Boredom Research Paper

This sample Boredom Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Free research papers are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a high quality research paper on any topic at affordable price please use custom research paper writing services.

Abstract

Boredom is an unpleasant, short-lived, affective state in which a person feels a pervasive lack of interest in, and difficulty attending to, a task or activity. Despite the absence of a single model or theory to explain boredom at work, research has made some progress on identifying its causes and a wide range of interventions to prevent or alleviate its occurrence.

Outline

Introduction
Definition of Boredom
Models of Boredom
Measuring Boredom
Causes and Correlates of Boredom
Consequences of Boredom at Work
Prevention and Alleviation of Boredom
Conclusion

1. Introduction

Interest in boredom at work can be traced to the early 1900s. In 1913, Munsterberg, the father of applied psychology, identified boredom as a valuable area of inquiry in the workplace. The first scientific study, ‘‘The Physical and Mental Effects of Monotony in Modern Industry,’’ was conducted more than a decade later by Davies in 1926. Since these early studies, the research on boredom has been sporadic and fragmented, resulting in a nascent understanding of a construct that is thought to have significant performance outcomes and personal consequences for employers and employees. Smith’s 1981 research paper succinctly summarizes the then—and current—state of research on boredom at work: ‘‘The amount of research devoted to the topic of boredom by psychologists and psychiatrists is astonishingly small when compared to literary treatments and to the acknowledged importance of [boredom at work]’’ (p. 338). Although the focus of this research paper is on boredom at work, it is important to recognize that other areas of applied psychology have also investigated the causes and consequences of boredom, including education, occupational health, ergonomics, military psychology, mental health, and interpersonal relationships.

In fact, the recent research on boredom has not been conducted in the domain of work. Much of the recent work has been in the areas of clinical psychology and personality.

2. Definition Of Boredom

A single clear definition of boredom has been elusive. Boredom has often been used interchangeably with other related but not identical constructs (monotony, repetitiveness, ennui, and tedium) or its observed or hypothesized phenomenological correlates (fatigue, irritation, depression, dissatisfaction, hopelessness, and stress). Others have approached boredom by focusing on methods of alleviating boredom: novelty, interest, complexity, curiosity, enrichment, and ‘‘flow’’ (i.e., experiences in which people are highly engaged, focused, and able to do well). Progress has been made toward a single definition of boredom, complicated by the fact that differing models or theories of boredom (e.g., psychological, psychophysiological, and motivational) necessarily affect its definition. Commonalities across definitions lead to the working definition of boredom used here, as proposed by Fisher in 1993: ‘‘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.’’ By definition, boredom is viewed as a negative reaction in response to a personal assessment of a work situation that is more short-lived than attitudes such as job satisfaction. The relation of boredom to other affective constructs in a larger nomological net has been acknowledged. In the framework provided by the ‘‘affect circumplex,’’ ‘‘boredom’’ is located on the negative ends of the orthogonal dimensions of pleasantness and activation, along with ‘‘tired’’ and ‘‘drowsy.’’

3. Models Of Boredom

Despite 90 years of investigation, there is no single, agreed upon model of boredom at work. Smith’s 1981 research provides a good historical overview of the development of boredom at work, including some models of the causes and consequences of boredom: conflict models, psychoanalytic models, signal detection models, cognitive models, and drive models. Four models serve here as exemplars of the existing approaches to the understanding of boredom at work: the psychodynamic model, the cultural normative model, the psychophysical model, and the cognitive– affect model.

3.1. Psychodynamic Model

Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic approach to the understanding of underlying psychological forces has been applied to explain boredom at work. Boredom at work is thought to reflect an inability to identify and ascribe emotional meaning to one’s work. In this view, workers avoid or deny finding meaning in their work because they expect that individual work is not meant or designed to provide personal meaning. The meaninglessness of their work is experienced as boredom, which may be hidden from awareness and understanding through repression, denial, and defense mechanisms, resulting in tension (between what a person wants and what a person gets from work) that manifests itself in psychosomatic complaints, pathology, and so forth.

3.2. Cultural Normative Model

This model proposes that prior socialization makes employees highly dependent on authority figures to ascribe meaning to their work. Workplace norms develop that lead workers to accept without question boredom at work. In this workplace, boredom is denied and suppressed. Individual workers are not free to share or discuss their perceptions or emotions due to these normative pressures. Instead, they are relegated to chronically boring and meaningless jobs.

