First publ. in: Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2010), 3, pp.

531-549
doi: 10.1037/a0019243

Boredom in Achievement Settings: Exploring Control- Value Antecedents

and Performance Outcomes of a Neglected Emotion

Reinhard Pekrun Thomas Goetz

University of Muni ch University of Konstanz and Thurgau Universi ty of
Teacher Education

Lia M. Daniels Robert H. Stupnisky

University of Alberta Laval University

Raymond P. Perry
University of Manitoba

The linkages of achievement-related boredom with students' appraisals and performance outcomes were
examined in a series of 5 exploratory, cross-sectional , and predictive investigations. Studies I and 2
assessed students' boredom in a single achievement episode (i.e., state achievement boredom) ; Studies
3, 4, and 5 focused on their habitual boredom (i.e., trait achievement boredom) . Samples consisted of
university students from two different cultural contexts (North America and Germany). In line with
hypotheses derived from Pekrun's (2006) control- value theory of achievement emotions, achievement-
related subjective control and value negatively predicted boredom . In turn, boredom related positively to
attention problems and negatively to intrinsic motivation, effort, use of elaboration strategies , sel f-
regulation, and subsequent academic performance. Findings were consi stent across different constructs
(state vs. trait achievement boredom), methodologies (qualitative, cross-sectional, and predicti ve), and
cultural co ntexts. The research is discussed with regard to the underdeveloped literature on achievement
emotions.

Keywords: boredom, control- value theory, achievement, achievement emotion, achievement motivation

Boredom is described as one of the plagues of modern society major appraisal theories of emotion, boredom is not listed (John-
(Klapp, 1986; Spacks, 1995) and is one of the most commonly stone, Scherer, & Schorr, 2001). With regard to emotions in
experienced emotions in many settings today. Yet boredom has achievement settings, test anxiety has been examined in more than
received far less attention by researchers than emotions such as 1,000 studies to date (Hembree, 1988; Zeidner, 1998, 2007). In
anxiety , anger, joy, or interest. In Lewis, Haviland-Jones, and contrast, no more than a handful of studies have explored boredom
Feldman Banett's (2008) Handbook of Emotions, boredom is not in school and university contex ts (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry,
considered, with the sole exception of a statement that boredom 2002). With the exception of studies on boredom occurring during
can be reduced by excitement and curiosity (p. 80). Similarly, in simple, repetitive tasks at work (Fisher, 1993; Scerbo, 1998), there
is a clear lack of research on the boredom experienced when
performing achievement-related activities.
Reinhard Pekrun, Department of Psychology, University of Munich, One possible reason for this neglect is that boredom is an
Muni ch, Germany; Thomas Goetz, Department of Education, University of inconspicuous, "silent" emotion, as compared with manifest affec-
Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany , and Thurgau University of Teacher Edu-
tive states like anger or anxiety. From the perspective of teachers,
cation , Thurgau, Switzerland; Lia M. Daniels, Department of Educational
boredom lacks the di sruptive ness anger brings to the situation, and
Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Robert H.
Stupnisky, Department of Education , Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, from the perspective of clinical practi ce, it seems to lack psycho-
Canada; Raymond P. Perry, Department of Psychology, University of pathological relevance, in contrast to anxi ety . However, boredom
Manitoba, Winn ipeg, Manitoba, Canada. may be no less deleterious than other negati ve emotions. Boredom
This research was supported by a TransCoop grant entitled "Academic has been shown to relate to nicotine and alcohol consumption
Risk Factors in College Students" from the German American Academic (AlnoS, Wiltshire, Haw, & Mc Neill , 2006; Ho, 1989; Wies ner,
Council , awarded to Reinhard Pekrun and Raymond P. PeITY, and by a Windl e, & Freeman, 2005), drug use (Anshel, 1991 ; Guinn, 1975),
gmnt from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsge-
excessive ga mbling (Blaszcsynski , McConaghy , & Frankova,
meinschaft IDFG]) entitled " Lern-und Prlifungsemotionen" (Learning-
Related and Test-Related Emoti ons) to Reinhard Pekrun.
1990), juvenil e delinquency (New berry & Duncan, 200 I), divorce
Correspondence concern ing this article should be addressed to Reinhard (G igy & Kelly, 1992), depression and dissati sfacti on with life
Pekrun , Department of Psycho logy, University of Munich, Leopoldstrasse (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), and stress and health problems when
13, 80802 Munich, Germany. E- mail: pekrun @lmu .de coupled with a need to maintain high levels of alertness (Thackray,

531

Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS)

URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-129528
URL: http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/volltexte/2011/12952
 532

1981). The little evidence available also suggests that boredom can cess definitions of emoti ons (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981;
become a severe problem for behavior and performance in Scherer, 2000).
achievement settings. Deviant behavior (Wasson, 1981), truancy
(Sommer, 1985), and dropout (Bearden, Spencer, & Moracco, Boredom as an Achievement Emotion
1989; Tidwell, 1988) of students have been reported to be possible
consequences of boredom. Achievement emotions are defined as emotions tied to achieve-
From a theoretical perspective, boredom is of considerable ment activities or achievement outcomes (Pekrun, 2006). Past
relevance as well. Whereas other emotions are induced by events research focused on emotions induced by achievement outcomes,
and objects that are subjectively valued and personally important, such as fear of failure, or pride and shame following performance
boredom is an emotion that is caused by a lack of value in a given feedback (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Weiner, 1985; Zeidner,
situation or activity, as detailed below. This unique feature implies 1998). The definition adopted here posits that emotions arising
that more comprehensive efforts to explain achievement emotions from achievement-related activities, such as enjoyment and bore-
should take this emotion into account as well. dom induced by learning activities, are also considered achieve-
Given the relevance of the construct from both theoretical and ment emotions. Two types of achievement emotions differing in
practical perspectives, more research on achievement boredom object focus can thus be distinguished: activity emotions, peltain-
seems overdue. In the present research, we analyzed the appraisal ing to ongoing achievement-related activities, and outcome emo-
antecedents and performance consequences of this emotion in a tions, pertaining to the outcomes of these acti vities (Pekrun et aI.,
series of five exploratory, cross-sectional, and predictive studies. 2002; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006).
The studies were organized such that the relationships of boredom Along with object focus, valence (positive vs. negative, pleasant
with antecedents and outcomes were compared across state and vs. unpleasant) and activation (activating vs. deactivating) are two
trait constructs of boredom, qualitative and quantitative assess- critical dimensions for describing achievement emotions (Pekrun,
ments, and different cultural contexts involving North American 2006; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Within these dimensions, bore-
and German student samples. dom is categorized as a negative, deactivating emotion, because it
As a framework to derive hypotheses, we used the control-value is experienced as unpleasant and involves a reduction of physio-
theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun, Frenzel, logical activation. Controversy exists as to whether boredom can
Goetz, & Perry, 2007). The control-value theory provides an coincide with increased, rather than reduced, activation of periph-
integrative approach for analyzing various emotions experienced eral physiological processes. Whereas a number of studies have
in achievement contexts. The theory builds on assumptions from reported decreased activation, as indicated by measures of heart
expectancy- value theories of achievement emotions (Pekrun, rate or skin conductance (Fisher, 1993; see also Goetz & Frenzel,
1988, I 992b; Turner & Schallert, 200 I ), transactional approaches 2006), some authors have postulated an increase in such activation
(Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), attributional theories (Weiner, 1985), (Berlyne, 1960; Fenichel, 1934). However, the available evidence
and models of the performance effects of emotions (Fredrickson, suggests that boredom first and foremost reduces activation, even
200 I; Pekrun, I 992c; Pekrun et aI., 2002; Zeidner, 1998, 2007). It if an increase of activation follows later. Increased activation
expands these views by integrating propositions from different accompanying prolonged boredom and repetitive activities ("over-
theories and by focusing on both outcome-related and activity- saturation"; Karsten, 1928; Lewin, 1928) may result from the
related achievement emotions, including boredom. In the follow- investment of mental effort to sustain attention (London, Schubert,
ing sections, we first introduce the concept of achievement bore- & Washburn, 1972; Scerbo, 1998) or from anger aroused by
dom and summarize previous research, and then present the situational constraints that prevent escape.
hypotheses that guided the present studies.
Boredom Versus Lack of Interest
The Construct of Achievement Boredom and Positive Emotions
Importantly, boredom is not simply equivalent to the absence of
Boredom as an Emotion
interest and positive emotions. Consisting of unique emotional
Boredom is commonly seen as an affective state composed of components as outlined earlier, being triggered by specific stimu-
unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low physiological lus conditions (Fisher, 1993), and showing a specific development
arousal (Harris, 2000; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). Symptoms over time within a given situation (Scerbo, 1998), boredom is more
also include prolonged subjective duration of time, implying that than just a neutral state as defined by a lack of interest or enjoy-
"time stands still"; tendencies to escape the situation causing ment. There are many subjective states that are not enjoyable, but
boredom that include behavioral or mental disengagement (e.g., by would not qualify as boredom (e.g., anger, anxiety). Similarly,
daydreaming); and slow and monotonous speech (Goetz & Fren- given the components described, boredom differs from lack of
zel , 2006; 10hnstone & Scherer, 2000). This profi le of symptoms interest. Lack of interest can be a cause of boredom but is not
implies that boredom consists of specific affective components identical to it. Lack of interest per se is affectively neutral and does
(unpleasant, aversive feelings), cognitive components (altered per- not cause emotional pain, in contrast to the "torments of boredom"
ceptions of time), physiological components (reduced arousal), (Berlyne, 1960, p. 192). Due to differences in affective load, lack
expressive components (facial, vocal, and postural expression), of interest and enjoyment, on the one hand, and boredom, on the
and motivational components (motivation to change the activity or other, also have different motivational consequences (Goetz &
to leave the situation). Given this profi le, boredom is best regarded Frenzel, 2006). Whereas lack of interest and enjoyment implies
as a specific emotion, in line with contemporary component pro- neither the wish to engage in an activity nor the wish to avoid it,
 533

