Personnel Review

Workplace boredom coping: health, safety, and HR implications

Annilee M. Game
Article information:
To cite this document:
Annilee M. Game, (2007),"Workplace boredom coping: health, safety, and HR implications", Personnel
Review, Vol. 36 Iss 5 pp. 701 - 721
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710774007
Downloaded on: 27 April 2015, At: 06:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4309 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mark Skowronski, (2012),"When the bored behave badly (or exceptionally)", Personnel Review, Vol. 41 Iss
2 pp. 143-159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481211200006
John W. Whiteoak, (2014),"Predicting boredom-coping at work", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 5 pp.
741-763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2012-0161
Hassan Ali, Nor Azimah Chew Abdullah, Chandrakantan Subramaniam, (2009),"Management practice in
safety culture and its influence on workplace injury: An industrial study in Malaysia", Disaster Prevention
and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 470-477

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Workplace
Workplace boredom coping: boredom coping
health, safety, and HR
implications
701
Annilee M. Game
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Received May 2005
Revised March 2006
Accepted June 2006
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how people cope with boredom at work, and
whether differences in “boredom coping” effectiveness are associated with differences in employee
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

well-being, and safety behaviour.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors used two methods to gather information for this
paper. Employees in a chemical processing organisation (n ¼ 212) completed a survey of individual
boredom coping levels, self-reported safety compliance, and a range of well-being variables. Also,
critical incident interviews with a sub-sample of survey respondents (n ¼ 16) elicited strategies that
employees use to cope with boredom at work.
Findings – High boredom-copers reported better well-being and greater compliance with
organisational safety rules compared with low boredom-copers. Relative to low boredom-copers,
high boredom-copers tended to cope with boredom in ways that were more functional for themselves
and the organisation.
Research limitations/implications – Because the research was exploratory and cross-sectional
conclusions are necessarily tentative. However, the findings add to the scant body of knowledge about
workplace boredom and serve as a useful guide to future research.
Practical implications – This approach offers new insights into how the negative effects of
boredom might be managed in future, both individually and organisationally. Training in boredom
coping skills, in conjunction with job redesign initiatives, may help to reduce the frequency and impact
of boredom at work.
Originality/value – Boredom at work is an important yet neglected area of human resource
management research. The present study is the first to examine the construct of “boredom coping” at
work and to demonstrate a potential link between differences in boredom coping tendency and
employee health and safety outcomes.
Keywords Boredom, Health and safety, Workplace, Job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Boredom at work is widespread, being experienced at least some of the time, by most
employees, at all occupational levels (Fisher, 1993; Guest et al., 1978; Keichell, 1984).
Moreover, boredom has been linked to many negative outcomes for individuals and
organisations (Fisher, 1993). Unfortunately, although there is growing recognition of
the importance of emotions generally in the workplace (Ashkanasy et al., 2002), the
study of boredom at work remains as neglected today as Fisher (1993) noted over a
decade ago. Traditional theories of job enrichment and job redesign (e.g. Hackman and
Oldham, 1976, 1980; Herzberg, 1966) suggest that by changing the nature of a job, Personnel Review
Vol. 36 No. 5, 2007
particularly intrinsic characteristics such as variety and skill utilisation, employees pp. 701-721
will experience greater interest and satisfaction. However, so little is known about the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
nature and causes of boredom that job design alone should not be considered a panacea DOI 10.1108/00483480710774007
 PR (Shackleton, 1981). Research on “boredom coping” may offer a complementary
36,5 solution. While everyone experiences boredom at least occasionally, some are better at
coping with it than others (Hamilton et al., 1984). By understanding how different
employees counteract or prevent feelings of boredom at work it may be possible to
tailor job enrichment and training interventions for individuals who cope less
effectively. This may be especially useful for employees with jobs in which some
702 monotony (a key risk factor for boredom) is unavoidable. As a preliminary step
towards understanding boredom coping, the present study focuses on how individuals
cope with boredom at work, and the links between boredom coping and individual
well-being and safety behaviour.

The nature of boredom at work

As with emotions in general, boredom has so far eluded precise construct definition,
and this may be a key factor in the paucity of research on boredom. Nevertheless, it is
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

possible to characterise boredom based on the findings of existing empirical research.

Many researchers consider arousal as a core mechanism underlying the experience of
boredom (Shackleton, 1981). Studies using physiological measures of arousal (e.g.
blood pressure, galvanic skin response) have produced conflicting results (e.g. Bailey
et al., 1976; London et al., 1972). However, research using mood adjective descriptors of
self-report arousal indicates more consistently that boredom is related to low
(subjective) arousal (e.g. Russell, 1980; Warr, 1987, 1990). Other research has shown
that boredom is associated with subjective perception of the slower passage of time
(Ornstein, 1970; London and Monell, 1974). Additionally, attentional difficulties – such
that to continue with the task requires extra cognitive effort - are demonstrably central
to the experience of boredom (Damrad-Frye and Laird, 1989; Fisher, 1998). Notably, the
everyday experience of “normal” boredom (in contrast to chronic/pathological
boredom, Fenichel, 1951), involves a generally short-lived lack of interest that is
usually alleviated by a change of situation (O’Hanlon, 1981). This paper adopts a
working definition offered by Fisher (1993, p. 396) that incorporates these elements.
Thus, boredom is: “an unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels
a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on the current activity”. A
conceptual distinction to note is that boredom – an individual’s affective reaction to
job conditions – differs from monotony, which is a property of the task or job
characterised by sustained lack of variety, or repetitiveness.

Correlates of boredom at work

To date, there is no comprehensive theory of boredom per se, let alone feelings of
boredom experienced at work (Fisher, 1993). Instead, research has focused on
identifying a range of individual and work-related variables that are associated with
boredom (Shackleton, 1981). Research investigating the individual level correlates of
boredom has focused on demographic and personality factors. This research shows
that not all individuals are equally likely to experience boredom in a given situation.
Boredom may be moderated by differences in age, gender, intelligence, and tenure
(Drory, 1982; Hill, 1975a; Stagner, 1975). Specifically, the profile of the more easily
bored employee depicts a younger, intelligent male, with relatively high tenure. In
addition, a robust finding is that extroverts also have a lower threshold for boredom
(O’Hanlon, 1981). Finally, individuals who score highly on measures of Boredom
 Susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1971, 1979) and Boredom Proneness (Farmer and Workplace
Sundberg, 1986) tend to experience greater boredom across a range of work and boredom coping
leisure situations (Ahmed, 1990; Farmer and Sundberg, 1986; Zuckerman, 1971).
It was traditionally assumed that monotonous or repetitive tasks automatically led
to boredom (Hill and Perkins, 1985). However, not everyone employed in monotonous
jobs experiences boredom (Shackleton, 1981). This suggests that it is the perception of
monotony as opposed to objective monotony that influences individuals’ boredom 703
reactions (Hill and Perkins, 1985; Shackleton, 1981). This is not to suggest that
objective task monotony is irrelevant in designing out boredom. Research and theory
on emotions more broadly indicates that objective conditions increase the likelihood
that a situation will be perceived in a particular way, but it is the individual’s own
interpretation of the situation that determines their affective reaction (e.g. Frijda, 1988;
Lazarus, 1991a; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Thus, characteristics of both person and
situation are important. In a similar vein, other task-related boredom research indicates
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

