19 Boredom

Thomas Goetz, Nathan C. Hall, and Maike Krannich

Abstract: This chapter examines boredom — cm emotion often described as

one of the plagues of modern societies. In educational settings, boredom is
also often experienced. The chapter first outlines how boredom is defined
and operationalLed including current approaches to differentiating specific
types of boredom. We further review the extent to which boredom has been
investigated in the research literature and how it has been assessed. Empirical
evidence on the prevalence of boredom in students is outlined, and prelimi-
nary findings on the frequency of boredom experiences in teachers is high-
lighted. Theoretical considerations and entpirical findings are subsequently
addressed concerning the effects and causes of academic boredom, as are
relevant conceptual frameworks and findings on how to most effectively cope
with boredom in educational settings. Implications for the prevention and
reduction of boredom in the classroom following from empirical literature
are then discussed. Finally, we outline potential next steps in research on
academic boredom.

Is boredom an emotion, cognition, motivational orientation, or a form of

fatigue? Is it a unique experience or simply an absence of interest? These
and other questions related to the experience of boredom are currently
being explored across research domains, and the answers depend largely
on disciplinary perspective. What is clear, however, is that research on the
topic of boredom has increased substantially over the past decade, particu-
larly with respect to its definition and the extent to which it can be defined
as an emotion, even though it is not a prototypical emotional experience
like anxiety or happiness (e.g., Ekman, 1984; Rosch, 1978; Shaver et al.,
1987). The component process model of emotions accounts for varied
approaches to defining and describing boredom (Kleinginna & Kleinginna,
1981; Scherer, 2000). It suggests that individuals' emotions are perhaps best
understood in terms of their underlying processes. From this perspective,

465
 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

boredom is regarded as, indeed, a unique emotional experience consisting of

five underlying components: affective (unpleasant, aversive sensation), cogni-
tive (altered perceptions of time), motivational (desire to withdraw), physiolog-
ical (low arousal), and expressive (vocal, facial, postural expressions; Pekrun
et al., 2010).
According to this component perspective, boredom is a stand-alone emo-
tional experience and not simply the absence of positive emotions or interest
(see Pekrun et al., 2010). This assertion is supported by three main arguments,
the first being the existence of numerous affective states not experienced as
positive that also would not be described as boredom (e.g., anger, anxiety,
hopelessness). Second, although lack of interest may represent an important
antecedent of boredom experiences, the two constructs are not identical:
whereas lack of interest is affectively neutral, boredom is typically described
as having a negative valence (e.g., the "torments of boredom"; Berlyne, 1960,
p. 192). Third, although the construct of boredom does overlap with lack of
interest or enjoyment, it is important to consider discrepant motivational con-
sequences (e.g., due to affective load; Goetz & Frenzel, 2006). Whereas enjoy-
ment or lack of interest does not indicate a clear intention to engage in or
withdraw from an activity, boredom is consistently found to correspond with
a self-reported desire to leave the situation.'
Research has also examined the conceptual dimensions underlying bore-
dom experiences. The most well-known of these considerations is the cir-
cumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980; see also Watson & Tellegen, 1985), in
which emotional states are defined according to the two orthogonal dimen-
sions: valence and arousal.
Boredom is consistently classified as an unpleasant emotional state of rel-
atively low negative valence (e.g., Fisher, 1993; Perkins & Hill, 1985). Despite
there is support for this assumption in the literature (e.g., Goetz et al., 2007),
research concerning the arousal dimension of boredom is mixed. For exam-
ple, whereas several studies classify boredom as a low-arousal emotion (e.g.,
Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993), others suggest the opposite (e.g., Berlyne, 1960;
London et al., 1972). As such, there is ongoing debate as to how this emotion
is best understood in terms of arousal (Pekrun et al., 2010).
One explanation for these inconsistent findings is that arousal is not well-
defined as a construct and may itself be multidimensional in nature, with the
varied assessments employed capturing only specific elements of this under-
lying component (see Schimmack & Reisenzein, 2002; Watson et al., 1999).
Another possibility is that boredom is not ideally represented as a single

1 Thus, similar to the way that lack of approach tendencies can be distinguished from avoidance
orientations in achievement goal research (Pekrun et al., 2010), it is also possible to differenti-
ate between emotion-oriented constructs, in a manner.
 Boredom 467

CO

Reactant
boredom

Searching
boredom

BOREDOM

Calibrating
boredom

Indifferent Apathetic
boredom boredom

Positive Negative
Valence

Figure 19.1. Types of boredom along the dimensions of valence and arousal
(Goetz et al., 2014a)

construct but is better understood as an umbrella term encompassing different

"types" of boredom.'
In line with this assumption, a recent empirical study by Goetz and col-
leagues (2014a) examined boredom using in vivo assessments in real-life set-
tings. Support for different types of boredom was found in both achievement
and non-achievement contexts (see Figure 19.1). Following from qualitative
research on the phenomenology of boredom (i.e., students describing how
boredom feels as they experience it; Goetz & Frenzel, 2006), these findings
suggest that not only do different types of boredom exist in academic achieve-
ment settings, but they can be reliably differentiated based on the underlying
dimensions of valence and arousal.
In Figure 19.1, the average level of valence and arousal when experiencing
boredom in real-life settings (i.e., "BOREDOM") is plotted in relation to the
five postulated and observed boredom types. This average boredom experi-
ence is located in the lower right quadrant — a classification based on valence
and arousal consistent with previous definitions of boredom (e.g., Russell,
1980). Although this classification may be useful in identifying a prototypic
boredom experience, Goetz et al. (2014a) argue that this boredom descriptor