boredom triggers impulses to escape the situation. Lack of interest Lack of Stimulation and Value as Antecedents
and enjoyment entail a lack of approach motivation, whereas of Boredom
boredom promotes avoidance motivation. By implication, as seen
from a motivational perspective, the difference between these Monotonous, repetitive tasks lacking complexity, variety, and
constructs is conceptually equivalent to the difference between a cognitive stimulation are thought to induce boredom. Empirical
lack of approach and the presence of avoidance. J evidence from work-related studies corroborates thi s assumption
(Fisher, 1993). For example, Scerbo (1998) found that monotonous
vigilance tasks induced boredom, with the maximum intensity of
Previous Research on Boredom in boredom reached no later than 10 to 15 min into task engagement.
Achievement Settings Similarly, Coury and Drury (1986) reported that a product quality
monitoring task induced increasing boredom. As for educational
Research on student engagement has focused on achievement settings, Roseman's (1975) study found that the number of school
goals, interest, and intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Dweck, 2005; subjects perceived as boring related to students' claims that school
Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008; "was the same day after day." In addition, the results of a few
Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008; Hidi, 2006; studies suggest that approach achievement motives and mastery
Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Sansone & Thoman, 2005). In achievement goals relate negatively to students' boredom. In the
contrast, studies on the boredom experienced in achievement set- study by Gjesme (1977), sixth graders with a high motive to strive
tings are largely lacking. The few studies available addressed the for success reported less boredom than students having high fear-
relationships of boredom with ability, lack of stimulation and of-failure scores. Mastery goals related negatively to boredom in
value, and effort invested in task performance. Most of the studies undergraduate students' academic activities (Jagacinski & Duda,
used survey and interview methodology, with the exception of 2001; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006; 2009) and in elementary
experimental studies on boredom induced by repetitive tasks students' sports activities (Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong,
(Fisher, 1993). 1992). Similarly, Goetz et al. (2006) found that students' subjec-
tive values of academic achievement correlated negatively with
their reported boredom.
Ability and Perceived Control as Antecedents
of Boredom Effects of Boredom on Achievement Behavior
Traditionally, boredom was assumed to be caused by a lack of The findings of a few interview and survey studies suggest that
challenge, as resulting from a combination of high ability and low boredom relates negatively to attention and effort at achievement
task demands (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). In the educational litera- activities. Using interviews with sixth- and seventh-grade students,
ture, boredom was attributed to gifted children dealing with envi- Jarvis and Seifert (2002) found that students withdrew effort at
ronments tailored to the needs of average-ability students ("The school as a result of experiencing boredom. Farmer and Sundberg
Bored and Disinterested Gifted Child"; Rennert & Berger, 1956; (1986) reported that undergraduates ' boredom proneness corre-
Sisk, 1988). In contrast, the evidence from survey studies suggests lated negatively with their attentiveness during lectures. In Watt
that boredom is more frequently experienced by low-ability than and Vodanovich' s (1999) study, college students' boredom related
by gifted individuals. Roseman (1975) found that bored students negatively to their educational involvement and career planning.
were overrepresented among middle-school students having IQ Simi larly, in Roseman' s (1975) investigation, students' boredom
scores of less than 95 and that boredom correlated negatively with related negatively to teacher ratings of how hard students worked
teacher ratings of students' academic ability. Similarly, Fogelman and to parents ' ratings of effort invested in homework. Consistent
(1976) showed that 11-year-olds who reported being "often bored" with these findings, successful coping with boredom related neg-
in their spare time had significantly lower verbal and nonverbal atively to college students' "wish to be elsewhere" and eff0l1
cognitjve abilities, as well as lower academic performance in
reading and arithmetic, than students who were "sometimes bored"
J From a motivational perspective, being interested in an activity and
or "always enjoyed" their leisure time.
enjoying it implies positive intrinsic value (Eccles, 2005), thereby inducing
Bored students also report lower perceived control and lower
positive intrinsic motivation to perform the activity (approach intrinsic
academic self-concepts. In a study of 12- to 16-year-old students at motivation). Lack of interest and enjoyment indicates a lack of positive
risk of academic failure, Dicintio and Gee (1999) found that intrinsic value, implying that positive intrinsic motivation is lacking and
subjective control over learning activities correlated negatively that extrinsic motivation is necessary to sustain engagement (Sansone &
with boredom arising from these activities. Similarly, in a st udy of Thoman, 2005). In contrast, boredom involves more than just a lack of
middle-school students' emotions in language classes, students' positive intrinsic value and motivation . Boredom implies that the activity
self-concept of ability and boredom correlated negatively (Goetz, acquires negative intrinsic value, thus inducing motivation to avoid en-
Pekrun, Hall, & Haag, 2006). Internal locus of control and suc- gagement (avoidance intrinsic motivation, or negative intrinsic motivation ;
Pekrun , 1993). By implication, lack of interest per se should leave the
cessful "boredom coping," on the other hand, correlated positively
motivation to perform an activity unaffected (other things being equal). In
in a study with college students (Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum,
contrast, by promoting avoidance motivation , boredom reduces the overall
1984). In sum, the little evidence available suggests that hi gh motivation to perform an activity. Thus, the difference between lack of
competencies and perceived control can protect against boredom interest and boredom is conceptually equivalent to the differe nce between
rather than making individuals susceptible to experiencing thi s lack of approach motivation, on the one hand, and the presence of avoid-
emotion. ance motivation, on the other.
 534

needed to concentrate, and related positively to the quality of ents of boredom as well as the effects of boredom on achievement
concentration (Hamilton et aI., 1984). behavior and performance.

Effects of Boredom on Performance Control and Value Appraisals as Antecedents

of Boredom
Experimental studies have demonstrated that boredom arising
from performing monotonous tasks, such as vigilance or data entry The control-value theory posits that appraisals of ongoing
tasks, reduces task performance and increases performance vari- achievement activities, and of their past and future outcomes, are
ability over time (e.g., Cantor, 1968; Hamilton et aI., 1984; Kass, of primary relevance for the instigation of achievement emotions.
Vodanovich, Stanny, & Taylor, 2001; Pan, Shell, & Schleifer, More specifically, the theory stipulates that individuals experience
1994; Sawin & Scerbo, 1995). In line with this evidence, Wall ace, distinct achievement emotions when they perceive being in or out
Vodanovich, and Restino (2003) found positive relations between of control of achievement activities and outcomes that are subjec-
boredom proneness and self-reported everyday cognitive failures tively imp0l1ant to them. This proposition implies that subjective
involving memory lapses and attentional distractibility in samples control and subjective value are the proximal determinants of these
of undergraduate students and military personnel. emotions. The term subjective control refers to the perceived
However, there is a conspicuous lack of studies on boredom and causal influence of an agent over actions and outcomes (Skinner,
pelformance involving more complex tasks, and on boredom and 1996), and the term subjective value refers to the perceived va-
academic performance. Exceptions consist of a few studies that lences of actions and outcomes. For example, it is expected that
produced conflicting results. Larson and Richards (1991) found a enjoyment of learning is instigated when a student experiences a
weak, positive association between upper elementary students' sense of control over learning and values the material, and that
grade point average (GPA) and boredom during school hours. In anxiety before an exam is aroused when performance on the exam
contrast, Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, and Liidtke (2007) reported is perceived as not sufficiently controllable and the outcome of the
negative correlations for eighth and eleventh graders' boredom and exam as important.
achievement in different school subjects, and Maroldo (1986) With regard to boredom, however, the theory posits that this
reported a negative correlation between college students' boredom emotion differs from other achievement emotions by being
and their GPA. Similarly, Daniels et al. (2009) and Pekrun et al.
aroused when achievement-related activities are perceived as lack-
(2009) found that boredom experienced by undergraduate students ing value, rather than being subjectively important. The theory
in university courses related negatively to their performance in the
proposes a negative relationship between the subjective value of
courses, suggesting that boredom can negatively affect students'
activities in a given achievement setting, on the one hand, and the
academic achievement.
frequency and intensity of boredom experienced in this setting, on
In sum, the meager evidence available suggests that low ability
the other. 2 More specifically, it is expected that a lack of intrinsic
and lack of achievement values relate to the boredom experienced
values of achievement activities, rather than a lack of extrinsic,
by students. In addition, the findings imply that boredom relates to
instrumental utility, is critical for the instigation of boredom. For
reduced attention, effort, and performance in achievement settings.
example, if a student doing assignments for a course perceives the
However, the available evidence is too limited to warrant more
course material as uninteresting and mastery of the material as
general conclusions, indicating a clear need for more research on
being of little relevance for personal identity, he or she is assumed
students' boredom. Furthermore, most of the extant research con-
to experience boredom when studying for the course.
sists of survey and interview studies that were exploratory in
Furthermore, boredom is also posited to be influenced by sub-
nature, rather than being guided by theory. Typically, these studies
jective control. In Csikszentmihalyi' s (1975) conception, boredom
employed one-item measures of boredom with unknown psycho-
is assumed to be induced when individual capabilities are high
metric properties (e.g., Fogelman, 1976; Gjesme, 1977; Larson &
relative to task demands, suggesting that boredom is experienced
Richards, 1991), relied on qualitative interview data only, or used
when control is high. In contrast, the control- value theory posits a
general boredom scales not specifically assessing boredom in
curvilinear relationship between control and boredom, with more
achievement settings. There is a lack of theory-based research
boredom being experienced under conditions of high or low con-
systematically examining the antecedents and performance conse-
trol, as compared with moderate control. Thus, it is expected that
quences of achievement-related boredom, especially in terms of
boredom may also occur when there is a lack of control over the
studies that target students' boredom in demanding academic
activity because demands exceed individual capabilities (see Acee
environments, use direct measures of achievement boredom, and
et aI., 20 I 0, for a similar view).
employ longitudinal designs in addition to cross-sectional survey
methodology.
2 Lack of value of activiti es in a given achievement setting differentiates

achievement-related boredom from achievement-related hopelessness and

Theoretical Framework: A Control-Value Model of from depression. The difference between boredom and hopelessness is that
Achievement Boredom hopelessness relates to the nonattainability of valued outcomes, whereas
boredom is caused by a lack of value. The difference between boredom and
The fi ve studies presented herein are based on hypotheses depression is that boredom relates to a lack of value of the current activity
derived from the control- value theory of achievement emotions but does not undermine the attractiveness of alternative activities, whereas
(Pekrun, 2000, 2006; Pekrun et aI., 2007; Pekrun et aI. , 2002). depression implies that there is no longer any subjective value in any
These hypotheses address control and value appraisals as anteced- acti vity whatsoever.
 535

For any given setting, the context and the type of activities under (Pekrun, 2006; Zeidner, 1998). By implication , boredom is posited
consideration likely determine whether boredom is produced by to exert negative effects on overall academic achievement.
low or high control. In most academic contexts, tasks are complex
a nd present challenges that must be overcome if success is to be Summary of Aims and Hypotheses
attained. For these settings, it is unlikely that task demands and
individual capabilities jointly create a situation in which percep- In five studies, we tested the proposed links between boredom
tions of control are sufficiently high to induce feelings of boredom. and related antecedents and effects in samples of German (Studies
Rather, it seems that, in relation to task demands, individuals are I, 2, and 3) and North American (Studies 4 and 5) undergraduates.
more likely to experience low or moderate control, resulting in a In test ing our hypotheses, we designed the studies to address
negative relationship between observable levels of control, on the relationships of students' boredom with control and value apprais-
one hand, and boredom, on the other. Therefore, in the present als, as well as attention problems, intrinsic motivation, effort, use
research focusing on boredom in demanding achievement settings, of elaboration and rehearsal strategies, self-regulation of learning,
we expected to find negative effects of control on boredom , rather and academic performance. Study I used a semi structured, quali-
than curvilinear relation ships. tative questionnaire to explore boredom within single episodes of
learning at university (state achievement boredom). In Study 2,
quantitative measures were used to assess state achievement bore-
Effects of Boredom on Achievement Behavior dom during learning episodes. Studies 3 and 4 considered boredom
and Performance as habitually experienced in achievement settings (trait achieve-
ment boredom). By using similar measures, Studies 3 and 4
The control-value theory (Pekrun, 2006) considered here posits provided a comparison of relationships across German (Study 3)
that the effects of emotions on performance are medi ated by three and North American (Study 4) student samples. Finally, Study 5
distinct types of functional mechani sms: the availability of cogni - employed a longitudinal design to determine whether control and
tive resources, the motivation underlying achievement activities, value predicted boredom , and whether boredom predicted achieve-
and the strategies used when performing these activities, including ment, in an introductory psychology course over one academic
the self-regulation of these activities. Emotion effects on perfor- year.
mance are expected to be a joint function of these mechanisms. For The research strategy implied by thi s sequence of studies in-
boredom, the following is proposed. volved testing the generali zability of findin gs across state and trait
Cognitive resources. Boredom functions to withdraw atten- constructs of boredom (Studies I and 2 vs. Studies 3 to 5) and
tion from activities lacking value and to direct attention toward across qualitative and quantitative methods of assessing boredom
more rewarding stimuli and activities. By implication, it is ex- (Study I vs. Studies 2 to 5). Furthermore, by using both German
pected that boredom experienced during an achievement task and North American student samples, we sought to test general-
reduces cognitive resources available for the task by causing izability across different cultural contexts. Traditionally, the Ger-
attention problems. Boredom is posited to reduce task-related man and North American universi ty systems have differed in a
attention, increase distractibility, and induce task-irrelevant think- number of aspects that have important implications for students'
ing focused on alternative contents. emotions. Specifically, although German universities are currently
Motivation. Boredom is expected to reduce the motivation to undergoing change, many study programs are still less structured
perform achievement activities. More specifically, as argued ear- in the German system than in the North American system, imply-
lier, boredom caused by an activity is aversive and induces moti- ing that more self-regulation is expected from students in these
vati o n to avoid the activity. Being aversive and avoid ance- programs. Second, achievement demands and assessments are
oriented, boredom is incompatible with experiencing situational organized differently. There is less frequent high-stakes testing in
interest and enjoyment in the activity. Therefore, it is expected to the German system to date, and course exams are typi cally less
impair intrinsic motivation to engage in the activity. Furthermore, frequent. Both of these differences were true for the German and
on account of its negative effects on motiv ation, boredom is also North American samples in the present research.
expected to reduce the effort invested in the activity. Succinctly stated, the primary hypotheses examined in our re-
Strategies and self-regulation. In contrast to activating emo- search were as follows:
tions, which are thought to facilitate the use of cognitive strategies,
boredom is posited to lead to a shallow processing of information Hypothesis I : Subjective co ntrol and value relating to
and to reduce the use of any task-related cognitive and metacog- achievement activities negatively predict boredom.
nitive strategies. Boredom is thus expected to reduce both fl exible
Hypothesis 2: Boredom relates positively to attention prob-
strategies, such as elaboration of learning material , and more rigid
lems and negatively to intrinsic motivation, effort, elabora-
strategies, such as rehearsal of material. Similarly, by encou ragi ng
ti on, rehearsal , and self-regulation of learning.
a passive approach to learning, boredom is expected to red uce the
self-regu lation of achievement activities as defi ned by active goal Hypothesis 3: Boredom negatively predicts academic perfor-
setting, strategy selection, and monitoring of outcomes. mance.
Performance. As a consequence of the negative effects of
boredom on attention, motivation, and strategy use, boredom is
Study 1
expected to exert uni fo rmly negati ve performance effects on both
simple and more complex tasks, in contrast to activat ing negative Study I provided descriptive information o n the relati ons be-
emoti ons, such as anxiety, which have more variable effects twee n control- value appraisals, boredom, and learning by using
536