that boredom often arises from perceived or actual constraints on behaviour –

constraints that may be imposed by organisational rules, and role expectations or by
an individual’s sense of duty (Fenichel, 1951; Fisher, 1993; Iso-Ahola and Weissinger,
1990).
The effects of boredom at work have been investigated in relation to job
satisfaction, psychological and physical well-being, performance, and safety. The
majority of studies are decades old, reflecting the general lack of interest shown in the
topic by contemporary organisational researchers. Indeed, most existing studies have
tended to be conducted in the human factors field, focusing on real, or simulated,
monotonous industrial tasks that are assumed to inherently induce boredom
(O’Hanlon, 1981). However, Caplan et al. (1975) conducted a large-scale survey across
23 diverse occupational groups. They found that, across the sample, boredom was
strongly and positively correlated with job dissatisfaction. Thus, boredom and its
effects are not simply limited to employees in archetypal production line jobs.
The extent to which boredom is a stressor per se has been a matter of some debate
(Thackray, 1981). Nevertheless, with regards psychological health, boredom at work
has been associated with employee self-reports of greater anxiety, depression, and
neuroticism (Caplan et al., 1975; Kornhauser, 1965). In terms of physical health, there is
evidence that individuals working in monotonous, repetitive jobs (so presumably more
likely to experience boredom) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and
other stress-related health problems (Fisher, 1993). Colligan (1979) studied reports of
mass psychogenic illness in organisations and concluded that such illness appeared to
be induced by stress or anxiety arising from boredom, as well as production pressures
and formal organisational structures. Taken together, the evidence suggests that
boredom is associated with poorer individual well-being at both the affective and
physiological levels. However, on the basis of correlational evidence alone it is not
possible to conclude that boredom is a workplace stressor, as some argue (e.g.
O’Hanlon, 1981).
Research investigating the impact of boredom on task performance has generally
found evidence of reduced efficiency and perceptual, cognitive, and motor impairment
(O’Hanlon, 1981). More specifically, Hopkin (1990) noted that boredom does not
diminish overall performance levels, but performance may become increasingly varied
if boredom persists. For example, Stave (1977) found that the average performance of
 PR pilots who reported boredom while using a helicopter simulator did not worsen with
36,5 time on task. However, bored individuals reported increasing fatigue and displayed a
corresponding increase in the number of lapses or moments of transient inattention
that occurred. Such lapses have clear implications for both individual and
organisational safety, being associated with increased incidence of injuries and
accidents in industrial settings (Branton, 1970; Cox, 1980; Drory, 1982). Boredom at
704 work can also lead to complacency with the task and environment, and subsequently a
reduction in an individual’s capacity to respond effectively to novel events or
information (Dyer-Smith and Wesson, 1995). In extreme cases bored individuals may
simply fall asleep on-task (Grose, 1989). This is clearly highly undesirable, particularly
in safety critical industries (e.g. aviation and nuclear energy) or continuous process
industries (e.g. chemical processing and steel manufacturing) where the most
important jobs are also often associated with boredom (Hopkin, 1990).
To summarise, existing research suggests that boredom at work is prevalent. The
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

experience of boredom is associated with altered time-perception, attentional

difficulties, and self-reports of low arousal. Boredom may occur in response to both
perceived or actual monotony, and constraint; and certain demographic and
personality factors may predispose some individuals to experience boredom more
readily. The evidence also suggests that boredom may have adverse consequences for
both individuals and organisations.

Boredom coping
Boredom coping in the present study reflects an individual’s stable preferences for
adopting more or less effective coping strategies when boredom is encountered at
work. More specifically, boredom coping as a psychological construct was first
described in the personality literature by Hamilton et al. (1984), but appears to have
received little or no further research attention since then. Hamilton et al. (1984, p. 183)
defined boredom coping as, “one’s disposition to restructure one’s perceptions and
participation in potentially boring activities so as to decrease boredom (and/or to
maximise the opportunities for intrinsic enjoyment).” Hamilton et al. (1984) posited that
the mechanism underlying individual differences in boredom coping is attentional
capacity. The ability to actively control and focus attention is thought to be the key to
enabling cognitive and behavioural restructuring, and thereby transformation (either
actually or perceptually) of a potentially boring situation. This emphasis on the role of
attention and perception in boredom coping is consistent with the literature reviewed
earlier showing that boredom is associated with attentional difficulties, and its
occurrence often depends on individual perception, as opposed to objective reality.
Preliminary investigations by Hamilton et al. (1984) found reliable individual
differences on a measure designed to assess tendency towards constructive boredom
coping. Validation research conducted with the measure showed that individuals with
high boredom coping scores performed better on a sustained attention task, compared
with individuals scoring low on the boredom coping measure. Hamilton et al. also
found that boredom coping was not significantly correlated with a measure of boredom
susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1979). Therefore, although some individuals may tend to
experience boredom quite readily, (i.e. have a low boredom threshold), they may (or
may not) also be predisposed towards recognising the potential boredom in a situation,
and implementing strategies to alleviate it.
 To the best of the author’s knowledge, there has been no further research based on Workplace
Hamilton et al.’s work (1984). In particular, individual differences in boredom coping boredom coping
have not been systematically investigated in the workplace using Hamilton et al.’s
framework. However, a limited amount of mostly qualitative research has examined
the behavioural strategies that individuals engage in when they attempt to deal with
boredom at work. Fisher (1987) asked respondents from a range of occupations to
provide written narratives concerning how they dealt with being bored at work. Many 705
adopted non-work coping strategies such as letter writing or reading. Others sought
greater involvement in the job by asking for extra work or training, helping others, or
finding additional tasks to do on their own initiative. McBain (1970) observed that long
distance lorry drivers reduced boredom by introducing variety into an otherwise
monotonous job. A range of strategies was employed, including playing private games
such as spotlighting deer at the roadside, observing and commenting on other road
users’ driving skills, and detecting recent changes along their accustomed route.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

Runcie (1980) spent five months as a participant observer studying how car assembly
workers adapt to the monotony of their jobs. In common with earlier studies in similar
settings (e.g. Walker and Guest, 1952; Wyatt et al., 1937), Runcie found that operators
coped with boredom by varying the pace and rhythm of work, setting private goals, job
swapping, and devising ways of making tasks easier. Other subsidiary, or
task-unrelated, strategies included talking, singing, reading, playing games, and
smoking (Kishida, 1977).
Notably, Runcie (1980) also found that some individuals responded to boredom by
sabotaging the production process, engaging in unsafe work practices, or stealing
company property. Similarly, in an in-depth study of US Air Force security guards,
Charlton and Hertz (1989, p. 317) found that “in attempting to cope with the boredom
that accompanies their job and the work environment, guards routinely break the
rules”. Thus, listening to the radio, reading, horseplay, and even vandalism were all
engaged in despite being explicitly forbidden, with a severe penalty attached.
Generally, the risk was considered “worth it” to alleviate the boredom. Clearly then,
while all of the above behaviours may be effective in reducing boredom for the
individual, some strategies are potentially dysfunctional for organisations.
Overall, from this brief review, it is apparent that a diverse range of strategies may
be adopted to cope with boredom in a given job. In order to make sense of this
diversity, it is useful to view the array of possible coping strategies as arranged along a
continuum representing the extent to which a strategy involves direct and constructive
engagement with the boring situation. Thus, for example, talking, reading, and unsafe
or illegitimate work behaviours represent disengagement strategies because while
indirectly alleviating the unpleasant affective state of boredom but they do not
constructively influence the nature, or alter the perception of, the cause of boredom.
Conversely, finding a new way to complete a task may be considered as an engagement
strategy because it is task-related and designed to manage the source of boredom
directly and constructively. This conceptualisation is fully consistent with the
commonly made distinction in stress coping theories (e.g. Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)
between emotion-focused coping (aimed at regulating only the emotions accompanying
stress, c.f. disengagement) and problem-focused coping (aimed at dealing directly and
constructively with the perceived source of stress, c.f. engagement). However, the
language of engagement is more appropriate to the discussion of boredom because it
 PR connotes the differences in attentional capacity believed to underlie boredom coping.
36,5 Moreover, it is consistent with Farmer and Sundberg’s (1986) contention that boredom
is maintained by “disconnectedness” (i.e. lack of engagement) with one’s environment.
Although by no means unequivocal, stress coping research indicates that
problem-focused strategies may be most adaptive, with greater associated health
benefits (Parkes, 1994). Thus, it is assumed that, in coping with boredom, engagement
706 strategies may also be the most beneficial for individuals and, at worst, neutral or
harmless for their organisations (depending on the strategy).

