'copy

00

< Human Resources ResearchI0

BOREDOM: CONSTRUCT, CAUSES ANDCONSEQUENCES

Cynthia D. Fisher

February, 1987

TR-ONR-9

Texas A&M Universityand

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

DTICCf ELECTEJUL 2 11987

T h ft ~ t b c n m 4i v0dtr-bo".on "g 8 7 _7 20 024

Aocesson For

BOREDOM: CONSTRUCT, CAUSES AND ..''&I-CONSEQUENCES ! s: .

Cynthia D. Fisher By

Distribution/

February, 1987 -4v" 1i&'y CodesAvil and/or

TR-ONR-9 Dit Special

Department of ManagementTexas A&M University

JUL.~I

Prepared for:Office of Naval Research

800 N. Quincy StreetArlington, Virginia 22217

This report was prepared for the Manpower R&D Program of theOffice of of Naval Research under contract N00014-85-k-0289.Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purposeof the United States Government.

- p-

.. tD- tr.bu /.on . .... .

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Ihon, Des Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE rKD OMsUTI GOnsI. REPONUMBR f. GBVT ACCESSION NO. 1ETS CATALOG NUMBER

TR-ONR-9 AD Af4. TITLE (and Sublile) S. TYPE OF REPORT 6 PEIO COVEREDBoredom: Construct, Causes and Consequences

Technical report6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(@) I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSERCIV)

Cynthia D. FisherN-00014-85-k-0289

I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT. TASKAREA G WORK UNIT NUMERS

Department of ManagementTexas A&M University NR-475-036College Station, Txas 77841

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS It. REPORT DATE

Office of Naval Research February, 19871S. MUMBER OF PAGESDepartment of Navy

Arlinjton. Virgnia 22217 _14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME G ADDRESS(II different ro Contrefind Oice) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of ti ro~w)

UnclassifiedIS. 0ECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCEDUILE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Itile Repel)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

I?. OIStRIUlION STATEMENT (e1the ebabtect entered in e tck", Ift Elfefent hve Rope)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Supported by the Office of Naval Research Manpower R&D Program

It. KEY WORDS (Continue on revere side lt noeeem and Idetfy by block number)

Boi-ed-* job satisfaction, job design, military life"

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reveree aide It necesar and Idenify by block number)

"1The literature on cause of work and life boredom is reviewed. A qualitative

study of causes of boredom on and off the job is presented, and a typologyof causes is developed. Problems of measuring both experienced boredom andthe boredom potential of situations are discussed, followed by suggestionsfor future research. -.

DD I ,*N ,, 1473 EOTtION OF I NOV6G IS OSOLETE Unclassified€ N 0102- LF. 014. 6601 • SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (1%on Dea Entered)

1

Boredom: Construct, Causes, and ConsequencesCynthia D. Fisher

Our interest in boredom began while we were conductinginterviews with enlisted Marines as part of a study ofadjustment to overseas transfer. The Marines reported beingbored while on duty when they had little to do or wereoccupied with menial tasks such as picking up cigarettebutts or raking sand walkways. This kind of boredom was notsurprising, and is discussed in some detail in the existingliterature on monotony, repetitive tasks, and job design.The problem of job boredom among soldiers during peace timehas also been acknowledged by military scholars (c.f.Alford, 1979; Harris and Segal, 1985).

More interesting was the frequent mention of boredom whileoff duty. The Marines were constrained to a rather limitedsetting--the base and small surrounding communities--yetthere were numerous activities available for off duty hours.We noted great variation in the extent to which individualMarines took advantage of these opportunities to amusethemselves. Despite the fact that the exact sameopportunities were available to all, some respondents seemeddetermined to be bored, while others had no difficulty infinding interesting things to do.

The above observations were made in California, before theoverseas transfer. Follow-up interviews conducted inOkinawa revealed a similar pattern. Some people wereunrelievedly bored, some were constructively entertained(with correspondence courses, body building, or othersports), while others were destructively entertained(drinking to excess and brawling). Further, it appearedthat those who were bored or destructive in Californiatended to adapt to Okinawa in the same dysfuctional way,while those who were better able to entertain themselves inCalifornia were also able to do so following transfer (Shaw,Fisher, and Woodman, 1983).

Thus, our interest in work and non-work boredom was piqued.A search of the literature revealed several limited views ofon-the-job boredom and very little attention to off-the-jobboredom, so we decided to investigate further. The reportwhich follows contains a review of past approaches toboredom, a typology of situations that may lead to boredom,and a discussion of reactions to boredom. Areas in need ofempirical research are identified and a program of researchoutlined.

So that this preliminary theorizing would be at leastpartially grounded in data, we conducted a qualitative studyon boredom. Specifically, 500 college students were asked

2e MS

2

to describe one boring incident they had experienced at workand/or one they had experienced off-the-job. The results ofthis study will be reported later in the paper. Beforegoing further, however, we will give our definition ofboredom.

A Definition of Boredom

We define boredom as a transient affective state in whichthe individual feels that he/she has nothing to do, has toolittle to do, has to do something uninteresting which he/shewould rather not do at that time, or simply doesn't feellike doing anything in particular yet wishes to beentertained. Boredom may be brought on by factors in theindividual, the situation, or more commonly, an interactionof the two. Basic to our definition of boredom is the ideaof a desired level of stimulation. This level undoubtedlyvaries within people over time, and there seem to beconsistent differences between people as well (i.e. high vslow sensation seekers, Zuckerman, Kolin, Price and Zoob,1964; Zuckerman, 1971). Further, there seem to bedifferences in how well individuals are able to seek, find,or invent activities to stimulate themselves in a situationthat would otherwise be boring. Thus, most boredom can beunderstood as an interaction between the level ofstimulation provided by the environment and the individual'sdesired level of stimulation and ability to produceadditional stimulation. When total stimulation falls belowthe desired level, boredom is experienced. This definitionrepresents a combination of several different approaches toboredom found in the literature. Each approach andassociated research will be briefly reviewed below.

Approaches to Boredom

Guest, Williams, and Dewe (1978) suggest that boredom hasbeen conceptualized and researched in three different ways:1) as a result of a repetitive or monotonous task whichprovides insufficient arousal or stimulation; 2) as aresult of constraint on behavior; and 3) as a concentrationon the passage of time and a feeling of time drag. Each ofthese will be discussed, followed by three additionalconceptualizations of boredom: 4) as a function ofindividual differences; 5) as a function of a mismatchbetween the task content and the interests of the boredperson; and 6) as a chronic pathological state.

Monotonous Task/Arousal Approach

The most popular approach to boredom holds that it is anaffective response to an environment or task which isinsufficiently stimulating. The latter has typically beenoperationalized as a short-cycle repetitive task such asthose found on some assembly lines, or as a vigilance or

3

inspection task requiring responses to infrequent and hardto detect signals. Boredom is thought to occur in thesesituations because the task provides an insufficient levelof stimulation, and produces, after habituation, a sub-optimal level of arousal. There is some evidence that bothaffect and performance bear an inverted u-shapedrelationship with arousal (Fiske and Maddi, 1961; Scott,1966). Further, performance has been found to degraderapidly beginning about 30 minutes into monotonous vigilancetasks which would be expected to produce lowered arousal(see Cox, 1980; and Davies, Shackleton, and Parasuraman,1983, for reviews).

