% of the variance in meaning at time two (AR 2 = .05),
which was a statistically significant change in R-squared, F(3,81) =
5.40, p = .002. Anxiety (P = .041, p = .596) and depression (B = -.130,
p - .118) were not statistically significant predictors of meaning at
3. Similar to the approach taken in Study la, we ran a more stringent analysis (here, using
hierarchical regression) without the problematic PIL items. Results were very similar: AR 2 = .03,
p = .087. Boredom (P = .674, p < .001) at time one was a statistically significant predictor of
boredom at time two, while anxiety (P = -.028, p = .762) and depression (P = .073, p = .452)
were not. The only difference was that the standardized beta coefficient and associated p value
for the PIL decreased slightly (p = -.172, p = .070).
4. Again, results were nearly identical with the problematic PIL items removed: AR 2 = .04, p =
.006. Meaning (P = .722, p < .001) and boredom (P = -.213, p = .002) at time one were both
statistically significant predictors of meaning at time two, while anxiety (p = .085, p = .247) and
depression (P = -.104, p = .182) were not.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
321
TABLE 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Boredom at Time Two (BPS2) from
Boredom, Meaning, Anxiety, and Depression at Time One (Study 1 b)
SEb
K2
AR2
F(AR2)(dfl
.833
.069
.798
12.05
.000*
.636
BPS1
.686
.087
PIL1
-.237
.116
.656
7.86
.000*
-.196
-2.05
ANX1
-.112
.044*
.437
-.023
-0.26
CESD1
.136
.798
.211
.063
0.64
.521
.668
.032
2.55(3,80)
.061
Stepl
BPS1
Step 2
Note. BPS1 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time one; PIL1 = Purpose in Life Test, Time one; ANX1 =
Slate-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale, Time one; CESD1 = Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale, Time one. *p < .05.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
322
TABLE 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Meaning at Time Two (PIL2) from
Meaning, Boredom, Anxiety, and Depression at Time One (Study 1b)
b
SEb
R2
ARJ
F(AR2)(</r)
1.01
.070
.843
14.37
.000*
.711
PIL1
.750
.097
.629
7.76
.000*
BPS1
-.250
.072
-.246
-3.47
.001*
ANX1
.194
.365
.041
0.53
CESD1
-.250
.176
-.130
-1.58
Stepl
PIL1
Step 2
.596
.118
.759
.048
5.40(3,81)
.002*
Note. BPS1 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time one; PIL1 = Purpose in Life Test, Time one; ANX1 = StateTrait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale, Time one; CESD1 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale, Time one. *p < .05.
reported ratings of boredom. As a control, mood alone was manipulated, and its impact on boredom ratings was also examined. That is,
because manipulating meaning was expected to also change mood, a
manipulation of mood alone was included as a control.
In total, four experimental conditions were created: a meaning
manipulation with two levels of meaning (high/low) and a mood
control condition with two levels of mood (happy/sad). The notion
that an individual's perceived sense of life meaning influences levels
of boredom whereas mood does not was translated into two specific
hypotheses: (1) participants in the low meaning condition would score
significantly higher on the measure of boredom than those in the high
meaning condition; and (2) participants in the happy mood and sad
mood conditions would not be significantly different on the measure
of boredom.