Aims and hypotheses

No previous research has investigated individual differences in boredom coping at
work. Nor has there been any previous attempt to systematically link individual
differences in boredom coping with actual boredom coping strategies. In the light of
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

this, the overall purpose of the present research is to enhance our understanding of
boredom coping at work, guided by two aims. The first aim is to assess the
implications of boredom coping for individual well-being, and safety behaviour. The
review of the literature revealed evidence of negative associations between boredom at
work and individual well-being and job satisfaction. Thus, if boredom coping functions
to reduce the level of boredom typically experienced it is predicted that the incidence of
negative outcomes associated with boredom should also be reduced:
H1. High boredom-copers will report better job-related well-being (less anxiety
and depression) than individuals with lower boredom-coping scores.
H2. High boredom-copers will report greater job satisfaction than their lower
boredom-coping counterparts.
Given the evidence that boredom is often associated with low self-reported arousal, it is
expected that successful boredom coping, that effectively reduces boredom levels,
should be associated with typically higher self-reported arousal levels. Specifically, it is
hypothesised that:
H3. High boredom-copers will be less likely to report low arousal levels at work
compared with individuals scoring lower on the boredom-coping scale.
Regarding the safety implications of boredom coping, the literature suggested that
higher arousal levels should be associated with fewer errors. Thus, if indeed high
boredom-copers have higher arousal levels, they should be less likely to compromise
organisational safety through, for example, lapses in vigilance. The research on coping
strategies indicated that while some coping strategies might be beneficial for reducing
an employee’s boredom, other strategies might involve increased risk-taking and/or
behaviours detrimental to organisational safety. Given that high boredom-copers
should be more persistently concerned to actively and constructively reduce their
levels of boredom, and can draw upon a broader repertoire of appropriate strategies
(Fisher, 1993; Hamilton et al., 1984), it is predicted that they should not need to resort to
unsafe working practices in their efforts to alleviate boredom:
H4. High boredom-copers will report greater compliance with organisational
safety procedures than individuals with lower boredom coping scores.
 The second aim of the research is to investigate, qualitatively, which coping strategies Workplace
are used by high and low boredom-copers to help them reduce boredom at work. The boredom coping
literature on coping behaviours suggested a continuum of strategies that might be
adopted, ranging from engaged, task-related strategies to disengaged, task-unrelated
strategies. Hamilton et al. (1984) argued that high boredom-copers are especially skilled
in reducing boredom by manipulating their perception of and/or participation in
boredom-inducing situations. Therefore, it is predicted that: 707
H5. Relative to low boredom-copers, high boredom-copers will report largely
task-related, engagement strategies (at both the cognitive and behavioural
level) in attempting to deal with boredom at work.

Method
Participants
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

The study participants were 212 employees (189 males, 23 females) of a chemical
processing plant in the UK. The potential hazards inherent in the manufacture and
storage of large volumes of chemicals make chemical processing a safety critical
industry. Consequently, the organisation placed a high priority on compliance with
safety procedures by all employees, and the site provided an ideal setting for
investigating the impact of boredom coping on organisational safety behaviour, as well
as individual well-being. The mean age for the sample was 40.4 years. Mean length of
service with the organisation was 16.1 years. Employees from all levels in the
organisation were represented (10.8 per cent managerial, 21.7 per cent specialist
technical, 22.2 per cent technical support, 5.2 per cent administrative, 29.7 per cent
operators).

Procedure
The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage a questionnaire survey was
administered to as large a sample of employees as possible. The questionnaire was
designed to assess individuals’ boredom coping tendencies, affective well-being, job
satisfaction, typical arousal levels, and safety compliance behaviour. During one week,
two researchers visited the organisation and administered the survey to participants in
a designated room on-site. At the start of each of 22 survey sessions the researchers
introduced the survey as a “staff opinion survey”, and emphasised the confidentiality
of responses. Respondents were allowed as much time as necessary to fill in the
questionnaires. Participants then sealed their completed questionnaires in the
envelopes provided, and handed them in person to the researchers.
Scores on the boredom-coping measure formed the basis for selection of participants
for the interviews that comprised the second stage of the research. The purpose of the
interviews was to identify and compare the boredom coping strategies practised by
high and low scorers on the measure. To this end, interviewees were randomly selected
from among the respondents with the 30 highest and 30 lowest mean boredom coping
scores. The final sample of interviewees comprised nine high boredom-copers (eight
male, one female) and seven low boredom-copers (five male, two female). In order to
investigate the behavioural and cognitive aspects of boredom coping strategies,
interviews were based on the critical incident approach (Flanagan, 1954). Interviewees
were asked to recall and describe in detail:
 PR .
one or more dull, or un-stimulating, situations encountered at work during the
36,5 past month; and
.
specific behavioural and cognitive reactions to the situations.

The interviewer was blind regarding interviewee boredom coping scores. Interviews
lasted approximately 30 minutes and took place on site but away from participants’
708 normal work environment, in a room in the HR department. All interviews were tape
recorded and fully transcribed.

Measures
Job-related boredom coping. A brief measure of job-related boredom coping was
developed for the current study by adapting Hamilton et al.’s (1984) Boredom Coping
Scale. The original ten-item, forced-choice scale was designed to assess boredom
coping across a range of work/school and leisure contexts. A total of seven items
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

drawn largely from the work/school items were re-worded as necessary to refer
specifically to boredom coping at work. Rejected items were those that could not easily
be adapted in a manner that retained face validity for a job-related measure. Hamilton
et al.’s forced-choice response format was replaced with a Likert-style format in order
to enhance reliability (Kline, 2000). Participants were required to indicate the extent to
which they agreed with each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Principal axis factor analysis revealed that six items
loaded as a single factor, while one item (“In my job it is generally easy for me to
concentrate on what I’m doing”) loaded as a separate factor. Attentional capacity is
posited by Hamilton et al. (1984) to be an integral part of boredom coping, and inclusion
of the item in the main factor did not adversely affect scale reliability. Therefore, it was
decided to retain the item and incorporate it into a single-score scale. All items used in
the present study are shown in the following list:
.
In my job it is generally easy for me to concentrate on what I am doing.
.
I am usually able to find a certain enjoyment in my job, even in routine kinds of
work.
.
When I’m working, time always seems to be passing slowly (R).
.
I easily find ways to make my job more interesting.
.
When I’m bored with my job, it is usually only a short time before I’m interested
again.
.
During an average day (or shift) at work, I’m generally more bored than
interested (R).
.
In my job, I can usually find something to do to keep me interested.

