DOES A LACK OF LIFE MEANING CAUSE BOREDOM? RESULTS FROM
PSYCHOMETRIC, ...Fahlman, Shelley A;Mercer, Kimberley B;Gaskovski,
Peter;Eastwood, Adrienne E;Eastwood, John D Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology; Mar 2009; 28, 3; ProQuest Central pg.
307Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2009,
pp. 307-340DOES A LACK OF LIFE MEANING CAUSE BOREDOM? RESULTS FROM
PSYCHOMETRIC, LONGITUDINAL, AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSESSHELLEY A.
FAHLMAN, KIMBERLEY B. MERCER, PETER GASKOVSKI, ADRIENNE E.
EASTWOOD, AND JOHN D. EASTWOODExistential theory and previous
qualitative research have suggested that a lack of life meaning and
purpose causes boredom, as well as other types of negative affect
such as depression or anxiety. Although these variables have been
shown to be correlated at one point in time, the relationships
among these constructs have not been investigated using a
controlled, quantitative research design. In Study 1a (N= 131),
boredom was shown to be related to, yet psychometrically distinct
from, life meaning, depression, and anxiety. In Study 1b (N = 88),
life meaning significantly predicted changes in boredom across time
while depression and anxiety did not. In addition, boredom was a
significant predictor of changes in life meaning across time, while
depression and anxiety were not. Finally, in Study 2 (N = 102),
manipulating perceptions of life meaning significantly changed
boredom, while a manipulation of mood did not. The nature of the
relationship between life meaning and boredom, as well as some
clinical implications, are discussed.Boredom is a common yet
insidious human experience. Although boredom makes "no grand
gestures, nor great cries" (Baudelaire, 1993, p. 7) and, on first
glance, appears deceptively simple, a closer examination reveals an
intractable and complex malady. The term boredom is used to refer
to a wide range of experience, from trivial and transient
dissatisfaction, to extreme, chronic suffering. In terms of its
defining elements, however, boredom involves dissatisfaction with
and disengagement from one's environment and/or current ac-Portions
of this research (Study 2) are based on the Master's thesis of the
first author.Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Dr. John Eastwood, Department of Psychology, York
University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3.
E-mail: [email protected] with permission of the
copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.308
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGtivity (e.g., Fenichel, 1951; Mikulas &
Vodanovich, 1993). Although a bored individual wishes to be engaged
in satisfying activity, the individual may feel that there is
"nothing to do," that they cannot identify an activity that would
satisfy their desire, or that they must do things they do not want
to do (Fahlman, Mercer, Flora, & Eastwood, 2008). The English
word "boredom" has a relatively specific and recent historical
origin (Spacks, 1995), but the psychological state to which it
refers has been explored by observers of the human condition since
antiquity (Kuhn, 1976). Among modern thinkers, Schopenhauer (1995)
describes ennui as a "lifeless yearning without a definite object,
a deadening languor" (p. 85). Byron calls boredom "that awful yawn
which sleep cannot abate" (Steffan & Pratt, 1971, p. 405).
Finally, Fromm (1955) claims that "among the evils of life, there
are few which are as painful as boredom, and consequently every
attempt is made to avoid it" (p. 202).In contrast to its treatment
in literary and philosophical work, boredom has received relatively
little attention in the psychological literature. In fact, Smith
(1981) noted that between 1926 and 1980 an average of less than one
paper per year was published on the topic. In more recent years,
however, this trend has been shifting, and a growing body of
literature has demonstrated that boredom is associated with
significant psychological, behavioral, and social difficulties
(e.g., Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & Frankova, 1990; Harris, 2000;
Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000). Most consistently, studies have
shown that boredom is correlated with various types of negative
affect, including depression, anxiety, apathy, hopelessness, and
lacking a sense of meaning or purpose in life (Ahmed, 1990;
Bargdill, 2000; Blaszczynski et al., 1990; Farmer & Sundberg,
1986; MacDon-ald & Holland, 2002; Passik, Inman, Kirsh,
Theobald, & Dickerson, 2003; Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000;
Vodanovich & Verner, 1991; Weinstein, Xie, & Cleanthous,
1995). With such relations to different forms of negative affect,
boredom is surely not simply a transient form of suffering. In
fact, several authors have documented cases of individuals
experiencing chronic boredom (e.g., Bargdill, 2000; Drob &
Bernard, 1987)one even describing a man who was "almost bored to
death" (Maltsberger, 2000).Although the associations between
boredom and various types of negative affect have been reliably
demonstrated, there have been few efforts to fully understand or
interpret these findings within a theoretical framework. However,
one such frameworkthe ex-Reproduced with permission of the
copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.FAHLMAN ET AL.
