1

Author: Lim, Randy Title: Personality and Boredom: The Impact of Short Break Taking on Task

Performance The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial completion of the requirements for the Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Applied Psychology Research Advisor: Alicia Stachowki, Ph.D. Submission Term/Year: Summer, 2013 Number of Pages: 47 Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper. STUDENT: NAME Randy Lim DATE: 7/23/2013 ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem): NAME Alicia A. Stachowsk, Ph. D. DATE: 7/26/13 This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your advisor who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Mitchell Sherman, Ph. D DATE: 7/26/13 2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: David Johnson, Ph.D. DATE: 7/26/13 3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE: This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School. Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Lim, Randy. Personality and Boredom: The Impact of Short Break Taking on Task

Performance Abstract

Recently, there has been resurgence in investigating the influence of break-taking on job

performance. Despite the increase in research in the area, little is known about how breaks

influence emotional states. The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of short break-

taking on boredom and performance. Eighty-four undergraduate students from a mid-sized

university participated in a 45 minute experiment, half of which were given a break midway

thought a monotonous task, while the other half worked continuously. Findings indicate that

participants that received a break had lower levels of boredom and higher accuracy on a task.

However, there was no difference in productivity. This suggests that break taking can be used as

an effective tool in combating boredom and improving performance in the workplace by

encouraging employees to take short break throughout the workday. The results of this study

found no relationship between boredom and personality.

3

Acknowledgment

I have benefited greatly from the advising and mentoring of Dr. Alicia Stachowski. Her

comments on earlier drafts and consultation on the methodology have been valuable to the

completion of this study. I am indebted to her vast knowledge of concepts in the study.

4

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................8

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................8

Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................9

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................11

Theoretical Background .....................................................................................................11

Boredom .............................................................................................................................13

Break ..................................................................................................................................16

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................20

Design ................................................................................................................................20

Participants .........................................................................................................................20

Materials ............................................................................................................................20

Procedure ...........................................................................................................................22

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................24

Preliminary Analysis .........................................................................................................24

Hypothesis Testing............................................................................................................24

Chapter V: Discussion ...................................................................................................................27

Implications and Future Directions ...................................................................................28

Limitations ........................................................................................................................30

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................31

References ......................................................................................................................................32

Appendix A: Vowel Task .............................................................................................................39

5

Appendix B: Task-Related Boredom Scale ...................................................................................41

Appendix C: International Personality Item Pool Scale ................................................................42

Figure 1. Experiment Procedure ....................................................................................................46

Table 1: Correlations among all Study Variables ..........................................................................47

6

List of Tables

Table 1: Correlations among all Study Variables ..........................................................................47

7

List of Figures

Figure 1. Experiment Procedure ....................................................................................................46

8

Chapter I: Introduction

Work breaks have been known to be a powerful tool in improving the workplace for

employees for over half a century (Roy, 1959). Recently, Tucker, Lombardi, Smith, and Folkard

(2006) found that break-taking influences the organization by improving overall worker

accuracy, job performance, quality of products, and reducing employee injuries. In addition to

these task-related outcomes, work breaks with co-workers have led to higher positive

interpersonal attitudes, lower turnover rates, and burnout (Barona & Jimenez, 2005). Results

indicated that break-taking at work was used to influence performance, satisfaction with work

and combat boredom. With the increased competition in the workplace, the use of breaks during

the work day could become increasingly important as a method of increasing production and

performance.

Traditionally, decreases in production and performance have largely been attributed to

the concept of human fatigue through which two primary solutions have been used: modifying

the task itself to postpone fatigue, and work-rests (Bechtold, Janaro, & Sumners, 1984). The first

method centers on finding the causes for decreases in production based on the work. This means

that different aspects of work can be changed in order to increase production. For example,

Jansen, Amelsvoort, Kristensen, Brandt, and Kant (2003) decreased the number of consecutive

hours worked for numerous types of shift workers and found an increase in production and a

decrease in fatigue. Other research has focused on changing perceptions of working. Often,

techniques such as creating a positive environment or improving group cohesion through

uniform communications have been used. These strategies have been shown to improve

production and performance on a task or job by adding more meaning and preventing burnout

(Adamson, 2011). Furthermore, physical changes to the task can dramatically influence

9

production. For example, an examination of kitchen station workers revealed that 40% of the

variability in production can be attributed to the task, which suggests that changes to the task can

be more closely examined to improve overall production (Bhatt & Sidhu, 2012).

The second method discussed by Bechtold et al. (1984) is work-rest, which is recovery

from either mentally or physically straining tasks, and focuses on performance patterns as time

progresses during work. Businesses have set in place production systems to maximize labor

productivity, but they are often plagued with a decline in worker productivity as the work day

progresses (Wait, 1980). These production systems are intended to increase efficiency and

effectiveness of production. However, the human aspect of the system can inhibit production.

Work rest has been shown to increase overall productivity (Bechtold, Janaro, & Sumners, 1984).

Additionally the authors argued that rest breaks should be further developed in situations where

tasks are done individually. One researcher has even utilized videogames to initiate the recovery

experience for employees during rest breaks (Reinecke, 2009). The results of the study indicated

a significant decrease in fatigue and stress, as well as increasing social support at work. This

suggests that work-rest or breaks from work may be used to increase production, performance,

and health benefits.

Building on this body of research, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the

influence of short break taking on task performance and the recovery of boredom states.

Research on recovery experiences have shifted towards the emotional states people experience at

work, and have suggested that breaks do restore emotion depletion (Chan & Wan, 2012; Hagger,

et al. 2010; Tyler & Burns, 2009; Vohs & Faber; 2007). The effort in managing strenuous

emotional states consumes self-regulatory resources and breaks aid in the recovery from those

10

strenuous emotional states (Chan & Wan, 2012). However, to date no research has examined

psychological recovery from a strenuous emotional state of boredom in relation to break taking.

11

Chapter II: Literature Review

Theoretical Background

Continually engaging in work behavior that is deemed boring can be emotionally

exhausting. One popular theory explaining emotional exhaustion is personal resource drain, or

regulatory depletion. Resource depletion theories suggest workers have a limited amount of

intrinsic personal resources that allow them to complete everyday tasks that are demanding and

strenuous. If these resources are strained, employees often engage in detrimental behavior

(Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008). The regulation of a certain behavior is contingent on

the amount of personal, emotional, and behavioral resources a person possesses. For example,

Vohs and Faber (2007) found that participants whose self-control resource was depleted

indicated stronger feelings to impulse buy. They spent more money as compared to participants

whose self-control resources were not depleted.