open-ended questionnaires to explore students' emotions expeli- SD = 1.16) was lower than the mean intensity of all emotions
enced in a university setting. A subsidiary aim was to validate our assessed (M = 2.80, SD = 1.12). Thus, boredom wa s an emotion
proposition that achievement boredom should be categorized as a experienced with relatively low average intensity but rather high
negative deactivating emotion. The study focused on state achieve- frequency when attending class or studying.
ment boredom experienced within single achievement-related ep- Components of the boredom experience: Boredom as an un-
isodes. pleasant, physiologically deactivating emotion. In response to
Question I on affective components, all but one of the descriptions
indicated that boredom was unpleasurable, thus corroborating the
Method
classification of achievement boredom as a negative (unpleasant)
Participants and procedure. A total of 323 undergraduates emotion. J The boredom experienced was described as relating to
(226 female and 97 male; mean age = 23.46 years, SD = 3.26) dissatisfaction, feelings of emptiness, an aversive lack of goals,
enrolled in psychology or education courses at a German univer- and an unpleasant perception of time as being excessively pro-
sity participated in the study. Participants completed a semistruc- longed, in line with previous reports on boredom (Harris, 2000;
tured questionnaire immediately after having attended a class or Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993).
having studied material related to class. In Part I, participants Descriptions of physiological changes and emotional expression
answered questions on the emotions they had experienced when were analyzed for peripheral physiological and motor responses
attending class or studying. In Part IT, they described one of their indicating activation versus deactivation. Of the 23 responses
reported emotions in more detail. The experimenter selected this pertaining to activation versus deactivation, 19 indicated deactiva-
target emotion at random from all of the emotions presented by the tion by symptoms such as sleepiness and yawning, slack body
student. A subsample of 29 students (19 female, 10 male) were posture, cold hands, and an empty gaze. Four descriptions indi-
asked to provide descriptions of boredom. cated activation (e.g., increases in heart rate and respiration rate).
Activation in these cases likely was due to factors other than
boredom, including activating emotions that occurred simulta-
Questionnaire and Data Analysis
neously with boredom, environmental factors, and motivational
Frequency and intensity of boredom. In Part I, participants ambivalence:! Although we cannot rule out the possibility that
indicated, for each of 17 different preselected emotions, including boredom may produce physiological activation under certain con-
boredom, whether they had experienced the emotion in the pre- ditions, the overall pattern of results supports the proposition that
ceding situation, and rated the intensity of the emotion on a scale boredom is a deactivating emotion, in contrast to theoretical po-
ranging from I (weak) to 5 (strong). sitions (e.g., Fenichel, 1934) that speculate this emotion to be
Components and correlates of boredom. In Part IT, the 29 physiologically activating.
pm1icipants selected to elaborate on boredom were asked to pro- Control and value appraisals. Of the 18 reports describing
vide open-ended descriptions answering six questions. Three ques- control-related cognitions, 14 indicated that one's own competence
tions related to the components of boredom, including (a) affective and attainment were judged as low or that task demands were
feelings ("When you experienced this emotion, what exactly did judged as hi gh. In contrast, only four of the reports implied high
you feel? Please describe these feelings, using your own words"); perceived competence or low demands. These findings corroborate
(b) physiological changes ("When you experienced this feeling, that boredom in demanding achievement settings can be related to
did you notice any bodily changes? If yes, please describe"); and high-competence/low-demand conditions which imply high sub-
(c) emotional expression ("When you experienced this feeling, did
you notice any changes in your facial expression, postural expres-
.l The exception was one student indicating that his or her boredom
sion, body movements, or speech? If yes, please describe"). Three
questions targeted correlates of the emotion, including (d) cogni- experienced while studying "is a feelin g that I really can enjoy."
4 In the first case, boredom was coupled with activating nervousness
tions ("Which thoughts did you have when experiencing this
feeling?"); (e) motivational reactions ("What did the feeling mo- caused by an upcoming exam. In the second case, boredom ex perienced
while listening to a monotonous presentation led to anger, which may have
tivate you to do, what would you have liked to do?"); and (f)
produced the increase of heart rate and respiration rate described by the
behavior and performance outcomes ("How did this emotion affect student. The third report indicated that it was hot during the lecture the
your learning and performance?"). To code answers, we used student attended, which may explain why the student reported having been
classification systems developed by Pekrun (1992a) and Titz sleepy while at the same time experiencing motoric restl essness. In the
(200 I). Interrater reliabilities were 88%, 94%, 89%, 80%, 83%, fourth case, the reported combination of slack body posture and muscular
and 92%, respectively, for answers to the six questions. tension may have been due to lack of intrinsic value of the repetitive
learn ing task at hand , combined with thoughts about the instrumental
importance of mastering the task, likely implying a conflict between
Results and Discussion deactivating boredom and activating instrumental motivation. An atldi -
tional analysis of the co-occurrence of boredom with other emotions as
Preliminary analyses.
reported in Part I of the questionnaire corroborated that boredom can be
Frequency and intensity of achievement-related boredom. experienced in situations in which other affective states are experienced as
For the entire sample (N = 323), boredom was experienced in well. Emotions reported as having being experienced frequently in the
42.2% of all situations described (Table I) and wa s reported same situation as boredom included disappointment, hopelessness, sad-
significantly more frequently than anxiety (28.0%), anger (19.3%), ness, envy, anger, and anxiety. However, this finding should be interpreted
or hopel essness (13.6%), although less frequently than enjoyment cautiously, as boredom and other emotions may have been experienced
(66.5%). The average reported intensity of boredom (M = 2.41, sequentially . rather than simultaneously, within the relevant situation.
 537

Table I
Suml1lGlY of Main Findings for Study 1

Percentage of
Variable" Predominant attribute for boredom boredom reports

Frequency Most frequently reported negative emotion, experienced

in 42.2% of academic situations
Pleasantness Unpleasant feelings 96.5
Activation Physiological deactivation 82.6
Control Perceived competence low, task demands high 77.7
Value Subjective value of studying low 90.0
Attention Lack of concentration, distractibility, task-irrelevant 100.0
thinking
Motivation Reduced moti vat ion to learn, moti vat ion to perform 92.3
alternative activities
Percei ved performance Impaired quality of performance 89.4

" Content dimensions used to describe attributes of boredom.

jective control, but is more typically related to low-competence! performance. In two cases, students reported that boredom reduced
high-demand conditions which imply low subjective control. Fur- task-related attention, but that a decrease of performance was
thermore, 18 out of 24 reports referring to value cognitions prevented by trying to cope with boredom in terms of exerting
indicated that the perceived value of attending class or studying self-discipline (first case) or actively engaging in course discus-
was low or questionable. Reasons given were lack of interest in sions (second case). Performance decrements produced by bore-
learning material, doubts about being enrolled in a course meeting dom were attributed to (a) disengagement from learning by engag-
personal goals, and lack of instrumental value for obtaining a job ing in task-irrelevant behavior while in class or studying, such as
after graduating from university. Two of the reports indicated that talking to neighbors, drawing figures , or watching other students
studying was seen as instrumentally useful, but boring because of (mentioned in 58% of the relevant reports); (b) reduced quality of
lack of intrinsic value, thus implying motivational ambiguity. performance due to lack of concentration (29%); and (c) escaping
Overall, these results corroborate that a perceived lack of value from the causes of boredom by leaving class (5%). Two respon-
regarding achievement activities coincides with students' experi- dents also mentioned effects of boredom on the quality of infor-
ences of boredom. mation processing. Both indicated that boredom induced a super-
Achievement behavior and performance outcomes ficial approach to processing learning material, including a lack of
Attention problems. All of the 26 reports addressing task- differentiation between focal and less important aspects of infor-
related attention indicated that attention was reduced, as indicated mation.
by lack of concentration, distractibility, and task-irrelevant think-
ing (e.g., daydreaming). Those who described the dynamics of
concentration indicated that concentration decreased over time.
Conclusions
Task-irrelevant thinking was related to positive events and actions The findings of thi s study show that achievement boredom can
outside achievement settings (e.g., going biking, meeting friends, be classified as an unpleasant, deactivating emotion, similar to
having dinner) in 24 of the 26 reports, indicating complete dis- boredom described for other settings (Ragheb & Merydith, 200 I).
connectedness between current task contents and irrelevant FUlthermore, the results suggest that boredom can relate to both
thoughts. This contrasts with the irrelevant thoughts centering on high-control and low-control conditions, but was more frequently
achievement-related concerns that are typical for test anxiety reported in relation to low-control conditions, in line with Hypoth-
(Zeidner, 1998). Overa ll, these findings uniformly confirm that esis I. In addition, results corroborate that boredom relates to
boredom coincides with attention problems. reduced subjective values of achievement activities. Finally, find-
Motivation. Of the 26 reports addressing motivational reac- ings confirm that boredom is described as causing attention prob-
tions, 24 indicated that boredom reduced motivation to learn,
including (a) motivation to leave class, stop learning, or postpone
it (41 % of the relevant reports); (b) motivation to do something 5 Two reports diverged from findings on reduced motivation. In one

else instead of studying (66%); (c) lack of intrinsic motivation to report , the respondent was studying material for an exam, hoped for
learn due to boredom (20%); and (d) lack of any motivation success on the exam, experienced time pressure, and wanted to cope with
whatsoever (8 %). Similar to the contents of irrelevant thinking, boredom by increasing hi s or her effort to focus attention on the learning
material. In the second case, the respondent had to prepare for an important
motivation to do something else related to pleasurable nonaca-
exam by reading uninteresting textbooks and reported on motivation ·to
demic act ivities in all descriptions. These findings are in line with
search for alternative, more interesting material. In both cases, the moti-
the hypothesis that boredom reduces intrinsic and overall motiva- vation on which the respondent reported aimed at coping with boredom in
tion to learn.s order to ensure successful preparation. Overall, the findings imply that
Perceived performance. In 17 out of 19 responses to Question boredom can induce motivation to cope by increasing effort or changing
6 concerning performance consequences, respondents indicated strategies, but that it typically leads to a loss of motivation for task-related
that boredom had impaired the quality of study behavior and engagement.
 538