309istential traditionprovides a clear frame for understanding
the relationship between boredom, negative affect, and life
meaning. Although diverse in their thinking, many existential
theorists posit that lacking a sense of life meaning is at the
forefront of human suffering, and that experiences of boredom and
negative affect are central components of this lack of purpose or
meaning. Frankl (1959/1962/1984), for example, emphasizes the
fundamental importance of having of a sense of meaning in one's
life. Indeed, for him, the quest to find and fulfill a sense of
meaning is the essence of human motivation, a basic striving that
he calls the "will to meaning" (Frankl, 1978). According to Frankl
(1959/1962/1984, 1978), the conditions of modern society have left
many individuals with a feeling of meaninglessnessan affliction he
refers to as an existential vacuum. When this condition remains
unresolved, individuals are said to "lack the awareness of a
meaning worth living for. They are haunted by the experience of
their inner emptiness, a void within themselves" (Frankl,
1959/1962/1984, p. 128). Frankl further contends that "the
existential vacuum manifests itself mainly in a state of boredom"
(p. 129). Yet, he also notes that the existential vacuum is
associated with negative affective states, such as dysphoria, as
well as resulting maladaptive behaviors, such as aggression or
suicide.A similar but distinct conceptualization of boredom and
negative affect is offered by Maddi, in which he too underlines the
importance of the search for meaning (Maddi, 1967,1970). For Maddi
(1970), both boredom and negative affect arise from a
psychopa-thology of meaningwhat he refers to as existential
sickness or existential neurosis, which he defines as "a settled,
continuous state of meaninglessness, apathy, and aimlessness" (p.
140). The affective component of this existential sickness involves
a "general absence of emotions, pleasant or unpleasant, with the
exception of boredom" (p. 140, emphasis added). Although boredom is
the primary affective symptom, existential sickness can also
manifest in intermittent periods of depression. Yet, according to
Maddi, if the condition is prolonged, depression recedes and the
individual is overcome by "apathy and boredom, and more apathy and
boredom, in a humdrum cycle of indifference" (p. 140).At least two
empirical studies have examined the relationship between life
meaning and boredom using qualitative methods. First,Reproduced
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.310
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGDrob and Bernard (1987), on the basis of
clinical case studies, challenged the classic psychoanalytic
assumption that chronic boredom is a consequence of defensive
operations (i.e., that boredom develops after instinctual aims are
blocked from awareness, resulting in impoverished desire, fantasy
and emotion, e.g., Wangh, 1975). Instead, Drob and Bernard
concluded that the chronically bored individual is devoid of
purpose: he or she has failed to achieve a fundamental life project
that gives meaning to his or her life. Although this lack of
direction may, in part, result from defensive factors, it is the
lack of purpose or meaning which is the critical causal factor in
the development of chronic boredom. Accordingly, Drob and Bernard
suggest that it is only when the individual has adopted a
meaningful life project or theme that boredom can be overcome.More
recently, Bargdill (2000) has adopted a similar view of boredom. In
conducting interviews with individuals who were bored with their
lives, Bargdill found that emotional ambivalence is a key element
of life boredomambivalence which developed after these individuals
had compromised their personal life projects, goals, or dreams.