3.3. Psychophysical Model

The psychophysical model of boredom at work holds that the human nervous system is an active searcher, rather than a passive recipient, of environmental stimulation. Boredom results from exposure to monotonous or repetitious sensory stimulation. Habituation or reduced arousal to the task will result unless the worker voluntarily exerts additional attention and effort to the task. This increased overall arousal offsets the declining sensory stimulation provided by the monotonous task while maintaining a level of arousal adequate to satisfactorily perform the task. Overall, a psychophysical model suggests that if individuals cannot compensate for inadequate arousal from a task by increasing their level of effort, boredom will result.

3.4. Cognitive–Affect Model

The cognitive–affect model proposed by Hill and Perkins in 1985 posits that boredom is a psychological (as opposed to psychophysical) phenomenon. If the sensory stimulation from work fails to meet the needs or expectations of the individual employee, and the employee is unable to supplement the task through additional or alternative stimulation, frustration (negative affect) will result, leading to the overall experience of boredom. In this model, it is the subjective interpretation of the cognitive components of the task that is critical, rather than the actual sensory stimulation. If the task is perceived as monotonous and unable to meet the instrumental needs of the employee engaged in the task, it will lead to an affective disturbance and the experience of boredom.

4. Measuring Boredom

Early assessments of boredom in the workplace were based primarily on the observation of workers, unstructured self-reports, or the inference of boredom based on patterns of responses to related items on structured surveys. For instance, early studies used subjective perceptions of output as a criterion of boredom. In this method, employees indicate the time of the day in which they think they work better and have higher production rates while also indicating when they felt bored. Studies of production workers found higher levels of boredom in the morning and attributed the increased effort and interest as the day progressed to the impending goal of reaching the end of the workday. This pattern of findings supports Wyatt’s 1929 rich metaphor for boredom at work—a long hike:

When activities provide little or no interest, the prospects are depressing and discouraging, and the effect seems to bear some relation to the magnitude of the task to be accomplished. To a person who dislikes walking, the prospects of a 20-mile tramp over uninteresting country may be almost painful, and although he starts with a certain amount of forced effort and enthusiasm, this soon disappears and leaves him in a darkened mood. At this stage the magnitude of the task may be appalling, but as the time for lunch and rest draws near interest is awakened and depression recedes. The distance still to be traversed now shrinks considerably, and bears little resemblance to the endless trail conceived a few hours before. A new swing and liveliness characterize (sic) his step as he again takes to the road, and although these may diminish after a few more miles, they reappear with increased intensity as he enters the lap which separates him from his goal. (p. 162)

Several researchers sought an objective index of boredom in the curve of piece-rate output. This curve is a plot of the total number of pieces completed for some fixed period of time (e.g., 1 h intervals) throughout the day. Work output showed U-shaped curves with a sag in the middle of the morning and again in the middle of the afternoon. The declines in performance were attributed to slower rates of performance when machine operators were bored, with higher rates at the beginning of work and in anticipation of the end of the workday. However, when researchers actually observed and timed workers, the drop in production proved to represent voluntary rest pauses, including rest room and smoking breaks, which may be needed or scheduled at predictable times throughout the workday. Output rate was not slower when the operators were actually working at their machines. Overall, although the hiking metaphor may explain what is happening psychologically, observations of workers that experimentally control for employees who leave their workstations (e.g., a smoking break) do not necessarily support this assumed pattern of motivation and performance.

Following the era in which boredom in the workplace was measured through unstructured employee self-reports of boredom or objective measures of work output over time, a number of self-report rating instruments have been developed. For example, Lee’s 1986 Job Boredom Scale measures boredom through employee responses to 17 items concerning satisfaction, interest, and connectedness to the job. Measures also exist that assess workers’ susceptibility or proneness to experience boredom. The most common measures are Farmer and Sundberg’s 1986

Boredom Proneness Scale and Zuckerman, Eysenck, and Eysenck’s 1978 Sensation Seeking Scale (e.g., measuring aversion to repetition and dull people). Unfortunately, there is no single source reference that provides descriptions and psychometric evaluations (e.g., does the instrument measure boredom at work in a consistent and conceptually appropriate manner?) of available measures. College and university research libraries and Internet search engines may be the best sources for finding well-constructed measures for predicting or assessing boredom at work.

5. Causes And Correlates Of Boredom

Despite the absence of a single unified model or theory to explain boredom at work, the state of research has progressed on identifying its causes. The hypothesized causes of boredom can be grouped into three general categories: the task, the work environment, and the person.

