Bored to Death: The Relationship between Boredom, Order
Perceptions and Risk-Taking Tendencies
By Lindy ArendsStudent number: 10170480 Supervisor: Bastiaan Rutjens University of Amsterdam Social Psychology 18 May 2015
Abstract
Previous research indicates that boredom is accompanied by a lack of challenge and meaning. It has been suggested that people will display more risk-taking behaviors in order to
compensate (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012). Additionally, people who believe they have high personal control over their environment are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The present research investigated whether a “balance-seeking” approach might help to further our understanding of the motivational aspects
underlying boredom. We expected that boredom is an undesirable state characterized by high levels of perceived order and predictability. As a result, people are expected to exhibit greater risk-taking tendencies to restore balance. 30 students participated and completed a survey during a statistics lecture (boredom situation) and at a random moment (neutral situation). Order perceptions and risk-taking tendencies were measured. Results indicate that participants were not more bored in the boredom situation than in the neutral situation. No effect of
situation on order perceptions and risk-taking tendencies was found. Limitations and suggestions for future research will be discussed.
Introduction
“It is better to die from vodka than from boredom”. Tragically, the student who wrote this text on his Facebook wall died from alcohol poisoning some hours later (Charlton, 2015). As extreme as this case might seem, it is not uncommon to voluntary search for and engage in risky behavior: occasionally people like uncertainty (Loewenstein, 1994). For instance, in Western societies excessive alcohol use and to a lesser extent experimenting with drugs are generally accepted behaviors, especially amongst youth (Leatherdale & Burkhalter, 2012; Redonnet, Chollet, Fombonne, Bowes & Melchior, 2012). Furthermore, extreme sports like bungee jumping, rafting and climbing are rising in popularity (Bennett, Henson & Zhang, 2003). Even though there might be several reasons why people engage in dangerous activities, it is likely that feelings of boredom will be diminished when doing so.
Boredom is a common experience. It has been found that 91% of American youth regularly feels bored (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2003, in Eastwood, Frischen, Fenske & Smilek, 2012). Boredom is often experienced during work and in educational settings (Fisher, 1993; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz & Perry, 2002). Furthermore, it is most likely to occur when task requirements are either too high or too low compared to one’s competence (Acee et al., 2010). Boredom at work can lead to employees making more mistakes and working less efficient. Moreover, it is a predictor of job dissatisfaction (Fisher, 1993; Kass, Vodanovich & Callender, 2001). Academic boredom can lead to
underachievement, withdrawal from university courses and dropping out of school (Pekrun et al., 2002). In addition, boredom proneness is related to problem gambling (Gupta,
Derevensky & Ellenbogen 2006), aggression and anger (Rupp & Vodanovich, 1997) and even depression and suicide (Evans, Hawton & Rodham, 2004). It has also been shown that
boredom increases violent risk-taking behaviors (Fisher, 1998) and unsafe driving (Dahlen, Martin, Ragan & Kuhlman, 2005).
But what is boredom exactly? Boredom is defined as “an unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on the current activity. When a specific activity is to be performed, individuals experiencing boredom feel that it takes constant effort to maintain or return attention to that activity” (Fisher, 1993, p.396). Additionally, boredom is a distinct emotional state: its
experiential content related to feelings, thoughts, action tendencies, actions and emotivational (i.e. motivational components related to emotions) goals all differ from other negative
emotions like sadness, anger and frustration (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012).
It should be clear that boredom is an undesirable state that one should be motivated to avoid. Albeit people prefer to be active, they need a reason to keep themselves busy: without justification people will choose being inactive. However, even insignificant justifications can serve as motivation to “dread idleness” (Hsee, Yang & Wang, 2010). Wilson et al. (2014) conducted a study in which participants spent fifteen minutes in an unadorned room, without any of their belongings. The participants were instructed to entertain themselves with their thoughts, while remaining in their seats and staying awake. Almost 50% of the participants reported that they did not enjoy the experience and 57.5% of the participants found it hard to concentrate on their thoughts. Interestingly, in a similar study they found that 67% of the men and 25% of the women chose to experience negative stimulation in the form of electronic shocks when this option was offered, even though they initially reported that they would pay to avoid the shocks. Apparently, just being alone with their thoughts was considered to be very unpleasant, up to a point that electric shocks were preferred (Wilson et al., 2014).