After replacing their desires with less desired projects, they
became emotionally torn. On the one hand, they felt anger and blame
toward the world and others, particularly toward those whom they
felt had "forced" them to compromise their personal projects; on
the other hand, they felt shame and self-blame, realizing they had
sold short their own dreams to pursue those of others. Moreover,
the boredom they felt toward their modified projects spread to
other aspects of their lives. This chronic boredom was accompanied
by feelings of emptiness, and eventually individuals became passive
and avoidant toward their lives. Bargdill thus concluded that
losing or turning away from personally meaningful life goals leads
to feeling "stuck" in a chronic state of boredom. In short, the
work of Bargdill (2000), like that of Drob and Bernard (1987),
suggests that the loss of or failure to develop meaningful life
goals causes the experience of chronic boredom.Existential theory
and these two qualitative studies suggest that boredom arises from
a lack of life meaning. Although previous research has shown that
these variables are significantly related when measured at one
point in time (e.g., MacDonald & Holland, 2002; Weinstein, Xie,
& Cleanthous, 1995), cause cannot be inferred from correlations
alone. In order to remedy this gap in existing research, the
present research evaluated the relationships among these
vari-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL
311ables using a quantitative, controlled research design.
Specifically, the existential hypothesis that a lack of meaning
causes boredom was tested. In addition, because existential theory
implies that boredom's relationship to negative affect can be
accounted for by life meaning, a related sub-goal of the present
research was to examine this possibility.In order to demonstrate
that changes in life meaning cause changes in boredom, it first
must be shown that these constructs can be reliably and distinctly
measured. Then, the temporal precedence of life meaning must be
demonstrated by examining its effect on boredom across time (in
addition to its impact on depression and anxiety). Finally, the
presumed "cause" must be shown to correlate with its presumed
effect when other relevant variables are held constantthat is, the
causal variable must be selectively manipulated via a controlled
experimental design. This was the approach taken in the present
investigation. Specifically, boredom, life meaning, and negative
affect (i.e., depression and anxiety) were first examined for
psychometric distinctiveness (Study la). Next, the variables were
examined across time in order to evaluate their predictive value
(Study lb). Finally, an experimental approach was used to examine
whether temporarily manipulating perceptions of life meaning and
purpose would have the expected impact on boredom, as opposed to
manipulating negative affect alone (Study 2).STUDY 1AThe purpose of
Study la was to determine whether boredom, life meaning, depression
and anxiety are correlated, yet psychometri-cally distinct,
constructs. To achieve this purpose, structural equation modeling
analyses were used to determine whether these variables could be
best described as four separate constructs.METHODParticipants and
ProcedureParticipants were 138 undergraduate students enrolled in
introductory psychology courses. They were 77% female (n - 106)
with a mean age of 19.4 (SD = 2.5, range 17 to 36). Participants
receivedReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.312
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGcourse credit for participating.
Questionnaire packages containing self-report measures of boredom,
meaning, anxiety, and depression were included in four different
orders.MeasuresBoredom Proneness Scale. The Boredom Proneness Scale
(BPS; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) is a trait scale with 28 items
measuring "one's proneness toward experiencing boredom" (p. 5). The
internal consistency of the 7-point Likert version has been
reported to range from .79 to .83 (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986;
Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). The test-retest reliability was
reported to be .79 over a one-week interval (Polly, Vodanovich,
Watt, & Blanchard, 1993). Higher scores indicate greater
proneness toward experiencing boredom.Boredom Coping Scale. The
Boredom Coping Scale (BCS; Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum, 1984)
consists of 10 forced-choice items intended "to reflect one's
disposition to restructure one's perceptions and participation in
potentially boring activities so as to decrease boredom" (p. 183).