2 This idea was implied in psychoanalytic literature as early as the 1930s ("... it is probable that
the conditions and forms of behavior called 'boredom' are psychologically quite heterogeneous";
Fenichel, 1951, p. 349) and echoed over six decades later by Phillips (1993), who proposed that
boredom was not a single entity but consisted instead of multiple "boredoms" (p. 78).
THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

is more accurately understood as a composite variable averaging across dis-

parate types of boredom that differ in valence and arousal. More specifically,
they suggest that individuals may experience up to five discrete types of bore-
dom in academic settings: (1) indifferent boredom (relaxed, withdrawn, indif-
ferent), having a slightly positive valence and very low arousal; (2) calibrating
boredom (uncertain, receptive to change or distraction), having a slightly nega-
tive valence and still relatively low arousal, but higher arousal than indifferent
boredom; (3) searching boredom (somewhat restless, active pursuit of change
or distraction), with a slightly negative valence and higher arousal than indif-
ferent boredom; (4) reactant boredom (highly restless, motivated to leave the
situation for specific alternatives), having a high negative valence and rela-
tively high arousal; and (5) apathetic boredom (highly aversive), characterized
by high negative valence and very low arousal.
Goetz et al. (2014a) report that these five boredom types were found to
differ in how they were experienced (phenomenology), and were also differ-
entially related to other emotions (e.g., positive relation between indifferent
boredom and enjoyment, negative relation between reactant boredom and
enjoyment). All five types were also specifically described by participants as
experiences of boredom.
Above and beyond existing operational definitions of boredom based on
component approaches, ongoing research based on dimensional approaches
suggests that different "types" of boredom may be experienced by students.
Whereas these types may differ based on valence and arousal, they nonetheless
share essential elements of the common operational definition of this emo-
tion. In other words, whereas there exists significant variance within students'
experience of boredom with respect to multiple types of "boredoms," these
differences do not qualitatively contradict, but rather serve to clarify, the
psychological processes underlying this emotion.
Boredom in academic domains is often referred to as an academic emo-
tion; a classification used to describe emotions experienced in educational
settings that directly correspond with learning, classroom behavior, and
achievement (Pekrun et al., 2002). For example, academic boredom is experi-
enced during learning activities, such as homework completion or classroom
exercises.

Summary
The component process model of emotions proposes that boredom can be
operationalized as a specific emotion consisting of a unique combination of
affective, cognitive, motivational, physiological, and expressive components.
Boredom is thus best regarded as not simply reflecting the absence of posi-
tive emotions or interest. In dimensional approaches, boredom is commonly
defined as low in arousal and of slightly negative valence. However, recent
research suggests that individuals' experiences of boredom can differ on these
 Boredom

dimensions. In other words, individuals seem to experience different types of

boredom. The term "academic boredom" refers to boredom (including sub-
types of boredom) as experienced in the context of learning and achievement.

How Extensively Has Academic Boredom Been Investigated?

To illustrate the growing research interest related to boredom in academic

settings, we next outline the article frequencies resulting from two literature
searches on the topic (see Figures 19.2 and 19.3). We first searched for publi-
cations in which the word "boredom" appeared in the title or abstract, then
expanded our search to the subcategory "academic boredom" (with "bore-
dom" AND "academic" in the title or abstract). The search was conducted
via the international databases PsycINFO and ERIC, with papers appearing
in both searches counted once (non-English publications with English titles
or abstracts were included). The number of publications is displayed in the
figures in ten-year periods, with publication rates presented as the number
of relevant papers per 10,000 publications. The change in publication rates
concerning "boredom" and "academic boredom" is indicated relative to the
overall increase in scientific publications, as is the number of publications in
these domains relative to the total number of publications.
Figure 19.2 shows the results of the literature search for "boredom," reveal-
ing it to be of relatively consistent scientific interest over a 50-year period
(1966-2015). Figure 19.3 outlines the results of the literature search on

600

500

1966-1975 1976-1985 1986-1995 1996-2005 2006-2015

Figure 19.2. Number of papers on "boredom" per 10,000 publications in

PsycINFO and ERIC databases
470 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1966-1975 1976-1985 1986-1995 1996-2005 2006-2015

Figure 19.3. Number of papers on "academic boredom" per 10,000

publications in PsycINFO and ERIC databases

"academic boredom," showing scientific interest in the topic to have strongly

increased after 2005.
Academic boredom has primarily been assessed through interviews (e.g.,
Farrell et al., 1988; Goetz et al., 2007; Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003) and stand-
ardized questionnaires (e.g., Daschmann et al., 2011). In addition to single-
item measures (e.g., Geiwitz, 1966; Gjesme, 1977; Perkins & Hill, 1985; Shaw
et al., 1996), questionnaire research has increasingly utilized multi-item scales
to assess various facets of academic boredom (see Table 19.1; for detailed
descriptions of existing measures, see reviews by Vodanovich, 2003b and
Vodanovich & Watt, 2016). Arguably the most commonly employed meas-
ure of academic boredom is from the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
(AEQ; Pekrun et al., 2011; sample item: "I get so bored I have problems stay-
ing alert"). Domain-specific versions of the AEQ have also been developed to
examine boredom in different subject areas (sample item: "I can't concentrate
in [DOMAIN] class because I am so bored"; for a math-specific version, see
Pekrun et al., 2005). Descriptive statistics for the AEQ boredom scale and
empirically observed relations with other academic variables (e.g., emotions,
self-concept, achievement) are outlined in Pekrun et al. (2011; university stu-
dents) and Goetz et al. (2010; high school students). For example, findings in
a sample of 973 eighth grade students in the mathematics domain (AEQ-M)
found boredom to have significant positive and negative correlations (p <
0.001) of —0.68 with enjoyment, —0.43 with pride, 0.52 with anxiety, 0.74 with
anger, —0.42 with academic self-concept, and —0.28 with academic achieve-
ment (Goetz et al., 2010).
470 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICII

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1966-1975 1976-1985 1986-1995 1996-2005 2006-2015

Figure 19.3. Number of papers on "academic boredom" per 10,000

publications in PsycINFO and ERIC databases

"academic boredom," showing scientific interest in the topic to have strongly

increased after 2005.
Academic boredom has primarily been assessed through interviews (e.g.,
Farrell et al., 1988; Goetz et al., 2007; Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003) and stand-
ardized questionnaires (e.g., Daschmann et al., 2011). In addition to single-
item measures (e.g., Geiwitz, 1966; Gjesme, 1977; Perkins & Hill, 1985; Shaw
et al., 1996), questionnaire research has increasingly utilized multi-item scales
to assess various facets of academic boredom (see Table 19.1; for detailed
descriptions of existing measures, see reviews by Vodanovich, 2003b and
Vodanovich & Watt, 2016). Arguably the most commonly employed meas-
ure of academic boredom is from the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
(AEQ; Pekrun et al., 2011; sample item: "I get so bored I have problems stay-
ing alert"). Domain-specific versions of the AEQ have also been developed to
examine boredom in different subject areas (sample item: "I can't concentrate
in [DOMAIN] class because I am so bored"; for a math-specific version, see
Pekrun et al., 2005). Descriptive statistics for the AEQ boredom scale and
empirically observed relations with other academic variables (e.g., emotions,
self-concept, achievement) are outlined in Pekrun et al. (2011; university stu-
5
dents) and Goetz et al. (2010; high school students). For example, findings in
a sample of 973 eighth grade students in the mathematics domain (AEQ-M)
found boredom to have significant positive and negative correlations (p <
0.001) of —0.68 with enjoyment, —0.43 with pride, 0.52 with anxiety, 0.74 with 1
anger, —0.42 with academic self-concept, and —0.28 with academic achieve-
ment (Goetz et al., 2010).
 Boredom 471