Even though there can be several reasons why people seem to be uncomfortable entertaining themselves with their thoughts, it is possible that participants in the
experienced, activities are perceived to be less challenging (Acee et al., 2010) and meaningful (Fahlman, Mercer, Gaskovski, Eastwood & Eastwood, 2009) than ideally experienced. Thus, boredom can be seen as an imbalance between ideal and experienced challenge and meaning. It is suggested that people will be motivated to compensate for this lack of challenge and meaning, for instance through seeking stimulation and fun (Smith, Wagaman & Handley, 2009) and more challenge and meaning (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012) in future behavior.
However, the fact that people occasionally voluntarily seek uncertainty and participate in risky or dangerous behaviors (Loewesteijn, 1994; Fisher, 1998) seems to contradict the well-documented need for order, control and certainty (Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan & Laurin, 2008; Rutjens, van Harreveld & van der Pligt, 2013). The relationship between ideal levels of experienced control and perceived order on the one hand and feelings of threat and insecurity on the other hand, has been investigated widely (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Generally, people experience a higher need for order and certainty when their perceived control or order is threatened, which can for instance result in a stronger believe in a controlling God or a powerful political system (Kay et al., 2008). Likewise, Rutjens et al. (2013) found that threats to order and control stimulate the motivation to restore this order. This way, the balance between ideal and experienced order and control will be reestablished (Proulx et al., 2012). How can this apparent contradiction in the present literature, namely voluntarily seeking dangers and risks on the one hand, and a pervasive need for order and control on the other hand – be reconciled?
The aforementioned motivation to restore balance might apply to boredom as well. The imbalance between ideal and experienced challenge and meaning will motivate people to engage in behaviors that provide a sense of challenge and meaning (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012). This might be accomplished through engaging in risky behavior that will stimulate feelings of uncertainty. Behavior is generally perceived to be risky when expected outcomes
associated with the behavior are uncertain, goals are considered to be difficult to achieve and potential outcomes can result in extreme consequences (Sitkin & Pablo, 1992). Previously found connections between boredom and risk-taking behaviors (Fisher, 1998; Dahlen et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2006) could be interpreted in light of such a “balance-seeking” approach: people might engage in risky behavior because doing so will stimulate feelings of challenge and meaning, hereby reducing feelings of boredom and thus restoring balance.
In addition, perceived control has been found to be an important factor in the process of making decisions regarding risks-taking behaviors (Slovik, 1987, in Kouchaki et al., 2014). People who believe they have high personal control over their environment are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Emotions characterized by high levels of control, such as happiness and guilt, enhance the likelihood of risk-taking behaviors (Kouchaki et al., 2014). Conversely, emotions characterized by low levels of control, such as fear, reduce the likelihood of risk-taking behaviors (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). These findings fit in a “balance-seeking” approach, because they suggest that there is an optimum level of control: both too high and low levels of control will motivate people to strive to and achieve more optimum levels of control.
The present research aims to investigate the nature of the relation between boredom and risk-taking tendencies by taking on a “balance-seeking” approach. To do so, we assess order perceptions, risk intentions, risk attitudes and risky behavior at two different moments: during the break of a statistic lecture and at a random moment. During a statistics lecture, boredom is likely to be experienced because students regularly feel bored during lectures (Acee et al., 2010) and statistic-related courses are generally found to be uninteresting (Gal & Ginsburg, 1994). We expect that participants in the boredom situation experience too high levels of order and predictability over the situation, and as a result are motivated to
compensate for this abundance by taking more risks and overestimating the likelihood of engaging in risk-taking behaviors.
Method Participants and design
A total of 30 third-year industrial and organizational Psychology undergraduate
students from the University of Amsterdam (7 male; 23 female) participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 21.73 years (SD = 1.29). A within-subject design was
employed, measuring risk-taking tendencies at two moments: during the break of a statistics lecture (boredom situation) and at a random moment (neutral situation)1. Participants were recruited before attending a statistics lecture. A reward of 50 euro was allotted among the participants who fully completed the survey twice.
