State-Trait Boredom: Relationship to Absenteeism, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction Author(s): Steven J. Kass, Stephen J.

Vodanovich and Anne Callender Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Dec., 2001), pp. 317-327 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092772 . Accessed: 10/09/2013 05:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal

of Business

and Psychology,

Vol.

16, No.

2, Winter

2001

(? 2001)

STATE-TRAIT BOREDOM: RELATIONSHIP TO ABSENTEEISM, TENURE, AND JOB SATISFACTION

Steven J. Kass

Stephen

J. Vodanovich Anne Callender

of West Florida

University

ABSTRACT:

The

relationship

between

job

outcomes

(i.e.,

satisfaction,

absentee

of state (Job Boredom Scale) and trait (Boredom ism, and tenure) and measures Proneness Scale) boredom was investigated. Data collected from 292 workers in a manufacturing plant in the southeast United States indicated that individuals scoring high on both types of boredom were significantly more dissatisfied with
the work itself, and selection pay, promotion, supervisor, tenure. and coworkers as assessed by the

Job Descriptive
absenteeism personnel

Index. Those high

longer are organizational discussed.

in job boredom possessed

Implications

significantly
for job

greater
and

design

KEY WORDS:

boredom;

job satisfaction;

absenteeism;

job outcomes.

JOB BOREDOM AND PERFORMANCE

in jobs with performance been associated decrements demands such as physical dis repetition, perceptual in laboratory attention and work sustained settings & Touchstone, (Mackworth, 1969; O'Hanlon, 1981; Thackray, Bailey, in accident boredom has been related to an increase 1977). For instance, rate (Branton, the boredom (1982) assessed 1982). Drory 1970; Drory, Boredom has varied work and crimination,

with

Address Sciences,

correspondence 11000 University

to Steve Parkway,

of Psychology, Kass, Department FL 32514-5751. Pensacola,

College

of Arts

and

317
0889-3268/01/1200-0317$19.50/0 ? 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

and found boredom levels of 124 truck drivers levels were significantly related to property damage. Of particular to the present interest study, early evidence suggested that task repetition and fatigue of boredom leads to feelings (e.g., Wyatt, and more lowered variable work 1929) and produces output (Wyatt, & Stock, 1937) in manufacturing Cobb, Franch, Langdon, jobs. Caplan, a survey of workers across over and Pinneau (1975) conducted Harrison, a and found correlation between self twenty jobs significant, positive and repetitive tasks that underutilized of boredom one's ability. ratings and field research concluded that the detrimental laboratory Subsequent in manufacturing in jobs effects of monotony is most settings prevalent an or more work hour Manen of 1979; requiring cycles (e.g., Broadbent, ica & Corlett, 1973). 1977; Kishida, a shortcoming in work environments of boredom research However, in which the construct is the manner has been assessed. That is, bore dom has typically to exist in (or equated with) monotonous been assumed or repetitive or measured scales. An work, using self-report single-item of the literature be has been the lack of differentiation as a trait. Indeed, the as a state versus its consideration it to be a transient of the work on boredom has considered preponderance a distinction numerous have proposed writers condition. be However, other tween limitation boredom tween situational and dispositional boredom. Bernstein (1975) differenti ated between and "chronic" (trait-like) The term boredom. "responsive" was "chronic boredom" also employed Fenichel (1981). by O'Hanlon this differentiation (1951) illustrated by using the terms "normal" as op Greenson the distinc boredom. (1953) proposed posed to "pathological" and "apathetic" the research tion between boredom. "agitated" Finally, and Farmer and focus of Zuckerman (1979), on boredom susceptibility, on the trait-like has emphasized boredom proneness, (1986), Sundberg common experience as a tempo to its more of boredom aspects compared
rary state.

Boredom

Proneness research less well

and Performance

that highly has indicated boredom prone individu on vigilance tasks than those with a lower tendency boredom (Sawin & Scerbo, 1995). Specifically, prone highly fewer hits, and reported identified significantly significantly participants as low boredom than those classified state boredom, prone. The greater interact such that ". . . state and trait boredom, may concluded authors that it is difficult to determine and effects the causes of boredom" (p. and Stanny (2000) found that 755). Recently, Taylor, Kass, Vodanovich, less well on a computerized prone individuals performed high boredom low BP scores. Clock Test than those with version of the Mackworth Recent als perform to be bored

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S. J. KASS,

S. J. VODANOVICH,

AND

A.