Resource depletion theory applies to a wide variety of psychological and physical

resources. Past research has focused on behavior regulation in terms of engagement in work-

family roles (Rothbard, 2001), executive decision making (Cavallo, Holmes, Fitzsimons,

Murray, & Wood, 2012; Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar, & Baumeister, 2009), and socially acceptable

behavior (Baumeister, 2006). In particular, in the field of Industrial Organizational Psychology, a

number of resource depletion studies have focused on emotional regulation and exhaustion

(Goldberg, & Grandey, 2007). If an employee is subjected to a task that requires experiencing

extreme emotions, then that employee must recover from these emotions to reach a state of

homeostasis (Johns, Inzlicht, & Schamder, 2008). Recently, Chan and Wan (2012) investigated

the regulation depletion mechanisms to see the effects of employee stress on the quality of

customer service. They found that employees who felt a higher level of stress felt more fatigued

12

and performed more poorly than employees who felt lower levels of stress. However, employees

who used supervisor support were less affected by resource depletion. This article is particularly

relevant for this study since these authors investigated the influence of an emotion on behavior.

Muraven and Baumeister (2000) furthered our knowledge of regulation resource

depletion by discovering that participants have a limited amount of psychological resources that

regulate behavior. The psychological resources vary from person to person, and degrade

overtime since they are limited and consumable. These psychological resources, once strained,

make regulating behavior increasingly difficult. Regulating behavior in the workplace can

include a number of things such as the ability to enter data efficiently, the amount of time writing

a report or interacting with co-workers. Goldberg (2007) found participants who were identified

as being at risk of regulation resource depletion had difficulty with emotional regulation, higher

levels of emotional exhaustion, and decreased task performance during their work days. Other

research has also suggested long term effects of regulation resource depletion in the workplace

such as burnout (McCarthy, 2009). Furthermore, it has been postulated that since burnout is not

experienced immediately, there must be a method for people to recover from the depletion of the

resources (Trougakos et al., 2008). Therefore, understanding the processes behind the

replenishment of resources is essential in counteracting the effects of regulation resource

depletion.

While a wide array of emotional states have been studied in both educational and

workplace settings (e.g., stress,Chan & Wan, 2012; self-control, Vohs & Faber, 2007;

motivation, Tyler & Burns, 2009; ego depletion, Hagger et al., 2010) we know less about the

emotional state of boredom. This is odd considering that boredom in the workplace is

experienced by every level of the organization from supervisory positions to non- supervisory

13

positions (Game, 2007). Some researchers have suggested using breaks or work rests from tasks

to regain the depleted regulatory resources (e.g., Baumeister, et al., 2006; Kaplan, 1995;

Trougakos et al., 2008). However, these suggestions involve breaks such as sleeping and

vacationing, which are not possible during most standardized work days. Additionally, very little

research has been done on how breaks influence the replenishment of consumed resources (See

Trougakos et al., 2008; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009 for exceptions). This may be because it is

difficult to measure depleted regulatory resources throughout a work day, as well as monitor

performance during that time.

Boredom

Boredom is a unique construct that to date has been poorly defined. Some authors state

that boredom is a state of relatively low arousal that is associated with a limited stimulating

environment (Bruursema, Kessler, & Spector, 2011). Others have indicated that boredom is

actually an emotion that is characterized as a combination of an individual’s perception of his or

her displeasure, deactivation, and lack of motivation for an activity (Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, &

Daniels, 2009). However, the most widely accepted definition of boredom is, “an unpleasant,

transient, affective state in which an individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty

concentrating on the current activity” (Fisher, 1993; p.397). This definition suggests that

boredom is a reaction towards a work situation, and is experienced for shorter durations than

other attitudes such as burnout (Balzer, Smith, & Burnfield, 2004). Researchers agree that the

experience of boredom is subjective and based on the individual’s perception (Misek, 2010).

Furthermore, the same situation may elicit varying levels of boredom for different people. This is

largely due to cultural and societal norms (Misek, 2010; Warr, 1990). For example, a person

immersed in an academic background may find managing factory lines as extremely boring,

14

while someone who has a business background may find managing factory lines extremely

interesting.

The predictors of boredom can generally be grouped into three categories: the individual,

the work environment, and the task the person is working on (Balzer, Smith, & Burnfield, 2004).

In general, individual differences account for most of the perceived differences in boredom.

Individual differences such as level of intelligence (Drory, 1982) and age (Hill, 1975) have been

shown to be negatively correlated with proneness to boredom. Additionally, individuals who

reported higher extroversion were more likely to experience high levels of boredom on work

tasks (Balzer et al., 2004). It may be that extroverted individuals seek out stimulation and the

company of others more than introverts. Conscientiousness is negatively correlated with

boredom proneness (Seib & Vodanovich, 1998; von Gemmingen, Sullivan & Pomerantz, 2003).

Individuals with higher levels of conscientiousness may have a tendency to be more thorough

and interested in the task, thus less likely to be prone to boredom. Furthermore, other research on

the mental health of workers has suggested that Neuroticism is positively related to the

experience of boredom at work (Gordon, Wilkinson, McGown, & Jovanoska, 1997; Hill, 1975).

Given the prior research on personality and boredom, it is hypothesized that personality traits are

be directly related to the experience of boredom. Specifically, the following predictions are

made:

Hypothesis 1: Neuroticism is positively related to boredom.

Hypothesis 2: Extraversion is positivity related to boredom.

Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness is negatively related to boredom.

Even though the research suggests that only Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientious should

be correlated with boredom, this study also explores investigate all Big Five personality traits.

15

Beyond personal characteristics, the work environment (e.g., social and task related

elements) may also be a source of boredom. Research by Fisher (1993; 1987) identified three

types of tasks that contribute to boredom. One such task is quantitative underloading – a task

that requires employees to have a phase of high levels interest and attention, followed by a phase

composed of lack of movement or an absence of activity. The later phase is when a task is most

likely to cause boredom. An example of this type quantitative underloading is a waitress for a

restaurant. The busiest time to wait on tables is during lunch and dinner time hours. However,

after these rush time hours, there is an absence of activity and work.

Another type of task that contributes to boredom is qualitative overload. Qualitative

overload is when a task is characterized as “too challenging, difficult, or incomprehensible”

(Balzer, Smith, & Burnfield, 2004, p. 292). In Fisher’s (1987) qualitative study on boredom of

students, participants indicated that boredom occurred when course material was on a subject

that was extremely difficult to understand. The participants also indicated that they were not able

to pay attention. The results indicate that the degree of difficulty can influence the onset of

boredom and lead to disinterest.

The final category of tasks that leads to boredom is qualitative underload. Boredom

occurs when a task is simplistic, monotonous, unchallenging, requires low mental demand and

requires little to no skill (Fisher, 1987). This type is different from quantitative underloading

because there is an absence of an interest and attenuation phase. This category is closely related

to the traditional research on work tasks as the cause of boredom. Caplan, Cobb, French, van

Harrison, and Pinneau (1975) provided evidence by surveying workers in 23 occupations and

found a positive correlation between boredom and the lack of skill use for workers. This suggests

that not using one’s full skillset can be associated with boredom.