A fair amount of physiological support for the arousal levelapproach has been found. Barmack (1937) and many others(c.f. Thackray, Bailey, and Touchstone 1977; Thackray,Jones, and Touchstone, 1974) have demonstrated that workingon a monotonous task is often accompanied by decreases inphysiological indices of arousal such as GSR, oxygenconsumption, and blood pressure. Barmack (1938, 1939)hypothesized that the administration of stimulants mightprevent these physiological changes and hence the experienceof boredom in repetitive work. He found that subjectsreceiving a stimulant rather than a placebo reported feelingless bored and fatigued, and more relaxed, awake, andattentive.

On the other hand, London, Schubert, and Washburn (1972)reported two studies in which autonomic arousal was greaterwhile working on a boring task than while working on aninteresting one. They argued that in order to continue toperform the boring task, subjects had to exert effort toforce themselves to focus on the task. This increasedeffort caused the higher level of arousal observed aongsubjects on the boring task. However, the work period inthese studies was 40 minutes or less. Whether high levelsof attention and arousal on the boring task could have beenmaintained over a longer period of time is not known.

Constraint

A second approach to boredom focuses on constraint--theextent to which one is forced to remain in a particularsituation, location, or activity. Constraint could causeboredom through at least three different mechanisms.First, there is some evidence that constraint itself isinherently distasteful. Brehm and Brehm (1981) citeextensive work showing that individuals do not like losingtheir freedom of choice, and will act to preserve orreassert this freedom if it seems to be threatened. Deci(1975) also discusses the issue of self-determination orpersonal control. He asserts that personal control,together with feelings of competence, are major determinantsof intrinsic interest in a task. When individuals feel

- ~4**'!~ . •~~V'

4

forced to work on a task, they rate it as less interestingthan do others who perform the same task but are led tobelieve that they do so of their own free will. Lepper andGreen (1978) and Staw (1976) refer to this phenomenon as"over-sufficient justification." Following an attributiontheory framework, they suggest that individuals seekplausible causes for their behavior. If one performs a taskwithout salient external causes for doing so, then in orderto find sufficient justification for the behavior, one mustinfer that the task is interesting and one is intrinsicallymotivated. If one performs the same task while plausibleextrinsic reasons are present (i.e. pay, threat of dischargefor non-performance, surveillance) then one need not inferthat the task is interesting, and may in fact conclude thatthe task must be boring since others have felt it necessaryto apply extrinsic control methods. Thus, being forced (orextrinsically encouraged) to remain in a particular settingmay cause the situation to be labeled "boring" through themechanism of over-sufficient justification, regardless ofthe actual level of stimulation provided by the task.

Second, constraint could contribute to feelings of boredomwhen one is forced to remain in a low stimulation setting.Examples include having to stay at work for a full shifteven though there is little work to be done, having to waitin an airport, or having to sit in a car until one'sdestination is reached. In some cases, one is not onlystuck in a low stimulation setting, but is also prohibitedfrom initiating other concurrent activities which couldprovide additional stimulation. For instance, life guardsare often forbidden to read or socialize while on duty,assembly line workers may be unable to leave their stationor vary their pace, and radar monitors cannot let their eyesor attention wander from the screen. Cox (1970 p. 87) notesthat a job which requires "full attention or none at all ispreferred to a job which calls for steady perceptualattention but makes few intellectual demands. This lasttype neither interests the operator, not allows her to talkor think of other things. It calls for a half-person."

Third, individual desires can interact with constraint to asetting to intensify feelings of boredom. Even anobjectively stimulating task may be peceived as boring whenthe performer compares it to an alternate desired activity.For instance, some of our student respondents reported thatwork was boring because they had to be there, but wouldrather have been laying on the beach - an objectively lessstimulating activity.

To summarize, it appears that constraint affects feelings ofboredom in three ways: by directly arousing feelings ofexternal control at the expense of intrinsic interest; byforcing one to remain in a low stimulation/low possibilityof additional stimulation environment; or by forcing one to

5

remain in an environment when an alternate environment ispreferred.

Time Drag

A third approach to boredom focuses on the subjectiveduration of events, and suggests that time seems to drag orpass more slowly when one is bored (Wyatt, 1929). Researchresults on this apparent truism have been mixed. Geiwitz(1966) and Kerr and Keil (1963) found no relationshipbetween rated boredom and error in estimating the passage oftime. However, Kerr and Keil also found that individuals onlonger time cycle, higher variety jobs thought time passedmore slowly than those on simple, repetitive, and presumablyboring jobs. Grubb (1975) found significant correlations inthree samples of .36, .47, and .55 between rated boredom andthe item, "When your shift is over, does it seem like notime at all to you since the shift began, or does it seemlike a very long time?", such that shifts seemed longer tothose who reported greater boredom at work.

Ornstein (1971) has conducted a series of inventive studieswhich partially resolve these conflicting results. He hasshown that the subjective duration of an event is related tothe amount of information processing or mental storage spaceneeded to encode the event. Thus, novel or complex stimuliappear to last longer than familiar or simple stimuli. Timeappears to pass more quickly when performing a well-learnedtask automatically than when performing a novel taskrequiring conscious control for the same length of time.Kerr and Keil (1963) used a similar rationale for theirresults, suggesting that more complex tasks include agreater number of discrete events to break up and slow theapparent flow of time, while simple routine tasks without"significant psychological time markers" will seem to flowmore quickly.

On a repetitive task, if an individual performsthoughtlessly and automatically, time may seem to passquickly. On the other hand, if the individual is veryconsciously aware of the monotonous situation, and is"forced to attend to more of the stimulus array than he orshe normally would, like listening to a professor drone onand on" or watching a pot while waiting for it to boil, morestorage space will be used to encode detailed information,and longer subjective duration will result (Ornstein, 1971,p 112).

Precisely which situational or individual difference factorstrigger automatic versus painfully thoughtful and detailedencoding in low stimulation environments is not known.However, it is clear that objectively monotonous orrepetitive situations may be perceived as being of eitherlonger or shorter duration than more stimulating situations

S . .. P -A . . .1-.- A vV, .V. ., ,.j- b . - .. ~~~~~ J€ . , '_,.. . , ....

6

of the same actual length. Thus, time drag or subjectiveduration cannot be used as a surrogate measure of boredom,though further investigation of the relationship between thetwo concepts may be interesting.

Individual Differences in Boredom Proneness

A fourth approach to boredom research is to identifyindividual differences which account for the variance ineither reported boredom or performance decrement onrepetitive or vigilance tasks. The existance of individualdifferences in boredom proneness was discussed in 1929 byboth Wyatt and Thompson. Extensive interviews with workersin 1953 (reported in Cox, 1980, p. 24) again revealeddifferences in reactions to the same task, "Some workersliked tasks which demanded considerable attention becausetime passed quickly and their experience of boredom wasreduced. Others liked tasks which did not demand attentionso that they could carry out the job automatically, and talkto their work mates." The traits which have beeninvestigated as possible moderators of reactions tomonotonous tasks will be discussed below.

Age seems to be negatively related to experienced boredom,with younger workers more likely to report being bored thanolder workers on the same task (Hill, 1975b; Smith, 1955;Stagner, 1975). Work experience, tenure, and education haveshown inconsistent relationships to boredom across studies(Drory, 1982; Smith, 1955). Early theorists suggested thatmore intelligent people were more likely to feel bored on arepetitive task, and there is limited evidence that this mayoccur (London et al., 1972; Thompson, 1929). However,intelligence is not related to performance decrement overtime on vigilance tasks (Davies and Parasuraman, 1982).