In other words, it assesses the ability to avoid the experience of
boredom (e.g., "I easily find ways to entertain myself even if
others are bored"). The internal consistency is reported to be .67,
and the test-retest reliability based on a one- to three-week
interval is .64 (Hamilton et al., 1984). Higher scores indicate
less frequent boredom.Purpose in Life Test. The Purpose in Life
Test (PIL; Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964) was
developed as a means of operationalizing Viktor Frankl's concept of
life meaning. It is intended to measure "the degree to which the
individual [experiences] 'purpose in life' " (p. 201), which is
defined as "the onto-logical significance of life from the point of
view of the experiencing individual" (p. 201). The internal
consistency of the PIL has been reported to range from .90 to .92
(Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Re-ker, 1977), and the split-half
reliability from .87 to .92 (Crumbaugh, 1968; Reker & Cousins,
1979). Reported test-retest coefficients are .83 over a one-week
interval (Meier & Edwards, 1974), and .68 over a three-month
interval (Reker, 1977). Higher scores indicate a greater degree of
purpose in life.Life Regard Index. The Life Regard Index (LRI;
Battista & Almond, 1973) is a 28-item measure of "positive life
regard" (i.e., life mean-Reproduced with permission of the
copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.FAHLMANETAL.313ing). All items are measured on a 5-point
scale. It has an internal consistency of .86 (Debats, 1990), and
test-retest reliability ranging from .80 to .94 (Battista &
Almond, 1973; Debats, van der Lubbe, & Wezeman, 1993). Higher
scores indicate a greater degree of life meaning.Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. The Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) is a
20-item scale that measures current level of depressive
symptomatology in the general public. According to Radloff (1977),
the internal consistency is .85 and the test re-test reliability
ranges from .45 to .70. Higher scores indicate greater depressive
symptomatology.Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) has
two major subscales, one measuring anxiety (HADS-A) and one
measuring depression (HADS-D). It contains 14 items (7 depression
items, 7 anxiety items), each measured on a 4-point scale. The
internal consistency ranges from .68 to .93 for HADS-A, and .67 to
.90 for HADS-D (Bjelland, Dahl, Haug, & Neckelmann, 2002).
Higher scores indicate greater depressive or anxious
symptomatology.Self-Rating Depression Scale. The Self-Rating
Depression Scale (SDS; Zung, 1965) measures both physiological and
psychological symptoms of depression. It contains 20 items, each
measured on a 4-point Likert scale. According to a review by
Thurber, Snow, and Honts (2002), the internal consistency has
ranged from .79 to .88. Higher scores indicate greater depressive
symptomatology.State-Trait Personality Inventory, Form YTrait
Anxiety Scale. The State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI;
Spielberger, 1995; Spiel-berger & Reheiser, 2004) measures both
state and trait forms of cu-riousity, anxiety, depression, and
anger. The total scale contains 80 items, with 10 items for each
subscale. All items are measured on a 4-point scale. The Trait
Anxiety scale (ANX)used in the present studymeasures the general
tendency to respond with elevated anxiety to threatening
situations. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward
elevated anxiety.Latent FactorsFour latent factors specified were
Depression, Boredom, Meaning/Purpose in Life, and Anxiety.
Indicators of Depression included: (a) Cen-Reproduced with
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.314
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression
Scale (CESD), (b) Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression
scale (HADS-D), and (c) the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS).
Indicators of Boredom included: (a) the Boredom Proneness Scale
(BPS), and (b) the Boredom Coping Scale (BCS). Indicators of
Meaning/Purpose in Life included: (a) the Purpose in Life Test
(PIL), and (b) the Life Regard Index (LRI). Finally, indicators of
Anxiety included: (a) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression
ScaleAnxiety scale (HADS-A), and (b) the State-Trait Personality
InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX).Measurement Models. It was
predicted that boredom, life meaning, depression, and anxiety would
be correlated, yet psychometrically distinct, constructs. Support
for this prediction would be indicated by a four-factor model that
provided a better fit to the data than four possible three-factor
models. The Chi-square difference test was used to compare nested
models to the four factor model. In each of the three-factor
models, two of the latent factors were specified to measure the
same underlying construct as follows: model 3-factorA =
depression/anxiety, boredom, and meaning; model 3-factorB =
depression, anxiety, and boredom/meaning; model 3-factorC =
boredom/depression, meaning, and anxiety; and model 3-factorD =
boredom/anxiety, depression, and meaning. All co-variances were
constrained to a value of one.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTwo
participants had missing data on the SDS, and one participant had
missing data on the Trait Anxiety scale. In addition, two outliers
(i.e., greater than three standard deviations above or below the
mean) were detected on the HADS-D scale, one on the CESD scale, and
one on the HADS-A scale. These seven participants were excluded
from the present analysis, resulting in a sample size of 131. All
variables were normally distributed. Table 1 presents the
correlation matrix and standard deviations.Maximum likelihood
estimation was used to estimate the fit of the obtained covariance
matrix for the measurement models. Several fit indices were chosen
to evaluate model fit. Chi-square (%2), with its associated p
value, indicates that the specified paths in the tested model
provide a good fit to the data when p is nonsignificant (p
>Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMANETAL.315TABLE 1.