16

The above concept of qualitative underload presented a theoretical framework for the

onset of boredom to occur due to characteristics of the task (Fisher, 1987). Consequently, the

more one-dimensional, repetitive, crude, and easy the task is, the more likely a person is to be

bored (Caplan et al., 1975; Fisher, 1987). Increases in boredom should be positively correlated

with increased engagement with the task (Fisher, 1987; Wolfe 1981). Stated another way, the

longer a person participates in a monotonous task, the more bored they become. Accordingly,

hypothesis four predicted that participants experience higher level of boredom at the end of the

task than at the beginning of the task.

Hypothesis 4: There is an increase in boredom level between the beginning of the task

and boredom levels at the end of task.

Breaks

Exploratory research in Industrial Organizational psychology and sociology revealed

several methods used to cope with boredom in the workplace. One such method is work breaks.

Work breaks are defined as a scheduled or an unprompted intermission between the worker and

the work task (Ministry of Business & Employment, 2012). According to the United States

Department of Labor (2012), federal law does not require employers to have breaks. Despite this,

many businesses have adopted company policies that require employees to take breaks after

working a set amount of hours (Hill, 2001), in the hopes of maximizing employee production.

The rationale is that employees are given an opportunity to relax and relieve fatigue. However,

this simplistic reasoning still leaves questions such as, 1) how do breaks specifically influence

workers, 2) what kind of breaks are the most effective and arguably the most important, and 3)

what outcomes are associated with taking a break?

17

Research suggests that taking a break has a positive impact on employees. Roy (1959)

found that employees coped with monotonous and mundane tasks by taking work breaks. During

these work breaks, Roy observed participants engaging in activities that were unrelated to the

work task, such as conversations about personal lives, or the development of interoffice work

games. These work breaks were a mechanism by which the workers would create social bonds,

and they used them as an interruption from work tasks. Thus, the breaks had the effect of

creating meaning and a source of job satisfaction.

The way employees spent their time during their work breaks is an important predictor of

break effectiveness (Roy, 1959; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Work is demanding, and breaks

allow a moment of recess from those demands. This suggests an association with resource

depletion theories by suggesting that there is a depletion of resources leading up to a break.

Furthermore, there is a recovery of those resources during momentary recesses or breaks from

work tasks. Research has indicated that respite activities during breaks are needed to inhibit the

strain caused by work demands (Sonnentag, 2001, Trougakos, & Hideg, 2009). Respite activities

consist of either low exertion of energy or desired activities that the worker wants to engage in.

This means that in order for breaks to serve a restorative purpose, they must contain respite

activities.

Research on within- day breaks has revealed that short breaks also aid in the recovery of

psychological and psychophysiological process. Research on instructors from a large

cheerleading organization found that breaks helped regulate emotional experiences and positive

affective displays (Trougakos et al., 2008). The results suggest that employees’ use of workday

breaks can have practical implications for how they feel and perform at work, as well as the

recovery of psychological resources. Boucsein and Thum (1997) used psychophysical

18

measurements such as heart rate monitoring and neck EMGs during breaks and found

improvement in work-related bodily symptoms as well as mood, fatigue, and work motivation.

Additionally, they found that the short breaks (15 minutes) were more effective in promoting

recovery from both mental and emotional strain as compared to longer breaks during the first

half of an eight hour shift.

Work breaks are essential in replenishing or recovering psychological resources

expended by work (e.g., Eden, 2001; Sonnentag, 2001; Trougakos et al., 2008). Furthermore,

employees need to apportion an opportunity for recovery and replenishment, as well as to engage

in activities that inhibit the demands and strain on resources in order for work breaks to result in

the replenishment and recovery of psychological resources (Felsten, 2009; Trougakos & Hideg,

2009). For example, a 2008 study by Trougakos et al., found that participants that took work

breaks that were relaxing and pleasant had higher levels of positive affective displays and lower

levels of negative emotion. Comparatively, participants that took work breaks that were not

pleasant or engaged in chores had lower levels affective display and higher levels of negative

emotion. Similarly, the results in a study by Sonnentag (2001) indicated that breaks influenced

positive affective states and helped in the recovery processes through activities that were not

associated with the boring task, such as meeting with others or making a phone call. The breaks

became a pause between the worker and the actual job or task. These results suggested that the

psychological resources were recovered and replenished during breaks, and this had an overall

positive influence on the employees’ feelings.

Although the ability of work breaks to replenish psychological resources has been studied

(Sonnentag, 2001; Trougakos et al., 2008), the recoverability of specific emotional states has not

been exhaustively studied in relation to break taking. To date, research on the recovery and

19

replenishment of psychological resources have focused primarily on stress (Chan and Wan,

2012), levels of wellbeing (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009), motivation (Krajewski, Wieland, &

Sauerland, 2010) and attention (Felsten, 2009) during breaks. In sum, this body of research

suggests that breaks should have a restorative effect on emotional states. As individuals exert

effort into a task, breaks should initiate the recovery and replenishment of those emotional states.

By extension, it is hypothesized that breaks will have a similar effect on the emotional state of

boredom.

Hypothesis 5: Participants given a break have lower levels of boredom after the

completion of the task than the participants without a break.

Research on within-day breaks has largely focused on the frequency, timing, and length

of the breaks (Trougakos, & Hideg, 2009; Tucker et al., 2006). Tucker and colleagues (2006)

explored the temporal trends of breaks found that within day breaks were an effective means of

controlling the accumulation of injury and accident risk over the duration of a work shift in an

industrial setting. The results also showed an increase in performance accuracy on mundane

work tasks. Thus, it conceivable that taking a break will alleviate some of the strain associated

with work tasks (recovery), thereby improving performance.

Hypothesis 6: Participants given a break perform more accurately on the task than the

participants without a break.

Additionally, the research on work suggests that the longer the work shift, the more strain

is placed on the employee, leading to more accidents and decreases in production (Folkard &

Lombardi, 2006). As such, one final hypothesis is made.

Hypothesis 7: Participants given a break are more productive than the participants

without a break.

20

Chapter III: Methodology Design

Design

This study implemented a mixed subjects design. The between-subjects variable was

break condition (i.e., break or without break). The within-subjects variable was boredom

experienced at different times during the task.