Drory (1982) suggested that personal capacity would berelated to boredom proneness. He operationalized capacityas age, health, military rank, education, intellectualactivities, tenure, and length of residence in Israel, wherethe study was conducted. Except for age, which had theexpected negative correlation, all of the variables werepositively related to rated boredom while driving amonotonous section of road. These personal capacityvariables accounted for 50% of the variance in rated boredomamong truck drivers. Personal capacity variables alsomoderated the relationship between rated boredom andproperty damage to one's truck, a measure of performance.For those of low capacity, boredom and property damage werepositively related ( r's from .43 to .72), while theperformance of those of high capacity was not significantlyinfluenced by experienced boredom.

A number of personality factors have also been investigatedas determinants of boredom proneness. Following Wyatt's

7

(1929) suggestion that those of lively and mercurialtemperament would be more bored with monotonous tasks thanthose who were phlegmatic and patient, Thompson (1929) foundthat preference for variety versus uniformity predictedperformance decrement on a repetitive task. Smith (1955)developed a self-report measure of "restlessness in dailyhabits and leisure" which predicted experienced boredom atwork. Those who preferred structured and sedentaryactivities off-the-job were less bored by routine tasks on-the-job. Hill (1975b) found that women who scored high on aneuroticism scale were more likely to be bored on arepetitive press-operating job, while Thackray, Jones, andTouchstone (1973) and Antrobus, Coleman, and Singer (1967)found that self-rated distractibility and propensity todaydream affected performance patterns on monotonous tasks.

The most thoroughly researched personality correlate ofboredom is introversion/extroversion. This dimension doesnot seem to be related to self-rated boredom (Hill, 1975b;Smith, 1955), but it is reliably related to performancedecrement on vigilance tasks (Davies and Parasuraman, 1982).Extroverts, who are considered to require more externalstimulation, experience sharper declines in vigilanceperformance over time. They also show more variability inresponse times while doing vigilance tasks as theirattention tends to wander (Thackray, et al., 1974). Hill(1975a) found that extroverts introduced more variety into adull task, and increased the amount of variety over time,while introverts seemed content to continue doing therepetitive task in exactly the same way.

Content Boredom

The fifth approach to boredom is found very rarely in theliterature but is intuitively quite appealing, and seems toapply very well to the boredom most people experienceoccasionally in life and work. Baldamus (1951) hasdekcribed and labeled it as "content boredom". This occurswhen a situation or task does not match one's interests ordesires. The situation may be objectively stimulating, butis simply not interesing to the bored participant. Davieset al. (1983) give the example of reading a book, which maycontain a variety of ideas or actions presented in rapidorder (not repetitive or monotonous in an objective sense)but which a particular reader may find boring because he orshe is simply not interested in the content of the book atthe moment. This may be the type of boredom which isexperienced from time to time by professionals and otherswho hold "enriched" and presumably stimulating jobs.

Chronic or Pathological Boredom

Smith in his 1981 review notes with surprise that boredomhas been almost entirely ignored by psychiatrists and

kl! %Pvo _k% W)

8

clinical psychologists, even though it is a very commoncomplaint from individuals seeking therapy. In one of thefew articles on the subject, Bernstein (1975) discusses twotypes of boredom. The first, responsive boredom, is causedby a truly monotonous and unstimulating environment, asdiscussed in approach one above. It is a perfectly normal,transient response to an external situation. The secondtype he labels chronic boredom, and it is largely internallycaused. However, victims usually blame the environment fortheir feelings of boredom and try unsuccessfully to relievethese feelings by seeking stimulation from the environment.The actual cause, according to Bernstein, is that sufferershave "lost their ability to feel". This comes about whenchildren are forced to control their emotions and behaviorbefore they have learned socially acceptable ways ofdischarging the tensions aroused by the emotions. Thus,they simply learn to repress their emotions, and lose theability to acknowledge and deal with intense feelings.Chronic boredom (or ennui) surfaces later in life whenenvironmental stimulation drops below a level hectic enoughto mask the feeling deficiency. Often this is middle age,when careers plateau and children leave home. Chronicboredom is experienced as restlessness and apathy, a lack ofinterest in things, difficulty in paying attention, and afeeling of emptiness or alienation.

Fenichel (1951) provides a psychoanalytic framework forunderstanding boredom. He states that people experiencepathological boredom when they feel drive-tension, or animpulse to act, but have repressed the drive-aim, so they donot know how to release the drive-tension. In fact, theywill actively avoid any type of stimulation which woulddischarge the drive tension, because the Ego refuses toacknowledge the existence of a particular drive aim held bythe Id. According to Fenichel (pp. 354-355), the personfeels that, "I am excited. If I allow this excitation tocontinue, I shall get anxious. Therefore I tell myself, Iam not at all excited, I don't want to do anything.Simultaneously, however, I feel I do want to do someting;but I have forgotten my original goal and do not know what Iwant to do. The external world must do someting to relieveme of my tension without making me anxious.. .orresponsible...It must distract me, so that what I do will besufficiently remote from my original goal." BothBernstein's (1975) and Fenichel's (1951) versions of chronicpathological boredom include the idea of a desire to bestimulated together with the inability to be stimulated. Inboth cases, the suggested remedy is extensivepsychoanalysis.

Kafry and Pines (1980) have recently made an effort todefine a malady somewhat similar to chronic boredom, whichthey call "tedium". It is, "A general experience ofphysical, emotional, and mental exhaustion.. .characterized

,'' ". ' ' ,.- ; "-Y . ' K? - ,Y -- <................................... .- '"

9

by feelings of strain and burnout... and by negativeattitudes toward oneself, one's environment, and one's life.It is the experience of distress and discontent with one'swork and way of life. In its extreme form...tedium overlapsdepression." (p. 478). Work and life factors whichcorrelated with the experience of tedium in several samplesincluded cognitive under and overload, work-life conflict,and lack of success, feedback, variety, autonomy, and socialsupport. In general, life factors were stronger correlatesof tedium than work factors. Kafry and Pines found thatabout 6% of each sample reported extreme tedium. They didnot discuss treatment.

Smith's (1955) work on correlates of boredom proneness mayhave foreshadowed the idea of chronic boredom. She foundthat individuals who were dissatisfied with other aspects ofwork or who were discontent outside of work were more likelyto report feeling bored at work. On the other hand, Davieset al. (1983, p. 13), in a reanalysis of Wyatt, Langdon, andStock's (1937) data, found essentially no relationshipbetween rated levels of boredom across five jobs performedsequentially by the same workers, casting doubt on the ideathat "boredom is a general characteristic" of some people.This is certainly an idea which merits further research.We will now proceed to a discussion of the qualitative studyon causes and responses to boredom.

A Qualitative Investigation of BoredomCauses and Responses

One or more incidents of work or non-work boredom werecollected from about 200 U.s. university students and 300Singaporean university students. After describing theincident and telling which situational factors caused themto feel bored, they also explained how they reacted to theboredom and whether this action was successful in relievingthe boredom. Work and non-work incidents were contentanalysed separately. Initial sorts were based on the typeof situation which produced bordeom. Subsequent sorts werebased on the second question of how people responded to theboring situation and the efficacy of the response inreducing boredom.

Obviously, the use of recalled incidents is not a strong orparticularly reliable technique. Since subjects werereporting on themselves as actors, the data may be biasedtoward environmental rather than dispositional causes ofboredom (Jones and Nisbett, 1976). Nevertheless, this datawill be used to provide a tentative typology of the waypeople actually conceptualize and experience boredom intheir daily lives.