Procedure and materials
Qualtrics, a survey tool that facilitates conducting online research, was used for this quasi-experiment. At two different testing points, participants received the survey link on their mobile devices. The survey started with basic information and introduction of the experiment and participants had to sign the informed consent before taking the survey.
To measure risk-taking behavior, a lottery was introduced. Participants were informed that everyone participating in this experiment initially had one lottery ticket to win 50 euro. However, to optimize their chances of winning, they were offered the possibility to
potentially double their lottery ticket, thus doubling their chances of winning 50 euro. Participants were instructed to choose if they would rather have a 50% chance of having two lottery tickets and a 50% chance of having no lottery ticket at all, or alternatively one
guaranteed lottery ticket (0 = certain outcome, 1 = risky outcome). After making this choice,
1
The present research was part of a group project. In the overall research project a threat condition was added, which consisted of a situation in which participants were about to take an exam.
participants were explicitly told that the lottery ended and that their answers on the upcoming questions would not influence their chances of winning.
To measure risk-taking intentions, participants responded to four questions assessing their willingness to take risks (Kouchaki, Gino & Jami, 2014; Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton & Robertson, 2011). Each question consisted of a dichotomous financial choice between a certain and an uncertain outcome. The first question asked was: “Do you want a 50% chance of getting €800 or €100 for sure?” In the three upcoming questions, the amount of money participants could hypothetically get for certain gradually increased to 400 euro. The risk-intention index consisted of the number of times the participant chose the uncertain outcome (0 = certain outcome, 1 = risky outcome), therefore the total score ranging from 0 to 4.
To measure attitudes towards risk-taking behavior, participants completed the recreational subscale of the Domain-Specific-Risk Taking (DOSPERT, Blais & Weber, 2006), which consisted of six items. Participants were instructed to rate the likelihood of engaging in certain activities or behaviors on a 100-point slider scale (0 = very unlikely, 100 = very likely). Example items are: “Bungee jumping of a tall bridge” and “Going whitewater rafting at high water in the spring”. The scale has been shown to have high internal
consistency (Chronbach’s α for the first measure moment = .82, Chronbach’s α for the second measure moment = .87).
To assess order perceptions, participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with four items related to perceived order and predictability (Meijers & Rutjens, 2014). Example items are: “Our lives are determined by randomness” and “Life is
predictable”. Participants could rate these items on a 100-point scale using sliders (0
=completely disagree, 100 = completely agree). After reverse scoring, higher scores indicated stronger order perceptions.
Next followed a manipulation check. This check consisted of three items, asking participants to rate the extent to which they felt bored and tensed (0 = not bored at all, relaxed, 100 = very bored, very tensed). Furthermore, they were asked to rate their current mood from 0 (negative) to 100 (positive). Again, these items were rated using sliders.
As part of an exit-interview participants indicated their age, gender, individual student number and the activity they were about to engage in. Student number and prospective
activity were assessed in order to connect the survey data of the two testing points to the correct participant.
After completing the survey participants were thanked for their participation. They were told they would receive a message within three days after completing the survey three times, providing they won the lottery money. An e-mail address was provided in case the participant wanted to receive more information about the experiment. In total, it took participants between three to four minutes to complete the survey.
Results
Results have to be interpreted with caution because risk intentions, risky behavior and tension violated the assumption of normality.2 However, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is not very sensitive to moderate deviations from normality and remains robust when
assumptions are broken (Glass, Peckham & Sanders, 1972) and violation of this assumption merely affects the false positivity rate (Lix, Keselman & Keselman, 1996). Accordingly, we decided not to adjust the data towards a more normal distribution.
2Test statistics for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: risk intention in the boredom situation, D(30) = 0.23, p < .05, risk intention in the neutral situation, D(30) = 0.26, p < .05. Risky behavior in the boredom situation, D(30) = 0.50, p < .001, risky behavior in the neutral situation, D(30) = 0.52, p < .001. Tension in the boredom situation, D(30) = 0.16, p = .05, tension in the neutral situation, D(30)= 0.20, p < .01. Order perceptions, risk attitudes, boredom and valence did meet the assumption of normality.