Table 19.1 Self-report measures of boredom

Scale Reference

Academic Boredom Scale (ABS)* Acee et al. (2010)

Boredom Coping Scale Hamilton et al. (1984)
(non-academic context)
Boredom Experience Scale van Tilburg and Igou (2012)
Boredom Proneness Scale Farmer and Sundberg (1986)
Boredom subscale; Achievement Pekrun et al. (2011)
Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ;
mathematics-related version: AEQ-M)*
Boredom Susceptibility Scale Zuckerman (1979)
(subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale)
Class-Related Boredom (short Goetz et al. (2010)
version from the AEQ-M)*
Coping with Boredom Scale Nett et al. (2010); Nett et al.
(academic context)* (2011)
Dutch Boredom Scale Reijseger et al. (2013)
Free Time Boredom Scale Ragheb and Merydith (2001)
Homework Boredom Scale (based Goetz et al. (2012)
on the AEQ-M)*
Leisure Boredom Scale Iso-Ahola and Weissinger (1990)
Multidimensional State Boredom Fahlman et al. (2013)
Scale
Occupational Boredom Scales Grubb (1975); Lee (1986)
Precursors to Boredom Scales Daschmann et al. (2011); Tze
(academic context) et al. (2016)
Relational Boredom Scale Harasymchuk and Fehr (2012)
(interpersonal relationships)
Sexual Boredom Scale Watt and Ewing (2010)
State Boredom Measure Todman (2013)

*Scales explicitly developed for the context of learning and achievement

Summary
Research interest on boredom, as reflected by publication rates in psychol-
ogy and empirical educational research, has remained consistent since the
1960s. However, the proportion of publications exploring academic boredom
strongly increased after 2005. These results underscore the consistent impor-
tance of research on boredom and, moreover, indicate a growing research
472 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANN ICH

emphasis specifically on boredom in academic settings. Existing empirical

findings concerning academic boredom are based primarily on data from
standardized interviews and questionnaires, with the boredom scale of the
Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (Pekrun et al., 2011) being arguably the
most commonly utilized measure.

How Intensively Is Boredom Experienced by Students

and Teachers?

International research has consistently found boredom to be one of the

most frequently experienced emotions in academic settings (e.g., United
States: Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984; Asia: Won, 1989; Europe:
Goetz et al., 2014a; Africa: Vandewiele, 1980). Recent findings indicate
that boredom is more often experienced in academic settings than in non-
academic contexts (Chin et al., 2017). For example, Larson and Richards'
(1991) study of fifth and ninth grade students indicated that boredom was
experienced 32 percent of the time in class. Similarly, Goetz et al. (2007)
reported that ninth grade students were bored almost half of the time.
Research with older students is comparable. Nett et al.'s (2011) study of
11th grade students indicated that they were bored 58 percent of the time
during math class, using real-time data collection methods (experience
sampling).
In a study by Goetz and Nett (2012), in which post-secondary students
were asked how strongly they experienced specific emotions in learning and
achievement settings (retrospective questionnaire, Likert scale: "1" not at all
to "5" very strongly), the mean levels of 3.02 for boredom, 2.90 for anxiety,
and 3.30 for enjoyment showed boredom to be experienced just as intensively
as anxiety. With respect to boredom across disciplines, a study with German
eighth and 11th grade students examined the emotions of boredom, anxiety,
and enjoyment in the domains of German (native language), mathematics,
physics, history, and music (for data set information, see Haag & Goetz, 2012).
Mean boredom levels were once again above the scale midpoint, and were
higher than for enjoyment and anxiety, in each subject area.
There is, at present, a lack of research on teachers' boredom, likely following
from early findings suggesting experiences of boredom to be infrequent among
teachers (Frenzel et al., 2016). However, recent studies suggest that boredom
is much more pronounced in teachers than initially assumed. Findings from
Goetz et al. (2015) do indicate that, similar to their students, teachers also tend
to consistently report higher levels of boredom as compared to anxiety.

Summary
Findings from studies employing both retrospective and real-life assess-
ment methods provide consistent empirical evidence of students' academic
 Boredom

boredom as a frequently and intensively experienced emotion in academic

settings. These findings have been found to hold across grade levels, cultures,
and academic disciplines. Further, academic boredom is more pronounced in
teachers than initially assumed.

Does Boredom Matter? The Consequences of Academic

Boredom

Theoretical Considerations

In an attempt to explain the mechanisms by which academic boredom

impacts learning and achievement, Pekrun's (2006) control-value theory of
achievement emotions was employed to consider the effects of boredom on
performance. Findings indicate that boredom is mediated in large part by
(1) students' achievement motivation, (2) accessibility of cognitive resources,
and (3) learning strategies, including their higher-order self-regulation of
learning strategies. Concerning motivation, Pekrun's theory suggests that bore-
dom corresponds with a desire to leave or avoid boredom-inducing situations.
Since avoidance and intrinsic motivation tend to be inversely related, bore-
dom is considered to impair engagement and persistence, mostly function-
ing as avoidance motivation. With respect to cognitive resources, boredom is
assumed to redirect attention toward more rewarding and highly valued pur-
suits. Boredom is thus hypothesized to reduce the cognitive resources available
for the "boring" task, resulting in attention deficits. Finally, boredom impacts
learning strategies and self-regulation by contributing to less frequent use of
cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies and, thus, shallow information
processing. Specifically, boredom is hypothesized to reduce students' use of
deep learning strategies (e.g., cognitive elaboration). Boredom is additionally
expected to inhibit students' abilities to regulate their learning with respect to
goal setting, selecting cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and monitoring
their progress.
Given the negative impact of boredom on cognitive resources, learning
strategies, motivation, and self-regulation, it is not surprising that boredom is
consequently hypothesized to have negative effects on academic performance
with respect to both simple and complex tasks (Pekrun et al., 2010). Although
there is little empirical evidence, Vodanovich (2003a) has also hypothesized
that boredom may benefit learning and achievement outcomes in some circum-
stances by encouraging creativity (e.g., holistic thinking), self-reflection (e.g.,
refocusing attention on alternate learning activities in which greater success is
possible), innovation (e.g., seeking variety and change), as well as relaxation
(e.g., renewing cognitive resources, well-being). The assertion that boredom
could have specific benefits for learning and achievement is also consistent with
evolutionary research pointing to the need to be able to disengage during pro-
longed exposure to non-rewarding situations (Bornstein et al., 1990).
Empirical Findings