lems and adversely affecting motivational engagement and perfor- Wild and Schiefele's (1994) Learning Strategies Questionnaire.
mance while studying, in line with Hypotheses 2 and 3. The This instrument is a modified German version of the Motivated
generalizability of these findings, however, is clearly limited by Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
the small size of the boredom sample (n = 29) and the subjective McKeachie, 1991). The six items of the attention problems scale
nature of students' qualitative descriptions of emotional episodes. refer to lack of concentration (e.g., "I lack concentration"), dis-
tractibility ("I am easily distractible"). and task-irrelevant thinking
("I notice that my thoughts are elsewhere"). Instructions asked
Study 2
participants to indicate how they felt. at present. when studying
In Study 2, we used quantitative measures to explore the rela- (I = strongly disagree. 5 = strongly agree; 0: = .92). Intrinsic
tionships of state ach ievement boredom with appraisals and learn- motivation was measured with a three-item Intrinsic Motivation
ing. The study included all of the appraisal antecedents and out- Scale (Titz. 2001). This scale assesses motivation based on enjoy-
comes of boredom addressed by our original hypotheses (i.e., ment of. and interest in, studying academic material (e.g .• "At
control, value, attention problems, intrinsic motivation, effort, present. I am motivated to study because I am interested in the
elaboration, rehearsal, self-regulation, and performance). By as- material"; I = strongly disagree. 5 = strongly agree; n = .88).
sessing boredom in the context of single achievement-related Effort. elaboration. and rehearsal were measured with state
episodes, Study 2 focused on achievement boredom as a temporary versions of scales of the Learning Strategies Questionnaire (Wild
state, as did Study I . In combination with Study I, a primary & Schiefele. 1994). Instructions asked respondents how they cur-
purpose was to investigate whether relationships for state achi eve- rently dealt with learning material. The scales consisted of five
ment boredom were consistent across qualitative and quantitative items for effort (e.g .• "I invest much effort today while studying").
measures of boredom. six items for elaboration (e.g .• "I try to relate the material to what
I already know"). and four items for rehearsal (e.g., "I read the
material over and over again"). Participants responded by using a
Method
scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). and
Participants and procedure. A total of 203 students (100 the scores were summed to form the effort. elaboration. and
female and 103 male; mean age = 24.00 years, SD = 3.47) rehearsal indexes (0: = .71 •. 75. and .73, respectively). Self-
enrolled in undergraduate courses at a German university partici- regulated learni ng was measured with a state version of the six-
pated in Study 2. Participants were approached while absorbed item Perceived Self-Reg ulation at Learning Scale (Titz. 200 I).
with learning material in study rooms that are part of the univer- which assesses students' current self-regulation of learning goals.
sity's library, and completed the study measures individually in use of learning strategies. and monitoring of learning outcomes
one session in that room. (e.g .• "I set my own goa ls today that I want to attain when
Measures studying"; "When studying today. I decide for myself which
Boredom. The state version of the Learni ng-Related Boredom strategies to use"; "I am able to evaluate for myself how I make
scale of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ; Pekrun progress at learning today"; I = strongly disagree. 5 ~, strongly
et aI., 2002; Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005) was used to assess agree; 0: = .6 1).
participants' boredom while studying. The instructions for the Perceived performance. A four-item self-repOlt scale (Titz.
measure asked respondents to describe how they currently felt 200 1) was used to assess students' perceived c urrent performance
when studying (eight items; e.g., "Today, studyi ng for my courses at learning (e.g .• "I am successful in making progress at learning
bores me"; "The material bores me to death"). Participants re- today" ; I = strongly disagree. 5 = strongly agree ; ()( = .9 1).
sponded on a scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), and the scores were summed to form the boredom
Results and Discussion
index (0: = .89).
COlltrol alld value. A five-item scale related to influencing Preliminary analysis. Table 2 presents the descriptive statis-
academic achievement (Schwarzer, 1986) was used to measure tics for each of the variables. We also analyzed descriptive statis-
achievement-related subj ective control (e.g., "I know exactly what tics separately for female and male students. There were signifi-
to do to get good grades"; "When preparing adequately, I'm cant gender differences in academic control (Ms = 14.21 and
always successful in getting good grades"). The state version of the 15.73. SDs = 4.21 and 3.39. for fema le and male students. respec-
four-item Academic Value Scale was used to assess the subjective tively). t(201) ,c - 2.80. p < .01. and elaboration (Ms c···· 18.58 and
value of the current achievement activi ty (Titz, 200 I; e.g., "The 16.85. SDs '" 4.69 and 4.41). t(201) '" 2.27. p < .05, indicating
material I deal with today is of great personal relevance for me"; that female students reported less control and more elaboration
"What I'm doing at present is not one of my favorite activities" than male students. However. effect sizes for these differences
[reverse scored]; items were adapted from the Study Interest were small (ds = ..- .28 and .27 for control and elaboration.
Questionnaire [SIQ] ; Schiefele, Krapp, Wild, & Winteler, 1993). respectively; Cohen. 1988). Gender differences were not signifi-
Participants responded on a scale ranging from I (strongly dis- cant for any of the other study variables.
agree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the scores were summed to form Relationships of control and value with boredom. We an-
the control and value indexes (0: = .78 and .80 for control and alyzed relationships between the study variables by Pearson
value, respectively). product- moment correlations (Table 2). In line with Hypothesis I.
Attelltioll problems, illtrinsic motivatioll, effort, elaboration, academic control was negatively correlated with boredom whi le
rehearsal, alld self-regulated learning. Attention problems were studying. Similarly. the subjective value of studying correlated
assessed with a state version of the Attenti on Problems scale of negatively with boredom. These findings are consistent with the
 539

Table 2
PeG/'son Product- Moment Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study 2

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I. Boredom
2. Control - .24"
3. Value - .70"" .32""
4. Attention problems .65" -.28" - .51 '"
5. Intrinsic motivation - .6 1"" .34-- .79" - .4T'
6. Effort - .45" .22'" .30" - .56" .21"
7. Elaboration - .07 .09 .06 - .11 .13 .03
8. Rehearsal .19" - .15 - .13 .25" - .10 -.03 .05
9. Self-regulation - .26"" .30"" .30" - .33"' .31 " .36"' .13 -.06
10. Perceived performance - .26"" .55 " .33" - .26-- .40" .19" .00 .07 .26"
M 17.15 14.98 16.34 15.51 8.85 18.05 17.61 18.56 20.86 9.84
SD 6.49 3.89 4.40 5.14 3.02 3.44 4.50 5.05 3.52 2.72
Possible range 8-40 5-25 5-25 6-30 3-15 5-25 6- 30 7- 35 6- 30 4- 20
Observed range 8-38 5- 24 5- 25 6-30 3-15 10-25 7-30 7- 30 10- 30 4- 16

"p < .05. ". p < .01.

results of Study I, and with the hypothesis that lack of control and Conclusions
lack of value serve as antecedents to students' boredom in aca-
demic achievement settings. The findings of Study 2 were consistent with those of Study I,
The propositions of the control-value theory imply that rela- thus corroborating that relationships of boredom with achievement
tionships between control and boredom can take curvilinear forms. behavior and perceived performance are structurally equivalent
For academic settings, however, we expected that control- across qualitative and quantitative approaches. Across the two
boredom relationships would be negatively linear because of the studies and in line with our hypotheses, control and value related
negatively to boredom, and boredom related negatively to atten-
high demands implied by these settings. In order to test for
tion, intrinsic motivation, effort, self-regulation of learning, and
linearity, we performed a simultaneous multiple regression ana ly-
performance. Contrary to expectations, however, boredom did not
sis including linear and quadratic terms for control. The quadratic
relate significantly to elaboration and correlated positively with
term was computed after centering the variables. Control had a
rehearsal. The positive relationship with rehearsal may have been
significant linear effect on boredom (3 = - .32, p < .00 I). There
due to effects of rehearsal on boredom, rather than to reverse
was no significant effect for the quadratic term. This finding
effects as addressed by our original hypothesis.
indicates that the relationship between control and boredom takes
linear rather than quadratic forms, in line with our earlier reason-
ing. Studies 3 and 4
Relationships of boredom with achievement behavior and
Whereas Studies I and 2 explored boredom experienced in
perceived performance. Boredom correlated positively with
discrete achievement episodes (state achievement boredom), Stud-
attention problems during learning activities (Table 2), in line
ies 3 and 4 analyzed students' habitual boredom experienced in
with the hypothesis that boredom leads to lack of concentration, university settings (trait achievement boredom) and examined their
distractibility, and task-irrelevant thinking. Furthermore, bore- relationships with control, value, achievement behavior, and per-
dom correlated negatively with intrinsic motivation to learn, formance. This combination of studies makes it possible to test the
self-reported effort at learning, and the perceived self- generalizability of the relationships across state and trait constructs
regulation of learning. Contrary to expectations, however, bore- of boredom. In addition, whereas the first two studies used sub-
dom did not correlate significantly with elaboration and had a jective indicators of performance, Studies 3 and 4 assessed rela-
small positive correlation with rehearsal. An explanation for the tionships between boredom and objective academic performance
positi ve relationship with rehearsa l may be effects of rehearsal as indicated by students' course grades. Furthermore, drawing on
on boredom, rather than effects of boredom on the use of German (Study 3) and North American (Study 4) student samples,
rehearsal. It seems likely that rehearsing material to be learned we considered the generalizability of the relationships across two
can be experienced as repetitive and monotonous, thus implying different cultural contexts.
a lack of cognitive stimulation that can induce boredom .
This pattern of relationships is consistent with the findings of
Study I, and with Hypothesis 2 that boredom is detrimental to
Method
students' attention, motivation, investment of effort, and self- Participants and procedure. In Study 3, 122 students (92
regulation at learning. Finally, boredom also correlated negatively female and 30 male; mean age = 23.43 years, SD = 3.54)
with students ' perceived performance in terms of estimated cun'ent volunteered from undergraduate psychology and education courses
progress at learning, in line with Hypothesis 3 that boredom at a German university. In Study 4, the sample consisted of 389
impairs performance at academic tasks. students (234 fema le and I SS male; mean age = 20.63 years;
 540