Participants

The participant sample consisted of eighty-four undergraduate psychology students from

a medium sized mid-western university. The study consisted of forty-four females (52.4%) and

thirty-three males (39.3%) with 7 participants (8.3.6%) choosing not to answer. Ages of the

participants ranged from 18 to 28 years, with a mean age of 19.67 years (SD = 1.99). Seventy-

five of the participants (84.3%) reported that English was the primary language spoken at their

household, and 3 participants (3.4%) reported that a language besides English was primarily

language. Eleven participants (12.4%) chose not to answer. Participants for the study were

recruited via SONA systems in exchange for course credit.

Materials

Task. Participants were asked to complete a boring task during this experiment. The task

was a modified version of Shapiro’s (2005) boring vowel task. Participants were given a paper

copy of a research article and asked to circle as many vowels as possible within the given time

frame (see Appendix A). The article was written in French (Dietvorst, 2010) in order to redirect

the focus of the participant from reading the content of the article, and focus on the task itself.

The following letters were considered vowels: A, E, I, O, U. The letter Y was not considered a

vowel for this experiment. The 45-minute experiment time contained a 30 minute work session

in which the participants were asked to work as fast and as accurately as possible.

21

Break Condition. Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: working with or

without a break. In the Break condition, participants stopped working on the task after 15-

minutes, for 5- minutes, and were instructed to take a relaxing or enjoyable break. During that

time, the participants may have engaged in a number of activities such as using their cell phones,

computers, or sitting quietly. Students may have also interacted with one another and socialized.

The participants then continued to work on the task for another 15- minutes. In the No Break

condition, participants worked continuously on the task for 30- minutes (without a break).

Boredom. The Task Related Boredom Scale (TrBS) was developed by Scerbro, Rettig,

and Bubb-Lewis (1994). The TrBS has been used in a number of studies examining the amount

of perceived boredom by the participant based on the task (Hitchcock & Dember, 1999; Prinzel,

et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 2006). The scale consists of nine items, eight of which are rated on

a six-point Likert scale (see Appendix B). The final question uses a nine- point scaling system.

The scale is intended to gauge eight contributing factors influencing the feeling of boredom:

stress, irritation, relaxation, sleepiness, alertness, concentration, passage of time, and satiation.

For example, “I felt I was under a _____ stress” and “I felt _____ irritation”. Additionally, the

final question of the scale gauges participants’ current perceived boredom state by asking the

overall level of boredom experienced right before the task ended. A final composite score was

calculated by summing scores across all items. The possible range on the Task Related Boredom

Scale was 8- 56, where higher scores indicated higher levels of boredom with the task. The

obtained range was 14.5- 52. Coefficient alpha (for the 8 items) was .74 in this study.

Personality. Personality was measured using Goldberg’s Big Five International

Personality Item Pool (IPIP) 50- item personality measure (Goldberg, 1999). The IPIP includes

10- questions for each of the Big Five personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness,

22

Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (Neuroticism), and Intellect (Openness). All items can be

found in Appendix C. The items utilize a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagrees to

strongly agree. Analyses on each of the personality traits has revealed acceptable reliability

coefficients (Extraversion α = .99, Agreeableness α = .98, Conscientiousness α = .98, Emotional

Stability α = .99, and Intellect α = .99).

Performance. Performance on the task was assessed in two ways: 1) productivity and 2)

accuracy of the participants’ responses. Productivity was measured by counting the number of

vowels circled across the entire time participants worked on the task (whether they experienced a

break or not). Accuracy was measured by creating a ratio of number of errors to total number of

letters evaluated. The total letter examined was determined by adding all letters from the point of

the last vowel circled.

Demographics. Participants were asked to complete demographics questions concerning

their age, sex, education level, and native language.

Procedure

The study was conducted with participant groups of up to 5 people at a time between the

months of March of 2013 to May of 2013. Students were instructed to sign up for a time that did

not correspond with friends or acquaintances. At the beginning of the experiment, the

participants were randomly assigned to one of the two break conditions (see Figure 1 below).

The participants were lead to separate rooms depending on their assigned condition. After

signing a consent form, they were given information on how to complete the task, and asked to

work as quickly and as accurately as possible. Additionally, the participants were informed that

they will work on the task for a total of 30- minutes. The participants were then asked to perform

a practice task for 2- minutes. Afterwards, the participants filled out the Task- related boredom

23

scale. The scale was called the “Task Perceptions scale” to avoid any priming effects. The

participants were instructed to answer as truthfully as possible. The practice task was followed

by the actual task for 30- minutes. In the Break condition, participants were instructed to take a

5- minute break that was relaxing or enjoyable after working on the task for 15- minutes. When

the 5- minute break ended, participants continued to work on the task for another 15- minutes.

Afterwards, all participants were given another packet and asked to complete the Task-related

Boredom scale and personality survey along with demographics. Finally, participants were

debriefed and thanked.

24

Chapter IV: Results

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to hypothesis testing, the data were cleaned and descriptive information computed.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all major study variables can be found in

Table 1. The final sample consisted of 84 participants. The break taking condition consisted of

41 participants, while the non-break taking condition consisted of 43 participants.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1: Neuroticism is positively related to boredom.

Hypothesis 2: Extraversion is positivity related to boredom.

Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness is negatively related to boredom.

Pearson’s correlation coefficients were explored to assess the association between

boredom and the personality dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness

(H1-H3; see Table 1). There was a non- significant correlation between boredom levels and

Neuroticism (r = .19, p >.05), Extraversion (r = .08, p >.05), and Conscientiousness (r = -.09, p

>.05). Results were not supportive of the link between boredom and the hypothesized personality

dimensions. Additionally, exploratory analysis did not reveal a relationship between the

personality dimensions Agreeableness and Openness with boredom.

Hypothesis 4: There is an increase in boredom level between the beginning of the task

and boredom levels at the end of task.

Boredom levels of the participants were analyzed before and after the task. In order to

asses any differences a paired samples t-test was used to compare the boredom levels in the

beginning of the task to boredom levels at the end of the task. There was a significant difference

in participants’ boredom levels at the beginning of the task (M = 23.03, SD = 4.76) and

25

participants’ boredom levels at the end of the task (M = 35.85, SD = 8.2), t(80) = 15.52, p < .01.

The results are supportive of H4, suggesting that there is an increase in boredom levels from the

beginning of the task to the end of task.

Hypothesis 5: Participants given a break have lower levels of boredom after the

completion of the task than the participants without a break.

The next hypothesis compared participants who took a break with those who did not.

Boredom levels after the task were examined for participants that took a break in the middle of

the task and for participant that did not take break in the middle of the task. An independent

samples t-test was used to compare boredom levels between the break taking participants (M =

32.51, SD = 7.48) and the non- break taking participants (M = 39.21, SD = 7.37), t(80.88) = 4.11,

p < .05 The results suggest that those who took a break experienced lower levels of boredom

than those who do not take a break, supporting H5.

Hypothesis 6: Participants given a break perform more accurately on the task than the

participants without a break.