Findings from qualitative and quantitative research to date consistently indi-

cate that higher levels of boredom correspond with lower levels of attention
(e.g., Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), achievement-striving (e.g., Jarvis & Seifert,
2002), and learning strategy use (e.g., Pekrun et al., 2011). Experimental stud-
ies also show boredom to predict poorer task performance and greater var-
iability in achievement levels over time (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2013; Hamilton
et al., 1984; Kass et al., 2001). Research by Wallace et al. (2003) further showed
boredom proneness to correspond with more frequent reports of common
cognitive failures, such as distractibility memory lapses.
Although there aren't a lot of studies directly examining the relation
between boredom and academic achievement, existing studies suggest that
higher levels of boredom correspond with poorer achievement (e.g., Daniels
et al., 2009; Goetz et al., 2010; Pekrun et al., 2010, 2011). The observed
correlations between boredom and academic performance are typically
around —0.30 across subject domains (cf., Goetz & Hall, 2013). Moreover,
longitudinal work indicates that boredom and achievement have reciprocal
effects over time, with boredom having consistently negative effects on later
performance that, in turn, contributes to subsequent boredom (e.g., Pekrun
et al., 2014).
In their recent meta-analysis, Tze and colleagues (2016) found that boredom
had a modest yet consistent negative relationship with academic outcomes (T=
—0.24) such as learning strategy use and achievement. The strongest relations
were observed between boredom and achievement motivation indicators (e.g.,
self-efficacy). It is important to note, however, that the observed overall rela-
tionship between boredom and achievement may be attenuated, considering
that boredom is hypothesized to result from tasks that either over- or under-
challenge a person (Krannich et al., 2016).

Summary

From a theoretical perspective, boredom is assumed to be detrimental for learn-

ing behavior and academic achievement due to its negative effects on cognitive
resources, motivation, and learning strategies. Despite the hypothesized poten-
tial benefits of boredom (e.g., creativity, innovation), empirical findings consist-
ently show modest negative relations between boredom and academic outcomes.

What Are the Causes of Academic Boredom?

Theoretical Considerations

When considering the potential antecedents of academic boredom, three

theoretical models are of particular relevance (see Figure 19.4): Pekrun's
(2006) control-value theory and Robinson's (1975) model specifically con-
cern boredom in learning and achievement settings, with a third model by
Hill and Perkins (1985) addressing individuals' experiences of boredom
more generally. Additionally, antecedent variables (e.g., isolation) identified
as predictive of boredom in scattered empirical studies are informative (e.g.,
Fisher, 1993).
Pekrun's (2006) control-value theory. This theory posits that individuals'
perceptions of personal control and value concerning achievement activ-
ities and outcomes represent the most important psychosocial antecedents
of boredom in achievement settings. Subjective control refers to an agent's
perceived causal influence over actions and outcomes (Skinner, 1996),
whereas subjective value concerns the perceived valences and personal rele-
vance thereof. Pekrun's theory posits that boredom is most reliably elicited
when achievement activities are perceived as lacking importance or value.
This model thus hypothesizes a negative relationship between the frequency
and intensity of boredom in academic activities and the subjective value of
these activities. In this respect, boredom differs from other positive (e.g., joy-
ful experience connected to importance) and negative (e.g., anxiety about
importance) emotions that are assumed to be more intensively experienced
with increasing value.
In terms of subjective control, Pekrun's (2006) theory further assumes that
the relationship between feelings of boredom and subjective control is curvi-
linear, with higher levels of boredom expected when perceived control is very
low or very high, and less likely when perceived control is at a moderate level.
In other words, it is proposed that boredom is most likely to occur when a
learning or achievement task is not sufficiently challenging (high control) or,
conversely, when task demands exceed capabilities (low control; Acee et al.,
2010; Krannich et al., 2016).3 Concerning more distal boredom anteced-
ents, Pekrun's model asserts that elements of the social environment (such
as classroom goal structures or parental support) may also impact students'
perceptions of control and value (proximal antecedents) that, in turn, more
directly predict student boredom. For example, parental support in a given
subject area would be expected to increase the students' perceived value of
that domain, resulting in lower boredom levels.
Robinson's (1975) model of academic boredom. This model proposes that
three critical types of variables serve as antecedents to academic boredom.
The first is the monotony of class activities; the second is students' perceived
uselessness of these activities (cf., value in Pekrun's model); and the third is
the social environment. This model thus asserts that, in addition to the learn-
ing environment at home and school (e.g., available learning resources and

3 This perspective contrasts with "flow" theory as proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1975), which
instead asserts that boredom should occur only when capabilities significantly exceed demands
(i.e., high perceived control).
476 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND NIAIKE KRANNICH

Pekrun (2006)

Social Environment

- Subjective Control
- Subjective Value

Hill & Perkins (1985) Further Aspects

Characteristics of
Situational Environment
Monotony Boredom
Fit
- Characteristics of Situation
- Characteristics of Person Characteristics of
- Characteristics of Task Person

Robinson (1975)

- Monotony in Class
- Uselessness of
Subject Domain
- Teacher, School, Peers,
Parents, Home

Figure 19.4. Theoretical assumptions on the an of achievement

boredom

amenities), the interest and value for learning — as well as specific subject
matter demonstrated by teachers, peers, and parents — can have a significant
impact on students' boredom experiences.
Hill and Perkin's (1985) general boredom model. The main underlying
assumption in this model is that boredom is primarily the result of monoto-
nous situations. However, this model further asserts that this effect is moder-
ated by (a) situational characteristics (i.e., allows for additional or alternative
stimulation), (b) personal characteristics (e.g., extroverts are more inclined to
seek out more stimulating activities), and (c) task characteristics (i.e., some
tasks afford greater flexibility than others concerning alternate activities).
Additional antecedents of boredom experiences. In addition to the anteced-
ent variables outlined above (e.g., subjective control and value), other possible
predictors of academic boredom — partially overlapping with those outlined
in the preceding theoretical models — have been proposed as well (see Smith,
1981). These include environmental characteristics (e.g., monotony, isolation,
lack of alternatives; Fisher, 1993) and dispositional characteristics (e.g., bore-
dom susceptibility, age, extraversion; e.g., Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Thefit
between the two (e.g., suboptimal stimulation, difficulty, content) has increas-
ingly been a focus since the 1980s (e.g., O'Hanlon, 1981). To better reflect
the combined contributions of existing research on boredom antecedents, a
conceptual heuristic is presented in Figure 19.4.
 Boredom 477