SD = 3.48) from undergraduate psychology courses at a midwest- 1991). In Study 4, we used the original MSLQ scales for effort
e rn Canadian universi ty who participated in retum for extra course (four items), elaboration (six items), and rehearsal (four items).
c redit. Participants completed the measures in one session. Sample items for both the German and Engli sh versions of the
Measures. scales for effort, elaboration, and rehearsal, respecti vely, were as
Boredom. We used the trait version of the Leaming-Related follows : "I work hard to do well in my classes even if I don't like
Boredom scale of Pekrun et al. 's (2002) Achievement Emotions what we are doing"; "When reading for my classes, I try to relate
Questionnaire (AEQ) that was admini stered in Study 2 to assess the material to what I already know"; and "When studying for my
the boredom participants experienced when studying for their classes, I practice saying the material to myself over and over."
university courses. The German (Titz, 2001) and English (Pekrun Pmticipants responded using a scale ranging from I (strongly
e t aI., 2005) versions of the scale were used in Studies 3 and 4, disagree) to 5 (strongly ag ree), and the scores were summed to
respectively. The instructions for this measure require respondent s form the effort, elaboration, and rehearsal indexes ( OtS = .79 and
to descri be how they feel, typically, when studying for thei r .62 for effort, .82 and .74 for elaboration, and .73 and .59 for
courses. The scale contains II items (e.g., "Studying for my rehearsal in Studies 3 and 4, respectively).
courses bores me"; "The material bores me to death"). Participants In Study 3, we assessed self-regulated learning with the original
responded on a scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5 seven-i tem German version of the Perceived Self-Regulation at
(strongly agree)" and the scores were summed to form the bore- Learning Scale (Titz, 2001) that was used in Study 2. In Study 4,
dom index (as = .90 and .92 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively). we used a short four-item English version of this scale. The scale
Control and value. The German (Titz, 2001) and English items measure students' percei ved self-regulation of learni ng
(Pen-y, Hladkyj, Pekrun, & Pelletier, 200 1) versions of Perry's goals, use of strategies, and monitoring of leaming outcomes (e.g.,
Perceived Academic Control Scale were used to meas ure "When studying, I set my own goals that I want to attain"; "When
achievement-related subjective control. The scale consists of eight studying difficult material, I decide for myself which strategy to
items related to influencing academic performance (e.g., "I have a use"; "I am able to evaluate for myself how I make progress at
great deal of control over my academic performance in my cours- learning"). Participants responded by using a scale ranging from I
es"; "The more effort I put in my courses, the better I do in them"). (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the scores were
In Study 3, subj ective value was assessed with the five-item trait summed to form the self-regulation indexes (as = .79 and .72 in
version of the Academic Value Scale used in Study 2 (e.g., Studies 3 and 4, respectively).
"Studying for my courses is of great personal relevance for me"; Academic performance. In Study 3, we measured perfor-
"Dealing with the material of my courses is not one of my favorite mance by assessing the GPA students had attained at their mid-
activities" [reverse scored]). In Study 4, we administered the studies exams. At German universities, these exam s take place
four-item Task Value scale of the Motivated Strategies for Leam- after the second academic year of undergraduate studi es. German
ing Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et aI. , 1991 ; e.g., "Understand-
grades range from I to 6,' with I indicating high achievement and
ing the subject matter of courses at uni versity is very important to
6 indicating low achievement. Scores were reversed s uch that low
me"; "I am very interested in the content areas of courses at
values indicate low achievement and high values indicate high
university"). Participants responded on a scale ranging from I
achievement. In Study 4, performance was measured by assessing
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) , and the scores were
students' GPA attained over the academic year prior to the study.
summed to form the control and value indexes (as = .77 and .8 1
for control and .80 and .69 for value in Studies 3 and 4, respec-
tively). Results and Discussion
Attention problems, intrinsic motivation, eff ort, elaboration,
rehearsal, and self-regulated learning. Attention problems were Preliminary analysis. Table 3 displays the descriptive statis-
assessed by the trait version of the Attention Problems scale of the tics for each of the variables in Studies 3 and 4. We also analyzed
Leaming Strategies Questionnaire that was used in Study 2 (Wild descriptive statisti cs separately by gender. Compari sons were sig-
& Schiefele, 1994; Study 3 only). The scale refers to lack of nificant for three variables in Study 4. Mean scores for value,
concentration, distractibility, and task-irrelevant thinking (six elaboration, and rehearsal were higher for female than for male
items; e.g., "At learning, I lack concentration"; "When studying, I students in thi s study (Ms = 15.47 and 14.78, SDs = 2.45 and
am easily distractible"; "When studying, I notice that my thought s 2.1 9, for value in female and male students, respectively; t(387) =.
are elsewhere"; I ,= strongly disagree, 5 "" strongly agree; a =, 2.78, p < .0 I; Ms =. 22.50 and 2 1.34, SDs = 3.53 and 3.84, for
.93). Intrinsic motivation was meas ured with the German and elaborati on; t(387) "" 3.02, P < .0 I; and Ms =. 14.29 and 13. 17,
English trait versions of the Intrinsic Motivation Scale used in SDs = 2.68 and 2.70, for rehearsal, t(387) = 3.96, p < .0 I). As in
Study 2 (Titz, 200 1). The scale assesses motivati on based on Study 2, effect sizes for gender differences were small (ds = .2 1,
enjoymen t of, and interest in, studying academic material (three .23, and .29 for value, elaboration, and rehearsal, respectively ;
items; e.g., "I am motivated to study for my courses because I am Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, ge nder differences were not sign ifi -
interested in the material"; I = strongly disag ree, 5 = strongly cant for any of these three variables or for any other variables in
agree; (xs "". .79 and .69 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively). Study 3.
In Study 3, we used the trait versions of the scales of the Relationships of control and value with boredom. We an-
Learning Strategies Questionnaire (Wild & Schiefele, 1994) that alyzed relationships between the study vari ables usi ng Pearson
were used in Study 2 to assess effOJ1 (eight it ems), elaborati on (six product- moment correlations (Table 3). In line with Hypothesis I,
items), and rehearsal (seven items). As noted, the German Learn- academic control correlated signi fica ntly negatively with boredom
ing Strategies Questionnaire is based on the MSLQ (Pintrich et aI., in both German and Canadian students. Si mil arly, the cOITelations
 541

Table 3
PeG/'son Product-Momel11 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Studies 3 and 4

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I. Boredom
2. Control
53 - .30"
54 -.29*'
3. Value
53 - .60" .23'
54 -.38" .46"
4. Attention problems"
53 .77" -.20' - .51 "
5. Intrinsic motivation
53 - .43" .21 ' .68" - .14
54 - .26" .31 " .51 "
6. Effort
53 - .51 " .25" .44" - .43" .32'"
54 - .48" .35" .38" .32"
7. Elaboration
53 - .26" .20' .33" - .22' .53" .22'
54 - .26" .43" .52" .53'" .40"
8. Rehearsal
53 .01 - .06 .0 1 .04 - .05 .37'" - .10
S4 - .04 .17" .31 " .33" .28" .46"
9. Self-regu lation
S3 - .22' .30" .22'" - .26'" .43"- .36" .54" . 14
54 - .28" .48"" .40" .40" .53" .5r' .39"
10. Academic performance
53 - .32" .5 1"" .22 - .24 .35" .34' .2 1 - .18 .35 "
S4 -.24" .27"" .26" .20" .30" .37" . 14' .34'"
M
S3 28.34 31.00 18.25 18.13 11.07 27.93 20.44 21.88 24.25 3.88
54 30.69 33.39 15.16 13.68 14.18 21.97 13.85 14.06 72.32
SD
S3 7.92 3.97 3.67 4.43 2.28 4.86 4.31 4.77 3.67 0.73
54 9.28 4.76 2.38 2.44 2.77 3.72 2.72 2.62 11.0 1
Possible range
S3 11- 55 8-40 8- 25 6-30 3-15 8-40 6-30 7- 35 7- 35 1-6
54 11- 55 8-40 4-20 4- 20 4- 20 6- 30 4- 20 4-20 1- 100
Observed range
S3 12-47 19- 39 8- 25 8- 30 5- 15 13- 39 11- 30 10- 34 12-34 2.3-6.0
S4 11 - 50 12-40 8- 20 8- 20 6- 20 12- 30 6- 20 4-20 44-96

Note. 53 = 5tudy 3; 54 = Study 4.

" Attention problems were not considered in Study 4.
' p < .05 . .. p < .01.

for academic va lue and boredom were negative in both studies. forms in both cultural contexts, in line with our hypothesis and
Relationships were consistent across Studies 3 and 4, suggesting with the findings of Study 2.
that control and value play similar roles in students' boredom in Relationships of boredom with achievement behavior and
the two cu ltural contexts under study. Our findings were also performance. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the correlation be-
consistent with the resu lts of Studies I and 2, indicating that tween boredom and attention problems during learning was posi-
relationships of control and value with boredom are simi lar across tive (Table 3), thus lending further credibi lity to the notion that
state and trait constructs of boredom. boredom reduces the cognitive resources availab le for task pur-
As in Study 2, we tested for curvilinear components in the poses. Furthermore, in accordance with our hypothesis, boredom
relationship between control and boredom by performing simulta- corre lated negatively with students' intrinsic motivation to learn,
neous multiple regression analyses including linear and quadratic effort at studying, elaboration of learning material, and perceived
terms for control. The quadratic terms were computed after cen- self-reg ul ation of learning in both Studies 3 and 4. The corre lations
tering the variables. In both studies, control had a significant linear with rehearsal strategies, however, were nonsignificant in the two
effect on boredom (Study 3: f3 .= - .33, p < .00 I; Study 4 : f3 =, studies, in contrast to our hypothesis that boredom would reduce
- .34, p < .00 I). In both studies, there were no significant effects the use of any cognitive learning strategies. As noted earlier, a
for the quadratic term. Findings thus suggest that the relationship possible reason is that negative effects of boredom on the use of
between control and boredom takes linear rather than quadratic rehearsal were counterbalanced by positive effects of rehearsa l on
 542

boredom, thus explaining overall zero correlations between the The Time I session assessed academic control and value, as well
two vatiables. as demographic variables, four weeks into the year. The Time 2
With the single exception of the absence of a boredom-rehearsal session took place four months later and assessed course-related
correlation, the pattern of relationships was consistent with the boredom. High school grades and end-of-year course grades were
proposition that boredom is detrimental to attention and engage- obtained from university records at the end of the academic year.
ment in achievement settings. Finally, in line with negative rela- Patticipation in the Time 2 assessment was reduced to n = 211 ,
tionships to variables of learning and in accord with Hypothesis 3, owing to some students' having completed their research partici-
boredom also correlated negatively with students' academic per- pation requirements early in the semester. Attrition analyses using
formance. Again, all of these relationships proved to be fully pairwise t tests revealed that scores for students who did partici-
consistent across Studies 3 and 4, and with the findings of Studies pate, and those who did not, did not differ on any of the measures
I and 2, suggesting that the relations of boredom with behavior and of the Time I assessment, including academic control, 1(286) =
performance are generalizable across cultural contexts and across 0.64, p > .05, and value, t(286) = - 0.31, p > .05. Attrition also
state and trait constructs of boredom. occurred with Time 3 final course grades that were available for
n == 269 students. Attrition analyses using pairwise t tests indicated
Conclusions that scores for students having and those not having Time 3 data
did not differ on any of the measures of the Time I and 2
The findings of Studies 3 and 4 corroborate the postulated assessments, including academic control, t(286) = - 0.33, p > .05;
relationships of boredom with control, value, achievement behav- value, t(286) = - 0. 12, P > .05; and boredom, t(210) = - 0.77,
ior, and performance, the nonsignificant relation between boredom p > .05.
and rehearsal being an exception. Achievement-related control, as Measures.
well as achievement-related value, related negatively to boredom. Boredom. To assess participants' boredom in the course at
Relations of control with boredom again proved to be linear rather Time 2, we employed a short, six-item version of the Learning-
than curvilinear. In turn, boredom related positively to attention Related Boredom scale of Pekrun et al.'s (2002) Achievement
problems, in line with our hypothesis that boredom reduces the
Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) used in Studies 2 through 4. The
availability of cognitive resources by decreasing task-focused con-
instructions for the measure required respondents to describe how
centration and increasing distractibility as well as task-io'elevant
they felt when studying for the course. Participants responded on
thinking. Furthermore, boredom related negatively to intrinsic
a scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)"
motivation to learn, study effort, use of elaboration strategies,
and the scores were summed to form the boredom index (ex = .91).
perceived self-regulation of learning, and academic performance
Control and value. Academic control and academic value
scores, in line with the hypothesis that boredom undermines mo-
were assessed as part of the Time I assessment. We measured
tivational engagement and cognitive performance. The consistency
academic control with the eight-item Perceived Academic Control
of findings across studies suggests that they can be generalized
Scale (Perry et aI., 200 I) that was used in Studies 3 and 4.
across cultural contexts and across state and trait constructs of
Pmticipants responded on a scale ranging from I (strongly dis-
boredom.
agree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the scores were summed to form
the control index (ex = .80). A two-item scale assessing intrinsic
Study 5 value and attainment value was used to determine the overall
academic value of the course (items consisted of the following:
Study 5 used a predicti ve design to assess the relationships
"I am interested in the study of psychology"; " It is extremely
between achievement-related boredom, control-value antecedents,
important for me to do well in my psychology course"). Par-
and an objective performance outcome during a two-semester
course spanning an entire academic year. A clear temporal order- ticipants responded on a scale ranging from I (not at all) to 10
ing of academic control 'and value (Time I assessment), boredom (very much so), and the scores were summed to form the value
(Time 2 assessment), and ensuing academic performance (Time 3 index (oc = .66).
assessment) was used to disentangle these relationships, while Academic performance. Final course grades were used to
controlling for prior achievement in terms of final high school assess academic performance in the course (I = F,2 = D, 3 = C,
grades. A situationally specific approach was employed by ana- 4 = C -+- , 5 = B, 6 = B + , 7 = A, 8 = A + ). As all students were
Iyzing students' boredom experienced in a specific course at enrolled in their first year of college, we used high school final
university, rather than across courses more generally (Goetz et aI. , grades as an indicator of prior academic achievement, defined as
2007). the overall average percentage in students' last year of high school.
Data analysis. Structural equation modeling (AMOS 6.0; Ar-
buckle, 2005) was used to assess relationships between variables
Method
over time. Full information maximum likelihood procedures (By-
Participants and procedure. A total of 287 first -year stu- rne, 2001) were employed to compensate for missing data. The
dents (175 female, 112 male) enrolled in an introductory psychol- raw data served as input, and the solutions were generated on the
ogy course at a midwestern Canadian university participated in the basis of maximum likelihood estimation. As indicators for perfor-
study in return for extra course credit (mean age: M = 19.75 years; mance, the manifest one-item variabl es of high school final
SD = 3.97). The course extended over two semesters (26 weeks). achievement and final course grades were included. For control,
Participants completed the self-report measures at the beginning of value, and boredom, we estimated latent variables. For value, the
the academic year (Time I) and later during that year (Time 2). two single items of the value scale served as indicators. For
 543

