↓ Skip to main content

The knowns and unknowns of boredom: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
233 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The knowns and unknowns of boredom: a review of the literature
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00221-017-4922-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quentin Raffaelli, Caitlin Mills, Kalina Christoff

Abstract

Despite the ubiquitous nature of boredom, the definition, function, and correlates of boredom are still poorly understood. In this review, we summarize the "known" (consistent evidence) and "unknown" (inconsistent evidence) correlates of boredom. We show that boredom is consistently related to negative affect, task-unrelated thought, over-estimation of elapsed time, reduced agency, as well as to over- and under-stimulation. Activation of the default mode network was consistent across the few available fMRI studies, while the recruitment of other brain areas such as the hippocampus and anterior insular cortex, was a notable but less consistent correlate of boredom. Other less consistent correlates of boredom are also reviewed, such as the level of arousal and the mental attributions given to fluctuations of attention. Finally, we identify two critical factors that may contribute to current inconsistencies in the literature and may hamper further progress in the field. First, there is relatively little consistency in the way in which boredom has been operationalized across studies to date, with operationalizations of boredom ranging from negative affect paired with under-stimulation, over-stimulation, to negative affect paired with a lack of goal-directed actions. Second, preliminary evidence suggests the existence of distinct types of boredom (e.g., searching vs. apathetic) that may have different and sometimes even opposing correlates. Adopting a more precise and consistent way of operationalizing boredom, and arriving at an empirically validated taxonomy of different types of boredom, could serve to overcome the current roadblocks to facilitate further progress in our scientific understanding of boredom.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 231 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 19%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Student > Master 25 11%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 58 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 33%
Neuroscience 25 11%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 69 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,758,475
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#107
of 3,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,012
of 323,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#3
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.