10

Causes of Work Boredom

Approximately 200 incidents of boredom on the job werecollected. These incidents were sorted into categoriesbased on the reasons students gave for feeling bored. Fourmajor causes of work boredom emerged.

The first is boredom due to lack of work (quantitativeunderload). This is a category seldom mentioned in theboredom literature, yet it was the most common complaint(110 incidents). Students involved in retailing jobs werebored when there were no customers to wait on. Theirboredom was often exacerbated by rules which constrainedthem to a particular location (behind the cash register) orposture (standing) and prohibited subsidiary behaviors suchas reading or talking to coworkers. Office and plantworkers were bored when there were no orders to process, nophone calls to take, no typing to be done, and so on.Tutors were bored during the time that their charges workedon assignments on their own, former servicemen were boredstanding guard duty, and a number of people reported beingbored during their first few days on a new job before theywere trained and given a specific task to do. A number ofrespondents described entire jobs on which there was veryseldom anything to do.

This cause of boredom has been completely ignored by jobenrichment/redesign theorists. Neither of the two commonlyused instruments for measuring job characteristics containany items relating to workload. It is possible to envisiona job with high meaningfulness, requiring several skills,and providing intrinsic feedback, but which takes only twohours per day to accomplish. The Motivating Potential Scoreof this job would be high, but it seems likely that theincumbent, if required to remain at his or her desk foreight hours per day, would be less than satisfied with thejob.

The finding that so many respondents had no work to do isquite troubling. This complaint was not limited to serviceand retail organizations where workload fluctuates with thenumber of customers present at the moment. Organizationswhich should have been able to predict and allocate workloadmore efficiently also had employees with nothing to do.Admittedly, most of our respondents held temporary,unskilled jobs. It would be interesting to find out howfrequently permanent full time workers and skilled,professional, and managerial employees report having nothingto do, and whether they find this situation aversive.

A second common cause of boredom had to do with the natureof the task (73 incidents). Repetitive tasks such as typingforms, filing, proof reading, counting and rolling coins,inputting data, and collating and stapling were given as

11

examples of boring work situations. Some studentscomplained that these tasks were unchallenging, did not makeuse of their skills, and insulted their intelligence(qualitative underload). Vigilance tasks such asinspection, driving, and life guarding were also cited asboring. Boredom of this type has been discussed quitethoroughly in the job enrichment literature, together withsuggestions for redesigning jobs so that they are lessrepetitive and more meaningful. However, redesigning jobsto make them more interesting is not always possible, andlittle attention has been paid to alternative methods ofdecreasing the boredom experienced by workers on such jobs.Our questions on how people actually responded to jobboredom and whether or not these responses successfullyrelieved boredom may suggest some new ways of makingmonotonous jobs more bearable.

A third cause of boredom is being with dull orunfriendly others (10 incidents). When coworkers werepresent but unwilling to talk or make friends, studentsreported being bored. Singaporean students frequentlymentioned this problem when they worked as private tutors toyounger students who were unresponsive and noncommunicative.

This is a reason for boredom which is not mentioned inprevious research on work boredom. In fact, there has beena tacit assumption that boredom would be lower if co-workerswere present at all. In the job enrichment literature, theimportance of congenial co-workers has been emphasized onlyby the socio-technical systems approach. Sims, Szilagyi,and Keller's (1976) Job Characteristics Inventory includesitems on the chance to talk to co-workers and make friendsat work as one of six factors which might be important indetermining employees' reactions to their jobs. The morepopular Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975)includes items on contact with people on other jobs, butthese items are not considered relevant to a job's"interestingness" as assessed by its motivating potentialscore.

As will be mentioned below, talking to co-workers is afrequent reaction to monotonous work or quantitativeunderload. When co-workers are absent, uncommunicative, oruninteresting, this important method of ameliorating boredomis not available. Dull co-workers may result in greaterexperienced boredom and in the selection of alternativeboredom relief behaviors (such as sleeping) which areconsidered less desirable by the organization.

Finally, boredom due to constraint was sometimes mentioned,either alone or in combination with one of the above causes.Being required to remain on a repetitive job or one in whichthere was nothing to do seemed especially aversive.Constraint was also resented when the respondent had

12

something specific in mind which he or she would prefer tobe doing rather than working. Feelings of constraint havebeen discussed in the job redesign literature under thelabel of autonomy, though flexitime programs may deal moredirectly with the type of constraint experienced by ourbored respondents.

Boredom of all types seems to be worsened by physicaldiscomfort. When there is nothing interesting to do and oneis cold, hot, slightly ill, itchy, or has sore feet, a muchmore unpleasant state is experienced than if eithersituation is present without the other. The same minordiscomforts are probably more likely to be noticed whenthere is nothing interesting going on to hold one'sattention.

Responses to Work Boredom

Three major types of responses to boredom were found. Inorder of frequency of occurance, these were: engaging innon-work related activities on the job, engaging in work-related activites, and simply tolerating the boredom.Often, several reactions were used sequentially by the sameperson.

Fifty three percent of respondents reported engaging in non-work behavior when they were bored on the job. Thesebehaviors consisted of reading, writing letters, listeningto music, singing, day dreaming, playing games, and talking.In sove cases, these activites were carried out in knowingviolation of company rules, which seemed to make them evenmore stimulating. These activities were often successful inreducing experienced boredom. Some of these activitiesoccurred while actively working, such as singing orlistening to music. It seems likely that these activitieswould interfere very little with productivity, or might evenenhance it if arousal had dropped below the level ofalertness. Davies et al. (1983) reviewed the effect ofmusic on performance and attitudes on repetitive tasks.Music only occasionally has a facilitative effect onperformance, but quite often has a positive effect onattitudes. The latter could occur because boredom isreduced.

Other reactions to boredom may be more distracting, such asdaydreaming and talking, and may interfere with performanceof activities requiring a high attention level. However, ontasks which can be performed automatically, there should beno adverse effect. Non-work activites such as reading andwriting letters tended to be used under conditions ofquantitative underload, so that they did not damageproductivity per se, but made more enjoyable time whichwould not have been productive in any case.

13

Twenty four percent of respondents tried to relieve boredomby engaging in desirable work related behaviors. Theseincluded working faster, taking an interest in clients,asking for more work or training, finding additional tasksto do on their own, and helping other employees. Onerespondent, a piano accompanist at a dance studio, relievedthe boredom of playing the same pieces again and again bytransposing them into a different key each time. Work-related behaviors were often unsuccessful in relievingboredom, as respondents reported that their bosses did nothave any more work for them or were unwilling to give extratraining, coworkers did not need help, or that the boredomreturned as soon as they finished cleaning their work area,folding napkins for the next shift, or completing othermenial tasks they had been able to find. This may indicatea need to reallocate duties or reduce the number ofemployees, so that all can be fully utilized most of thetime.

A third reaction to boredom was simply to tolerate it. Tenpercent of American respondents reported doing this, largelythose on repetitive jobs which did not permit much in theway of subsidiary behaviors. Twenty percent of the Asianrespondents tolerated boredom, either because they had nochoice or because they felt duty bound to complete a job orterm of work which they had agreed to do. Statements suchas, "I just watched the clock and told myself that it wasonly a six weeks long job" were common. Our data do notindicate what type of adjustment might occur when a veryboring job is held for a long period of time.

Finally, a small number of respondents left the boringsituation, either by quitting or by taking frequent breaks.Three fell asleep, three walked around, one engaged in minorsabotage, and two tried to get their boring tasks reassignedto other employees.