control, four two-item parcels were created, and for boredom, three ordering in the present study, and the time lag between the assess-
two-ite m parcels were created. Before constructing parcels, ment of control and value, on the one hand, and boredom, on the
principal-components analysis was used to analyze the dimension- other, was considerable. These findings imply that students' ap-
ality o f the item sets for control and boredom. The findings praisals of control and value are powerful predictors of their
corroborated unidimensionality for both item sets, with one factor boredom ex perienced later in the academic year.
havi ng an eigenvalue greater than one for each of the two sets As in the preceding studi es, we tested the control a nd boredom
(eigenvalues were 3.34 and 4.16 for the Control and Boredom relationship for linearity by performing a simultaneous multipl e
factors, respectively). COITelations between the manifest variables regression analysis including linear and quadratic terms for con-
used are presented in the Appendix. trol. The quadratic term was computed after centeri ng the vari-
ables. Control had a significant linear effect on boredom (13 =
Results and Discussion - .27, p < .001). There was no significant effect for the quadratic
Preliminary analysis. Table 4 presents the descriptive statis- term . This finding suggests that the relationship between control
tics for each of the variables in Study 5. We also analyzed and boredom takes linear rather than quadratic forms, in line with
descriptive statistics separately by gender. High school final grades hypotheses and with the findings of Studies 2, 3, and 4.
were higher for female than for male students (Ms = 76.74% and Relationships of boredom with performance outcomes.
72.23%, SDs = 8.17% and 8.36%, respectively), t(285) = 3.29, Boredom correlated substanti ally and negatively with final course
p < .0 I. In addition, compared with male students, female students grades (Table 4), in accordance with our hypothesis t hat boredom
reported more academic va lue (Ms = 16.86 and 15.38, SDs = 3.07 has negative effects on academic performance.(' In addition, there
and 4.09, respectively), t(285) = 3.26, p < .01 , and less boredom was a significant, albeit lower, negative corre lation b e tween bore-
(Ms = 12.93 and 15.48, SDs "" 5.08 and 5.77), t(209) = - 3.34, dom and students' prior achievement in terms of fina l hi gh school
p < .0 1. Gender differences were not signi ficant for academic grades. As seen from a control-value theory perspecti ve, thi s latter
control and final course grades. The pattern of differences thus correlation likely was due to the effects of prior achievement on
suggests that female students attained better final high school students' subsequent development of academic control and values
grades, valued the university course more, and experienced less intluencing boredom. Overall, the pattern of time-lagged correla-
boredom than male students. However, effect sizes for these gen- tions suggests that boredom can be both an antecedent and an
der differences were small, with the exception of a medium effect
outcome of impaired academic performa nce.
size for high school achievement (ds = .54, .29, and - .33 for hi gh
Structural equation modeling of relationships between
school achi evement, value, and boredom, respectively; Cohen,
control-value antecedents, boredom, and performance out-
1988). Furthermore, the absence of gender differences for these
comes. Structural equation modeling was used to test our hy-
vari ables in Studies 2 and 3 implies that they did not generalize
potheses concerning the relationships between control and va lue,
across studies.
Relationships of control and value with boredom. W e an- boredom , and course performance. Specifically, we tested the
alyzed relationships between the study variables usi ng Pearson following three propositions as derived from our original hypoth-
product-moment corre lations (Table 4). Time I achievement- eses (see Figure I): (I) Control and value are negative predictors
related academic control and value correlated negatively with of boredom. (2) Because control and value function as proximal
Time 2 learning-related boredom, in line with Hypothesis I and antecedents of boredom, any predictive effects of prior achi eve-
with the findings of Studi es 2, 3, and 4. The correlation between ment on boredom are mediated by these appraisals. (3) Boredom is
control and value scores was nex t to zero, implying that the two a negative predictor of subsequent final course performance while
variables could be regarded as independent predictors of boredom. controlling for prior ach ievement.
In contrast to Studies 2, 3, and 4, there was a clear temporal

6 Whereas boredom and lack of interest are conceptually distinct, it

Table 4 remains an open questi on whether they are independent predictors of
PeG/'son Product-Moment Correlations and Descriptive performance. To determine whether boredom predicted course perfor-
Statistics for Study 5 mance independently of students' interest in the course, we conducted a
supplementary analysis based on a data set that used the same predictive
Variable 2 3 4 5 design and was related to the same kind of academic courses as Study 5,
but with a different samp le (N = 131 undergraduate students; 89 fema le
I. Boredom
and 42 male). A one-item measure of interest ("I think that what we learn
2. Control - .22"
3. Value - .35'"' in my introductory psychology course is interesti ng") and the same bore-
.06
4. High school dom scale as used in Study 5 were included in an assessment 4 months after
achi evement - .11' .10 .1 2 the beginning of the academic year. Course performance was measured by
5. Final course final course grades. Boredom and interest correlated negatively (r ".~ - .66,
grade - .36" .06 . 14' .48" p < .00 I), in line with the proposition that boredom and lack of interest are
related. In a simultaneous multiple regression analysis, prior achievement
M 17.15 33.94 16.34 75.27 4.73
SD 6.49 4.4 1 4.40 8.40 1.90 and interest were positive predictors of performance (13 = .32, p < .0 I, and
Possible range 6- 30 8--40 2- 20 0- 100 1- 8 13 = .22, P < .05, respectively) , whereas boredom was a negative predictor
Observed range 6-30 9--40 2- 20 56-94 1- 8 (13 = - .33, p <. .01). Th is finding corroborates that boredom is a negative
.P < .05. " p < .01.
predictor of performance independently of the effects of prior achievement
and interest.
 544

.17

~
High Schoot
'21 Boredom .34 Finat Course
Grades Time 2 Grades
.15 .42 ___-

Vatue
Time 1

.44
._-------_._._-----_._-_._...._._-_._._.._._..._._._------_._--------_.-
Figure I. Structurat Equation Model I for control (C), value (V), boredom (8), and performance. PI, P2, P3,
and P4 represent Parcels I, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

We constructed a mediational model representing these hypoth - direct effects that were included in the default model were signif-
eses (Model I) and tested it agai nst a default model including icant, providing further evidence for the validity of our mediational
mediational as well as nonmediational effects (Model 2). In the hypotheses.
mediational model (Model I), it was assumed that control and Control and value as predictors of boredom. In line with
value were negative predictors of boredom, and that boredom was Hypothesis I , control and value had negative effects on boredom.
a negative predictor of performance while controlling for hi gh Furthermore, prior achievement (high school grades) had positive,
school GPA (see Figure I). In addition , it was assumed that any albeit relatively weak effects on control and value. However, as
links between high school GPA and boredom were mediated by noted, the direct effect of prior achievement on boredom did not
control and value. The corresponding nonmediational default reach significance in the default model. In line with expectations,
model (Model 2) included the sa me predictive effects, along with thi s pattern of findings suggests that the effects of prior achieve-
three paths representing the direct effect of high school GPA on ment on boredom were medi ated by students' control and value
boredom and the direct effects of control and value on final course apprai sals.
grades. Boredom as a predictor of course performance. Prior
Testing fit for Models 1 and 2. Following Hoyle and Panter's achievement was a strong positive predictor of final course grades.
(1995) recommendations, we used both absolute and incremental By implication, any significant predictive effects of additional
fix indexes to evaluate model fi t. The results confirmed that the variables on final course grades can be regarded as substanti al
mediational model (Model I ) had an excellent fit to the data. Fit evidence for the importance of these variables. In line with our
indexes for the model were as fo ll ows: X2 (40) = 54.60, p > .05; hypotheses, boredom did, in fact, have a considerable increment al
Xl1df ratio = 1.36; comparative fit index (CFT) = .98; Tucker- effect, adding to the effect of prior achievement and suggesting
Lewis index (TLT) = .97; and root mean square error of approx i- that boredom has a substanti al, negati ve influence o n academ ic
mation (RMSEA) = .036. Given that the chi-square statisti c is performance.
sensitive to sample sizes greater than 100 (e.g., Lei & Lomax,
2005), the nonsignificance of thi s stati sti c is especially impressive C onclusions
and implies that the model represents the data very well.
Fit indexes for the default model (Model 2) were as fo llows: Using a predictive design, Study 5 confirmed our hypothesis
X\37) = 50.95,p > .05 ; x 21dfratio = 1.37; CFI = .98; TU = .97; that subj ective control and value negatively predict students'
and RMSEA = .036. The absolute differences of the fit indexes for achievement boredom. Furthermore, the findings of med iat ional
the mediational and the default model suggest that the more structural equation modeling showed th at the predictive effect of
constrained mediational model does not imply any substant ial loss prior achievement on subsequent boredom was mediated by these
of fi t, as compared with the default model. In addition , the loss of appraisal vari ables. As to the consequences of boredom, fi ndings
fit did not reach significa nce, uX ~(3) = 3.64, p = .30. The suggest that boredom has a substanti al, deleterious effect on stu-
comparison of the mediational model and the default model thus dent s' co urse performance, eve n when controlling for prior
suggested that the mediational hypotheses underlying Model I achievement. These results are in line with the fi ndings of Studi es
could be maintained. Furthermore, no ne of the three additional I, 2, 3, and 4 and extend these findings by showing how appra isals
 545