Hypothesis 7: Participants given a break are more productive than the participants

without a break.

Differences in performance (both accuracy and productivity) on the task were

investigated for participants that took a break in the middle of the task and for participant that did

not take break in the middle of the task (see Table 2). First considering accuracy, an independent

samples t-test was used to compare the accuracy between participants that took a break (M =

.003, SD = .002) and participants that did not take a break (M = .012, SD = .008), t(46) = 7.16, p

< .05. The results suggest that those who took a break made fewer errors than those who did not

take a break. Note here that the ratio represents errors over total number, so a smaller number

26

reflects greater accuracy. This is taken as support for H6. Similarly, an independent samples t-

test was used to compare the number of vowels circled those who took a break (M = 2,337.56 SD

= 1461.37) to those who did not (M = 1,960.81, SD = 455.53), t(47) = 1.57, p > .05. The findings

did not support H7.

27

Chapter V: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to shed light on the somewhat under-researched topic of

boredom and short break-taking. While past research on boredom has primarily focused on long

term breaks that involve multiple days away from work (de Bloom, Geurts, Sonnentag, Taris, de

Weerth, et al. (2011), this study concentrated on breaks that lasted for a few minutes only –

typical of a within-day work break. The major reason this topic deserved attention is that breaks

have been shown to aid in the recovery of limited emotional resources (Trougakos et al., 2008).

In addition, individual differences in boredom have been attributed to the personality

characteristics of Extroversion (Balzer et al., 2004), Conscientiousness (Seib & Vodanovich,

1998; von Gemmingen, Sullivan & Pomerantz, 2003), and Neuroticism (Gordon, Wilkinson,

McGown, & Jovanoska, 1997; Hill, 1975). Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the effect

of short-breaking on boredom and on performance during a monotonous task.

As mentioned above, the experience of boredom is associated with a number of

personality characteristics (Balzer et al., 2004; Seib & Vodanovich, 1998; von Gemmingen,

Sullivan & Pomerantz, 2003; Gordon, Wilkinson, McGown, & Jovanoska, 1997; Hill, 1975).

Interestingly, findings did not support any relationship between boredom levels and any of the

personality dimensions. This may be due to past research centering on proneness to boredom as

opposed to task related boredom (Drory, 1982; Hill, 1975; Seib & Vodanovich, 1998; von

Gemmingen, Sullivan & Pomerantz, 2003). For example, prior research on boredom utilized

situations or tasks that were engaging and non-repetitive, as opposed to the current study’s

disengaging and repetitive task. Perhaps the relationship between personality and boredom

differs based on the context or strength of the situation. The monotonous task here was meant to

illicit boredom in the participants. Findings, in fact, supported the assumption that there would

28

be an increase in boredom levels from the beginning to the end of task. These results are similar

to those found in previous qualitative underload studies (Caplan et al., 1975; Fisher, 1987),

which suggest that there is an increase in boredom on tasks that are one-dimensional, repetitive,

crude, and easy.

It was predicted that short breaks would influence boredom levels and performance on a

monotonous task. This prediction was partly supported by the data. Participants that took a break

during the task reported lower levels of boredom at the end of the task than the participants that

did not take break. This suggests that the break partially alleviated the onset of boredom from the

task. Additionally, participants that had taken a break had a significantly lower ratio of errors by

total letters examined as compared to the participant that worked through the task continuously.

This suggests that the break increased task accuracy. However, findings indicated that taking a

break does not improve productivity in this case. It is noteworthy that participants that took a

break during the task had greater levels of production on average, but this did not reach statistical

significance.

Implications and Future Directions

The results from the current study present a number of implications for application in the

workplace. The daily demands from work are forcing employees to exhaust emotional resources

in regulating the emotional state of boredom, especially in the current culture requiring

employees to “do more with less”. Research has shown that workers can combat the effects of

boredom at work by engaging in non- work related activities (Fisher, 1993). Other coping

strategies that divert attention from the work task are also effective, thus influencing productivity

(Hamilton, 1984). The results of the current study illustrate that short breaks can be used to help

combat boredom, during which employees may engage in some of the above-mentioned

29

activities. Taking a short- break in a workplace should be considered an effective strategy against

the onset of boredom during work tasks. So, although somewhat counterintuitive, doing non-

work-related activities briefly during a work task may decrease errors.

The results of the study not only suggest emotional and psychological improvements to

individuals though break taking, but benefits in terms of performance. The significantly wide

disparity in task accuracy between the break taking participants and the non- break taking testing

participant lead to the notion that short breaks are an effective tool in increasing performance. It

is important to note that the time given for a short break did not influence productivity. This

information could be used for professions that have tasks that are important to the safety and

wellbeing of people and other employees however are extremely boring. Jobs such as air traffic

controllers and nuclear safety inspectors fit the description and may be able to use the

information to improve overall accuracy in performance.

Apart from the practical implication of the results, the present study can be used to

expand research on the recovery and replenishment of psychological resources and emotional

states through break taking. The findings of the study demonstrate that short- break taking is an

effective strategy in regulatory resource depletion of the emotional state of boredom. The

primary focus of regulator resource depletion has concentrated on stress (Chan and Wan, 2012),

levels of wellbeing (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009), motivation (Krajewski, Wieland, & Sauerland,

2010) and attention (Felsten, 2009). Given the results of the study, it is plausible that break

taking can be used as a method to improve other emotional states such as anger, anxiety, and

interest. Thus research on break-taking should not be limited to a small number of emotions and

psychological states, but should be expanded to a wide variety of emotional and psychological

states.

30

Furthermore, the assumed relationship between breaks and the recovery from boredom

may be moderated by personality. Personality traits have been shown to influence perceptions of

boredom and act as a moderator between the recovery of boredom states and breaks (Balzer,

Smith, & Burnfield, 2004; von Gemmingen, Sullivan & Pomerantz, 2003; Seib & Vodanovich,

1998). Interestingly, there has not been research exploring how these factors interact in relation

to performance. Future research could investigate how personality moderates boredom and

performance on a task.

Limitations

Although this study sought to advance break-taking knowledge, there are some

limitations worth noting. The first limitation relates to the nature of the task that was used in this

study. This was a laboratory-based study to ensure experimental control, but that comes at the

cost of realism. The task that the participants completed was boring and mundane, which may

not be translatable to real-life work responsibilities in many cases. Additionally, participants did

not have the opportunity to work on another task. Arguably, in the workplace, employees may

have the opportunity to work on multiple tasks, rather than just one task. Hence, employee may

choose to work on another task if the onset of boredom occurs. Furthermore, participants’

preferences for work may dictate substantially different tasks than the current study’s task.