In summary, work boredom seems to be caused by not havinganything to do, working on a repetitive or unchallengingtask, being with unresponsive co-workers, and/or feelingconstrained to remain in the work setting when one wouldrather be elsewhere. only one of these causes has been wellresearch (repetitive/unchallenging task), and only a fewsolutions to work boredom have been thoroughly studied (jobrotation, enlargement, or redesign, and music). Left totheir own devices, employees come up with a host of othersways to relieve job boredom. Perhaps when boring jobscannot be redesigned to increase interest, managers shouldallow employees greater freedom to amuse themselves in otherways at work.

14

Causes of Non-work Boredom

About 340 incidents of non-work boredom were collected.Being bored off the job seems to be a more variedphenomenon, as nine reasons for non-work boredom wereidentified from the incidents.

One very common situation causing boredom was being at homewith nothing to do (81 incidents). Many respondents saidthey were alone at home, or at least without friends of thesame age. Some incidents had an element of separation orgrief--"my friends had all joined the Army, so I was homealone." "I'd just had a fight with my brother, so I washome alone." "My girlfriend had broken up with me, so I washome alone."

An equally frequent cause of boredom was being constrainedto a low stimulation setting with limited opportunitites torelieve boredom (79 incidents). Common examples werewaiting to meet a friend who was late, waiting for a bus,waiting in an airport, sitting in a car during a longjourney, and sitting in a lecture class.

A third boring situation involved feeling that there wasnothing interesting to do, even though one was with friends.Twenty incidents referred to being bored in groups, eithersitting around someone's house, wandering the shoppingdistrict, or bar hopping.

A fourth reason given for feeling bored was a sudden drop inactivity level. Twenty-two respondents reported being boredafter losing a job, between being discharged from the Armyand beginning college, or immediately after final exams.The contrast between the earlier hectic pace and the currentslow one seemed to intensify feelings of boredom. Acomposite response of post-exam students in Singapore is,"I spent months in the library trying to squeeze everythinginto my brain. After the exams were over, I felt so emptyand bored...as if I had lost something...there was nothingurgent to do, nothing to accomplish anymore."

The above four situations all contain the element of havingnothing to do. The next few causes of boredom occur whenthere is something to do, but it does not appeal to thedoer. Earlier, this was referred to as content boredom.Many of these disliked tasks were also described asmonotonous. Thirty-five incidents concerned making oneselfdo something one does not like to do, especially when it isrepetitive or has been done for a long period of time.Examples were doing accounting problems, studying for finalexams day in and day out, and doing housework. Fifteenadditional respondents were bored when they were studying orlistening to a lecture on a subject which they did notunderstand or found difficult to comprehend. Finally, 15

15

respondents reported being bored while procrastinating.They had something to do which they did not want to startdoing, so they were bored by both present inactivity and theprospect of performing a disliked task in the near future.

Another reason for being bored while doing something isdoing it with a boring person. Twenty-seven incidents werereported in which students were doing something such astalking to a friend on the phone or in person, but werebored because they were not interested in what they otherperson was saying. Common complaints were that the otherperson was bragging or talking about his/her own problems,not allowing the listener a chance to speak, and not showinginterest in the listener.

The final cause of boredom seems to be a bored mood, inwhich everything is seen as boring. Earlier, thispossibility was discussed as chronic or pathologicalboredom. In this state, the individual cannot think of anyactivity which would be interesting. He or she may havethings to do, but doesn't feel like doing any of them. "Iwas bored doing difficult homework on a Sunday, so I triedto do other things and then go back to the homework. But Iwas already too bored, so the other things seemed equallyboring, even though they may really have been interesting.""I sat on the sofa trying to think of something to do, tookout a book to read but couldn't concentrate, went to bed butcouldn't sleep, so I switched on the TV but the program mademe even more bored." The bored mood may be relativelyshort-lived, perhaps just one rainy Sunday afternoon, or maybe more persistant as shown in the quotes below. "I feelbored and frustrated with everything. Life is meaningless.""The whole pattern of life, busywork, and shallowrelationships is boring." "Nothing seems to be pleasing ormotivating".

People are bored off the job for a variety of reasons.However, these reasons (with the exception of bored mood)could be collapsed in to the same categories as emerged forwork boredom: nothing to do, dull or disliked task, andboring people. As with work boredom, both constraint anddiscomfort seem to intensify feelings of boredom, what everits original cause. "I was waiting for a bus to go home. Iwas hungry, the mosquitoes were biting me, there was nobodyto talk to, and the bus didn't come for ages." "My brokenleg was hurting and it also kept me from getting out of thehouse to go anywhere." were typical examples of constraintplus discomfort intensifying boredom.

Responses to Non-work Boredom

Commonly mentioned responses to non-work boredom are listedin table 1. Boredom was simply tolerated by 15% ofrespondents, primarily by those who were constrained to a

boring situation or who did not understand a subject being

taught or studied. Day dreaming was also a frequentresponse when waiting or otherwise constrained to a boringsituation. Sleep was occasionally chosen as an escape fromhaving nothing to do at home alone, and from having to do adisliked task. Physical activity generally seemed to be aneffective way of relieving boredom from all causes. Eating,reading, and playing the TV or radio were reported to beeffective in relieving boredom only about half the time.Respondents often engaged in several of these activities insequence, finally finding one which caught their interest.Looking for others was a common response to being at homealone. It was successful in relieving boredom only whenothers could be located and were free to chat or join thebored person in an activity. When respondents were bored ingroups, smoking, drinking, and taking drugs wereoccasionally mentioned as responses, usually unsuccessful,to overcome boredom.

Insert Table 1 About Here

Summary

Combining the results of the qualitative study with theempirical and conceptual literature reviewed earliersuggests the following composite typology of boredom causesoccuring both on and off the job:

Boredom due to situational causes:Short-cycle, repetitive, undemanding tasksVigilance tasksConstraint to a low stimulation settingConstraints on allowable subsidiary behaviorsNothing to doNo other people around

Boredom due to individual causesChronic pathological boredom/bored mood

Boredom due to individual X situation causesMismatch between current activities and

individual's interestsLack of understanding of taskAbrupt drop from one's previous activity levelCompany of other(s) regarded as dull or unfriendlyStrong and frustrated desire to be elsewhere or

to be performing another activityProcrastination when disliked task should be

performedYouth, intelligence, extroversion, high optimal

arousal level combined with low stimulationtask

Some of these causes tend to occur together in naturalsettings, and it may not be feasible or necessary to isolateeach for research purposes. However, one could count the

17

number co-occuring in any given setting, and expect thisnumber to be positively correlated with the intensity ofboredom experienced.

In the case of the Marines who expressed boredom wheninterviewed in California and Okinawa, many of these causeswere present. The respondents were young, and since mosthad volunteered for the Marines, it seems likely that theywere higher than average on sensation seeking. Both ofthese characteristics seem to predispose people to feelbored when placed in a relatively low stimulationenvironment. Several Marines commented that life on basewas especially boring in contrast to boot camp, wherestructured activities filled every waking moment.Constraint was also experienced compared to the freedomenjoyed previously as civilians. Tasks tended to be menial,repetitive, and interspersed with long periods during whichthere was nothing to do. Field exercises were eagerlyanticipated as an enjoyable change of pace.

