Lay Beliefs about Boredom: A Mixed-Methods Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boredom is a ubiquitous emotion that has strong behavioral and mental health impacts. Research suggests that how people experience and regulate emotion are influenced by their beliefs about it. What lay beliefs about boredom do people have? The present research sought to answer this question using a mixed-methods approach. In Study 1, we conducted a series of individual and focus-group interviews (N = 29) to understand how people evaluate boredom. In Study 2, we developed and validated a 15-item self-report measure, the Boredom Beliefs Scale (BBS), in Hong Kong Chinese (N = 231) and American (N = 498) samples. In Study 3, we examined the scale’s convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity in a British sample (N = 296). We identified three lay boredom beliefs—the extent to which people recognize the functions of boredom (boredom functionality), affectively dislike this emotion (boredom dislike), and believe its experience to be normal (boredom normalcy). The three-factor BBS was demonstrated to be a reliable and valid scale that showed meaningful relationships with measures on emotion beliefs and boredom. Our findings enrich the current literature through introducing a new construct, boredom belief, which has both theoretical and applied significance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".