5.1. Task as a Cause of Boredom

The traditional view of boredom at work assumes that boredom resides in the task itself. Specifically, tasks that provide low stimulation (i.e., are repetitive and monotonous) have been thought to result in boredom. Fisher’s 1993 research paper offers a conceptual framework of work tasks that may lead to boredom: quantitative underload (jobs that provide the worker with nothing to do or jobs with a high degree of workload variability, e.g., periods of inactivity after high levels of activity), qualitative underload (jobs that are simple, repetitive, limited in mental demand, unchallenging, or do not use the individual’s skills), and qualitative overload (jobs that are too challenging, difficult, or incomprehensible).

5.2. Work Environment as a Cause of Boredom

The work environment may be seen as a lens through which feelings of boredom are reduced or intensified. The mere presence of coworkers can enhance arousal directly through conversation or interdependent work. However, dull, unhappy, or uncommunicative colleagues may actually contribute to feelings of boredom. From a social influence perspective, fellow employees may magnify or reduce boredom through statements or actions that make work seem challenging and interesting or boring and repetitive. Organizational policies and practices may also contribute to the presence or absence of boredom. Rules that prohibit talking, limit work breaks, or prescribe precise work procedure may be so constraining as to induce feelings of boredom.

5.3. Person as a Cause of Boredom

Individual differences among employees may also contribute directly to boredom at work. Research suggests that males tend to be more prone to boredom than females, particularly when there is a perceived lack of stimulation. However, this gender finding may be culture specific. Individuals with high cognitive ability or capacity may be more likely to experience boredom on tasks that underutilize their abilities. Conversely, the more intelligent worker may perceive work differently and find a higher degree of variety in a seemingly homogeneous and repetitive task. Personality differences may also contribute to feelings of boredom. Extraverted people may require more stimulation to keep them aroused and engaged at work. The expectations and alternatives available to the person may also affect the perception of interest versus boredom. If a job is the only available job without the hope of other prospects, it may be perceived as less boring. The psychiatric literature has also identified pathologically bored individuals who are unable to perceive the stimulation inherent in work activities or are unable to focus their attention at work as do their better adjusted colleagues.

It is also probable that the task, environment, or person characteristics that cause feelings of boredom interact to accentuate or attenuate these feelings. For example, an employee with limited cognitive capacity performing a challenging and demanding task (i.e., qualitative overload) may experience strong feelings of boredom, whereas an employee with a greater intellectual capacity would not. Conversely, the high capacity employee may feel more bored on a simpler task (i.e., qualitative underload) than would a person of more limited capacity. As another example, employees who do not perceive any value or instrumentality in their participation at work are likely to feel more bored regardless of whether their work tasks are repetitive or challenging. Finally, individuals who have more complex approaches to the world (i.e., high in schema complexity) may be able to perceive more nuances and details in their work, making them more engaging and less boring. They also may be more likely to engage in goal setting, enhancing the meaning and motivation from their work. Overall, the causes of boredom are likely to be a combination of the direct and interactive impact of task, environment, and person characteristics.

6. Consequences Of Boredom At Work

Boredom at work has negative consequences for workers, their organizations, and society as a whole. Research suggests that the predicted or demonstrated effects of boredom for individual employees include work stress, job dissatisfaction, physical and mental health problems, workplace hostility, increased risk taking or thrill seeking, horseplay and sabotage, alcohol and drug problems, absenteeism, work-related injuries among adolescent employees, and poor performance. There is also evidence that boredom leads to the perception that time passes more slowly, although individuals’ objective estimates of time passed seemed to be unaffected by high levels of boredom. The consequences of boredom for businesses and organizations include higher employment costs (due to employee turnover, absences, and health care costs), performance problems (work quality and work quantity), and reduced organizational effectiveness (including profitability). Finally, boredom at work may also have consequences for society as a whole, including lost productivity, reduced quality of work life, and reduced consumer safety. Numerous studies of vigilance—the ability to maintain attention and respond to stimuli over an extended period of time—reveal that an observer’s ability to detect critical signals declines over time. This may be exhibited by a reduction in accuracy or increased response time. High levels of boredom experienced in vigilance tasks have been associated with stress and potentially more serious outcomes. Especially disconcerting is the case of a commercial airliner that overflew its destination by more than 100 miles before the sleeping flight crew was awakened by air traffic controllers. Clearly, boredom at work has significant consequences.

7. Prevention And Alleviation Of Boredom

Repetitive assembly, continuous manual control, and inspection and monitoring tasks may be most likely to lead to boredom at work. A wide range of interventions have been suggested to prevent or alleviate boredom at work. One would suspect that the intervention would be most effective if it corresponded to the cause of boredom (e.g., if boredom is caused by the task, the intervention should also focus on changing the task or the perception of the task). Consistent with the framework for categorizing the causes of boredom at work, interventions to prevent or alleviate workplace boredom are therefore organized around the task, the work environment, and the person.