Although not mentioned in the literature or the qualitativestudy using student samples, another possible cause ofboredom and disinterest could be unmet expectations. Lifeon base may have seemed especially boring when compared towhat was expected. Many of the Marines thought they wouldbe kept busy with training, seeing the world, or engaging inheroic combat, as shown in recruiting materials and warmovies. The reality of being soldiers in peacetime wasquite a different experience.

Before research on these boredom causes can proceed, we needto have reliable ways of measuring boredom. The nextsection considers past approaches to this measurementproblem and suggests some future directions.

Measures of Job Boredom

As noted in the preceding section of this paper, boredom hasbeen conceptualized and researched in a variety of ways. Atleast four methods of assessing boredom either directly orindirectly have been reported in the literature: 1)physiological measures of arousal, 2) objective measures ofoutput, 3) objective or self-report measures of "subsidiarybehaviors", and 4) subjective reports of affect, boredom, ortime drag. Physiological indices have proved to beunreliable measures of experienced boredom and will not bediscussed further in this paper, but the other methods ofassesing boredom will be describeed and evaluated below.

Output

Early researchers believed that boredom strongly affectedoutput and in fact could be assessed by measuring outputamount or pattern. Wyatt et al. (1937, cited in Davies et

18

al. 1983) distinguished between output curves indicative offatigue, in which output declines over the work period, andcurves indicative of boredom, in which output begins low orfalls as boredom sets in, then rebounds as the end of thework period is anticipated. Other researchers have assessedaverage levels of performance and errors, performancedecrement over time, variability in response speed, orawareness of errors (McBain, 1961; 1970; Thackray et al.1974; Thompson, 1929). Attempts to correlate theseperformance measures with the subjective experience ofboredom have been infrequent and the results mixed.Thackray, Bailey, and Touchstone (1977) found that subjectswho reported being highly bored by an air traffic controltask had longer response times than those who were notbored. In a study conducted in a sewing factory, Smith(1953) found no evidence of a relationship between outputpattern and reported boredom, and Locke and Bryan (1967)found no relationship between the latter and performancelevel. Thus, objective measures of output level or patterndo not seem to be reliable or construct valid ways ofassessing boredom, though they may be related to experiencedboredom in some situations.

Subsidiary Behaviors

Given that boredom can occur when stimulation from therequired activities of the job is uncomfortably low, onemight expect that boredom would lead to the seeking ofadditional stimulation. Thus, one might observe boredworkers experimenting with different methods of doing theirjobs as one way of introducing variety into a monotonoussituation. Hill (1975a) found that extroverts, who areconsidered to be more susceptible to boredom, varied thepattern used in performing a simple task more than didintroverts. Runcie (1980) describes how bored auto workersdoubled up on jobs or increased work tempo in alternationwith unsanctioned work breaks to add variety to theirassembly line jobs. They also engaged in occasional minorsabotage, theft, or destruction of equipment for a change ofpace. In addition to increasing stimulation directly fromthe work itself, bored workers may engage in subsidiarybehaviors such as talking, singing, daydreaming, solvingmental puzzles, playing games, fidgeting, looking around,and so on (Grubb, 1975; Kishida, 1977; Runcie, 1980; Smith,1953). On tasks requiring continuous attention, such asinspection and vijilance tasks, subsidiary behaviors seem todamage performance (Kishida, 1977). However, on tasks whichcan be performed relatively automatically, such behaviorsmay not be related to output, and on tasks of intermediateattention demand, such as driving, these activities may evenincrease alertness and thus performance (McBain, 1970).

Smith (1953) found that frequency of subsidiary behaviorswas not related to self-reported boredom. However, Davies,

-, A ~ ~%.' N. . .~. ~ ' .,.;w.. % ~ ~ .. ,q.*~ ~ ._.'

19

Shackleton, and Lang (1972) reported a correlation of .40between a single item measure of boredom and self-reportedday dreaming on a 30 minute problem solving task. It seemslikely that individuals may undertake subsidiary behaviorsbecause they are bored, and that these behaviors may havevarying degrees of effectiveness in relieving boredom. Inaddition, multiperson subsidiary behaviors such as talkingand game playing may be displayed by some people who are notbored, after being initiated by those who are bored.Individuals who do not engage in subsidiary behavior eithermay not be bored, or may be bored but be unable or unwillingto do anything about it. These mechanisms would account forthe unreliable relationship between subsidiary behaviors andreported boredom.

It appears that subsidiary behaviors are not an acceptablemeasure of boredom, but may be an interesting behavioralphenomenon in themselves. Further research on subsidiarybehaviors and their relationship to performance on tasks ofvarying levels of attention demand and to experiencedboredom might prove quite fruitful. Schrank (1978) hassuggested that satisfaction on monotonous jobs can beincreased by allowing workers the freedom to engage in thesame non-work behaviors enjoyed on the job by white collarpersonnel. These include talking with coworkers, makingpersonal phone calls, taking unscheduled breaks, and so on.He calls this "smoozing", and suggests that it may be themost effective way to improve the experience of work whentechnology requires repetitive work procedures.

Self-report

The final approach to measuring boredom is simply to askrespondents how bored they feel. Smith (1953) endorsed thisdirect approach, since boredom is a subjective state onlyloosely related to environmental antecedents or observableemployee responses. The authors agree that this directapproach seems preferable to the indirect measures discussedabove. If boredom is to be assessed in this way, then areliable set of questions is needed. Unfortunately, mostresearchers have utilized one item measures or subjectivelyscored interviews to assess level of boredom. Severalresearchers have constructed multi-item scales, but only onereports on the psychometric characteristics of his measure.These scales will be described below.

Smith (1955) used the scale shown in Table 2 to assess

boredom among knitting machine operators. No psychometricswere reported for this scale, the rationale for theweighting system is unclear, and many of the items areleading, but total score did correlate as expected withseveral individual difference measures thought to influenceboredom susceptibility.

20

Insert Table 2 Here

Grubb (1975) began with 25 items related to experiencedboredom, time -drag, fluctuations in job liking, monotony,subsidiary behaviors, and restlessness at work. By means ofa cluster analysis which is not well described in his paper,he derived two boredom subscales, one for cognitive boredomand one for affective boredom. Reliabilities were notreported. Items in the two scales are shown in Table 3.Some of these items, such as "How do you feel about yourjob?" seem out of place in a measure intended to assessboredom rather than more global job satisfaction.

Insert Table 3 Here

Drory (1982) has done the most thorough job of measuringboredom by questionnaire. He wrote items designed to assessboredom as monotony and lack of stimulation, constraint, andtime drag. After administration to a group of 80 truckdrivers, a factor analyses was conducted. One factoraccounted for 84% of the variance, and the six items withfactor loadings over .40 were retained in the scale. Theseitems are displayed in Table 4. Drivers responded byindicating the percent of time during the drive which theyfelt as described in the item. Coefficient alphareliability for this scale was .86. The scale is somewhatspecific to the job of truck driver, and was developed on avery small sample. Clearly, there is room for additionalscale development work on the subject of boredom.

Insert Table 4 Here

There seem to be several directions in which the subjectivemeasurement of boredom could be expanded. First, it wouldbe helpful to have a reliable set of items for measuringtransient boredom--how bored a person feels right at thisinstant. A semantic differential type scale might be quiteuseful for this purpose. Second, a measure of how bored onetypically feels in a given setting such as at work would behelpful. Third, it would be useful to be able to collectratings on the boredom potential of a job, similar to theway in which the motivating potential of a job is measured.Pilot subscales might include repetitiveness and attentiondemand of the work, quantitative underload, and externalcontrol and constraints on subsidiary behavior. Fourth,measures of chronic life boredom as a relatively enduringaspect of personality could be explored. Finally, theearlier work on individual differences in susceptibility toboredom on monotonous tasks might be continued. Smith(1955) and Thompson (1929) had some success in this area.