Another issue, or limitation, to consider is timing. This study was cross-sectional in

nature, building on existing study methodologies (Boucsein & Thum ,1997; Shapiro, 2005),

although we know that work processes take place over time. The participants are only engaged in

the experiment for half an hour, then go on a break and proceed to continue with the task. A half

hour may not be enough to stimulate a need for a break or reflect the amount of time someone

would normally work before taking a break and have social interaction. We do not know the

31

longitudinal effects of taking a short-break (or breaks) throughout the workday. Future research

should address this gap by exploring break-taking longitudinally.

A third limitation is language familiarity, in this case. An individual whose native

language is not English may not be as familiar with vowels and may be at a disadvantage to

individuals that have English as a primary language. Vowels are a staple to the alphabet based

languages in which at least one vowel must be included in each word. Participants that are more

familiar with symbol-based languages may have to extensively review vowel letters during the

task and decrease the time available to circle the letters.

Finally, the motivation of participants in this study and “real” employees may differ.

Employees that work on a piece rate basis may be more motivated to finish the task/be

productive as compared to employees that are paid on salary. Piece rate employees receive

payment based on the amount of production and would be more motivated to increase production

in order to receive more monetary compensation. Employees that are on a salary may be less

concerned with production since compensation is not based on amount produced.

Conclusion

The usefulness of short-breaks in the workplace has received little research up to this

point. The current study illustrates the effectiveness of short-break taking on boredom and

performance on a task, as revealed by the comparison statistics between break taking participants

and non- break taking participants. Future studies should expand beyond the scope of emotional

and psychological states influenced by short- break taking. However, the questions of the

practical application of short- break taking within the realm of a real life setting and the long

term effects still need to be answered. In general, the implications of short- break taking offer

promising new applications into the workplace by developing more effective breaks.

32

References

Adamson, C. (2011). Social work under pressure: How to overcome stress, fatigue and burnout

in the workplace. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

Balzer, W.K., Smith, P.C., & Burnfield, J.L. (2004). Boredom. (pp. 290- 294). Encyclopedia of

Applied Psychology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, Inc.

Baumeister, R. , Gailliot, M. , DeWall, C. , & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality:

How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects

of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773-1802.

Bechtold, S. E., Janaro, R. E., & Sumners, D. W. L., (1984). Maximization of labor productivity

through optimal rest-break schedules, Management Science , 30, 1442-1458.

Bhatt, H., & Sidhu, M. (2012). An epidemiological study to assess fatigue patterns at kitchen

workstation. Journal of Human Ecology, 39, 19-25.

Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265-292.

Boucsein, W., & Thum, M. (1997). Design of work/rest schedules for computer work based on

psychophysiological recovery measures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,

20, 51-57.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S.R. (1975). Job demands

and worker health. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Cavallo, J., Holmes, J., Fitzsimons, G., Murray, S., & Wood, J. (2012). Managing motivational

conflict: How self-esteem and executive resources influence self-regulatory responses

to risk. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 103, 430-451.

33

Chan, K., & Wan, E. (2012). How can stressed employees deliver better customer service? The

underlying self-regulation depletion mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 76, 119-137.

Chen, F. (2005). Salesforce incentives, market information, and production/inventory planning.

Management Science, 51, 60-75.

de Bloom, J., Geurts, S., Sonnentag, S., Taris, T., de Weerth, C., & Kompieer, M. A.. (2011).

How does a vacation from work affect employee health and well-being? Psychology &

Health, 26, 1606-1622.

Dietvorst, R. (2010). Une echelle fondee sur la theorie des etats mentaux appliquee a la force de

vente: Examens de sa validite par des methodes classiques et par imagerie par resonance

magnetique. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing, 25, 93-118.

Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work.

Personnel Psychology, 35, 141-151.

Eden, D. (2001). Vacations and other respites: Studying stress on and off the job. International

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 121-146.

Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration

theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 160-167.

Folkard, S., & Lombardi, D. (2006). Modeling the impact of the components of long work hours

on injuries and "accidents". American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49, 953-963.

Fisher, C. D. (1987). Boredom: Construct, causes and consequences. Technical Report. ONR

9.Texas A&M University. 1-26.

Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395-417.

34

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes:

The role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,

936-945.

Goldberg, L. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional

exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 12, 301-318.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &

F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7; pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The

Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Gordon, A., Wilkinson, R., McGown, A., & Jovanoska, S. (1997). The psychometric properties

of the boredom proneness scale: An examination of its validity. Psychological Studies,

42, 85-97.

Hagger, M., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength

model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495-525.

Hill, A. (1975). Work variety and individual differences in occupational boredom. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60, 128-131.

Hitchcock, E., & Dember, W. (1999). Effects of cueing and knowledge of results on workload

and boredom in sustained attention. Human Factors, 41, 365-372.

Incentives grow entrenched as motivating agency tool. (1996). Advertising Age, 67, 4.

35

Jansen, N., Amelsvoort, L., Kristensen, T., Brandt, P., & Kant, I. (2003). Work schedules and

fatigue: A prospective cohort study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 47-

53.

Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schamder, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource

depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental

Psychology. General, 137, 691-705.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal

of Environmental Psychology. 15, 169-182.

Kass, S., Vodanovich, S., & Callender, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship to

absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16, 317-

327.

Krajewski, J., Wieland, R., & Sauerland, M. (2010). Regulating strain states by using the

recovery potential of lunch breaks. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15,

131-139.

Hill, P. A. (2011, September 4). Guard against FLSA claims. Soft Management. Retrieved

November 1, 2012, from http://www.paulallenhill.com/1/post/2011/09/guard-against

fsla-claims.html

Lerner, D., Benjamin C., Amick, I., Lee, J., Rooney, T., Rogers, W., et al. (2003). Relationship

of employee-reported work limitations to work productivity. Medical Care, 41, 649-659.

Meltzer, H., & Stagner, R. (1980). The individual in the work environment. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 11, 407-408.

36

McCarthy, C., Lambert, R., O'Donnell, M., & Melendres, L. (2009). The relation of elementary

teachers' experience, stress, and coping resources to burnout symptoms. Elementary

School Journal, 109, 282-300.

Ministry of Business, Innovation &Employment. (2012). Rest and Meal Breaks. Retrieved

November 11, 2012 from

http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/starting/relationships/mealbreaks/index.asp

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does

self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.

Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. (2009). Deciding without resources:

Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 344-355.

Prinzel, L. J., DeVries, H., Freeman, F.G., & Mikulka, P. (2001). Examination of automation

induced complacency and individual difference varieties (Tech. Memorandum No.

211413). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.

Rees, D., Zax, J., & Herries, J. (2003). Interdependence in worker productivity. Journal of

Applied Econometrics, 18, 585-604.

Reinecke, L. (2009). Games at work: The recreational use of computer games during working

hours. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-34.

