Does state boredom cause failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention

Hunter, Andrew; Eastwood, John D.

doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4749-7

Cited by 112 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the No-cues group retrospectively reported a higher level of boredom experienced during the task compared to the Verbal-cues group, but no significant differences in the level of concentration. Whereas empirical work on the association between attention and boredom has largely focused on boredom proneness or trait boredom (e.g., Carriere, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2008;Cheyne, Carriere, & Smilek, 2006;Hunter & Eastwood, 2016;Isacescu, Struk, & Danckert, 2016), the few studies which investigated state boredom reported a positive association with poor sustained attention and mind wandering (Carriere et al, 2008;Hunter & Eastwood, 2016). However, the precise nature of this association has yet to be clarified and specifically the connection between state boredom and mind wandering both assessed "on-line" (during the task) deserves future investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating cues in mind wandering: Verbal cues affect the frequency and the temporal focus of mind wandering

Vannucci

Pelagatti

Marchetti³

2017

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of mind wandering (MW) has dramatically increased over the past decade. A key challenge still facing research is the identification of the processes and events that directly cause and control its occurrence. In the present study we sought to shed light on this question, by investigating the effects of verbal cues on the frequency and temporal focus of MW. To this aim, we experimentally manipulated the presence of irrelevant verbal cues during a vigilance task, in two independent groups (Verbal-cues group vs. No-cues group).We found that compared to the No-cues group, the Verbal-cues group reported a higher amount of MW, mostly triggered by the irrelevant cue-words, and a higher proportion of past-oriented MW compared to the other temporal orientations. These results demonstrate that task-irrelevant verbal stimulation increases the frequency of MW and steers its temporal orientation toward the past. Implications for the research on MW are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating cues in mind wandering: Verbal cues affect the frequency and the temporal focus of mind wandering

Vannucci

Pelagatti

Marchetti³

2017

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Classic theories of boredom focus on its roots in insufficient external stimulation in the environment. Examples include simple, repetitive tasks that require little to no thought or attention (Cox, 1980;Markey, Chin, Vanepps, & Loewenstein, 2014) and vigilance tasks that require constant attention but little variety (Hunter & Eastwood, 2016;Markey et al, 2014;Thackray et al, 1977). Posner et al (2005) define boredom as low arousal caused by insufficient external stimulation, and van Tilburg and Igou (2016a) argue that low arousal is one of the key components that differentiates boredom from related emotions.…”

Section: Environmental Theories Of Boredommentioning

confidence: 99%

Boring Thoughts and Bored Minds: The MAC Model of Boredom and Cognitive Engagement

Westgate¹

2017

Preprint

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is boredom? We review environmental, attentional, and functional theories and present a new model that describes boredom as an affective indicator of unsuccessful attentional engagement in valued goal-congruent activity. According to the Meaning and Attentional Components (MAC) model, boredom is the result of (a) an attentional component, namely mismatches between cognitive demands and available mental resources, and (b) a meaning component, namely mismatches between activities and valued goals (or the absence of valued goals altogether). We present empirical support for four novel predictions made by the model:(1) Deficits in attention and meaning each produce boredom independently of the other; (2) there are different profiles of boredom that result from specific deficits in attention and meaning; (3) boredom results from two types of attentional deficits, understimulation and overstimulation; and(4) the model explains not only when and why people become bored with external activities, but also when and why people become bored with their own thoughts. We discuss further implications of the model, such as when boredom motivates people to seek interesting versus enjoyable activities.

show abstract

“…People who report high levels of boredom propensity have an avoidant disposition. For example these individuals are more likely to experience depression and anxiety (Chin, Markey, Bhargava, Kassam, & Loewenstein, 2017;Hunter & Eastwood, 2018;Mercer-Lynn, Flora, Fahlman, & Eastwood, 2011;Spaeth, Weichold, & Silbereisen, 2015). Boredom susceptibility reflects aversion to lack of novelty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Over and over again: Changes in frontal EEG asymmetry across a boring task

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boredom is an aversive emotional state. People high in trait boredom are less able to effectively cope with and resolve boredom than people low in trait boredom. Trait boredom is characterized by proneness and susceptibility, which are associated with avoidance and approach behavioral dispositions, respectively. Baseline frontal EEG asymmetry (FEA) has been treated as a trait level neural correlate of approach and avoidance motivational styles. Online processes by which people effectively cope with and resolve state boredom may involve an approach motivation to create stimulation. Evidence indicates that FEA reflects an active approach or avoidance motivation. This study tested the prediction that proneness and susceptibility would be related to relative less and greater left frontal activity during baseline, respectively, and lower levels of trait boredom would be associated with a leftward shift frontal activity as situationally induced boredom ensued. Young adults (N = 54) completed trait boredom scales, baseline EEG, and a boring task. Results showed that people low in trait boredom exhibited a leftward shift in frontal activity over the course of the boring task. No relations between trait boredom and baseline FEA were observed. The results are consistent with the possibility that approach motivation is involved in coping with and resolving boredom. FEA has been characterized at trait and state levels. Our results provide a new view of FEA as a signature of dynamic online emotion regulatory processes. The implications from linking boredom and FEA for understanding the mechanisms of boredom resolution and meaning of FEA are discussed.

show abstract

Does state boredom cause failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention

Cited by 112 publications

References 59 publications

Manipulating cues in mind wandering: Verbal cues affect the frequency and the temporal focus of mind wandering

Manipulating cues in mind wandering: Verbal cues affect the frequency and the temporal focus of mind wandering

Boring Thoughts and Bored Minds: The MAC Model of Boredom and Cognitive Engagement

Over and over again: Changes in frontal EEG asymmetry across a boring task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About