21

More recently, Zuckerman and his collegues (Zuckerman etal., 1964; Zuckerman, 1971) have developed the SensationSeeking Scale to measure individual differences in optimalarousal level. One subscale, reliable only for males, iscalled Boredom Susceptibility. It consists of 18 forcedchoice items. Choices scored on the Boredom Susceptibilityscale are shown in Table 5.

Insert Table 5 Here

Suggestions for Research

The first step in researching boredom must be to developreliable measures. First, scales are needed for assessingthe level of boredom experienced by individuals both on andoff the job, as mentioned above. With these measures ascriteria, researchers can proceed to develop a checklist forobjectively assessing the boredom potential of situations,perhaps following the composite typology given earlier.Second, it is necessary to determine whether feelings ofboredom have any serious consequences. Do bored workershave lower quantity or quality of performance, moreabsenteeism, or a higher rate of turnover? In a militarysetting, is reported boredom both on and off duty related toperformance, sick calls, substance abuse, unauthorizedabsence, nonjudicial proceedings, or reenlistment?

If boredom does have meaningful consequences, then a morethorough study of individual and situational precursors toboredom will be needed. To the extent that boredom issituationally determined, remedies such as increased on andoff duty activites or reduced constraints might beappropriate. However, if individual differences or person Xsituation interactions are found to account for much of thevariability in boredom, then individual characteristicsmight be used for selection and placement. Specifically,individuals with a high tolerance for monotony might bechosen for repetitive tasks or assignment to remote andunstimulating locations, and interest-content match could begiven more weight in job assignment decisions.

A third possibility is that boredom may be sociallytransmitted. Recent research on perception of jobcharacterstics indicates that when co-workers and superiorsexpress opinions that a job is challenging or containsautonomy, for instance, they can influence both attitudestoward the job and perceptions of "objective" jobcharacteristics in other workers (Thomas and Griffin, 1983).Thus, jobs may come to be perceived as boring by manyworkers if just one or two initially hold and express thatopinion. In military settings, small groups (fireteams,platoons, squads) spend a great deal of time together bothon and off duty, so the possibility of attitudes being

22

influenced by others seems particularly high. Once asituation is defined as boring by an opinion leader, groupmembers may stop seeking out activities which might relievethe boredom. A study of mean differences in rated boredomand participation in on and off duty activites among smallgroups at the same base or camp (same objective environment)might prove interesting. If boredom is socially defined byco-workers, the suggested remedy would be quite differentthan if boredom is determined predominantly by the objectivesituation and/or by individual differences.

23

Alford, J. (1979). Deterrence and disuse. Armed Forces and Society,6, 247-256.

Antrobus, J.S., Coleman, R., and Singer, J.L. (1967). Signaldetection performance by subjects differing in predisposition todaydreaming. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 487-491.

Baldamus, W. (1951). Type of work and motivation. British Journal ofSociology, 2, 44-58.

Barmack, J.E. (1937). Boredom and other factors in the physiology ofmental effort: An exploratory study. Archives of Psychology, 218,1-83.

Barmack, J.E. (1938). The effect of benzidrine sulphate upon thereport of boredom and other factors. Journal of Psychology, 5,125-133.

Barmack, J.E. (1939). Studies on the psychophysiology of boredom:Part I. The effects of 15mgs of benzidrine sulphate and 5mgs ofephedrine hydrochloride on blood pressure, report on boredom, andother factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 494-505.

Bernstein, H.E. (1975). Boredom and the ready-made life. SocialResearch, 42, 512-537.

Brehm, S.S. & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theoryof freedom and control. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

Cox, D. (1970). Organization of repetitive tasks: Some shop floorexperiments recalled. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 44, 81-88.

Cox, T. (1980). Repetitive work. In C. L. Cooper and R. Payne,Current concerns in occupational stress. Chichester, Great Britain:John Wiley & Sons.

Davies, D.R. & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance.London: Academic Press.

Davies, D.R., Shackleton, V. J., and Lang, L. (1972). The effects ofcomplexity and uncertainty upon performance at a problem-solvingtask. Psychonomic Science, 27, 193-194.

Davies, D.R., Shackleton, V. J., and Parasuraman, R. (1983).Monotony and boredom. In R. Hockey(Ed.) Stress and fatigue in humanperformance. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1-32.

Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness andtask effectiveness at work. Personnel Psychology 35, 141-151.

Fenichel, 0. (1951). On the psychology of boredom. In D. Rapaport(Ed.) Organization and pathology of thought. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, p 349-361.

24

Fiske, D.W. & Maddi, S.R. (1961). Functions of varied experience.Homewood IL: Dorsey.

Geiwitz, J.P. (1966). Structure of boredom. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 3, 592-6g0.

Grubb, E.A. (1975). Assembly line boredom and individual differencesin recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 7, 256-269.

Guest, D., Williams, R., & Dewe P. (1978). Job design and thepsychology of boredom. Presented at the 19th International Congressof Applied Psychology, Munich, West Germany.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R.(1975). Development of the JobDiagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Harris, J.J. & Segal, D.R. (1985). Observations from the Sinai: Theboredom factor. Armed Forces and Society, 1, 235-248.

Hill, A.B. (1975a). Extraversion and variety-seeking in a monotonoustask. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 9-13.

Hill, A.B. (1975b). Work variety and individual differences inoccupational boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 128-131.

Jones E.E. & Nisbett, R.E. (1971). The actor and the observer:Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In J.W. Thibaut,J.T. Spence, and R.C. Carson(Eds.) Contemporary topics in socialpsychology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning press.

Kafry, D. & Pines, A. (1980). The experience of tedium in life andwork. Human Relations, 33, 477-503.

Kerr, W.A. & Keil, R.C. (1963). A theory and factory experiment onthe time-drag concept of boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47,7-9.

Kishida, K. (1977). A study of subsidiary behaviour in monotonouswork. International Journal of Production Research, 15, 609-621.

Lepper, M.R. Green D.(Eds.) (1978). The hidden costs of reward.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlaum.

Loche, E.A. & Bryan, J.F. (1967). Performance goals as determinantsof level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 120-130.

London, H., Schubert, D.S.P., & Washburn, D. (1972). Increase ofantonomic arousal by boredom. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 80,29-36.

. 0 O.J L orz

25

McBain, W.N. (1970). Arousal, monotony, and accidents in linedriving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 509-519.

McBain, W.N. (1961). Noise, the "arousal hypothesis", and monotonouswork. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 399-317.

Ornstein, R.E. (1970). On the experience of time. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Runcie, J.F. (1980). 'By days I make the cars'. Harvard BusinessReview, May-June, 106-115.

Schrank, R. (1978). How to relieve worker boredom. Psychology Today,July, 79-80.

Scott, W.E.Jr. (1966). Activation theory and task design.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 3-30.

Shaw, J.B., Fisher, C.D., & Woodman, R.W. (1983). A predictive modelof transfer adjustment in the U.S. Marine Corps. TR-ONR-l, College ofBusiness Administration, Texas A-M University.

Sims, H.P., Szilagyi, A.D., and Keller, R.T.(1976). The measurementof job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195-212.

Smith, P.C. (1953). The curve of output as a criterion of boredom.Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 69-74.