Empirical Findings

Research on the antecedents of academic boredom indicates that high levels

of subjective control (e.g., academic self-concept, self-efficacy) correspond
with less boredom. In educational settings, challenging tasks can reduce
perceptions of control. The relationship observed between subjective con-
trol and boredom tends to be negatively linear (not curvilinear as is often
assumed), because tasks at school tend to pose significant challenges (are
not extremely easy to solve) thereby preventing very high perceptions of
control (e.g., Dicintio & Gee, 1999; Goetz et al., 2006, 2012). Similarly,
negative correlations between boredom and subjective value (intrinsic and
extrinsic) have been reported (e.g., Goetz et al., 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010,
2011).
Additionally, achievement motives and mastery achievement goals have
been found to correspond with lower boredom (e.g., Duda et al., 1992;
Goetz et al., 2016; Jagacinski & Duda, 2001; Pekrun et al., 2006, 2009),
with greater teaching quality (e.g., enthusiasm, elaborative instruction, clar-
ity) typically also corresponding to lower student boredom (e.g., Frenzel
et al., 2007; Goetz et al., 2013). Finally, task characteristics, including
monotony and repetition, as well as lack of complexity, variety, and intel-
lectual stimulation, have also been empirically linked to greater boredom
(e.g., Scerbo, 1998).

Summary

Following from three primary theoretical models and scattered empir-

ical findings, antecedents of academic boredom are typically classified as
involving the environment or situation (e.g., teaching), the individual (e.g.,
appraisals), and/or the fit between individual differences and the learning
environment (e.g., content versus interests). Available evidence suggests that
students who experience lower boredom levels report higher levels of sub-
jective control and value (Pekrun, 2006), are motivated to both perform well
and pursue content mastery, and tend to have effective instructors who facil-
itate engaging classroom environments as opposed to monotonous learning
experiences.

How Can We Cope with Academic Boredom?

Theoretical Considerations

In contrast to voluminous literature on coping with stress and negative affect

(e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, 1987; Skinner et al., 2003), surprisingly little
research has examined the strategies individuals use to cope with boredom
478 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MA1KE KRANNICH

Table 19.2 Classification of students' strategies for coping with boredom

Type of coping Approach coping Avoidance coping

Cognitive Changing one's perception Focusing on thoughts not

of the situation related to the situation
Behavioral Taking actions to change Taking actions not
the situation related to the situation

(Daniels et al., 2015; Nett et al., 2010; Sansone et al., 1992; Strain & Graesser,
2012; Vodanovich, 2003b). Although the most straightforward strategy often
mentioned in the research literature on boredom is simply to quit the boring
activity (Berlyne, 1960; see also Miller & Wrosch, 2007), this response is not
always possible (e.g., at school) and can lead to negative results (e.g., achieve-
ment deficits). Thus, to address the present research gap on various other ways
in which students can effectively and efficiently cope with boredom in educa-
tional settings, recent studies have explored whether existing models of coping
behavior can be effectively applied to academic boredom.
For example, in preliminary research by Nett et al. (2010, 2011), a 2 x 2
classification system from stress research by Holahan et al. (1996) was adapted
to examine whether boredom could also be differentiated based on two dimen-
sions: (1) strategies that aim to either approach or avoid the situation, and
(2) strategies that are cognitive versus behavioral in nature (see Table 19.2;
empirical results based on this classification system are given later). Examples
for each coping strategy type include responses to the statement "When I am
bored in mathematics class ..." such as "... I make myself aware of the impor-
tance of the issue" (cognitive approach), "... I ask my teacher for more inter-
esting tasks" (behavioral approach), "... I study for another subject" (cognitive
avoidance), and "... I talk to my classmates" (behavioral avoidance).

Empirical Findings

Despite limited research on the types and effects of students' strategies for
coping with boredom, scattered existing findings are nonetheless revealing.
For example, a study by Vandewiele (1980) suggested various specific strat-
egies used by students (13 to 14 years old) to prevent boredom, including
reading (20%), doing homework (9%), visiting friends (9%), listening to music
(8%), participating in sports (6%), and playing games (4%). Similarly, Harris
(2000) found university students (mean age of 28 years) to cope with non-
academic boredom mainly by reading (39%), daydreaming (26%), socializing
(21%), watching television (20%), doing physical activity (18%), doing some-
thing new (16%), sleeping (15%), organizing (14%), cleaning (10%), listening
to music (9%), or studying (7%).
 Boredom 479

With respect to coping strategies for academic boredom, Goetz et at. (2007)
found German ninth graders to report coping with boredom in class primarily
through distraction (86%), acceptance (23%), increasing attention (15%), and
relaxation (8%). The two most common strategies reported for coping with
academic boredom can thus be classified as cognitive avoidance and cogni-
tive approach strategies, according to the conceptual framework outlined in
Table 19.2. To more intensively explore the applicability of this coping model
to academic boredom, Nett et al. (2010) developed the Coping with Boredom
Scale with a sample of German secondary students (fifth to tenth grade) and
identified three groups of students based on their reported boredom-related
coping strategies.
The first group identified by Nett et al. (2010) prefers cognitive approach
strategies (reappraisers; e.g., bolstering perceived value of class content),
the second focuses mainly on behavioral approach strategies (critici=ers;
e.g., suggesting more engaging activities to the instructor), and the third
relies primarily on behavioral avoidance (evaders; e.g., engaging in unrelated
activities). An analysis of group differences on academic outcomes showed
that reappraisers experience less boredom and demonstrate a more adap-
tive academic profile (cognitions, emotions, motivation) as compared to the
other groups. Follow-up studies have recently replicated these findings in
both Chinese and Canadian university student samples (Daniels et al., 2015;
Tze et al., 2013). In sum, existing findings suggest that, although cognitive
avoidance may be a common response to academic boredom, students who
attempt to cognitively reframe boring content as more interesting or impor-
tant are less likely to be bored and experience less academic difficulties. This
is also in line with findings by Sansone et al. (1992), from the perspective
of self-regulation of motivation, that illustrate how adopting strategies
that enhance interest in an assigned activity (e.g., focusing on the challenge
afforded) can make the activity more positive in nature (see also Sansone,
2009; Sansone et al., 2015).