predict boredom, and boredom predicts performance, in a tempo- boredom. This proposition is likely valid for achievement settings
rally ordered sequence of assessments. involving simple routine tasks, such as monotonous assembly line
or monitoring work (Fisher, 1993). However, the present results
General Discussion suggest that it is not well suited to explaining the boredom expe-
rienced by students in academic settings. Rather, students' bore-
Boredom is pervasive in achievement settings and can have dom seems to be characterized by negative, rather than positive,
deleterious consequences for motivation, behavior, and perfor- relations with control.
mance. Nevertheless, in contrast to other achievement emotions The present findings also are in line with our hypothesis that
such as test anxiety, there is a conspicuous lack of systematic
functional relationships between control and boredom should take
research on achievement-related boredom, with the exception of
linear forms in an academic context, in contrast to relationships
studies on the effects of boredom associated with very simple,
between control and boredom more generally, which may well be
repetitive tasks (Fisher, 1993). Boredom is a prime example that
curvilinear (with both very low and very high levels of control
research on achievement emotions has neglected activity-related
contributing to boredom). We did not find any evidence for cur-
emotions, in contrast to outcome emotions such as pride, anxiety,
vilinearity of control-boredom relationships. Rather, these rela-
and shame.
In the present research, we analyzed appraisal antecedents and tionships proved to be linear in all of the four quantitative studies.
performance effects of achievement boredom. We articulated a set Most likely, the academic setting of university courses is complex
of hypotheses based on Pekrun's (2006) control-value theory of and challenging for students. Consequently, very high levels of
achievement emotions and tested these hypotheses in five studies control inducing boredom are likely never reached by most stu-
focusing on boredom occurring in university settings. Studies dents when attending university courses or studying related learn-
comprised one qualitative and one quantitative study on boredom ing material, highly gifted students being a possible, rare excep-
experienced within single achievement-related episodes (state tion.
achievement boredom), two quantitative studies on students' ha-
bitual boredom (trait achievement boredom), and one predictive
study on boredom in a university course. Samples consisted of Links of Achievement Boredom With Behavior
students from both North American and German universities. This and Performance
set of studies made it possible to test the generalizability of
findings across state and trait constructs of boredom, qualitative We expected that boredom would cause attention problems in
and quantitative methodologies of assessing boredom, cross- terms of lack of concentration, distractibility, and task-irrelevant
sectional and longitudinal designs, and different cultural contexts. thinking; reduce intrinsic motivation and effort; lead to shallow
In conceptualizing boredom, we argued that achievement- information processing and an underuse of cognitive strategies
related boredom is a negative, deactivating emotion experienced such as elaboration and rehearsal; and impair self-regulation of
when performing achievement activities. The findings of the qual- learning. Consequently, we expected that boredom would have
itative, exploratory Study I corroborated that boredom is experi- universally negative effects on academic performance.
enced as an unpleasant, physiologically deactivating state. Addi- Consistent with these hypotheses, boredom related uniformly
tionally, the findings of this study suggested that boredom is positively to attention problems and negatively to intrinsic moti-
experienced quite frequently by students when attending class and vation, effort, and self-regulation across studies. The pattern of
studying for their courses, thus confirming assumptions on the results was less consistent for the use of elaboration and rehearsal
pervasiveness of this emotion. strategies. In Studies 3 and 4, students' habitual boredom related
negatively to elaboration, in line with expectations. In Study 2
Control-Value Antecedents of Achievement Boredom analyzing situational boredom within single episodes of learning,
however, boredom and use of elaboration were unrelated. Further-
The findings on subjective control and values as antecedents of more, unexpectedly, boredom and rehearsal did not relate signif-
achievement boredom were in line with expectations. The results
icantly in Studies 3 and 4, and even related weakly positively in
from the five studies showed that both control appraisals and value
Study 2. As noted earlier, zero or slightly positive correlations
appraisals pertaining to achievement activities related negatively
between boredom and rehearsal may be due to reciprocal causa-
to students' boredom. The consistency of the results is impressive,
tion, including positive effects of rehearsal on boredom and neg-
as these negative relationships were found, without a single ex-
ative effects of boredom on use of rehearsal, thus amounting to
ception, across all five studies. Findings thus imply generalizabil-
negative feedback loops producing weak overall relationships.
ity across different constructs (state vs. trait achievement bore-
dom), methodologies (qualitative, cross-sectional, and predictive), In line with negative links of boredom with attention, motiva-
and cultural contexts. These uniformly negative relationships in- tion, effort, and (most likely) use of cognitively flexible strategies
dicate that perceived lack of control over achievement activities such as elaboration, boredom also related negatively to variables of
and lack of valuation of these activities are crucial individual academic performance across all five studies. Most importantly, in
determinants of boredom in academic achievement settings. Study 5, boredom had a negative predictive effect on academic
With regard to control, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) posited that performance in terms of students' final course grades that was
boredom is induced by high-control conditions, as defined by a substantial ( - .34) even when controlling for prior achievement.
combination of high capabilities and low task demands, which Findings thus confirm hypotheses on the deleterious consequences
would imply a positive relationship between perceived control and of boredom for performance in demanding achievement settings.
 546

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research have beneficial effects in some individuals under specific circum-
stances (Vodanovich, 2003), the evidence in our studies suggests
The five studies reported here analyzed achi evement boredom that boredom typically impairs attention, motivation, behavioral
as experienced by students in univers ity settings. On a theoretical strategies, and performance in achievement settings. The perva-
level, we believe that our propositions on this emotion are gener- siveness of the boredom experienced by many stude nts, coupl ed
alizable to any age group and achievement setting involving com- with its deleterious effects, clearly implies that educators, admin -
plex and difficult tasks (Pekrun, 2009). Empirically, however, it is istrators, and policy makers responsible for the design of academic
open to question whether the present pattern of findings will, in settings should pay more attention to thi s emotion.
fact, be replicable for different age groups, such as kindergarten With regard to the prevention or reduction of boredom, the
through 12th-grade students, and for other kinds of achievement present findin gs suggest that specific measures cou ld focus on
contex ts. increasing the perceived values of acti viti es in achievement set-
FUIthermore, our studies were conducted in field settings and tings (e.g., by promoting students' interest in academic material;
used nonexperimental designs. Although thi s strategy can ensure Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2 009). More-
ecological validity of findings , it does not provide the rigor of over, it would be important to provide a sufficient m a tch between
testing causal hypotheses that is prov ided by experiments. Future task demands and individual competencies, such that achievement-
studies should complement the approach taken here by assessing related control can be experienced. However, a perfect match
boredom after experimentally manipul ating control and va lue, and would require tasks that are cognitively challenging for all stu-
by assessi ng performance on academic tasks after experimentally dents, but that do not exceed any individual student 's capabilities.
manipulating participants' boredom. Furthermore, measurement of Given that some degree of mismatch inevitably occurs in the
boredom in the present research relied on self-report assessment. classroom, it may be helpful to promote students' competencies to
Whereas self-report seems to be the best method available for modify tasks and self-regulate approaches to learning, thus en-
assessi ng achievement emotion s (see, e.g., Zeidner, 1998), future abling them to restore the balance of demands and individual
studies should also utili ze alternative methods, such as neuroim- capabilities in self-directed ways (Rohrkemper & Corno, 1988;
aging, physiological measurement, and analysi s of facial and pos-
also see Nett, Goetz, & Hall , 2010; Sansone, Weir, Harpster, &
tural expression of boredom.
Morgan, 1992).
Another important task for future research is to analyze the
Beyond issues of instructional design, some students may suffer
linkages of boredom with other achievement emotion s. In our own
from a boredom-inducing lack of control due to subj ective under-
studies, we found that students' boredom correlated positively with
estimation of their own abilities. For these students, directly mod-
anger and hopelessness in achievement situations (Goetz et aI.,
ifying their control appraisals may prove helpful. One way of
2007; Pekrun et aI., 2005; Titz, 2001). Conceivably, these two
doing so involves cognitive treatment (Zeidner, 1998), such as
emotions may be aroused when prolonged boredom is experi-
attributional retraining targeted at changing individual control cog-
enced. Anger may be tri ggered when escape from boredom is not
nitions (Ruthig, Perry, Hall, & Hladkyj, 2004). Even if such
possi ble because attending school is compulsory, and hopelessness
measures are taken, however, it seems likely that bore dom cannot
may emerge when boredom contributes to feelings that any at-
always be prevented. Therefore, helping students to regulate their
tempts to control academi c performance will fail. Empirically,
boredom and to cope with this emotion may prove to be an
such sequential and causal relations between boredom and other
additional effective measure.
achievement emotions have yet to be identified.
By necessity, given the paucity of e mpiri cal research, any con-
Finally, it should be noted that achievement emotions, their
siderations regarding implications for educati onal practice are
antecedents, and their outcomes can be linked by reciprocal cau-
specul ative to date and in need of empirical validation . Interven-
sation over time (Pekrun, 2006). Specifically, academic success
tion programs targeting achievement boredom in education, or any
and failure likely constitute an important determinant of students'
other kind of achievement context, are still large ly lacki ng. Given
perceptions of control and values, thereby influencing the emo-
the deleterious effects of this emotion, there is a clear need to
tions shaped by these appraisals and suggesting that boredom and
develop, implement, and evaluate programs that aim to prevent or
performance can reciprocally influence each other. In Study 5 of
reduce the boredom that, according to our findings, is so freq uently
the present research, reciprocal relations were taken into account
experienced by student s in achievement settings.
by including achi evement variables both as an antecedent and as
an outcome of boredom. Specifically, prior achievement was con-
trolled when estimating the predictive effects of boredom on References
course performance, thus minimi zing the likelihood that the influ-
ence of boredom was a mere epipheno menon of prior achievement. Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim , H. l ., Kim, 1. , Hsiang-Ni ng, R. C, Kim , M. ,
However, to fully disentangle reciprocal relation s, multiple assess- Cho , Y. , Wicker, F. W. , & The Boredom Research G roup (2010) .
ments wou ld be needed for appraisals and boredom as well. As Academ ic boredom in under- and overchallenging situations. ColltellJ-
such, subsequent research should systemati cally address reciprocal porwy Educatiollal Psychology, 35. 17- 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych
links among all three constructs over time. .2009.08.002
Amos, A., Wiltshire, S., Haw, S., & McNeill , A. (2006). Ambivalence a nd
uncertai nty : Experiences of and attitudes toward addiction and smoking
Implications for Educational Practice cessatio n in the mid-to-Iate teens. Health Educatioll Research. 2 / , 181 -
19 1. doi: 10. 1093/her/cyh054
The find ings of the present research have a number of implica- Anshel, M. H. ( 199 1). A survey of elite athletes on the perceived causes of
tion s for practice. Whereas it may be specul ated that boredom can usi ng banned drugs in sport. Jot/mal of SiJOI'! 13ehavior, / 4. 283- 3 10.
 547

Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AMOS 6.0 [Computer software]. Springhouse, PA: from a social-cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity
AMOS Development. of students' affect in the context of Latin instruction. Brit ish Journal oj
Bearden, L., Spencer, W. , & Moracco, J. (1989) . A study of high school Educational Psychology, 76, 289-308. doi: 10. I 348/000709905X42860
dropouts. School Counselor, 37, I 13- 120. Guinn, R. (1975). Characteristics of drug use among Mex i can-American
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York : students. Journal of Drug Education, 5, 235-24 1.
McGraw-Hill. Hamilton, J. A. , Haier, R. J ., & Buchsbaum, M. S . (1984). Intrinsic
Blaszcsynski, A., McConaghy, N., & Frankova, A. (1990). Boredom enjoyment and boredom coping scales: Validation wi t h personality,
proneness in psychopathological gambling. Psyclwlogical Reports, 67, evoked potential , and attention measures. Personality a nd Individual
35-42. Differences, 5, 183- 193.
Byrne, B. M. (200 1). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic Harackiewicz, J. M ., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbri nk-Garcia , L.,
concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. & Tauer, J. M. (2008) . The role of achievement goals in the development
Cantor, G. N. (1968). Effects of a "boredom" treatment on children 's of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and
simple RT performance. Psychonomic Science, ID, 299 - 300. performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, lOO, 105- 122. doi:
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 10.1037/0022-0663.100. 1.105
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum. Harris, M. B. (2000). Correlates and characteristics of boredom proneness
Coury, B. G., & Drury, C. G. (1986). The effects of pacing on complex and boredom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3D, 576 - 598.
decision-making inspection performance. Ergonomics, 29, 489 - 508. He mbree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test
Csikszentmihalyi , M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47- 77.
CA: Jossey-Bass. Hidi , S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational
Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T . L. , Perry, R. P., Research Review, I, 69 - 82.
& Newall , N. E. "(2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest devel-
From affective antecedents to e motional effects and achievement out- opment. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111 - 127.
comes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,948-963. doi: 10. 1037/ Ho, R. (1989). Why do people smoke? Motives for maintena nce ofsmok-
aOOl6096 ing behavior and its possible cessation. Australian Psychologist, 24,
Dicintio, M. J. , & Gee, S. (1999). Control is the key: Unlocking the 385- 400.
motivation of at-risks students. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 231 - 237. Hoyle, R. , & Panter, A . (1995). Writing about structural equation models.
Duda, J. L., Fox, K. R., Biddle, S. J. , & Armstrong, N. (1992) . Children's In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
achievement goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of applications (pp. 100 - 119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Educational Psychology, 62, 3 13-323. Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. A. , & Harackiewicz, J. M.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative
achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & c. Dweck (Eds.), Hand- a nalysis. Journal of Edu cational Psychology, l OO, 398 - 4 16. doi :
book of competence and motivation (pp. 105- 12 1). New York : Guilford 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Press. Hulleman , C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and
Elli ot, A. J., & Dweck, C. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of competence allll performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410 -
motivation. New York: Guilford Press. 1412. doi : 10. 1 I 26/science. I 177067
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986) . Boredom proneness- The de vel- Jagacinski, C. M., & Duda, J. L. (2001). A comparative analysis of
opment and correlates of a new sca le. Journal of Personality An'en'- contemporary achievement goal orientation measures. Educational and
ment, 50, 4 - 17. Psychological Measurement, 61, 1013- 1039.
Fenichel, O. (1934). Zur Psychologie del' Langeweil e [On the psychology Jarvis, S., & Seifert, T. (2002). Work avoidance as a manifestation of
of boredom]. Imago, 20, 270 -281. hostility, helplessness, and boredom. Alberta Journal of Educational
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Humall Research,48, 174 - 187.
Relations, 46, 395-417. Johnstone, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2000). Vocal communication of emotion.
Fogelman, K. (1976). Bored eleven-year-olds. British Journal of Social In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eels.), Handbook of emotions (2nd
Work, 6, 20 1-2 11. ed., pp. 220-235). New York: Guilford Press.
Folkman, S., & ulzarus, R. S. (1985) . If it c hanges it must be a process: Johnstone, T., Scherer, K. R. , & Schorr, A. (Eds .). (200 I). Appraisal
Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examina- processes in emotion: TheOl)" methods, research. New York : Oxford
tion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150- 170. University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive Karsten, A. ( 1928). Psychi sche Siittigung [psych ic satiation]. Psycholo-
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer- gische Forschung, ID, 142-254.
ican Psychologist, 56, 2 18 -226. Kass, S. J ., Vodanovich, S. J ., Stanny, C. J., & Taylor, T. M. (2001).
Gigy, L. K. , & Kelly, J. B. (1992). Reasons for divorce: Perspectives of Watching the clock: Boredom and vigilance performance. Perceptual
divorcing men and women. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 18, and Motor Skills, 92, 969 - 976.
169- 187. Klapp, O. (1986). Overload and boredom. New York: Greenwood Press.
Gjesme, T. ( 1977). General sati sfaction and boredom at school as a Kl eing inna , P. R. , & Kleinginna , A. M. ( 198 1). A categori zed li st of
function of pupi ls' personality charac teri stics. Scandinavian Journal of emotion definition s, with suggestions for a consensual definition . Moti-
Educational Research, 21, 11 3- 146. vation and Emotion, 5, 345- 379.
Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2006) . PhUnomenologie schulischer Lange- Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1991) . Boredom in the middle school
wei le [Phenomenology of academic boredom] . Zeitschrijt fur Entwick- years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal oj
hlllgspsychologie wul Piidagogische Psychologie, 38, 149 - 153. Education, 99, 418 - 443.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. c., Pekrun , R. , Hall , N. c., & Uidtke, O. (2007) . Lei, M ., & Lomax , R. G. (2005) . The effecl of varying degrees of
Between- and within-domain relatio ns of students' academic emotions. nonnonnality in structural equation modeli ng. Structural Equation Mod-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 7 15-733. doi:IO.1 037/0022- elillg, 12, 1- 27.
0663 .99.4.715 Lewin, K. (1928). Die Bedeutung del' psychischen Slittigung fUr einige
Goetz, T. , Pekrun, R. , Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions Probleme del' Psychotechnik [Significance of psychic saturation for
 548