To assess whether our boredom situation was successful, we performed a repeated measures analysis to test the effect of situation (boredom versus neutral) on boredom, tension and valence. Results indicate that participants did not report different levels of boredom in the boredom situation than they did in the neutral situation, F (1, 29) = 1.80, p = .19. Moreover, there was no effect of situation on valence, F (1, 29) = .43, p = .52, and tension, F (1, 29) = 1.13, p = .30. Descriptive test results can be found in table 1. These results indicate that participants did not feel bored in the boredom situation. Hence, our chosen situation (i.e. statistics lecture) did not meet our expectation that it is perceived as boring.
Table 1. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the scores on boredom, tension and valence for the boredom and neutral situation.
Boredom situation Neutral situation
M SD M SD
Boredom 52.43 24.98 44.57 27.62
Tension 33.43 28.74 27.70 27.45
Valence 60.93 19.77 63.77 20.32
A repeated measures analysis was conducted to test our hypothesis that participants experience more order perceptions and show greater risk-taking tendencies in the boredom situation than in the neutral situation. Results indicate that there was no effect of situation on order perceptions, F (1, 29) = 2.11, p = .16, risk attitudes, F (1, 29) = 2.69, p = .11, and risky behavior, F (1, 29) = .33, p = .57. However, there was a marginally significant effect of situation on risk intentions, F (1, 29) = 3.96, p = .06. Contrary to our expectations, this suggests that participants were somewhat more likely to show risk intentions in the neutral
perceptions and risk-taking tendencies (e.g. risk intentions, risk attitudes and risky behavior) could not be confirmed.
Table 2. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the scores on order perceptions, risk intentions, risk attitudes and risky behavior for the boredom and neutral situation.
Boredom situation Neutral situation
M SD M SD
Order perceptions 44.48 13.49 41.03 13.29
Risk intentions 1.27 1.14 1.67 1.06
Risk attitudes 50.91 26.11 54.81 24.26
Risky behavior 0.17 0.38 0.13 0.35
Lastly, correlations were assessed to check whether order perceptions, risk intentions, risk attitudes, risky behavior and boredom, tension, valence and demographics (e.g. age and gender) were statistically related. The correlation matrices related to the boredom and neutral situation are reported below. Despite most correlations being insignificant, some interesting discrepancies can be found when comparing the two correlation matrices. Order perceptions seem to correlate positively with risk attitudes in the boredom situation; suggesting that high levels of perceived order and control might be related to showing more risk attitudes.
However, there was no such correlation in the neutral situation. Furthermore, reported boredom seems to correlate positively with tension in the boredom situation, but this correlation becomes non-existent in the neutral situation. This might be because the participants were engaged in several different activities (e.g. some reported to be watching television, others were studying or on a date) in the neutral situation, whereas they were all at the same lecture in the boredom situation.
Table 3. Correlations between order perception, risk intentions, risk attitudes, risky behavior and the manipulation variables boredom, tension and valence, as well as gender and age in the boredom situation.
Order perceptions Risk intentions Risk attitudes Risky behavior Boredom Tension Valence Order perceptions 1 Risk intentions -.08 1 Risk attitudes -.31 .31 1 Risky behavior .11 .45* .11 1 Boredom -.04 -.17 .27 -.02 1 Tension -.18 -.21 .18 .25 .35 1 Valence -.05 .06 .27 -.10 -.30 -.36* 1 Gender -.14 -.08 -.37* -.18 -.05 .02 .07 Age .41* -.23 .03 -.19 -.07 -.21 -.15
Table 4. Correlations between order perception, risk intentions, risk attitudes, risky behavior and the manipulation variables boredom, tension and valence, as well as gender and age in the neutral situation.