CALLENDER

319

Job Boredom, Boredom tional state

Boredom

Proneness,

and Job Satisfaction

emo as a negative, has often been described dissatisfying & 1966; Mikulas 1986; Geiwitz, (e.g., Farmer & Sundberg, it has been defined as 1981). For instance, 1993; O'Hanlon, Vodanovich, which "A state of relatively is attributed low arousal and dissatisfaction to an inadequately environment" (Mikulas & Vodanovich, stimulating p. 3). Farmer and Sundberg describe the bore trait boredom, Regarding as ". . . one who experiences of de dom prone individual varying degrees are and tasks Common loneliness, distractibility. pression, hopelessness, as with with one's work and dissatisfaction effort, perceived requiring 1993, (1986, p. 14). psychological well-being" on affective work Few studies have investigated the role of boredom as that related Gardell indicated satisfaction. such (1971) responses job were were their monotonous felt less who that likely to jobs employees in their work. MacDonald and Maclntyre be satisfied (1997), using an found a signifi from several different employee sample job categories, scores on the job Satisfaction Scale correlation between cant, negative and boredom (N (1997). Lee (1986), using a sample of clerical employees = scores on the Job Boredom Scale found that high 322, 95% female) were significantly with Lee lower job satisfaction. associated Specifically, and negative between job boredom and reported relationships significant Index facets of work itself, pay, promotion the Job Descriptive opportuni as well as with overall satisfaction scores. ties, supervision, co-workers, on the effects of boredom proneness Gould and Seib (1997) assessed scores across two teachers satisfaction of and job samples employees, restaurant workers. They found that restaurant employees categorized as boredom the work less satisfied with itself prone were significantly and the overall job. Boredom had sat teachers lower prone significantly scores regarding their job as a whole. isfaction the purpose of the present Consequently, study was to investigate, sound assessment the impact of state devices, using psychometrically on job satisfaction, and trait boredom boredom) (boredom (job proneness) tenure using a sample of employees and organizational at a absenteeism, in this study were chosen variables manufacturing plant. The dependent because with the outcome measures af they are consistent theoretically fected by job enrichment such as the Job Characteristics strategies Model & Oldham, focus 1976). That is, such strategies (e.g., Hackman on creating more work that hypotheti interesting (e.g., less boredom) in job satisfaction, lower absenteeism, and less cally lead to an increase nor turnover. Unfortunately, neither data supervisor ratings production were to the individual of workers available (this pertaining performance information is not routinely collected by the company).

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

as It was hypothesized that individuals their work who perceived and tedious be signifi scores) would repetitive (e.g., high job boredom with various less satisfied of their job. Also, the cantly aspects given characterization and Sundberg of the boredom prone person by Farmer in boredom that those high would (1986) it was anticipated proneness their to be it was ex less perceive jobs Finally, satisfying. significantly pected teeism that both state and trait boredom and job tenure. would be associated with absen

METHOD
Participants at a manufacturing included 292 workers Participants plant in the southeast United The sample and an av States. consisted of 56% males 63% earned a high school erage age of 32 years. Of the 292 employees, or its equivalent, some college education, 35% received and the diploma remainder of the sample did not indicate their education level. The racial of the sample was 43% African-American, 53% Caucasian, composition as other or not reporting with the remainder their being categorized race. The participants in one of three areas within the primarily worked tire plant production All of the draw-twist, (spinning, beaming). facility as "laborer" positions and involved physical jobs were categorized repeti and levels and quality of product tion, ongoing monitoring (e.g., defects), sustained of sitting and standing of 4 hours). (an average periods

Procedure The employees the questionnaires and were voluntarily completed The demographic and perfor not compensated for their participation. mance data were collected from company records and paired (personnel) in order to with derived from employee code numbers badge numbers maintain participant anonymity.

Instruments

The Scale Boredom Proneness Scale. Boredom Proneness (BPS; items (e.g., "I often Farmer & Sundberg, of 28 true-false 1986) consists to do"; "It takes a lot of with time on my hands-nothing find myself me to to really happy"). The scale is intended keep change and variety on assess with environment situational one's "one's connectedness many resources as well as the ability to access adaptive and real dimensions, ize competencies" (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986, p. 10).

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S. J. KASS,

S. J. VODANOVICH,

AND

A.

CALLENDER

321

to 233 undergradu The final version of the scale was administered in and test-retest ates. An internal .79 of (after a one-week consistency = were in the BPS its authors .83 the of of (N 62) terval) reported by a In & investi true-false format (Farmer 1986). study Sundberg, original of the BPS, the psychometric of the true-false version gating properties of .73. Coefficient Ahmed (1990) reported a KR-20 reliability alpha coeffi of the scale have been reported cients for a revised 7-point Likert version & in numerous and have ranged from .79 to .84 (see McLeod studies & & Kass Vodanovich, Watt, 1991; 1990; Vodanovich, Vodanovich; Polly, & Gil & Kass, Verner, 1990; Vodanovich, 1993; Vodanovich Blanchard, & Vodanovich, & Blanchard, 1994; 1992a; Watt 1991; Watt bride, Watt & Davis, 1991). of the BPS was provided evidence for the validity by Preliminary and positive between BPS scores and measures correlations significant and amotivational loneliness, orientation, hopelessness, of boredom also (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). The authors self-ratings between BP scores and life sat correlations negative reported significant scores. and has found BPS research isfaction autonomy Subsequent scores to be significantly to an array of negative states related affective such as impulsivity, anger, procrastina aggression, anxiety, hostility, & Vodanovich, tion, and depression 1997; Vodanovich, (e.g., Rupp & Gilbride, & Rupp, & Vodano 1991; Vodanovich 1999; Watt Verner, with has associated boredom been 1992b). proneness vich, Finally, physi cal health & Vodanovich, (Kass & Vodanovich, 1990; Sommers symptoms behaviors (Martin, 1989; Ganley, 2000), abusive 1989), and poor psycho social development (Watt & Vodanovich, 1999). of depression, Job Boredom Scale. Lee's Job Boredom Scale of 17 (Lee, 1986) consists on a 5-point Likert items arranged scale (e.g., "Does monotony describe your job?" "Does the job go by too slowly?"). A coefficient alpha of .95 was reported of 322 clerical employees from the responses (95% female). with correlations evidence was provided Validity by significant negative scores and with the work overall job satisfaction itself using the Job De Index (Smith, Kendall, scriptive found a significant (1986) berg Job Boredom scale and the BP Job & Hulin, 1969). Also, positive relationship scale. Farmer and Sund Lee's (.49) between