The final seven-item scale contained a combination of engagement-disengagement

items (e.g. “In my job I can usually find something to do to keep me interested”); items
assessing the extent to which boredom was typically experienced (e.g. “During an
average day (or shift) at work, I’m usually more bored than interested”); and the extent
to which attentional difficulties occurred (see above). Together these items were
intended to encapsulate Hamilton et al’s operationalisation of the boredom coping
construct as an active process, associated with decreased boredom, and superior
sustained attention. Thus, the job-related boredom coping scale goes beyond a generic
 coping style measure – it assesses effective coping tendencies with particular reference Workplace
to boredom experienced at work. Relative to low scorers, high scorers on the boredom boredom coping
coping scale tend towards greater task engagement, find it easier to maintain their
concentration or focus, and are less bored on average. Note that high boredom coping
does not necessarily equate to a total absence of boredom at any given time; boredom
coping involves actively reducing boredom and/or making it more tolerable (Hamilton
et al., 1984). Cronbach’s alpha for the final scale was 0.75. 709
Job-related well-being. Job-specific affective well-being was measured using items
taken from existing job-related anxiety and job-related depression scales (Warr, 1987,
1990). Participants were asked to indicate on a five-point scale (1 ¼ never, 5 ¼ all the
time) “During the past month how much of the time has your job made you feel: . . . ”
each of 12 adjectives. Seven items assessed anxiety: tense, worried, anxious, contented,
calm, relaxed, and comfortable. Five items assessed depression: miserable, depressed,
optimistic, happy, and enthusiastic. Cronbach’s alphas in the present study were 0.84
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

for anxiety and 0.82 for depression.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a 15-item scale developed by Warr
et al. (1979). The scale comprises two sub-scales: intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction.
Intrinsic satisfaction concerns satisfaction with features of the job itself (e.g. variety,
autonomy). Extrinsic satisfaction covers affective reactions to aspects of work that are
external to the job itself (e.g. pay, hours of work). Participants were asked to indicate on a
seven-point scale the extent to which they were satisfied with various aspects of their jobs
(1 ¼ extremely dissatisfied, 7 ¼ extremely satisfied). The intrinsic satisfaction sub-scale
was made up of seven items. An example item is “how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
your opportunity to use your abilities”. Overall, eight items assessed extrinsic satisfaction,
for example: “how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your job security”. Cronbach’s
alphas for the study were 0.88 and 0.79 for intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction respectively.
Arousal. Arousal was assessed using items taken from the Arousal scale developed
by Warr (1990). The scale is designed to pinpoint an individual’s position along a
“tiredness-vigour” continuum. The measure may be used as an additional indicator of
affective well-being (Warr, 1990), but for the purposes of the present study it was
employed as an index of individuals’ typical subjective energy or arousal levels when
at work. Respondents were asked “During the past month how much of the time has
your job made you feel . . . ” followed by a list of five adjectives: lifeless, tired, alert, full
of energy, and lively. The last three items were reverse-scored so that a high score
indicated a lack of energy, or low arousal. A five-point response scale was used ranging
from 1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ all the time. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was 0.76.
Safety compliance. Self-reported compliance with the organisation’s safety
procedures was assessed using items from the Safety Compliance Scale (Aitchison,
1994). Of the original 13 items, nine were selected, of which three were intended to
detect socially desirable responding. An example of the compliance items is:
“production pressures mean I sometimes bend the rules”. An example of the response
check items is: “I never find following safety procedures a hassle”. The response format
for the measure was a five-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to
5 ¼ strongly agree. Items were reverse-scored so that a high score indicated high
safety compliance. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in this study was 0.81.
Biographical data. The questionnaire also included questions on gender, age,
organisational tenure, and job title.
 PR Results
36,5 Stage1 – survey
Preliminary analysis. Participants were allocated to high, medium, and low boredom
coping groups. Compared with correlation or a simple high-low dichotomy, three
groups allows for a more nuanced and intuitively appealing description of the
quantitative relationships between level or degree of boredom coping and each of the
710 dependent variables. This is especially desirable for an exploratory study. Moreover, in
a typical dichotomous/median split, participants who are relatively “marginal” –
neither especially high nor low scorers – are considered alongside very high/low
scorers, perhaps attenuating any effects that may be present.
Participants were first assigned to broad high or low boredom coping groups by
calculating the scale median (3.64) and performing a median split. In order to create the
additional medium coping group the median was taken as the mid-point for the group,
and all participants with scores of up to 0.35 above or below this value were included.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

These cut-off points took into account the minimum and maximum scale scores in the
overall distribution and ensured a similar range of scores within each group. Thus,
individuals with scale scores at or above 4.00 constituted the high boredom coping
group (n ¼ 75, mean ¼ 4.18, range ¼ 4.00-4.71); individuals with intermediate scores
made up the medium boredom coping group (n ¼ 89, mean ¼ 3.67; range ¼ 3.29-3.99);
and individuals scoring below 3.29 formed the low boredom coping group (N ¼ 44,
mean ¼ 2.99, range ¼ 2.43-3.28).
Given the lack of previous research on boredom coping, the data were analysed to
check that the construct was not confounded with differences in gender, occupational
group, age, and organisational tenure. Chi square analysis indicated that there were no
significant relationships between boredom coping and either gender (x2 ¼ 1.78, ns) or
occupational group (x2 ¼ 7.67, ns). Thus, for the present sample there were no gender
differences in boredom-coping levels, and no single job group contained
disproportionately greater or smaller numbers of individuals from each
boredom-coping group. In addition, Pearson correlations revealed that boredom
coping (as a continuous variable) was not significantly associated with either age
(r ¼ 0.04, ns) or organisational tenure (r ¼ 2 0.01, ns).
Finally, in order to ascertain whether the safety compliance scale was influenced by
socially-desirable responding, the frequency distribution for the three response-check
items was examined. If the proportion of “agree”/”strongly agree” responses exceeded
what would be expected in a normal distribution, this would indicate that responses to
the other scale items might also be biased. However, in the present sample, only 5.7 per
cent of individuals reported that they agreed/strongly agreed with the response-check
items. Therefore, no further steps were taken.
Relationships between boredom coping and the dependent variables. The hypotheses
for Stage 1 sought to establish whether there were any significant differences in
anxiety and depression, job satisfaction, arousal, and safety compliance between
individuals with different levels of boredom coping. All hypotheses were tested using
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Table I shows the results of these analyses.
H1 predicted that individuals in the high boredom-coping group would report better
job-related well-being. As can be seen in the table, high boredom-copers reported
significantly lower job-related anxiety compared with low boredom-copers, although
not compared with medium boredom-copers, F (2, 205) ¼ 10.23, p , 0.001. Regarding
 Workplace
Boredom coping
boredom coping
Low Medium High F
Affective well-being:
Anxiety 2.94a 2.62b 2.43b 10.23 * *
Depression 3.01a 2.39b 1.98c 48.96 * *
Job satisfaction: 711
Intrinsic 3.77a 4.69b 5.10c 33.52 * *
Extrinsic 4.13a 4.70b 5.15c 22.61 * *
Low arousal: 3.04a 2.56b 2.25c 28.72 * *
Safety compliance: 3.24a 3.47 3.63b 6.46 * Table I.
Mean differences on all
Notes: Within each row, means with different subscripts differed significantly at p , 0.05 according dependent variables by
to a Tukey-B test, * p , 0.01; * * p , 0.001 level of boredom coping
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