Summary

Despite numerous conceptual models for classifying strategies of coping with

stress, theoretical frameworks that attempt to categorize the types of strate-
gies students used to cope with academic boredom are limited. In their 2 x 2
classification system, Nett et al. (2010, 2011) differentiate boredom-related
coping strategies along the dimensions of approach versus avoidance and cog-
nitive strategies versus behavioral strategies — a model validated internation-
ally with both secondary and post-secondary students. Preliminary findings
based on this framework show cognitive avoidance to be the most frequently
used coping strategy, with cognitive approach strategies proving consistently
effective for reducing boredom.
480 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

How Can Academic Boredom Be Reduced?

Following from the aforementioned theoretical approaches and findings are

numerous potential avenues for reducing or preventing academic boredom.
Perhaps the most empirically validated approach for minimizing boredom
is to enhance students' perceived value of and personal interest in, academic
tasks and content by, for example, highlighting the relevance of class-
room activities to students' daily lives (cf., Dunk & Harackiewicz, 2007;
Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009; Renninger &
Hidi, 2016). Likewise, existing research underscores the importance of
adequately matching task demands to student competencies to maintain
optimal perceptions of academic control in students (e.g., Krannich et al.,
2016; Preckel et al., 2010). Demonstrating enthusiasm while teaching has
also been consistently found to contribute to student enjoyment — an emo-
tion incompatible with academic boredom that should also contribute to
greater achievement-striving (Keller et al., 2016; Pressick-Kilborn, 2015;
Xu et al., 2014).
It is also important to support the diagnostic competencies of teachers
to better identify when students are bored, as well as consider the underlying
causes so as to better modify class content and activities to reduce bore-
dom experiences. Although there exist no published studies to date on how
accurate teachers are in evaluating their students' boredom, recent research
indicates that parents can quite accurately judge the intensity and frequency
of their children's boredom, as well as specific antecedent variables (Nett
et al., 2016). Given the specific familiarity of teachers with students' learning
behavior and expressed emotions in class, teachers could also be expected to
be highly accurate when evaluating their students' boredom levels. Similarly,
intervention efforts could focus on helping students better identify and
anticipate their own feelings of boredom, as well as informing students of
effective strategies for coping with boredom. Despite potential awkwardness
for teachers in acknowledging suboptimal instruction or learning tasks, it is
expected that — by addressing individual differences in student interests and
achievement levels, the inevitable mismatch with class activities, and specific
strategies for reducing boredom levels — students can assume more respon-
sibility for their feelings of boredom in class and assume more control over
their academic development.

Concluding Thoughts

Given cumulative empirical evidence showing academic emotions (including

academic boredom) to be organized primarily in a domain-specific manner
(e.g., Goetz et al. 2007), the domain-specific assessment of academic boredom
is highly recommended to most effectively evaluate boredom in students dur-
ing academic activities (e.g., in mathematics versus language classes). Future
 Boredom 481

studies employing real-time (state) assessments of academic boredom (i.e.,

experience sampling method; Goetz et al., 2014a; Larson & Richards, 1991;
Nett et al., 2011) are also strongly recommended to reduce bias due to sub-
jective beliefs (see Goetz et al., 2014b; Robinson & Clore, 2002). The use of
more objective measures of academic boredom, such as physiological mark-
ers or facial expression recognition, are also encouraged to validate findings
obtained from self-report research.
Empirical findings suggest that the experience of boredom may take differ-
ent forms, and that specific subtypes of boredom can be differentiated along
the dimensions of valence and arousal (Goetz et al., 2014a). Further study
of the prevalence, antecedents, effects, and generalizability of specific types
of boredom within and across subject areas is encouraged in order to shed
light on how educators can address boredom. Cultural as well as develop-
mental differences (e.g., elementary school children versus older adults) in the
meaning of academic boredom also warrant additional research (e.g., cogni-
tive interviewing of self-report boredom measures; see Frenzel et al., 2012;
Karabenick et al., 2007).
Future experimental or longitudinal studies on the antecedents and effects
of boredom would help clarify the causal nature of the relationships. Further
research into the possibility that different types of boredom (e.g., indifferent
versus reactant boredom; Goetz et al., 2014a) may have different antecedents
and effects is also needed.
Additionally, given limited research on how learners cope with academic
boredom, more studies are necessary to evaluate effective boredom coping
strategies. Such studies should refer to existing models in the fields of coping,
emotion regulation, and self-regulated learning (see Nett et al., 2010).
Concerning the assessment of academic boredom, future studies are encour-
aged to distinguish between trait and state measures (e.g., retrospective
self-perceptions versus real-time experiences; cf., Kahneman, 2011) and, if
possible, triangulate data from varied assessments (such as facial expressions,
neuroimaging, physiological indicators, and physical activity) that are less
subject to response bias (Harley et al., 2012).
Considering that nearly all published research on academic boredom to
date has focused on students, research on boredom in teachers is also war-
ranted, particularly given recent findings showing this emotion to be fre-
quently experienced by teachers in classroom settings (Becker et al., 2015).
Given the considerable amount of existing research illustrating the various
negative consequences of academic boredom, it is anticipated that efforts to
examine boredom in teachers could contribute to both teacher well-being and
student learning.
Finally, following from the aforementioned suggested research directions is
the development of targeted interventions for reducing and preventing academic
boredom for both students and teachers. For example, control-enhancing pro-
grams might be developed (e.g., Hall et al., 2007) or programs that aim to
foster students' self-regulation competencies (e.g., Goetz & Bieg, 2016).
482 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