Order perceptions Risk intentions Risk attitudes Risky behavior Boredom Tension Valence Order perceptions 1 Risk intentions .12 1 Risk attitudes -.10 -.14 1 Risky behavior .14 .22 .28 1 Boredom -.01 -.17 .35 -.06 1 Tension -.03 -.02 -.04 .18 -.01 1 Valence -.05 -.04 .03 -.05 -.22 -.43* 1 Gender -.06 .05 -.37* -.02 -.18 .18 -.13 Age .45* -.17 .15 -.23 .09 -.18 -.17
Conclusion and Discussion
The present research aimed to investigate whether boredom results in experiencing high control and predictability over the situation on the one hand, and showing more risk-taking tendencies on the other hand. It was suggested that previously found connections between boredom and risk-taking behaviors (Fisher, 1998; Dahlen et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2006) could be interpreted in light of a “balance-seeking” approach: people might engage in risky behavior because doing so will eliminate feelings of boredom and ultimately more optimum levels of order and predictability will be achieved. Contrary to our expectations, participants were not more bored in the boredom situation than in the neutral situation. No effect of situation on order perceptions, risk attitudes and risky behavior was found. However, there was a marginally significant effect of situation on risk intentions, suggesting that
participants in the neutral situation were somewhat more likely to show risk intentions than in the boredom situation.
There are limitations of this study that need to be taken into consideration. Primarily, our chosen boredom situation proved to be ineffective because the reported levels of boredom did not differ amongst the two situations. The present research did not find any effect of situation on order perceptions and risk-taking tendencies, however based on the current research we cannot say that these effects are non-existent, simply because participants were not more bored in the boredom situation than in the control situation. There can be several reasons for this lack of experienced boredom. It is possible that the statistic lecture was considered to be amusing, despite it being generally perceived as an uninteresting subject. Another possibility for the lack of experienced boredom consists of the increased importance to succeed for third-year students, because they will graduate shortly. Therefore, participants might have been more motivated to pay attention compared to first- or second year students.
Another shortcoming of the chosen situations consists of the fact that participants in the neutral situation could choose at what moment they wanted to take the survey. Contrary to the boredom situation in which all participants completed the survey during the statistics lecture; in the neutral situation participants could open the survey link at any preferred time. It seems logical that participants were more likely to take the survey when they did not have anything interesting or urgent to do. As a result, they might have completed the survey at moments when they were more likely to be bored. Therefore, it is dubious whether the current neutral situation can serve as a satisfactory comparison to the boredom situation.
Moreover, it is questionable whether students experience high levels of order and predictability related to boredom during a statistic lecture. Statistics courses are, besides being generally perceived as boring, also considered to be rather abstract and hard to fully
comprehend, especially amongst students without a strong mathematic background (Lehman & Nisbett, 1990). This might especially apply to more advanced statistic lectures, as was the case in the present research. Acee et al. (2010) have found that participants experiencing boredom in over-challenging situations report heightened feelings of anger, anxiety and hopelessness compared to those experiencing boredom in under-challenging situations. Considering that emotions such as anxiety are related to low levels of control (Lerner & Keltner, 2001), it is ambiguous whether the statistics lecture (e.g. over-challenging situation) is indeed defined by high levels of order and predictability. It might be more likely that people experience low levels of order and predictability while involved in over-challenging situations.
The present study used real-life situations and therefore the duration of the experiment had to be as short as possible. Consequently, the survey could only consist of a limited
amount of items and potential valuable information about the participants could not be measured. For instance, it would have been interesting to look at differences in personality
because people with personality traits such as sensation seeking and impulsivity are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors (Lauriola, Panno, Levin, & Lejuez, 2014). The design of the present research did not allow controlling for such personality traits that could potentially mediate the relationship between boredom and risk-taking tendencies.
Based on these shortcomings, a quasi-experimental design is not recommended for future research, unless the situations will be pilot tested first to ensure that the boredom situation is indeed perceived as boring. To expose the true nature of the effect of boredom on order perception and risk-taking tendencies, an experimental design is recommended. Ideally, this design would add a threat condition to gain a more complete outlook on the effects of too high (e.g. boredom) as well ass too low (e.g. threat) levels of order and predictability. If situations characterized by high levels of order and predictability lead to greater risk-taking tendencies, and situations characterized by low levels of order and unpredictability lead to lesser risk-taking tendencies, the “balance-seeking” hypothesis that eventually yields an optimum in desired order and control might be adapted.