boredom coping and job-related depression, a strong overall relationship was found,
F (2, 205) ¼ 48.96, p , 0.001, and significant difference were found between all three
boredom coping groups. Thus, overall, the higher an individual’s tendency to cope with
job-related boredom, the less likely they were to report feeling depressed and anxious
at work.
H2 predicted that high boredom-copers would have greater job satisfaction than
their medium and low counterparts. The results of the ANOVAs in Table I show that
there were significant overall differences between boredom coping groups in relation to
both intrinsic job satisfaction, F (2,205) ¼ 33.52, p , 0.001, and extrinsic job
satisfaction, F (2,205) ¼ 22.61, p , 0.001. High boredom-copers’ mean intrinsic
satisfaction was significantly higher than that of both medium and low
boredom-copers. Medium boredom-copers also reported significantly greater
intrinsic job satisfaction compared with low boredom-copers. The same pattern of
differences was found between the groups regarding extrinsic satisfaction. The
hypothesis was therefore fully supported.
The empirical evidence reviewed suggested that the experience of boredom may be
associated with reduced physiological arousal. Thus, it was anticipated that
individuals scoring highly on boredom coping should be less likely to report low
arousal levels at work (H3). Table I shows that the hypothesis was supported. High
boredom-copers had significantly lower mean scores on the arousal scale (indicating
higher arousal) than both medium and low boredom-copers, F (2, 205) 28.72, p , 0.001.
Additionally, medium boredom-copers’ arousal levels were also significantly higher
compared with their low boredom-coping counterparts.
Based on the literature review, it was predicted that high boredom-copers should
not need to resort to increased risk-taking or unsafe working practices in order to
prevent or alleviate their boredom (H4). The table shows that there was an overall
positive association between boredom coping and safety compliance, F (2,205) ¼ 6.46,
p , 0.01. High boredom-copers reported greater compliance with safety regulations
compared with low boredom-copers. The difference between high and medium
boredom-copers scores was non-significant. These findings support the hypothesis.
In sum, the results for stage 1 of the study indicate that, in line with predictions,
high boredom-copers were more satisfied with their jobs; they reported better
job-related well-being; and they had typically higher self-reported arousal levels. In line
 PR with expectations, high boredom coping did not adversely affect reported compliance
36,5 with safety regulations. Conversely, it appears that inability to cope effectively with
boredom at work (i.e. low boredom coping) was associated with reports of unsafe
behaviour.

Stage 2 – interviews
712 Identification and comparison of boredom coping strategies. The final research
hypothesis (H5) was examined qualitatively. It was anticipated that relative to low
boredom-copers, high boredom-copers would report adopting largely task-related,
engagement strategies (at both the cognitive and behavioural levels) in attempting to
deal with boredom at work. The interview transcripts were systematically analysed
using template analysis (King, 1998). Template analysis is a thematic analysis of
qualitative data using a defined coding scheme (i.e. template). Drawing upon the
guidelines outlined by King (1998) the coding scheme was developed iteratively,
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

informed by the research hypothesis, interview questions, and several readings of the
transcripts. After coding the data, the focus of the analysis was on identifying and
summarising the differences between low and high boredom-copers’ reports of their
personal boredom coping strategies (intermediate boredom-copers’ experiences were
not sampled since the extremes were expected to provide a clearer contrast of
strategies if any effect of individual differences in boredom coping were present). The
results of this analysis are presented below. First, the strategies reported by low
boredom-copers are discussed. This is followed by a consideration of the strategies
described by the high boredom-copers.
Low boredom-copers’ strategies. Individuals in the low boredom coping group were
generally able to recall with ease at least one task, or aspect of their jobs, which had led
to feelings of boredom during the past month. Examples included filing, administrative
paperwork, word-processing, and repetitive chemical processing procedures. None of
the low boredom-copers reported adopting any behaviours or cognitions that could be
classified as fully engaged coping. Instead, the methods of coping reported by these
individuals can be classified into two categories: partial engagement strategies and
disengagement strategies.
.
Partial engagement strategies. The majority of low boredom-copers stated that
their primary approach when faced with aspects of their jobs which could cause
boredom, was simply to get on and do the task as quickly as possible. More
specifically, they used cognitive strategies such as setting speed goals, and
devising incentives (e.g. a coffee or cigarette on completion of the task).
Behaviourally, these individuals scheduled their work to tackle
boredom-inducing tasks first, worked as quickly as they could, and forced
themselves to focus their attention on the task, in order to terminate the
boredom-evoking situation as soon as possible. The following was a typical
response:
I tend, if I’m doing a boring job, to get my head down and get stuck into it, and try to
blot out everything else in an effort to get it done as quickly as possible, so that I can
move on to something more interesting.

Clearly, these strategies are not attempts to fully escape or avoid the boredom-inducing
task, and as such cannot be considered as examples of disengaged coping. However, it
 seems that the strategies were largely intended to reduce the duration of the affectively Workplace
unpleasant situation, rather than to constructively tackle the source of boredom in a boredom coping
way that increased individuals’ interest in the task. The self-setting of a speed goal, for
example, was non-specific and did not appear to constitute an effort to increase on-task
stimulation through the creation of a personal challenge. Had this been the case, it
would have been an example of engaged coping. Overall, the strategies outlined here
suggest partial engagement with the source of boredom. 713
. Disengagement strategies. In addition to partial engagement strategies, many low
boredom-copers reported using disengagement strategies. Specifically, individuals
described behaviours, and to a lesser extent cognitions, that involved avoiding the
task and/or seeking additional stimulation from non-task-related sources. The most
frequently cited behavioural strategy was the use of informal interaction with
co-workers as a means of relieving boredom. As one employee explained:
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

If somebody comes up, it’s something different. There’s a lot of camaraderie, there’s a lot
of humour. . .it’s not as boring as just being quiet and getting on with your work.

Other examples of non-task-related coping behaviours included smoking, singing to

one-self, making coffee, and “having a wander”. Some attempted to “break up” a
boredom-inducing activity by interspersing it with other, unrelated, tasks or duties.
Others reported delaying starting tasks that they knew would lead to boredom. Finally,
in terms of cognitive strategies, a few individuals also reported daydreaming in order
to reduce boredom. All of these examples can be considered as disengagement coping
strategies because they do not involve attempts to alleviate job-related boredom by
directly tackling its source (i.e. the task). Indeed, these strategies actually served to
remove the individual either physically or mentally from the task and potentially
inhibited performance of the task.
High boredom-copers’ strategies. Individuals in the high boredom-coper group found it
more difficult to recall occasions at work when they had been bored, during the past
month. However, upon recalling a situation (examples of which mirrored those of the low
boredom-copers), all interviewees were able to describe the strategies they had employed
to reduce their boredom. Notably, high boredom-copers did not mention adopting the
types of avoidance or disengagement strategies reported by their low boredom coping
counterparts. However, there was some overlap with the low boredom-copers to the extent
that high boredom-copers also reported sometimes using partial engagement strategies.
Specifically, the methods of coping reported by high boredom-copers can be classified as:
engagement strategies, and partial engagement strategies.
.
Engagement strategies. The recurring theme in high boredom-copers’ accounts
was that they were constantly looking for ways in which to keep themselves
occupied, and cognitively stimulated. Thus, from the accounts of high
boredom-copers the most common approach was not to simply get on and do
the task, as was often the case with the low boredom-copers, but to somehow
extend the task by looking for ways to improve it, implementing changes, or
doing additional, related work. For example:
I [tried to] think of ways of making it a bit more interesting – thinking of
improvements, or just to make it seem a bigger or more involved job, so it doesn’t seem
so tedious.
 PR Such behavioural restructuring is a central aspect of the concept of boredom
36,5 coping (Hamilton et al., 1984). Effectively, with sufficient autonomy, high
boredom-copers were able to implement a personalised form of job enrichment to
prevent or counteract boredom. However, consistent with the non-significant
relationship between occupational level and boredom-coping found in stage 1,
there was evidence from the interviews that high boredom-copers at all
714 occupational levels adopted similar task-focused strategies, within the bounds of
their jobs. Thus, in cases where individuals’ roles perhaps did not allow the
autonomy necessary to make major changes to tasks or procedures, they
nevertheless reported keeping personal records of where they thought
improvements could be made. For example, a warehouse employee said:
I’ve made a few projects for myself concerning the job – how the job could be done
either more smoothly or better. So I’ve been doing that – making a few notes about
that. But that’s only a personal thing to me.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