Robbins, T. (2006). Management. (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family

roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

Samaranayake, V., & Gamage, C. (2012). Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at

work place and its impact on job satisfaction of software professionals in Sri Lanka.

Telematics & Informatics, 29, 233-244.

37

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 integrative science of William N.

Dember (pp. 145–166). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Scerbo, M. W., Greenwald, C. Q., & Sawin, D. A. (1992). Vigilance: It’s boring, it’s difficult,

and I can’t do anything about it. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society

Meeting, 36, 1508–1512.

Scerbo, M. W., Rettig, K. M., & Bubb-Lewis, C. L. (1994). A validation study of a task-related

boredom scale. Proceedings of the 2nd Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, 2,

135-136.

Seib, H., & Vodanovich, S. (1998). Cognitive correlates of boredom proneness: The role of

private self-consciousness and absorption. Journal of Psychology, 132, 642-652.

Sesil, J., & Lin, Y. (2011). The impact of employee stock option adoption and incidence on

productivity: Evidence from U.S. panel data. Industrial Relations, 50, 514-534.

Shapiro, B. S. (2005). Changes in affect, self-efficiency, motivation and performance among

participants in a boring and challenging task (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida

State University, Florida.

Sorauren, I. (2000). Non-monetary incentives: Do people work only for money? Business Ethics

Quarterly, 10, 925-944.

Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196-210.

Thompson, W.T., Lopez. N., Hickey, P., Daluz, C., & Calwell, J. L. (2006). Effects of shift work

and sustained operations: Operator performance in remotely piloted aircraft (OP

REPAIR). Brooks City-Base, TX: United States Air Force.

38

Trougakos, J., Beal, D., Green, S., & Weiss, H. (2008). Making the break count: An episodic

examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays.

Academy of Management Journal, 51, 131-146.

Trougakos, J., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary work recovery: The role of within-day work

breaks. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 37-84.

Tucker, P., Lombardi, D., Smith, L., &Folkard, S. (2006). The impact of rest breaks on temporal

trends in injury risk. Chronobiology International, 23, 1423-1434.

Vohs, K., & Faber, R. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects

impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537-547.

von Gemmingen, M., Sullivan, B., & Pomerantz, A. (2003). Investigating the relationships

between boredom proneness, paranoia, and self-consciousness. Personality & Individual

Differences, 34, 907-919.

Wait, D. J. (1980, May). Productivity measurement: A management accounting challenge.

Management Accounting, 24-30.

Watt, J., & Hargis, M. (2010). Boredom proneness: Its relationship with subjective

underemployment, perceived organizational support, and job performance. Journal of

Business & Psychology, 25, 163-174.

Wolfe, G. A. (1981). Burnout of therapists : Inevitable or preventable? Journal of Physical

Therapy, 61, 1046-1050.

Zoethout, K., Jager, W., & Molleman, E. (2006). Simulating the emergence of task rotation.

Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation, 9, 12.

39

Appendix A: Vowel Task

Please circle as many vowels within the time limit. Try to work as quickly and as accurately as possible Dans son article classique, Bonoma (1982) prévient que les vendeurs devraient réaliser que les compagnies n’achètent pas, ce sont les individus qui achètent », impliquant qu’il est important pour les vendeurs d’être sensibles aux états d’esprit des acheteurs, états qui changent parfois rapidement en raison de dynamiques de groupes dans les centres commerciaux (Dawes, Lee et Dawling, 1998). Il est impératif pour les vendeurs de s’immerger dans lesnuances de l’organisation du client et de faire particulièrement attention aux signaux subtils que les clients communiquent. De cette façon, les vendeurs peuvent « mettre leurs pieds dans les chaussures » des membres du centre commercial et simuler mentalement ce que les acheteurs désirent et pourquoi ils veulent acheter. Suivant les récents développements en neuroscience, nous faisons référence à ces processus comme relevant de la « mentalisation interpersonnelle » (Singer et Fehr, 2005). Plus formellement, la mentalisation interpersonnelle fait référence à l’ac- tivité mentale par laquelle on infère des croyances, désirs, préférences pour le risque, intentions et autres états mentaux ou événements d’une autre personne,ainsi qu’à la capacité à traiter les signaux subtils pour ajuster ses comportements (Frith et Frith, 2003, p. 80).1 La mentalisation interpersonnelle est un processus automatique ou réflexif localisé dans des régions spécialisées du cerveau. La capacité à s’engager dans la mentalisation interpersonnelle et à lire les pensées du client peut être liée au concept de vente adaptative, qui est un phénomène délibéré alors que la mentalisation interpersonnelle est un processus automatique. Ce phénomène est défini comme « la modification des comportements de vente pendant l’interaction avec le client ou à travers les interactions basées sur l’information perçue à propos de la nature de la situation commerciale, qui permet aux vendeurs d’adapter leurs messages pour correspondre aux besoins et preferences individuelles » (Franke et Park, 2006, p. 693 ; voir aussi Spiro et Weitz, 1990 ; Szymanski, 1988). Dans une même veine, Sujan,Weitz et Kumar (1994) proposent l’idée selon laquelle la vente adaptative est analogue à travailler plus intelligemment et implique d’être planifiée pour déterminer le caractère approprié des comportements de vente et activités qui seront entreprises dans les prochaines rencontres de ventes. Cependant, selon Sujan (1999, pp.18-19), « nous avons besoin de mesures améliorées de la capacité des vendeurs à “lire leurs clients” ». Il suggère que des pistes prometteuses pour le développement de construits qui relèvent de la perspicacité des observations des vendeurs, résident dans la capacité à identifier les besoins et désirs des clients, au niveau sous-jacent plutôt qu’au niveau superficiel des motivations et également dans la capacité à capter les signaux non verbaux. Divers facteurs explicatifs ont été proposés pour expliquer pourquoi les vendeurs interagissent de façon adaptative ou travaillent plus intelligemment. Un exemple représentatif est celui de l’apprentissage incrémental du vendeur, qui accroît la connaissance des contextes de vente. L’adaptation dépend en partie des savoirs accumulés sur la manière dont le comportement d’une personne se forme et est formé par ses interactions, ce qui requiert une préparation mentale et une planification, ainsi qu’une certaine auto-efficacité dans la capacité à altérer son comportement dans les situations commerciales (Sujan, Weitz et Kumar, 1994). Les différences individuelles dans les traits de personnalité constituent un autre type de facteurs explicatifs. Une différence individuelle clé de ce point de vue est l’auto-contrôle, qui reflète la capacité des personnes à réguler leur présentation de soi en modifiant leurs actions en