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
Participants were 106 introductory psychology students who received
course credit for their participation. Data from four individuals was
removed due to failure to follow instructions, resulting in a final
sample size of 102. Participants were 73% female (n = 74) with a
mean age of 20.1 (SD = 3.3, range 18 to 41).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
323
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
324
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
325
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
326
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
327
Low Meaning
High Mood
Low Mood
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
CESD
14.08
(6.24)
15.92
(6.76)
17.54
(8.40)
16.40
(8.63)
0.94
.43
RSE
18.85
(3.88)
19.36
(4.94)
18.81
(4.96)
18.92
(5.20)
0.07
.98
SOC
42.92
(7.40)
40.28
(8.82)
38.80
(9.53)
42.40
(9.26)
1.20
.31
Note. CESD = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale;
SOC = Sense of Coherence Scale.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
328
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
329
The four conditions did not differ on the MCQ subscales Clarity,
Sensory Characteristics, Intensity, or Frequency of Recollection. As
expected, however, the groups differed on the Affective Tone
subscale, which measures the affective tone of the recalled memory
(i.e., positive or negative). There was a significant main effect for
condition, F(3, 98) = 223.40, p < .001. Using pair-wise comparisons
adjusted with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, both
of the "high" conditions (High meaning: M = 12.39, SD = 2.23;
Happy mood: M = 13.15, SD = 1.35) were significantly higher on
Affective Tone than both of the low conditions respectively (Low
meaning: M = 3.40, SD = 1.47; Sad mood: M = 3.88, SD =1.94) and
vice versa (p < .001 for all comparisons). However, as would be expected, neither of the high conditions differed from one another (p = .
741) and neither of the low conditions differed from one another (p =
1.00). Furthermore, Affective Tone was not significantly correlated
with any of the other MCQ subscales. Taken together, these results
indicate that the content of the memories did not change the memory
characteristicsfor example, if happy memories had been clearer,
with more sensory characteristics, or had been recalled more
frequently than meaningless memories, these qualities may have
unintentionally altered the experimental manipulations. According to
these results, however, this was not the case.
Questions About the Experimental Tasks. In response to the first
question "Although the memory/paragraph activities might have made
you feel a certain way based on the particular memory you recalled,
when you think of the activities themselves did you find them
engaging (i.e., held your attention) or boring?", the groups were not
significantly different, F(3, 98) = 0.31, p = .82. In addition, the groups
did not differ on the question about how fully they were able to
participate in the task, F(3, 98) = 1.23, p - .30, how boring they
perceived the tasks to be, F(3, 98) = 0.79, p = .50), or how interesting
they perceived the tasks to be, F(3, 98) = 0.28, p = .84. These results
indicate that no condition was significantly more challenging,
engaging, or interesting than the others, despite the type of memory
recalled.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
330
IMPACT ON BOREDOM
Both hypotheses regarding boredom were substantiated. Participants
in the low meaning condition (M = 273.00, SD = 58.79) reported
significantly higher levels of state boredom than those in the high
meaning condition, M = 237.69, SD = 63.80; f(49) = -2.05, p = .045),
whereas participants in the happy mood (M = 269.15, SD = 56.88) and
sad mood (M = 281.84, SD = 68.82) conditions were not significantly
different on the measure of state boredom, t(49) --0.72, p = .48). This
represents a medium-sized effect in the meaning condition (Cohen's d
- .60; n2 = .08) and a small effect on boredom in the mood condition
(Cohen's d = .20; r\2 = .01).
Thus, boredom was influenced by meaning as theoretically expected, but was minimally influenced by the mood manipulation
alone. This finding is consistent with existential theory and the results
of Study lb. With respect to causation, these findings suggest that
meaning is causally related to boredom more so than mood or
negative affect, since manipulating the level of meaning affected
participants' level of boredom, in contrast to manipulating the level of
mood, which did not significantly affect boredom ratings.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present investigation sought to clarify the relationship between
boredom and life meaning, and the role that depression and anxiety
play in this relationship. The findings of Study la suggested that
boredom is related to, yet psychometrically distinct from, life meaning
and negative affect. Study lb used hierarchical regression analyses to
investigate longitudinal relationships between boredom, life meaning,
depression, and anxiety. In particular, it was shown that life meaning
predicted the level of boredom three to eight weeks later, even when
initial boredom levels were controlled. The converse relationship was
also demonstratednamely, that the level of boredom predicted later
levels of life meaning, even when initial levels of life meaning were
controlled. The latter finding suggests that life meaning and boredom
may share a bidirectional causal relationship. Further, in Study lb,
neither depression nor anxiety significantly predicted meaning or
boredom across time, over and above
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
331
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
332
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ET AL.