Study 1a Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations (N =
131)123456789
Depression
1. CESD
2. HADS Depression.640
3.SDS.754.625
Boredom
4. Boredom Proneness.466.445.578
5. Boredom Coping-.200-.266-.294-.595
Meaning/ Purpose
6. Purpose in Life-.654-.550-.659-.574.327
7. Life Regard Index-.541-.455-.571-.572.375.806
Anxiety
8. HADS Anxiety.556.524.527.235-.181-.399-.258
9. STPI Trait Anxiety.618.474.566.387-.171-.501-.454.488
Means15.063.4538.3896.186.30104.63102.437.5021.15
Standard deviations7.322.376.6217.792.0415.1314.413.103.57
Note. All correlations p < .05. CESD = Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; SDS = Self-Rating
Depression Scale..05). In addition, when values of the Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) exceed .90, the
tested model fits the data better than the null model. Finally, the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and 90% confidence
intervals were included, for which excellent fit is indicated by
values of .05 or less, adequate fit is indicated by values of .08
or less, and poor fit is indicated by values of .10 or greater (Hu
& Bentler, 1999).Results indicated that the four-factor
solution, with a constrained error variance,1 provided an excellent
fit to the data (Table 2). In contrast, the alternative
three-factor models resulted in poorer fit indices relative to the
four-factor model, with the exception of1. The BPS factor loading
initially exceeded one (i.e., 1.08), which is known as a Heywood
case. In such a scenario, Dillon, Kumar, and Mulani (1987)
recommend that the problematic error variance be constrained to
zero if "the model provides a reasonable fit, the respective
confidence interval for the offending estimate covers zero, and the
magnitude of the corresponding estimated standard error is roughly
the same as the other estimated standard errors" (p. 134). Our data
met these conditions, and therefore the BPS error variance was
constrained to zero, resulting in a factor loading of
one.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.316
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGthree-factor model A, which combined anxiety
and depression into a single factor; this model was equivalent to,
but not better than, the four-factor model.2 Correlations between
all four latent factors were statistically significant (p < .01)
and strong (see Figure 1).In sum, these findings demonstrate that
boredom is related to, yet psychometrically distinct from, life
meaning, as well as other negative affects (i.e., depression and
anxiety).STUDY 1BA further step in examining the relationships
between these constructs entails measuring them at more than one
point in time in order to determine whether they predict changes in
one another. Thus, the purpose of Study lb was to explore the
relationships between life meaning, boredom, depression, and
anxiety across time. Based on existential theory, it was predicted
that life meaning would better predict boredom across time
(controlling for boredom at time one) than anxiety or depression.
In addition, it was predicted that anxiety, depression, and boredom
would not predict meaning across time (controlling for meaning at
time one), given that meaning is believed to be the causal
variable. Thus, two hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted, the first with boredom and the second with meaning as
the dependent variable.METHODParticipants and ProcedureParticipants
were drawn from the same sample as Study la; however, 88 of these
individuals returned at time two, and their data was analyzed for
Study lb. The returning participants were 77% female (n = 68) with
a mean age of 19.5 (SD = 2.9, range 17 to 36).2. Although they are
validated measures of life meaning, some items on the PIL (items
1,2,19) and LRI (items 5,10,12,16,20,24) seem to also measure
boredom; thus, in order to rule out any concern with item
conflation, we ran the same analyses excluding these items. Even
with this strict test, results were nearly identical: the
four-factor model provided an excellent fit, x2(22) = 31.56, TLI =
.99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .058, and was better than all other
three-factor models, again, with the exception of three-factor
model A (depression and anxiety combined).Reproduced with
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL.