40

accord avec les signaux situationnels présents dans une interaction (Spiro et Weitz, 1990). Le fonctionnement des facteurs de l’adaptation dans les interactions commerciales repose sur des suppositions sur les processus en cours dans l’esprit des vendeurs. Toutefois, les recherches n’ont à ce jour utilisé que des méthodes basées sur les declarations verbales des vendeurs. Les avancées en neurosciences ont inspiré des recherches récentes dans des domaines reliés, en comportement du consommateur (Shiv et alii, 2005 ; Yoon et alii, 2006) et en économie Camerer, Loewenstein et Prelec, 2005). Ces recherches suggèrent qu’en dépit de leur complexité et de leur relative inaccessibilité, les processus mentaux peuvent être étudiés plus directement. L’objectif de cet article est de développer une échelle fondée sur la théorie des états mentaux spécifique au domaine des vendeurs. Nous appellerons cette échelle qui évalue la capacité des vendeurs à interagir avec les clients, sur la base de leurs capacités à bien prendre en compte les intentions, états mentaux et autres signaux en provenance des clients. Les notes des vendeurs sur l’échelle SToM (dont nous ferons une description plus détaillée par la suite) nous permettent de catégoriser les vendeurs en fonction de leur théorie des états mentaux. Ensuite, il a été demandé aux personnes ayant un score relativement haut ou bas sur l’échelle de participer à une expérimentation en laboratoire ; durant cette dernière, l’activité de leur cerveau a été enregistrée pendant qu’ils effectuaient une tâche impliquant l’écoute d’histoires conçues pour évoquer différentes opportunités de se mettre à la fois dans la perspective du client et dans celle du vendeur.

41

Appendix B: Task Related Boredom Scale

Task Perceptions Scale

For each of the following statements, please circle a number that indicates how you felt right before the task ended.

I felt I was under a _____ stress. I felt _____ alert. 1) no 2) a little 3) some 4) much 5) a great deal of 6) almost total

1) completely 2) very 3) fairly 4) somewhat 5) a little bit 6) I didn’t feel alert at all

I felt _____ irritation. I had _____ difficulty concentrating.

1) no 2) a little 3) some 4) much 5) a great deal of 6) almost total

1) no 2) a little 3) some 4) much 5) a great deal of 6) I couldn’t concentrate at all

I felt _____ relaxed. I felt that time passed _____. 1) completely 2) very 3) fairly 4) somewhat 5) a little bit 6) I didn’t feel relaxed at all

1) very, very slowly 2) very slowly 3) slowly 4) quickly 5) very quickly 6) very, very quickly

I felt _____ sleepy. I would have wanted this task 1) completely 2) very 3) fairly 4) somewhat 5) a little bit 6) I didn’t feel sleepy at all

1) to end right after it started 2) to end after a few moments 3) to end a few moments before it really

did end 4) to continue for a few more moments 5) to continue for a while longer 6) to continue much longer

On the following scale, please circle the vertical bar to indicate the level of boredom you were experiencing right before the task ended

│------------│------------│------------│------------│------------│------------│------------│------------│

None Moderate Total

42

Appendix C: International Personality Item Pool Scale

Personality Survey (Goldberg et al., 2006)

Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Indicate for each statement whether it is 1. Very Inaccurate, 2. Moderately Inaccurate, 3. Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate, 4. Moderately Accurate, or 5. Very Accurate as a description of you.

Very Inaccurate

Moderately Inaccurate

Neither Accurate

Nor Inaccurate

Moderately Accurate

Very Accurate

1. Am the life of the party. О О О О О

2. Feel little concern for others. О О О О О

3. Am always prepared. О О О О О

4. Get stressed out easily. О О О О О

5. Have a rich vocabulary. О О О О О

6. Don't talk a lot. О О О О О

7. Am interested in people. О О О О О

8. Leave my belongings around. О О О О О

9. Am relaxed most of the time. О О О О О

10. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. О О О О О

11. Feel comfortable around people. О О О О О

43

Very Inaccurate

Moderately Inaccurate

Neither Accurate

Nor Inaccurate

Moderately Accurate

Very Accurate

12. Insult people. О О О О О

13. Pay attention to details. О О О О О

14. Worry about things. О О О О О

15. Have a vivid imagination. О О О О О

16. Keep in the background. О О О О О

17. Sympathize with others' feelings. О О О О О

18. Make a mess of things. О О О О О

19. Seldom feel blue. О О О О О

20. Am not interested in abstract ideas. О О О О О

21. Start conversations. О О О О О

22. Am not interested in other people's problems. О О О О О

23. Get chores done right away. О О О О О

24. Am easily disturbed. О О О О О

25. Have excellent ideas. О О О О О

26. Have little to say. О О О О О

27. Have a soft heart. О О О О О

28. Often forget to put things back in their proper place. О О О О О

44

Very Inaccurate

Moderately Inaccurate

Neither Accurate

Nor Inaccurate

Moderately Accurate

Very Accurate

30. Do not have a good imagination. О О О О О

31. Talk to a lot of different people at parties. О О О О О

32. Am not really interested in others. О О О О О

33. Like order. О О О О О

34. Change my mood a lot. О О О О О

35. Am quick to understand things. О О О О О

36. Don't like to draw attention to myself. О О О О О

37. Take time out for others. О О О О О

38. Shirk my duties. О О О О О

39. Have frequent mood swings. О О О О О

40. Use difficult words. О О О О О

41. Don't mind being the center of attention. О О О О О

42. Feel others' emotions. О О О О О

43. Follow a schedule. О О О О О

44. Get irritated easily. О О О О О

45. Spend time reflecting on things. О О О О О

45

Very Inaccurate

Moderately Inaccurate

Neither Accurate

Nor Inaccurate

Moderately Accurate

Very Accurate

47. Make people feel at ease. О О О О О

48. Am exacting in my work. О О О О О

49. Often feel blue. О О О О О

50. Am full of ideas. О О О О О

46

Figure 1

Break Condition

Without Break Condition

Task Time 1 (15 Minutes)

Break (5 Minutes)

Boredom

Scale

Task Time 1 (15 Minutes)

Boredom

Scale

Task Time 1 (30) Minutes)

Boredom

Scale

Boredom

Scale

47

Table 1

Correlations among all Study Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.Boredom 35.9 8.11 .84

2.Neuroticism 3.16 .74 .19 .99

3.Extraversion 3.41 .72 .08 -.27* .99

4.Conscientiousness 3.57 .50 -.09 .32** .10 .98

5. Agreeableness 3.94 .53 -.07 .20 .36** -.06 .98

6.Openess 3.69 .54 -.24 .31* .014 .01 .11 .99

7.Productivity 2144.70 1081.71 .01 .13 .009 -.06 .08 -.06 —

8.Accuracy .007 .008 .315** -.04 .133 .066 .06 .03 .03 —

Note. * p < .05, **p < .01. Reliabilities are presented on the diagonal.