333
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
334
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMAN ETAL.
335
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
336
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMANETAL.
337
Debats, D. L., van der Lubbe, P. M., & Wezeman, F.R.A. (1993). On the psychometric
properties of the Life Regard Index (LRI): A measure of meaningful life. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(2), 337-345.
Diamond, A. (2005). Attention-deficit disorder (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder without hyperactivity): A neurobiologically and behaviorally distinct
disorder from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (with hyperactivity).
Development and Psychopathology, 17,807-825.
Dillon, W. R., Kumar, A., & Mulani, N. (1987). Offending estimates in covariance
structure analysis: Comments on the causes of and solutions to Heywood
cases. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 126-135.
Drob, S. L, & Bernard, H. S. (1987). The bored patient: A developmental/existential
perspective. Psychotherapy Patient, 3,63-73.
Eastwood, J. D., Cavaliere, C, Fahlman, S. A., & Eastwood, A. E. (2007). A desire for
desires: Boredom and its relation to alexithymia. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42(6), 1035-1045.
Fahlman, S. A. (2005). The relationship between life meaning and boredom: A conceptual
analysis and empirical investigation. Unpublished master's thesis, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Development
and validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS). Manuscript submitted for publication.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and
correlates of a new scale, journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4-17.
Fenichel, O. (1951). On the psychology of boredom. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought: Selected sources (pp. 349-361). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1959/1962/1984). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Pocket Books.
Frankl, V. E. (1978). The unheard cry for meaning. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Greenberg, L. S., & Angus, L. E. (2004). The contributions of emotion processes to
narrative change in psychotherapy: A dialectical constructivist approach. In L.
E. Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy:
Practice, theory, and research (pp. 331-349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenberg, L. S., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2001). A dialectical constructivist view of the
creation of personal meaning, journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 165186.
Greenberg, L. S., Rice, L. N., & Elliott, R. (1993). Facilitating emotional change: The
moment-by-moment process. New York: Guilford Press.
Hamilton, J. A., Haier, R.J., & Buchsbaum, M.S. (1984). Intrinsic enjoyment and
boredom coping scales: Validation with personality, evoked potential, and
attention measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 5,183-193.
Harris, M. B. (2000). Correlates and characteristics of boredom proneness and boredom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 576-598.
Hood, S. C, Beaudet, M. P., & Catlin, G. (1996). A healthy outlook (Statistics Canada
No. 82-003). Health Reports, 7(4), 25-32.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
338
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6,1-55.
Inman, A., Kirsh, K. L., & Passik, S. D. (2003). A pilot study to examine the relation ship between boredom and spirituality in cancer patients. Palliative and Supportive Care, 1,143-151.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Crowley, E. D. (1991). Adolescent substance abuse and leisure
boredom. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(3), 260-271.
Jarvis, S., & Seifert, T. (2002). Work avoidance as a manifestation of hostility, helplessness, and boredom. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 174-187.
Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental phenomenological approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 217(4), 390-394.
Johnson, M. K., Foley, M., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117,371-376.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding
boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20-28.
Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callender, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16,317-327.
Kuhn, R. CI. (1976). The demon of noontide: ennui in western literature. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Laudet, A. B., Magura, S., Vogel, H. S., & Knight, E. L. (2004). Perceived reasons for
substance misuse among persons with a psychiatric disorder. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 365-375.
MacDonald, D.A., & Holland, D. (2002). Spirituality and boredom proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,1113-1119.
Maddi, S. (1967). The existential neurosis. Journal of Abnornal Psychology, 72, 311325.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page (Eds.),
The Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 134-183). Lincoln, NE: University
of Nebraska Press.
Maltsberger, J. T. (2000). Case consultation: Mansur Zaskar: A man almost bored to
death. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 30(1), 83-90.