References
Acee, T. W, Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J.-I., Chu, H. R., Kim, M., ... Wicker, F. W.
(2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 17-27.
Ahmed, W, van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-
regulated learning, achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 150-61.
Becker, E. S., Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Taxer, J. L. (2015). Antecedents
of teachers' emotions in the classroom: An intraindividual approach.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 635.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Bornstein, R. F., Kale, A. R., & Cornell, K. R. (1990). Boredom as a limiting condition
on the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
791-800.
Chin, A., Markey, A., Bhargava, S., Kassam, K. S., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Bored
in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion,
17(2), 359-68.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Newall,
N. E. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective
antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 948-63.
Daniels, L. M., Tze, V. M. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Examining boredom: Different
causes for different coping profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 37,
255-61.
Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of bore-
dom at school: Development and validation of the Precursors to Boredom
Scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 421-40.
Dicintio, M. J. & Gee, S. (1999). Control is the key: Unlocking the motivation of
at-risks students. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 231-7.
Duda, J. L., Fox, K. R., Biddle, S. J., & Armstrong, N. (1992). Children's achieve-
ment goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 62, 313-23.
Dunk, A. M. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How
individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task inter-
est. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597-610.
Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. S. Scherer & P. Ekman
(Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2013).
Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale.
Assessment, 20(1), 68-85.
 Boredom 483

Farmer, R. & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development

and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,
4-17
Farrell, E., Peguero, G., Lindsey, R., & White, R. (1988). Giving voice to high school
students: Pressure and boredom, ya know what I'm sayin'? American
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 489-502.
Fenichel, 0. (1951). On the psychology of boredom. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organifation
and pathology of thought: Selected sources (pp. 349-61). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3).
395-417.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Dicke, A.-L., & Goetz, T. (2012). Beyond quantitative
decline: Conceptual shifts in adolescents' development of interest in mathe-
matics. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1069-82.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and
students' emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics class-
rooms. Learning and Instruction, / 7,478-93.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker-Kurz,
B., & Klassen, R. (2016). Measuring teachers' enjoyment, anger, and anxiety:
The Teacher Emotions Scales (TES). Contemporary Educational Psychology,
46, 148-63.
Geiwitz, P. J. (1966). Structure of boredom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 3,592-600.
Gjesme, T. (1977). General satisfaction and boredom at school as a function of the
pupils' personality characteristics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 21(3), 113-46.
Goetz, T., Becker, E. S., Bieg, M., Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., & Hall, N. C.
(2015). The glass half empty: How emotional exhaustion affects the state-
trait discrepancy in self-reports of teaching emotions. PLoS ONE, 10(9):
e0137441.
Goetz, T. & Bieg, M. (2016). Academic emotions and their regulation via emo-
tional intelligence. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.),
Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research,
and practice (pp. 279-98). New York, NY: Springer.
Goetz, T., Cronjaeger, H., Frenzel, A. C., Lüdtke, 0., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Academic
self-concept and emotion relations: Domain specificity and age effects.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 44-58.
Goetz, T. & Frenzel, A. C. (2006). Phänomenologie schulischer Langeweile
[Phenomenology of boredom at school]. Zeitschrift fiir Entivicklungs-
psychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 38(4), 149-53.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Hall, N. C., Nett, U., Pekrun, R., & Lipnevich, A. (2014a).
Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motivation and
Emotion, 38, 401-19.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2007). Regulation von Langeweile im
Unterricht. Was Schuelerinnen und Schueler bei der "Windstille der Seele"
(nicht) tun [Regulation of boredom in class. What students (do not) do when
484 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

experiencing the "Windless Calm of the Soul"]. Unterrichtswissen.sehaft,

35(4), 312-33.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & Lüdtke, 0. (2007). Between-
and within-domain relations of students' academic emotions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(4), 715-33.
Goetz, T., Haag, L., Lipnevich, A. A., Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., & Collier, A. P. M.
(2014b). Between-domain relations of students' academic emotions and their
judgments of school domain similarity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1153.
Goetz, T. & Hall, N. C. (2013). Emotion and achievement in the classroom. In J.
Hattie and E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement
(pp. 192-5). New York, NY: Routledge.
Goetz, T., Luedtke, 0., Nett, U. E., Keller, M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2013). Characteristics
of teaching and students' emotions in the classroom: Investigating differences
across domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 383-94.
Goetz, T. & Nett, U. E. (2012). Boredom in university students. Codebook, University
of Konstanz, Konstanz.
Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., 8z
Trautwein, U. (2012). Students' emotions during homework: Structures, self-
concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(2), 225-34.
Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a
social-cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students'
affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(2), 289-308.
Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2016). Intraindividual
relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions:
An experience sampling approach. Learning and Instruction, 41, 115-25.
Grubb, E. A. (1975). Assembly line boredom and individual differences in recreation
participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 7,256-69.
Haag, L. & Goetz, T. (2012). Mathe ist schwierig und Deutsch aktuell. Vergleichende
Studie zur Charakterisierung von Schulfächern aus Schülersicht [Math is dif-
ficult and German up to date: A study on the characterization of subject
domains from students' perspective]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht,
59, 32-46.
Hall, N. C., Perry, R. P, Goetz, T., Ruthig, J. C., Stupnisky, R. H., & Newall, N. E.
(2007). Attributional retraining and elaborative learning: Improving aca-
demic development through writing-based interventions. Learning and
Individual Differences, 17, 280-90.
Hamilton, J. A., Haier, R. J., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1984). Intrinsic enjoyment and
boredom coping scales: Validation with personality, evoked potential, and
attention measures. Personality and Individual DV . ferences, 5, 183-93.
Harasymchuk, C. & Fehr, B. (2012). Development of a prototype-based measure of
relational boredom. Personal Relationships, 19, 162-81.
Harley, J. M., Bouchet, E, & Azevedo, R. (2012). Measuring learners' unfolding, dis-
crete eniotional responses to difftrent pedagogical agent scaffolding strategies.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Vancouver.
 Boredom 485