The above are all examples of behavioural engagement strategies. Evidence was
also found regarding the use of cognitive engagement strategies. These
strategies involved cognitive restructuring of the task. That is, the situation was
mentally re-framed in such a way as to enable individuals to perceive it
differently, and consequently reduce boredom. For example, some participants
described framing the task in terms of the impact it would have for themselves
(e.g. skill development, or “something for the cv”), or others (e.g. the organisation,
the customer). Thus, by looking at the bigger picture, the boredom associated
with the situation was reduced:
It does help if you see that it has an impact and is important to someone else – then it
helps you a bit more to realise that what you’re doing isn’t just going to be ignored. So
you can maintain a bit of interest in that respect – you’re trying to help them.
Another type of cognitive engagement strategy mentioned by high
boredom-copers involved playing mental games that related to the task in
hand. For example:
I pretend someone is making a documentary about my life and I’m telling them in my
head about how to do this really mundane job.”

These were constructive engagement strategies because they involved thinking about
the task as it was performed, but simultaneously the individuals projected themselves
and the task into a more stimulating context via imagination, or a form of cognitive
restructuring. The strategy as a whole was therefore aimed at increasing stimulation
and reducing boredom, whilst still performing the task.
.
Partial engagement strategies. In common with interviewees in the low
boredom-coping group, some high boredom-copers also reported using partial
engagement strategies. These included the self-setting of speed goals, and
scheduling work that was typically associated with boredom for the start of the
working day.

To summarise, the results of the interviews showed that low boredom-copers tended to
use disengaged, as well as partially engaged, cognitions and behaviours in order to
deal with boredom at work. By comparison, high boredom-copers reported using
 mostly engagement, and some partial engagement, strategies. These findings support Workplace
the predictions of H5.
boredom coping
Discussion
The research investigated how employees cope with boredom at work, and whether
differences in the effectiveness of boredom coping were associated with differences in
levels of well-being and safety behaviour. A multi-method approach was used, 715
combining a survey and critical incident interviews. The survey revealed that
individuals who scored highly on the job-related boredom coping scale reported
significantly lower levels of work-related depression and anxiety compared with
individuals who had lower boredom coping scores. In addition, compared with
individuals in the medium and low boredom coping groups, high boredom-copers
reported significantly higher arousal levels, and they were significantly more satisfied
with their jobs. Such individual level outcomes are consistent with predictions about
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

the personal benefits of effective boredom coping throughout. Although boredom per
se was not included as a dependent variable in the present study, these results suggest
that high boredom-copers were relatively more skilled in counteracting, or decreasing,
feelings of boredom at work.
The interview data may provide some additional insight into the above
relationships. It appeared that some of the strategies adopted by high
boredom-copers when faced with potentially boring work situations served to
increase the value, or significance, of the task to themselves and/or others. This in turn
seemed to make completing the task a more rewarding, as well as less boring,
experience. According to the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976,
1980), the experienced meaningfulness of a job is a critical psychological state that
influences employees’ motivation and job satisfaction. People need to feel that their job
is worthwhile and important, and they have more positive job-related feelings and
attitudes when this is the case. Effectively then, high boredom-copers may have
attempted to alter the nature (either actually or perceptually) of potentially boring
tasks in order to meet their needs for meaningful and stimulating work. Conversely,
low boredom-copers were seemingly less likely, or unable, to change the nature of
situations they perceived as boring, and this may have contributed to their reports of
lower satisfaction and well-being. Thus, an individual’s inability to enhance the
stimulation inherent in a task, using constructive boredom coping techniques, may
signal the beginning of a downward spiral in well-being and quality of work-life.
Overall, this suggests that constraining task or contextual factors may moderate the
effects found in this study. It would therefore be important in future research to
investigate degree of job control or task constraint as a potential moderator.
Also consistent with predictions, high boredom-copers reported the highest
compliance with organisational safety regulations. This finding suggests that high
boredom-copers were able to sufficiently raise their levels of interest using constructive
methods, without the need to resort to dysfunctional non-compliance as a
boredom-reducing strategy. Conversely, low boredom-copers were perhaps less able
to reduce boredom by functional means, therefore non-compliance may have
represented an easier or more viable means of increasing their levels of interest (Fisher,
1993). Alternatively, the explanation may lie in the fact that high boredom coping was
associated with more positive work attitudes in general. Research on organisational
safety has shown that job satisfaction influences attitudes towards risk and
 PR subsequent safety-related behaviour. Specifically, high satisfaction is associated with
36,5 careful, conscientious work behaviours, whereas low satisfaction may result in
procedural violations and unsafe acts (Mearns and Flin, 1996).
It was hypothesised that, relative to low boredom-copers, high boredom-copers
would report using more engagement strategies when faced with potential boring work
situations. The interviews found broad support for the hypothesis. Low
716 boredom-copers tended to deal with boredom using either partial engagement (e.g.
doing the task as quickly as possible), or disengagement strategies (e.g. doing
something else). Both types of strategy could be viewed as attempts to limit exposure
to the disliked activity and associated feelings of boredom. There was little or no
indication of low boredom-copers actively reducing the boredom they experienced
using perceptual or behavioural restructuring of the situation. In contrast, while some
high boredom-copers used partial engagement strategies, most also reported
implementing a range of cognitive and behavioural engagement strategies designed
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

to transform their perception of potentially boring work situations. Notably, rather

than limiting exposure to the disliked situation, high boredom-copers sometimes
extended the time spent on a task in order to make it ultimately more varied or
challenging, and subsequently more interesting. High boredom-copers’ strategies also
appeared to be relatively more creative and innovative, as they sought new, improved,
or simply more enjoyable and rewarding ways of completing a task or filling time.
Overall, from the interview results, it is not possible to conclude that high boredom
coping equates solely to the use of engagement strategies, while low boredom coping
equates solely to utilising disengagement strategies, since participants in both groups
also described using partial engagement strategies. However, relative to low
boredom-copers’ reported strategies, it is apparent that high boredom-copers’
strategies tended to be characterised by greater task involvement/engagement.
Consistent with the notion that boredom is maintained by disconnectedness with the
environment (Farmer and Sundberg, 1986), high boredom-copers’ use of engagement
strategies may have fostered a sense of connection with their work environment, and
hence helped to reduce boredom. Conversely, low boredom-copers’ tendency to use
either partial engagement or disengagement strategies may have inhibited a sense of
connection with the environment and thus served to maintain higher levels of boredom.