McCormick, B. P., Funderburk, J. A., Lee, Y, & Hale-Fought, M. (2005). Activity
characteristics and emotional experience: Predicting boredom and anxiety in
the daily life of community mental health clients. Journal of Leisure Research,
37(2), 236-253.
Meier, A., & Edwards, H. (1974). Purpose-in-Life Test: Age and sex differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 384-386.
Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. Psychological
Record, 43(1), 3-12.
Moore, R., Watts, F., & Williams, J.M.G. (1988). The specificity of personal memories
in depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 275-276.
Newberry A. L., & Duncan, R. D. (2001). Roles of boredom and life goals in juvenile
delinquency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 527-541.
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(4), 289-303.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FAHLMANETAL.
339
Passik, S. D., Inman, A., Kirsh, K., Theobald, D., & Dickerson, P. (2003). Initial validation of a scale to measure purposelessness, understimulation, and boredom in
cancer patients: Toward a redefinition of depression in advanced disease.
Palliative and Supportive Care, 1, 41-50.
Polly, L. M, Vodanovich, S. J., Watt, J. D., & Blanchard, M. J. (1993). The effects of
attributional processes on boredom proneness. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 8(1), 123-132.
Radloff, L, S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 385-401.
Reissman, C, Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 243-254.
Reker, G. T. (1977). The Purpose-in-Life Test in an inmate population: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 688-693.
Reker, G. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and reliability of the seeking of noetic goals (SONG) and purpose in life (PIL) tests.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 85-91.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Schopenhauer, A. (1995). The world as will and idea. (D. Berman, Ed. & J. Berman,
Trans.). London, England: Orion Publishing Group. (Original work published
1818).
Seel, R. T, & Kreutzer, J. S. (2003). Depression assessment after traumatic brain injury: An empirically based classification method. Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, 84,1621-1628.
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23(3), 329-340.
Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, S. ]. (2000). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to
psychological- and physical-health symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
56(1), 149-155.
Spacks, P. M. (1995). The literary history of a state of mind. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Spielberger, CD. (1995). Manual for the revised state-trait personality inventory (STPI).
Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (2004). Measuring anxiety, anger, depression,
and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits with the STAI, STAXI,
and STPI. In M. L. Hilsenroth & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychological assessment (Vol. 2) (pp. 70-86). Hobokon, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Steffan, T. G., & Pratt, W. W. (Eds.). (1971). Don Juan: A variorum edition: Cantos VI
-XVII (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Stickney, M., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1999). Evaluating direct and indirect measures
for the functional assessment of binge eating. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 26,195-204.
Suengas, A. G., & Johnson, M. K. (1988). Qualitative effects of rehearsal on memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 377-389.
Todman, M. (2003). Boredom and psychotic disorders: Cognitive and motivational
issues. Psychiatry, 66(2), 146-167.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
340
Theobald, D. E., Kirsh, K. L., Holtsclaw, E., Donaghy, K., & Passik, S. D. (2003). An
open label pilot study of citalopram for depression and boredom in ambula tory
cancer patients. Palliative and Supportive Care, 1, 71-77.
Thurber, S., Snow, M., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The Zung self-rating depression scale:
Convergent validity and diagnostic discrimination. Assessment, 9(4), 401-405.
Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990). A factor analytic study of the boredom proneness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55,115-123.
Vodanovich, S. J., & Verner, K. M. (1991). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to
positive and negative affect. Psychological Reports, 69,1139-1146.
Wangh, M. (1975). Boredom in psychoanalytic perspective. Sociological Research, 42,
538-550.
Watt, J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness and psychosocial development. The Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 303-314.
Weinstein, L., Xie, X., & Cleanthous, C. C. (1995). Purpose in life, boredom, and volunteerism in a group of retirees. Psychological Reports, 76,482.
Williams, J.M.G., & Dritschel, B. H. (1988). Emotional disturbance and the specificity of autobiographical memory. Cognition and Emotion, 2,221-234.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361-370.
Zung, W. W. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry,
12(1), 63-70.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.