317
FIGURE 1. Four-factor measurement model.They were not
significantly different from the Study la sample on demographic
variables (i.e., age or gender) or any of the dependent variables
(i.e., anxiety, depression, boredom, or life meaning). For each
participant, questionnaires were completed approximately three to
eight weeks from the time they completed the questionnaires at time
one.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.318LACK OF LIFE
MEANINGTABLE 2. Study la Fit Indices for Four-Factor Model and
Nested Models (N =
131)Model4-factor3-factorA3-factorB3-factorC3-factorD
xMdf)28.02 (22)32.61 (25)150.48(25)307.37(25)134.10(25)
p value.175.141.000.000.000
TLI.99.99.82.72.87
CFI.99.99.88.81.91
RMSEA.046.048.196.295.183
RMSEA 90%CI.000-.091.000-.090.170-.230.270-.320.150-.21O
X2 difference (df)4.59 (3)122.46(3)279.35(3)106.08(3)
p value.204.000.000.000
Note. Model 3-factorA = depression/anxiety, boredom and meaning;
3-factorB = depression, anxiety, boredom/meaning; 3-factorC =
boredom/depression, meaning, and anxiety; and 3-factorD =
boredom/anxiety, depression, and meaning. TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index;
CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation.MeasuresAt time two, participants completed the same
questionnaire package utilized in Study la; however, for the
regression analyses, one measure of each construct was utilized:
boredom was measured by the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS);
depression was measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CESD); life meaning was measured by the Purpose
in Life Test (PIL); and anxiety was measured by the State-Trait
Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX). See Study la for a
description of these measures.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAll variables
were normally distributed. Four variables had missing data from one
participant each. In addition, two outliers (i.e., greater than
three standard deviations above or below the mean) were detected:
one on CESD1 and one on BPS2. These total scores were deleted. For
each hierarchical regression analysis, plots of standardized
residuals were examined to assess for linearity and
homosce-dasticity, and participants with standardized residuals
greater than three were excluded from each analysis. In addition,
the presence of multicollinearity was assessed by examining the
variance inflation factors, none of which exceeded 5 for any
variable in the following analyses (range 1.46 to 2.28), indicating
the absence of multicol-Reproduced with permission of the copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.TABLE
3.Correlations Between Depression, Boredom, LifeMeaning, andAnxiety
at Time One and Time Two (n =88; Study lb):AHLMA
12345678910111213 1415 1617N ET AL.
Depression
10. HADD2.747.613.562.499-.269-.552-.487.441.540
11.CESD2.497.660.642.349-.228-.484-.477-.495.543.684
12.SDS2.553.683.813.538-.318-.654-.630.432.521.648.710
Boredom
13. BPS2.447.489.558.794-.645-.633-.617.411.419.505.385.588
14.
BCS2-.214-.160*-.212-.469.811.307.278-.200*-.171*-.193*-.279-.327-.588
Meaning
15.
PIL2-.540-.626-.681-.679.466.842.761-.481-.510-.585-.544-.696-.686
.381
16.
LRI2-.469-.548-.605-.583.454.765.885-.408-.504-.541-.535-.681-.713
.371.790
Anxiety
1 7.
HADA2.514.610.646.359-.210-.482-.475.702.589.529.657.599.372
-.152*-.515 -.520
18.ANX2.589.681.686.385-.258-.628-.592.643.733.599.650.705.518
-.220-.652 -.705.725
Note. All correlations p < .05 unless otherwise noted. For
correlations between time one variables, see Table 1. Bolded
correlations represent stability of scales across time. 1 =
Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale (HADS-D),
Time one; 2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CESD), Time one; 3 = Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Time one;
4 = Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), Time one; 5 = Boredom Coping
Scale (BCS), Time one, 6 = Purpose in Life Test (PIL), Time one; 7
= Life Regard Index (LRI), Time one; 8 = Hospital Anxiety and
Depression ScaleAnxiety Scale (HADS-A), Time one; 9 = State-Trait
Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX), Time one; HADD2 =
Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale, Time two;
CESD2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Time
two; SDS2 = Self-Rating Depression Scale, Time two; BPS2 = Boredom
Proneness Scale, Time two; BCS2 = Boredom Coping Scale, Time two;
PIL2 = Purpose in Life Test, Time two; LRI2 = Life Regard Index,
Time two; HADA2 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety
scale, Time two; ANX2 = State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait
Anxiety scale, Time two. *p > .05.O320
LACK OF LIFE MEANINGlinearity. Correlations between all time one
and time two variables are presented in Table 3.Predicting Boredom
Across TimeThe first analysis predicted boredom at time two (Table
4). Boredom at time one was entered first, and meaning, anxiety,
and depression (all at time one) were entered second. Both the step
one, F(l,83) -145.17, p < .001, and step two, F(4,80) = 40.24, p
< .001, omnibus models were statistically significant. Boredom
at time one accounted for 64% (R2 = .64) of the variance in boredom
at time two. The addition of the three variables in step two
accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in boredom at time
two (AR2 - .03), which approached statistical significance, F(3,80)
= 2.55, p = .061. Importantly, an examination of the individual
predictors revealed that both boredom (B = .656, p < .001) and
meaning (B = -.196, p = .044) were statistically significant
predictors of boredom at time two, while anxiety (B = -.023, p =
.798) and depression (B = .063, p = .521) were not.3Predicting
Meaning Across TimeThe second analysis predicted life meaning at
time two (Table 5). Meaning at time one was entered first, and
boredom, anxiety, and depression (all at time one) were entered
second. Both the step one, F(l,84) = 206.60, p < .001, and step
two, F(4,81) = 63.82, p < .001, omnibus models were
statistically significant. Meaning at time one accounted for 71%
(R2- .71) of the variance in meaning at time two. The addition of
the three variables in step two accounted for an additional 5% of
the variance in meaning at time two (AR2 = .05), which was a
statistically significant change in R-squared, F(3,81) = 5.40, p =
.002. Anxiety (P = .041, p = .596) and depression (B = -.130, p -
.118) were not statistically significant predictors of meaning at3.