Smith, P.C. (1955). The prediction of individual differences insusceptibility to industrial monotony. Journal of Applied Psychology,39, 322-329.

Smith, R.P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23, 329-340.

Stagner, R. (1975). Boredom on the assembly line: Age and personalityvariables. International Gerontology, 2, 23-44.

Staw, B.M. (1976). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Morristown,NJ: General Learning Press.

Thackray, R.I., Bailey, J., Touchstone R.M. (1977). Physiological,subjective, and performance correlates of reported boredom andmonotony while performing a simulated radar control task. In R.R.Mackie(Ed.) Vigilance: Theory, operational performance, andphysiologial correlates. New York: Plenum.

Thackray, R.I., Jones, K.N., and Touchstone, R.M. (1973).Self-estimate of distractibility as related to performance decrementon a task requiring sustained attention. Ergonomics, 16, 144-152.

26

Thackray, R.I., Jones, K.N., & Touchstone, R.M. (1974). Personalityand physiological correlates of performance decrement on a monotonoustask requiring sustained attention. British Journal of Psychology,65, 351-358.

Thomas, J. and Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processingmodel of task design. A review of the literature. Academy ofManagement Review, 8, 672-682.

Thompson, L.A. (1929). Measuring susceptibility to monotony.

Personnel Journal, 8, 172-197.

Wyatt, S. (1929). Boredom in Industry. Personnel Journal, 8, 161-171.

Wyatt, S., Langdon, J.N., and Stock, F.G.L. (1937). Fatigue andboredom in repetitive work. IFRB Report #77. London: HMSO.

Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 45-52.

Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E.A., Price, L., & Zoob, I. (1969). Developmentof a sensation-seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28,477-482.

, .*.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... %o.*. . .*..o.

Table 1

Reactions to Non-work Boredom

Tolerate it

Leave the boring situation permanently,or take a break then resume same activity

Sleep

Turn on TV or radio

Read a book or magazine

Talk to others/Try to find others

Eat

Engage in physical activity(jog, swim, clean house)

Use drugs or alcohol

Day dream, play one-person games, write or draw

Othergo shopping, change the subject of conversation,try to get a job, sign up for a course

1Z.

Table 2

Smith's Boredom Items and Weighting Scheme

Question Answer Weight

Do you often get bored with your work? yes 1? 0no -1

Is your job too monotonous? yes 2? 0no -2

Would you like to change from one type yes 1of work to another from time to time ? 0if the pay remained the same? no -1

What time of day seems most boring to you?Any hour between 7:00am and 3:00pm 13:00pm to 4:00pm 0Any hour outside working hours 0

How well do you like the work that you do?I think that it is extremely monotonous 1I think that it is very monotonous 1I think that it is pretty monotonous 1I think that it is not very interesting 0I think that it is pretty interesting -1I think that it is very interesting -1I think that it is fascininating -1

Is there anything about the work which youparticularly dislike?

It is too monotonous 10Any other response 0

Table 3

Grubb's Job Boredom Scales

Cognitive Boredom

How monontonous is your job?

How bored--that is, disinterested in doing your job, do youusually feel?

How much does the boredom of your job bother you--that is,your disinterest in the job?

Affective Boredom

How often do you find that time seems to drag while you'reworking at your job?

When your shift is over, does it seem like no time at all toyou since the shift began, or does it seem like a very longtime?

How do you feel about your job?

How often do you find yourself wishing your job was moreinteresting or stimulating?

How often do you feel that you are just wasting yourabilities on this job?

How often do you turn yourself off while you're working at

your job?

How often do you daydream, just think, etc.?

How often are you restless--that is, uneasy, nervous,disinterested, impatient, etc.--while you're working at yourjob?

Oe X

Table 4

Drory's Boredom While Driving Scale

What percent of the time on a drive do you experience:

Feeling bored.

Feeling that I wish to do something else now.

Feeling of monotony.

Feeling that time goes very slowly.

Feeling that nothing happens.

Feeling that I wish to be at the end of the road now.

Table 5

Zuckerman's Boredom Susceptibility Items

I can't stand watching a movie that I've seen before.

Although it is sometimes necessary, I usually dislikeroutine kinds of work.

I get bored seeing the same old faces.

When you can predict almost everything a person will do andsay he or she must be a bore.

I usually don't enjoy a movie or play where I can predictwhat will happen in advance.

I would have preferred living in the unsettled days of ourhistory.

A person should change jobs from time to time simply toavoid getting into a rut.

I like to try new foods that I have never tasted before.

Looking at someone's home movie or travel slides bores metremendously.

I like to try new brands on the chance of finding somethingdifferent or better.

I find people who disagree with my beliefs more stimulatingthan people who agree with me.

I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.

I get restless if I have to stay around home for any lengthof time.

The worst social sin is to be a bore.

I wish I didn't have to waste so much of a day sleeping.

A good painting should shock or jolt the senses.

I enjoy a heated intellectual argument even if peoplesometimes get upset.

I havs no patience with dull or boring persons.

gan~ear. Personnel. and Trainina RID Proor-.

Director of Research Programs Technical DirectorOffice of Naval Research (Code 11) IPRDC (Code 01)Arlington, VA 22217-5000 San Diego, CA 92152-6800

Chairman, MPT R&D Planning Committee Director, Manpower and Personnel

Office of the Chief of Naval Research LaboratoryCode 222 UPRDC (Code 06)Arlington, VA 22217-5000 San Diego, CA 92152-6800

Life Sciences Technology Program Department of Administrative SciencesManager (Code 125) Naval Postgraduate School (Code 54a)

Office of the Chief of Naval Research Monterey, CA 93943-5100Arlinqton, VA 22217-5000

Defense Technical Information Center Program DirectorDTIC/DDA-2 Manpower Research & Advisory ServicesCameron Station, Building 5 Smithsonian InstituitionAlexandria, VA 22314 801 North Pitt Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Science and Technology Division Staff Specialist for TrainingLibrary of Congress and Personnel Systems TechnologyWashington, DC 20540 Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Research and Engineering3D129, The Pentagon

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Washington, DC 20301-3080the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

5D800? The PentagonWashington, DC 20350-1000

Team Head, Manpower, Personnel, and Technical DirectorTraining Section U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Office of the CNO (Op-914D) Behavioral and Social Sciences4A578, The Pentagon 5001 Eisenhower AvenueWashington, DC 20350-1000 Alexandria, VA 22333

Assistant for Research, Development Dr. Benjamin Schneiderand Studies Department of Psychology

Office of the DNCO(MPT) (Op-01B7) University of MarylandDepartment of the Navy College Park, MD 20742Washington, DC 20370

Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps Dr. Albert S. Glickman

Code WPI-20 Department of PsychologyWashington, DC 20380 Old Dominion University

Norfolk, VA 23508Head, Leadership & Command

Effectiveness Branch (N-62F) Prof. Bernard M. Bass

Naval Military Personnel Command School of ManagementDepartment of the Navy University Center at BinghamtonWashington, DC 20370-5620 State U. of New York

Binghamton, NY 13901

Head, Human Factors LaboratoryNaval Training Systems Center (Code 71) LibraryOrlando, FL 32813-7100 Naval War College

Newport, RI 02940

Page 2Manymowr. Personnel. and Training R&D Proaran

Lt. Col. L*5 Petty Col. HetorMUCK WMPEHeaduarters, USC Headquarters, USUCWashinaton, DC 20380 Washingbon, DC 20390