7.1. Task Interventions to Prevent and/or Alleviate Boredom at Work

Although some work tasks may be inherently boring, interventions have been identified that can help minimize boredom on even these tasks. One category of intervention is to design work that is stimulating and psychologically rewarding rather than monotonous and fractionated. Morgeson and Campion described a number of conceptual models for redesigning work to reduce the effects of stressors such as workload and repetitive work. Such interventions can be focused on the motivational aspect of the task (e.g., job enrichment to enhance task meaningfulness) or a reduction in exposure to the stressor that induces boredom or its effects (e.g., ergonomic changes in the work environment to reduce the effects of repetitive work).

In addition, for repetitive tasks, grouping output into recognizable ‘‘lots’’ or batches and providing a system for tracking the number of lots completed may be a useful intervention. Job rotation, or changing work assignments throughout the day, may help employees stay alert and challenged at work. Finally, the use of performance goals (either self-set goals or the acceptance of company-set goals) and feedback on goal success can help prevent or alleviate boredom at work.

7.2. Work Environment Interventions to Prevent and/or Alleviate Boredom at Work

Employee selection and placement systems are an underused means for preventing boredom. Matching individuals to particular jobs may be particularly effective given differences in individual perceptions and reactions to different work tasks. The use of performance-based reward systems, including piece rate payment systems, may also create an incentive that increases employee effort and may prevent or reduce boredom for those who are prone to boredom. However, workers with a low proneness to boredom may benefit from jobs and work environments that emphasize intrinsic rewards such as job enrichment. Companies can also provide rest periods, which have been found to neutralize the unpleasant and unfavorable effects of repeated activity. Providing work that is employee paced rather than externally paced (e.g., a conveyor system) can allow the employees either individually or as a group to adapt their workload to cyclical levels of attention and effort throughout the day. Communicating the importance of the employee’s work contribution to the overall effectiveness of the work unit or company can increase interest in and attention to work. Finally, designing the workplace so that it allows for conversations and social interactions among employees can help prevent or alleviate boredom at work.

7.3. Person Interventions to Prevent and/or Alleviate Boredom at Work

Employees can take steps to reduce boredom at work. Fisher’s 1998 research paper demonstrated that brief interruptions by both internal (e.g., mind wandering) and external (e.g., mobile phones and e-mail) sources may alleviate boredom, depending on the level of attention required to perform the task. In terms of internal mechanisms, forcing oneself to refocus attention or effort on the task can help minimize boredom, particularly at the outset of unstimulating tasks or in constraining work environments. Employees can also seek additional stimulation in an unstimulating work environment by playing mental games, assisting coworkers, and so forth. For well-learned repetitive tasks, employees might use daydreams to escape a tedious and monotonous task. Individual employees may also cope with boredom by learning to integrate their rhythm with that of machines, allowing them to accomplish their tasks through more automatic attentional processes. External interruptions have also been found to reduce boredom on simple low-attention tasks, perhaps by providing variety and additional stimulation to a monotonous work environment. However, such interruptions may be problematic in other situations or for other outcomes.

8. Conclusion

Given the individual, organizational, and societal consequences of boredom at work, it is surprising that more attention and effort have not been devoted to theory development, psychological measurement, and scientific investigation. The available research, spanning 90 years of work by practitioners and scientists, has provided a good foundation for expanding our knowledge and understanding of boredom at work. How will current and future changes in the workplace affect boredom at work? The growing use of robots and computers to complete repetitive and monotonous tasks could potentially reduce boredom at work. The migration of simple manufacturing and assembly jobs to other countries may, on average, reduce the level of boredom in the U.S. workplace—if replacement jobs offer more stimulating tasks or work environments. Changes in the workplace that enhance workers’ control over their jobs (i.e., meaningful assignments, goal setting, and feedback) and meet their social needs at work may reduce the level of boredom for future employees. Additional research is needed to ensure the prevention and treatment of boredom in today’s workplace and the changing workplace of the future.

References:

Davies, A. H. (1926). The physical and mental effect of monotony in modern industry. British Medical Journal, 2, 472–479.
Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417.
Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal disruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522.
Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). The meaning of boredom in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 17(4), 358–369.
Hill, A. B., & Perkins, R. E. (1985). Towards a model of boredom. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 235–240.
Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callender, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 317–327.
Lee, T. W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom. Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 22–28.
O’Hanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologia, 49, 53–82.
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 423–452.
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23(3), 329–340.
Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2000). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to psychological and physical-health symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 149–155.
Wyatt, S. (1929). Boredom in industry. Personnel Journal, 8(3), 161–171.
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139–149.