some problems in psychotechnics]. Psychotechnische Zeitschriji, 3, Pekrun, R , Goetz, T , Titz, W. , & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in
182- 188. students' self-regu lated learning and achievement: A progra m of quantita-
Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, l M., & Feldman Barrett, L. (Eds.). (2008). tive and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91 - 106.
Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press . Perry, R. P., Hladkyj , S., Pekrun, R. H. , & Pelletier, S. T . (2001). Academic
London , H., Schubert, D. S. P., & Washburn, D. (1972). Increase of control and action control in college students : A longitudinal fie ld study .
autonomic arousal by boredom. Joumal of Abnormal Psychology, 80, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 776 - 789.
20-36. Pintrich, P. R. , Smith, D. A. F. , Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W . J. (1991). A
Maroldo, G. K. (1986). Shyness, boredom, and grade point average among manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Question -
college students. Psychological Reports, 59, 395- 398. /wire (MSLQ) (Tech. Report No. 91-B-004). Board of Regents, Univer-
Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The sity of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Ml.
Psychological Record, 43, 3- 12. Ragheb, M. G., & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. (2010). Coping with boredom in school: An a multidimensional scale measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies,
experience sampling per~pective. Manuscript submitted for publication . 20,4 1-59.
Newberry, A. L., & Duncan, R. D. (2001). Roles of boredom and life goals Rennert, H., & Berger, I. (1956). Piidagogische und kinderpsychiatrische
in juvenile delinquency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, Betrachtungen liber geistig vorausentwickelte Kinder [Educa tional and psy-
527-541. chiaU'ic observations of children showing precocious intellectual develop-
Pan, C. S., Shell, R. L., & Schleifer, L. M. (1994). Performance variability ment]. Pl1Ixis der Kinde/psychologie und Kinde/p~ychiatrie, 5, 293- 296.
as an indicator of fati gue and boredom effects in a VDT data-entry task. Rohrkemper, M. , & Corno, L. (1988). Success and fai lure on classroom
IllIemational Journal of Human- Comptller Interaction, 6, 37-45. tasks: Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. The Elementary School
Pekrun , R. (1988). Emotion, Motivation lIIU/ Personlichkeit [Emotion, Journal, 88, 296 - 312.
motivation, and personality] . MunichfWeinheim, Germany: Psychologie Roseman, W. P. (1975) . Boredom at school. British Joumal of Educational
Verlags Union. Psychology, 45, 141 - 152.
Pekrun, R. ( 1992a). Kognition und Emotion in studienbezogenen Lern- und Ruthig, l c., Perry, R. P., Hall, N. c., & Hladkyj , S. (2004). Optimism and
Leistungssituationen: Explorative Analysen [Cognition and emotion in attributional retraining: Longitudinal effects on academic achievement,
academic achievement settings: An exploratory analysis]. Unterrich- test anxiety, and voluntary course withdrawal in college s tudents. Jour-
tswissenschaft, 20, 308-324. nal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 709 - 730.
Pekrun, R. (1992b). The expectancy-value theory of anxiety: Overview and Sansone, c., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Interest as the missing motivator in
implications. In D. G. Forgays, T . Sosnowski, & K. Wrzesniewski self-regulation. European P~ychologist, la, 175- 186. doi : 10.102711 0 16-
(Eds .), Anxiety: Recent developments in selj~appraisal, psychophysio- 9040.10.3.175
logical and health research (pp. 23- 41). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Sansone, C. , Weir, c., Harpster, L. , & Morgan , C. (1992). Once a boring
Pekrun , R. (1992c). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism.
Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychol- Jot/mal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 379 - 390.
ogy: An International Review, 41 , 359 - 376. Sawin, D. A. , & Scerbo, M. W. (1995). Effects of instruction type and
Pekrun , R. (1993). Facets of students' academic motivation: A longitudinal boredom proneness in vigi lance: [mplications for boredom and work-
expectancy-value approach. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), load. Ht/man Factors, 37, 752-765.
Advances in motivation and achievemelll (Vol. 8, pp. 139 - 189). Green- Scerbo, M. W. (1998). What 's so boring about vigilance? [n R. R. Hoff-
wich, CT: JA[ Press. man, M. F. Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds.), Viewing psychology as a
Pekrun, R. (2000). A social cognitive, control- value theory of achievement whole: The integrative science of William N. Dember (pp. 145- 166).
emotions. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human Washington , DC: American Psychological Association.
developmelll (pp. 143- 163). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science. Scherer, K. R. (2000). Emotions as episodes of subsystems sy nchroni zation
Pekrun, R. (2006) . The control- value theory of achievement emotions: driven by nonlinear appraisal processes. [n M. D. Lewis & I. Granic
Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and (Ed.), Emotion, developmelll, and self-organization (pp. 70 - 99). Cam-
pract ice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315-34 1. doi: 10.1007/ bridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
sI0648-006-9029-9 Schiefele, U., Krapp, A. , Wild , K.-P., & Winteler, A. (1993). Del' "Frage-
Pekrun , R. (2009). Global and local perspectives on human affect: [mpli - bogen zum Studieninteresse" (FS[) [The "Study Interest Questionnaire"
cations of the control- value theory of achievement emotions. [n M. (SIQ)]. Diagnostica, 39, 335- 351.
Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenniger (Eds .), Con- Schwarzer, R. (1986). Skalen zt/r Bejindlichkeit t/nd Personlichkeit [Scales
temporary motivation research: From global to local per~pectives (pp. on Well-Being and Personality] . Institute of Psychology, Free University
97- 115). Toronto, Ontario, Ca nada: Hogrefe. of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Peknm , R., Elliot, A. l , & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and Sisk, D. A. (1988). The bored and di sinterested gifted child: Going through
discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. school lockstep. JOt/mal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 , 5- 18.
Joumal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583- 597. doi: 10. 1037/0022- Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Joumal ~r Per-
0663.98.3.583 ~'o//{/Iity alld Social Psychology, 7 / , 549 - 570.
Pekrun , R., Elliot , A. J. , & Maier, M. A. (2009) . Achievement goals and Sommer, B. (1985) . What' s ditfere nt about truants? A comparison study of
achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with eighth-graders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14,4 11 - 422.
academ ic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 , 11 5- Spacks, P. M. ( 1995). Boredom : The literwy history of a state of milld.
135. doi:10. 1037/aOOI 3383 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T ., & Perry, R. P. (2007) . The control- value Thackray, R. I. ( 198 1). The stress of boredom and monotony: A consid-
theory of achievement emoti ons: An integrative approach to emotions in eration of the evidence. Psychosomllfic Medicille, 43, 165- 176.
education . [n P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. Tidwell , R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school
13- 36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. departures. Adolescence, 23, 939 - 954.
Pekrun , R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement Emotions Ti tz, W. (2001). Emotiollen von Studierendell ill Lemsituatiollen lSlU-
Questionnaire (AEQ): User 's manual. Department of Psychology, Uni - dents ' emot ions during learning]. MUnster, Germany : Waxmann.
versity of Muni ch, Muni ch, Germany. Turner, J. E. , & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy- value relationships of
 549

shame reactions and shame resiliency. Joumal of Edllcational Plychol- Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
ogy, 93, 320-329. emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 - 573 .
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). On the possible benefits of boredom: A ne- Wiesner. M., Windle. M .• & Freeman. A. (2005) . Work stress. substance
glected area in personality research. Psychology and Education-An use. and depression among young adult workers: An examination of
IllIerdisciplinwy Joumal, 40, 28-33. main and moderator effects. JOllmal of Occupational Health Psychol-
Wall ace. J. c., Vodanovich. S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2003) . Predicting ogy, 10, 83- 96. doi: 10. 1037/1076-8998. 10.2.83
cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness Wild , K.-P .• & Schiefele. U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergeb-
scores: An investigation within mi litary and undergraduate samples . nisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabi litlit eines neuen Fragebogens
Personality and Individllal Differences, 34, 635- 644. [Learning strategies of university students: Factor structure and reliabil-
Wasson, A. S. (1981). Susceptibility to boredom and deviant behavior at ity of a new questionnaire]. Zeitschrifi ji'ir Differentielle und Diagllos-
school. Psychological Reports, 48, 901 - 902. tische Psychologie, 15, 185- 200.
Watson, D.• & Tellegen. A. (l985). Toward a consensual structure of Zeidner. M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum
mood. Psychological Bulletin , 98, 219-235. Press.
Watt. J. D.• & Vodanovich, S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness and psycho- Zeidner. M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: Concepts. tind-
social development. JOllma l of Psychology: Itllerdisciplinwy and Ap- ings. and futu re directions. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (E ds.). Emotion
plied, 133, 303-314. in education (pp. 165- 184). San Diego. CA: Academic Press .

Appendix

Intercorrelations of Variables for Structural Equation Models 1 and 2 (Study 5)

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Boredom
I. Parcel
2. Parcel 2 .76"
3. Parcel 3 .70" .77"
Control
4. Parcel I - .11 -.09 - . 10
5. Parcel 2 -. 13 - . 11 - . IS' .47"
6. Parcel 3 - .24 .. •· - .23" _ . 19" .57'" .56+'
7. Parcel 4 - .10 - .08 - . 13' .48" .50" .50"
Value
8. Parcel I - .33" - .27 " - .35" - .04 .00 .02 - .02
9. Parcel 2 - .23" - .20" - .22" .07 .09 .11 .10 .50"
Academic performance
10. High school GPA -. 15' - .15" - . 11' . 16' .07 .22** - .03 .09 . 14"
11. Final course grades - .35 .. - .36 •• - .42 •• . 10 .06 . 12" - .04 .13 ' .13' .49"

Note. GPA = grade point average.

" I' < .05." p < .01.