Similar to the approach taken in Study la, we ran a more stringent
analysis (here, using hierarchical regression) without the
problematic PIL items. Results were very similar: AR2 = .03, p =
.087. Boredom (P = .674, p < .001) at time one was a
statistically significant predictor of boredom at time two, while
anxiety (P = -.028, p = .762) and depression (P = .073, p = .452)
were not. The only difference was that the standardized beta
coefficient and associated p value for the PIL decreased slightly
(p = -.172, p = .070).4. Again, results were nearly identical with
the problematic PIL items removed: AR2 = .04, p = .006. Meaning (P
= .722, p < .001) and boredom (P = -.213, p = .002) at time one
were both statistically significant predictors of meaning at time
two, while anxiety (p = .085, p = .247) and depression (P = -.104,
p = .182) were not.Reproduced with permission of the copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN
ET AL.321TABLE 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Boredom at Time Two (BPS2) from Boredom, Meaning, Anxiety, and
Depression at Time One (Study 1 b)bSEbPrPK2AR2F(AR2)(dflP
Stepl
BPS1.833.069.79812.05.000*.636
Step 2
BPS1.686.087.6567.86.000*
PIL1-.237.116-.196-2.05.044*
ANX1-.112.437-.023-0.26.798
CESD1.136.211.0630.64.521.668.0322.55(3,80).061
Note. BPS1 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time one; PIL1 = Purpose
in Life Test, Time one; ANX1 = Slate-Trait Personality
InventoryTrait Anxiety scale, Time one; CESD1 = Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Time one. *p < .05.time
two, while unexpectedly, boredom (P = -.246, p - .001) was a
significant predictor.4In sum, life meaning was a significant
predictor of boredom across time, whereas anxiety and depression
were not. These results are consistent with existential theory.
Unexpectedly, boredom was a significant predictor of meaning across
time. These results suggest that a bidirectional causal
relationship may exist between life meaning and boredom. Finally,
boredom appears to have a more unique relationship with life
meaning than it does with negative affective states such as
depression or anxiety. That is, although boredom, depression, and
anxiety are significantly related at one point in time (e.g., Study
la; also see Table 3), Study lb suggested that this relationship is
minimal when the variance associated with life meaning is
partialled out. This is consistent with existential theory, which
implies that boredom is related to negative affect because both are
brought about by changes in life meaning.STUDY 2The findings of
Study lb suggest that life meaning can predict changes in boredom
across time, which is consistent with theoretical claims and
previous qualitative research (Bargdill, 2000; Drob & Bernard,
1987; Maddi, 1967, 1970; Frankl, 1959/1962/1984). The purpose of
Study 2 was to provide a direct test of this hypothesis by
investigating the impact of manipulating life meaning on
self-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.322LACK OF LIFE
MEANINGTABLE 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Meaning
at Time Two (PIL2) from Meaning, Boredom, Anxiety, and Depression
at Time One (Study 1b)bSEbpfp R2 ARJ F(AR2)(