Practical implications
This study was the first of its kind and exploratory in nature. Clearly, further research
is required before policy recommendations can be made with confidence. Nevertheless,
the findings of this study provide preliminary indications that the ability to cope with
boredom at work, using a variety of behavioural and cognitive engagement strategies,
may be beneficial both for individuals and organisations. Dyer-Smith and Wesson
(1995, p. 56) asserted that “the bored are liability both to themselves and to others”.
Thus, constructive boredom coping skills may be of particular relevance in jobs where
low boredom coping capacity (with its associated reduction in arousal levels and
compliance behaviours) could have serious safety implications (e.g. air traffic control).
Job redesign or enrichment initiatives including use of breaks, shorter shifts,
alternating activities etc. should always be considered as the first option in attempting
to reduce the incidence of boredom at work. However, an analysis of employee
boredom coping levels and strategies could provide a valuable tool in helping HR
 managers to identify low boredom-copers and offer them individualised, or Workplace
“differential” job redesign solutions (Ackerman and Ulich, 1987). Where job boredom coping
re-design is infeasible, or cannot be immediately implemented, it is nevertheless
desirable to ensure that all employees are equipped to cope effectively should they
experience boredom in their jobs. Thus, in the short term, individuals could be trained
in the use of more constructive boredom coping techniques, regardless of their
susceptibility to boredom. Much more research is needed before it is possible to specify 717
exactly which strategies would be most useful, and clearly training would require
tailoring to suit specific contexts. However, in general terms, the emphasis should be
on encouraging the use of engagement styles of coping, characterised by increased task
involvement and innovativeness. A useful training and/or action research approach
might be to use learning groups in which group members in similar jobs identify
common boredom-inducing situations and discuss and share their ideas for creative,
constructive ways of dealing with them.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

Caveats and limitations

This research was not without its limitations and these should be taken into account
when interpreting the findings. Caution is necessary in interpreting the interview
findings because the sample was small. The results of the survey should also be
regarded tentatively for a number of reasons. Fundamentally, given that a “global”
boredom coping scale was adapted for use in the study, further work is needed to
verify the construct validity of the “job-related” (i.e. domain specific) boredom coping
measure. The survey data were self-report, thus distortions in effect size due to
common method variance cannot be ruled out. The data were also cross-sectional so it
is not possible to infer causality in any of the significant relationships reported.
Moreover, the possibility of reverse causality should be considered, for example, it may
be that when individuals have low job satisfaction, they become less inclined to deal
with boredom constructively. In general, however, conducting the research in an
organisation with a good safety record may have restricted variance and led to an
underestimation of the implications of boredom coping for safety compliance. Another
issue is that the sample comprised very few women, and was predominantly
middle-aged, with a mean tenure of 16 years. This may reduce generalisability of the
findings to the wider working population. Finally, constraints of space in the
questionnaire design meant that no response check items were incorporated in to the
measure of boredom coping. The term “boredom” is fairly emotive and such factors
may lead to socially desirable responding (Kline, 2000). Ideally, the scale should include
items such as “I never get bored” as a check.

Future research
There is much scope for future research. If the job-related boredom coping scale is to be
used by HR practitioners as a diagnostic tool, an important next step will be to further
validate the scale. Hamilton et al. (1984) posited that boredom coping is associated with
reduced boredom and superior sustained attention. These variables should be included
as dependent variables in future research if we are to verify and understand the
mechanisms underlying boredom coping and its consequences. Validation research
should also examine whether the job-related boredom coping scale correlates with
measures of Boredom Susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1971, 1979) and Boredom Proneness
 PR (Farmer and Sundberg, 1986). If little or no association is found it will provide evidence
36,5 of discriminant validity, and also add weight to the proposition that effective boredom
coping skills can be learned – regardless of an individual’s boredom threshold.
Following additional psychometric work, research should also attempt to replicate the
findings of this study in different organisational settings, with varying safety records,
and more diverse samples. It is also desirable to control for any impact of Negative
718 Affectivity – the general tendency to report more negative affective experiences
(Watson and Clark, 1984) in future research, since this was not controlled for in the
present study.
In addition to validation and replication, there are many other avenues for further
research. More research is needed to illuminate what differentiates high and low
boredom-copers, for example, are high boredom-copers more creative and innovative,
as the present findings suggested? How far does effective boredom coping actually
reduce boredom, or simply make it more tolerable? Further, in-depth, exploration is
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

also required in order to understand what determines strategy choice, including the
role of contextual factors. Observational research or the use of diary techniques might
help to shed light on these issues. Finally, research could also focus on the development
and evaluation of training to enhance boredom coping skills.

Conclusion
The present study is the first to examine the construct of “boredom coping” at work,
and to link individual differences in boredom coping tendency to health and safety
related outcomes. Until additional research has been undertaken to further validate the
job-related boredom coping scale and replicate the reported findings, the research must
be considered as exploratory and conclusions must remain tentative. Nevertheless,
these findings offer preliminary indications that individuals who are high
boredom-copers tend to use more functional styles of coping when they encounter
boredom at work, and this may be beneficial for both individuals and their employing
organisations. Identifying ineffective coping, and perhaps training individuals in the
use of more effective coping skills, may form part of an integrated solution to reducing
boredom in the workplace. However, for this to be possible, much more research is
needed on all aspects of work-related boredom and boredom coping. It is hoped that the
present study will encourage other researchers to take up the challenge.

References
Ackerman, D. and Ulich, E. (1987), “The chances of individualization in human-computer
interaction and its consequences”, in Frese, M., Ulich, E. and Dzida, W. (Eds), Psychological
Issues in Human-Computer Interaction in the Workplace, North Holland, Amsterdam,
pp. 131-45.
Ahmed, S.M. (1990), “Psychometric properties of the boredom proneness scale”, Perceptual and
Motor Skills, Vol. 71, pp. 963-6.
Aitchison, D.J.T. (1994), “Non-compliance with safety procedures and its predictors: the
importance of attitudes and organisational support”, unpublished MSc dissertation,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J. and Daus, C.S. (2002), “Diversity and emotion: the new frontiers
in organizational behavior and research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pp. 307-38.
 Bailey, J.P., Thackray, R.I., Pearl, J. and Parish, T.S. (1976), “Boredom and arousal: comparison of Workplace
tasks differing in visual complexity”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 43, pp. 141-2.
boredom coping
Branton, P. (1970), “A field study of repetitive manual work in relation to accidents at the work
place”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 8, pp. 93-107.
Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Harrison, R.V. and Pinneau, S.R. (1975), Job Demands and
Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. 719
Charlton, J. and Hertz, R. (1989), “Guarding against boredom: security specialists in the United
States Air Force”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 18, pp. 299-326.
Colligan, M.J. (1979), “Mass psychogenic illness in organizations: an overview”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 77-86.
Cox, T. (1980), “Repetitive work”, in Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds), Current Concerns in
Occupational Stress, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 23-31.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