Harris, M. B. (2000). Correlates and characteristics of boredom proneness and bore-

dom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 576-98.
Hidi, S. & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41,111-27 .
Hill, A. B. & Perkins, R. E. (1985). Towards a model of boredom. British Journal of
Psychology, 76,235-40.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A. (1996). Coping, stress resistance, and
growth: Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler
(Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 24 43).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Holleman, C. S. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in
high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410-12.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure:
Conceptualization reliability, and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale.
Journal of Leisure Research, 22,1-17 .
Jagacinski, C. M. & Duda, J. L. (2001). A comparative analysis of contemporary
achievement goal orientation measures. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61, 1013-39.
Jarvis, S. & Seifert, T. (2002). Work avoidance as a manifestation of hostility,
helplessness, and boredom. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48,
174-87.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.
Kanevsky, L. & Keighley, T. (2003). On gifted students in school: To produce or not
to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement.
Roeper Review, 26, 20-8.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V, Blazevski, J., Bonney,
C. R., ... Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in edu-
cational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist,
42(3), 139-51.
Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., Stanny, C. J., & Taylor, T. M. (2001). Watching the
clock: Boredom and vigilance performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
92, 969-76.
Keller, M. M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthu-
siasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology
Review, 28, 743-69.
Kleinginna, P. R. & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion defini-
tions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion,
5, 345-79.
Krannich, M., Goetz, T., & Lipnevich, A.A. (2016). The effects of boredom due to being
over- or undercballenged on students' occupational choice intentions. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, DC.
Larson, R.W. & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming
schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99(4),
418-43.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
486 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. HALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICH

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions

and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141-69.
Lee, T. W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job bore-
dom. Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 22-8.
London, H., Schubert, D. S., & Washburn, D. (1972). Increase of autonomic arousal by
boredom. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 80(1), 29-36.
Mikulas, W. L. & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological
Record, 43(1), 3-12.
Miller, G. E. & Wrosch, C. (2007). You've gotta know when to fold 'em: Goal disen-
gagement and systemic inflammation in adolescence. Psychological Science,
18(9), 773-7.
Nett, U. E., Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., & Stupnisky, R. (2016). How accurately can
parents judge their children's boredom in school? Frontiers in Psychology, 7,770.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. (2010). What to do when feeling bored? Students'
strategies for coping with boredom. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,
626-38.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An expe-
rience sampling perspective. Contempomry Educational Psychology, 36(1).
49-59.
O'Hanlon, J. E (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta
Psychologica, 49, 53-82.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice.
Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315-41.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete
achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 583-97.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement
emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic perfor-
mance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115-35.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom
in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and perfor-
mance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology.
102(3), 531-49.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2005). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-
Mathematics (AEQ-M ) - User's Manual. University of Munich: Department
of Psychology.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P, & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring
emotions in students' learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W, 84 Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students'
self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quan-
titative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105.
Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic
achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106(3), 696-710.
Perkins, R. E. & Hill, A. B. (1985). Cognitive and affective aspects of boredom. British
Journal of Psychology, 76(2), 221-34.
 Boredom 487

Phillips, A. (1993). On kissing, tickling, and being bored: Psychoanalytic essays on the
unexamined life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects
on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 451-72.
Pressick-Kilborn, K. J. (2015). Canalization and connectedness in the development of
science interest. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & M. Nieswandt (Eds.), Interest
in mathematics and science learning (pp. 353-67). American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC.
Ragheb, M. G. & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of a unidimen-
sional scale measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 20, 41-59.
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W, Tanis, T. W, van Beek, I., & Ouweneel,
E. (2013). Watching the paint dry at work: Psychometric examination of the
Dutch Boredom Scale. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal,
26, 508-25.
Renninger, K. A. & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and learning.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Robinson, M. D. & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an acces-
sibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6),
934-60.
Robinson, W P. (1975). Boredom at school. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
45, 141-52.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),
Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161-78.
Sansone, C. (2009). What's interest got to do with it?: Potential trade-offs in the self-
regulation of motivation. In J. Forgas, R. Baumeister, and D. Tice (Eds.),
Psychology of self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes
(pp. 35-51). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Sansone, C., Thoman, D., & Fraughton, T. (2015). The relation between interest
and self-regulation in mathematics and science. In K. A. Renninger, M.
Nieswandt, & S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning
(pp. 111-31). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a
boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 379-90.
Scerbo, M. W. (1998). What's so boring about vigilance? In R. R. Hoffman, M. F.
Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds.), Viewing psychology as a whole: The integra-
tive science of William N Dember (pp. 145-66). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Scherer, K. R. (2000). Emotions as episodes of subsystems synchronization driven by
nonlinear appraisal processes. In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic (Eds.), Emotion,
development, and self-organization (pp. 70-99). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schimmack, U. & Reisenzein, R. (2002). Experiencing activation: Energetic arousal
and tense arousal are not mixtures of valence and activation. Emotion, 2,
412-17.
488 THOMAS GOETZ, NATHAN C. IIALL, AND MAIKE KRANNICII

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge:
Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061-86.
Shaw, S. M., Caldwell, L. L., & Kleiber, D. A. (1996). Boredom, stress and social con-
trol in the daily activities of adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4),
274-92.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 7/, 549-70.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the struc-
ture of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways
of coping. Psychological Bulletin, /29(2), 216-69.
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23, 329-40.
Strain, A. C. & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Cognitive reappraisal to alleviate boredom during
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Vancouver.
Todman, M. (2013). The dimensions of state boredom: Frequency, duration, unpleas-
antness, consequences and causal attributions. Educational Research
International, 1(1), 32-40.
Tze, V. M. C., Daniels, L. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Evaluating the relationship
between boredom and academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychological Review, 28, 119-44.
Tze, V. M. C., Daniels, L. M., Klassen, R. M., & Li, J. C. (2013). Canadian and Chinese
university students' approaches to coping with academic boredom. Learning
and Individual Differences, 23, 32-43.
Van Tilburg, W. A. P. & Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and mean-
ing as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 181-94.
Vandewiele, M. (1980). On boredom of secondary school students in Senegal. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 137, 267-74.
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003a). On the possible benefits of boredom: A neglected area in
personality research. Psychology and Education- An Interdisciplinary Journal,
40, 28-33.
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003b). Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the litera-
ture. Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 569-95.
Vodanovich, S. J. & Watt, J. D. (2016). Self-report measures of boredom: An updated
review of the literature. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
150(2), 196-228.
Wallace, J. C., Vodanovich, S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2003). Predicting cognitive fail-
ures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: An investiga-
tion within military and undergraduate samples. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 635-44.
Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219-35.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psy-
chobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
820-38.
 Boredom 489

Watt, J. D. & Ewing, J. E. (2010). Toward the development and validation of a measure
of sexual boredom. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 57-66.
Won, H. J. (1989). The daily leisure of Korean school adolescents and its relationship to
subjective well-being and leisure functioning. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Oregon, Department of Leisure Studies and Services.
Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2014). Emotion management in online group work reported
by Chinese students. Educational Technology Research and Development
62(6), 795-819.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking. Beyond the optimal level of arousal.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.