The present study failed to clarify the relationship between boredom, order
perceptions and risk-taking tendencies. Boredom is a very common experience, especially amongst youth (Eastwood et al., 2012). At the same time, adolescence is a developmental period in which youth is inclined to engage in risky behaviors, such as excessive alcohol use (Leatherdale & Burkhalter, 2012) and experimenting with drugs (Redonnet et al., 2012). The tragic death of the student who claimed to rather die from vodka than from boredom, as previously mentioned, might be an extreme consequence of boredom. However, it does accentuate that we need to enhance our understanding of the motivational aspects underlying boredom.
Einstein and Newton both claimed to have had their most fruitful moments of inspiration while they were not trying to come up with anything world changing - but when they were rather bored and mind wandering, the following quote by Andy Warhol might offer an alternative view on boredom as an unpleasant state of mind: “You need to let the little things that would ordinarily bore you suddenly thrill you”.
References
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J. I., Chu, H. N. R., Kim, M., ... & Wicker, F. W. (2010). Academic boredom in under-and over-challenging situations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 35, 17-27.
Bennett, G., Henson, R. K., & Zhang, J. (2003). Generation Y's perceptions of the action sports industry segment. Journal of sport management, 17, 95-115.
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33-47.
Charlton, C. (2015, March 17). Student dies after necking 25 shots in 60 seconds as part of drinking game challenge in Brazil. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2999231/Student-dies-necking-25-shots-60 seconds-drinking-game-challenge-Brazil.html
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 482-495.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Gaskovski, P., Eastwood, A. E., & Eastwood, J. D. (2009). Does a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimental analyses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 307-340. Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395-
417.
Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522.
Gal, I., & Ginsburg, L. (1994). The role of beliefs and attitudes in learning statistics: Towards an assessment framework. Journal of Statistics Education, 2, 1-15.
assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review
of educational research, 42, 237-288.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1015–1026.
Gupta, R., Derevensky, J. L., & Ellenbogen, S. (2006). Personality characteristics and risk taking tendencies among adolescent gamblers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 38, 201-213.
Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M. M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accidental Analysis and Prevention, 37, 341-348.
Evans, E., Hawton, K., & Rodham, K. (2004). Factors associated with suicidal phenomena in adolescents: a systematic review of population-based studies. Clinical psychology review, 24, 957-979.
Hsee, C. K., Yang, A. X., & Wang, L. (2010). Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness. Psychological Science, 21, 926-930.
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.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95, 18-35.
Kouchaki, M., Gino, F., & Jami, A. (2014). The burden of guilt: Heavy backpacks, light snacks, and enhanced morality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 414-424.
Lauriola, M., Panno, A., Levin, I. P., & Lejuez, C. W. (2014). Individual differences in risky decision making: A meta‐ analysis of sensation seeking and impulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 20-36. Leatherdale, S. T., & Burkhalter, R. (2012). The substance use profile of Canadian youth:
exploring the prevalence of alcohol, drug and tobacco use by gender and grade. Addictive behaviors, 37, 318-322.
Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952-960.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. (1996). Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of educational research, 66, 579-619.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Psychological bulletin, 116, 75-98.
Meijers, M. H., & Rutjens, B. T. (2014). Affirming belief in scientific progress reduces environmentally friendly behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 487-495.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational psychologist, 37, 91-105.
Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 285-291.
alcohol, cannabis and other illegal drug use among young adults: The socioeconomic context. Drug and alcohol dependence, 121, 231-239.
Rupp, D. E., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1997). The role of boredom proneness in self-reported anger and aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 925–936. Rutjens, B. T., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2013). Step by step: Finding
compensatory order in science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 250-255
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67, 1063-1078. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior.
Academy of management review, 17, 9-38.
Smith, J. L., Wagaman, J., & Handley, I. M. (2009). Keeping it dull or making it fun: Task variation as a function of promotion versus prevention focus. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 150–160.
Van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 181-194.
Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115-117.
Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., ... & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science,