Damrad-Frye, R. and Laird, J.D. (1989), “The experience of boredom: the role of self-perception
and attention”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 315-20.
Drory, A. (1982), “Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 141-51.
Dyer-Smith, M.B.A. and Wesson, D.A. (1995), “Boredom and expert error”, in Robertson, S.A.
(Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 56-61.
Farmer, R. and Sundberg, N.D. (1986), “Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a
new scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 51, pp. 4-17.
Fenichel, O. (1951), “On the psychology of boredom”, in Rapaport, R. (Ed.), Organisation and
Pathology of Thought, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Fisher, C.D. (1987), Boredom: Construct, Causes and Consequences, A&M University, Texas,
Technical Report ONR-9.
Fisher, C.D. (1993), “Boredom at work: a neglected concept”, Human Relations, Vol. 46,
pp. 395-417.
Fisher, C.D. (1998), “Effects of internal and external interruptions on boredom at work: two
studies”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 503-22.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954), “The critical incident technique”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51, pp. 327-58.
Frijda, N.H. (1988), “The laws of emotion”, American Psychologist, Vol. 43, pp. 349-58.
Grose, V.L. (1989), “Coping with boredom in the cockpit before it’s too late”, Professional Safety,
Vol. 34, pp. 24-6.
Guest, D., Williams, R. and Dewe, P. (1978), “Job design and the psychology of boredom”,
Proceeding of the 19th Congress of Applied Psychology, Munich.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 15, pp. 250-79.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hamilton, J.A., Haier, R.J. and Buchsbaum, M.S. (1984), “Intrinsic enjoyment and boredom coping
scales: validation with personality, evoked potential and attentional measures”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 5, pp. 183-93.
Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Hill, A.B. (1975a), “Work variety and individual differences in occupational boredom”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 128-31.
 PR Hill, A.B. and Perkins, R.E. (1985), “Towards a model of boredom”, British Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 76, pp. 235-40.
36,5 Hopkin, V.D. (1990), “The human factor aspects of single manning”, The Journal of Navigation,
Vol. 43, p. 346.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. and Weissinger, E. (1990), “Perceptions of boredom in leisure: conceptualization,
reliability and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 22,
720 pp. 1-177.
Kiechell, W. III (1984), “Chairman of the bored”, Fortune, March 5, pp. 111-2.
King, N. (1998), “Template snalysis”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds), Qualitative Methods and
Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London, pp. 118-34.
Kishida, K. (1977), “A study of subsidiary behaviour in monotonous work”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 15, pp. 609-21.
Kline, P. (2000), A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design, 2nd ed.,
Methuen, New York, NY.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

Kornhauser, A. (1965), Mental Health of the Industrial Worker, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991a), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
London, H. and Monell, L. (1974), “Cognitive manipulations of boredom”, in London, H. and
Nisbett, R. (Eds), Thought and Feeling, Aldine, Chicago, IL, pp. 44-59.
London, H., Schubert, D.S.P. and Washburn, D. (1972), “Increase of autonomic arousal by
boredom”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 29-36.
McBain, W.N. (1970), “Arousal, monotony, and accidents in line driving”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 509-19.
Mearns, R. and Flin, K. (1996), “Risk perception in hazardous industries”, The Psychologist, Vol. 9,
pp. 401-4.
O’Hanlon, J.F. (1981), “Boredom: practical consequences and a theory”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 49,
pp. 53-82.
Ornstein, R.E. (1970), On the Experience of Time, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Parkes, K. (1994), “Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: models and
measures”, Work and Stress, Vol. 8, pp. 110-29.
Runcie, J.F. (1980), “By days I make the cars”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 106-15.
Russell, J.A. (1980), “A circumplex model of affect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 39, pp. 1161-78.
Shackleton, V.J. (1981), “Boredom and repetitive work: a review”, Personnel Review, Vol. 10,
pp. 30-6.
Stagner, R. (1975), “Boredom on the assembly line: age and personality variables”, Industrial
Gerontology, Vol. 2, pp. 23-4.
Stave, A.M. (1977), “The effects of cockpit environment on long term pilot performance”, Human
Factors, Vol. 19, pp. 503-14.
Thackray, R.I. (1981), “The stress of boredom and monotony: a consideration of the evidence”,
Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, pp. 322-9.
Walker, C.R. and Guest, R.H. (1952), “The man on the assembly line”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 30, pp. 71-83.
Warr, P. (1987), Work, Unemployment and Mental Health, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 Warr, P. (1990), “The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health”, Journal of Workplace
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 193-210.
Warr, P., Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1979), “Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and
boredom coping
aspects of psychological well-being”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 129-48.
Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984), “Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive
emotional states”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95, pp. 465-90. 721
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 1-75.
Wyatt, S., Langdon, J.N. and Stock, F.G.L. (1937), Fatigue and Boredom in Repetitive Work,
HMSO, London, IFRB Report No.77.
Zuckerman, M. (1971), “Dimensions of sensation seeking”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 45-52.
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

Zuckerman, M. (1979), Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.

Further reading
Lazarus, R.S. (1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw–Hill, New York, NY.
Perkins, R.E. and Hill, A.B. (1985), “Cognitive and affective aspects of boredom”, British Journal
of Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 221-34.

About the author

Annilee M. Game, BSc, MSc, PhD, is a lecturer in Human Resource Management and
Organisational Behaviour at Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia. Her research
interests include emotions and well-being at work, training and development, and job analysis
and design. Annilee Game can be contacted at: a.game@uea.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Isik U. Zeytinoglu, Margaret Denton, Jennifer Plenderleith, James Chowhan. 2015. Associations between
workers' health, and non-standard hours and insecurity: the case of home care workers in Ontario, Canada.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Lotta Harju, Jari J. Hakanen, Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2014. Job Boredom and Its Correlates in 87 Finnish
Organizations. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56, 911-918. [CrossRef]
3. Dan Zakay. 2014. Psychological time as information: the case of boredom†. Frontiers in Psychology 5. .
[CrossRef]
4. John W. Whiteoak. 2014. Predicting boredom-coping at work. Personnel Review 43:5, 741-763. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
5. Howe Chern Wan, Luke A. Downey, Con Stough. 2014. Understanding non-work presenteeism:
Relationships between emotional intelligence, boredom, procrastination and job stress. Personality and
Individual Differences 65, 86-90. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by New York University At 06:42 27 April 2015 (PT)

6. Thomas W.H. Ng, Daniel C. Feldman. 2013. Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance?.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 83, 305-314. [CrossRef]
7. Gaby Reijseger, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Maria C.W. Peeters, Toon W. Taris, Ilona van Beek, Else Ouweneel.
2013. Watching the paint dry at work: psychometric examination of the Dutch Boredom Scale. Anxiety,
Stress & Coping 26, 508-525. [CrossRef]
8. Nader Azizi, Ming Liang, Saeed Zolfaghari. 2013. Modelling human boredom at work: mathematical
formulations and a probabilistic framework. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 24:5,
711-746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gielis A. H. van der Heijden, Jeroen J. L. Schepers, Edwin J. Nijssen. 2012. Understanding workplace
boredom among white collar employees: Temporary reactions and individual differences. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology 21, 349-375. [CrossRef]
10. Mark Skowronski. 2012. When the bored behave badly (or exceptionally). Personnel Review 41:2, 143-159.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Songqi Liu, Mo WangPerceived Overqualification: A Review and Recommendations for Research and
Practice 1-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
12. A. D. B. MacLean. 2011. Health and Safety in the United Kingdom Higher Education Libraries: A
Review of the Literature. New Review of Academic Librarianship 17, 209-221. [CrossRef]
13. Yehuda Baruch. 2011. The positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural perspective. Career
Development International 16:6, 572-591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. References 163-186. [CrossRef]
15. Erik R. Eddy, Caroline P. D'Abate, Paul W. Thurston Jr. 2010. Explaining engagement in personal
activities on company time. Personnel Review 39:5, 639-654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Nader Azizi, Saeed Zolfaghari, Ming Liang. 2010. Modeling job rotation in manufacturing systems: The
study of employee's boredom and skill variations. International Journal of Production Economics 123, 69-85.
[CrossRef]
17. Lia Loukidou, John Loan-Clarke, Kevin Daniels. 2009. Boredom in the workplace: More than
monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews 11:10.1111/ijmr.2009.11.issue-4,
381-405. [CrossRef]