Index. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Ken Descriptive measure assess job satisfac & is the most to used often 1969) dall, Hulin, tion (Muchinsky, of five subscales that include 1987). The JDI consists with: satisfaction for Promo (a) Work (b) (c) Itself; Pay; Opportunities and (e) Supervision. In addition, the Job In General tion; (d) Coworkers; & Gibson, to assess 1989) was developed (JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, The internal of the five JDI subscales global job satisfaction. consistency than adequate, has been found to be more with an average alpha of .88

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

a variety The internal of the JIG has been of samples. consistency across to exceed .90 several thousand (Ironson, participants reported has been well established & Gibson, 1989). Its validity Smith, Brannick, across a variety of outcome measures, with correlations par significant & and turnover absenteeism (e.g., Iaffaldano ticularly performance, & Tuttle, 1979; Scott & 1985; Muchinsky, 1977; Muchinsky Muchinsky, across Taylor, 1985).

RESULTS
JB and BP scores were moderately correlated (r = .50) expected that these are related, of boredom. though different measures suggesting and Sundberg's with the results of Farmer is consistent This finding these two vari correlation (r = .49) between study that found a similar were ables. Participants using a median split, as possessing categorized, either low (M = 48.8, SD = 7.4) or high (M = 77.4, SD = 13.0) job boredom as well as low (M = 81.7, SID = 9.6) and high (M = 107.2, SD = 10.6) bore consisted variables of scores on the levels. The dependent dom proneness of absenteeism JDI overall satisfaction five (JIG), (percent subscales, tenure within the and of Separate organization. length days missed), were used to assess the multivariate of variance (MANOVAs) analyses on and satisfac boredom effects of job boredom (JB) (BP) proneness job the effect of JB to examine tion scores. Oneway ANO VAs were employed that individu and tenure. The results indicated and BP on absenteeism in job boredom had significantly lower scores on all five JDI als high as well as decreased overall satisfaction (see table 1). High job subscales, and of absences boredom was also related to significantly greater percent As to longer job tenure. scores were also significantly Those with high boredom proneness scores on all five JDI lower their job, as indicated less satisfied with by scores BP scores satisfaction facets and overall (see table 2). However, and tenure. affect absenteeism did not significantly was significantly related to all fac missed The percent of workdays Job satisfaction ets of the JDI and overall (rs range from -.15 to -.24). related of Opportunities to the JDI subscales tenure was significantly for Promotion (r (r = -.17), and the Job in General (r = -.26), Supervision = -.14) were on the job longer were less who that employees suggesting those facets of the job. satisfied with

DISCUSSION
The levels of the present results study provide of job boredom and boredom proneness support that high empirical relate to lower significantly

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S. J. KASS, S. J. VODANOVICH, AND A. CALLENDER

323

Table Means and Standard Deviations of JDI by Job

1 Absenteeism, and Tenure

Scales, Boredom Job

Boredom

Group

Outcome Measures Work Itself Low 36.03 9.1 Paya Promotion11 31.82 14.8 29.01 17.2 Supervision* Coworkers* JIGa Absenteeism1* Tenure0 39.10 12.1 37.61 13.3 42.55 8.3 1.48 1.6 1.73 2.2 Note. *p < an = 246; bn = 240; .05; **p < .001. cn = 276.

High
18.55 12.1 20.08 15.7 14.25 16.8 27.02 15.8 26.35 15.6 27.13 13.0 2.41 2.1 2.37 2.1 5.92* 14.07** 120.54** 36.80** 44.99** 46.22** 36.29** 161.58**

scores. Specifically, both "types" of boredom were signifi job satisfaction with lower the work satisfaction associated itself, pay, cantly regarding and the overall job as coworkers promotion opportunities, supervision, assessed the link regarding by the JDI. The present findings support in educational high levels of state boredom and low satisfaction reported the 1977) and industrial 1971). In addition, (Gjesne, (Gardell, settings current findings between the significant the Job replicate relationships Boredom Scale and facets of the JDI reported by Lee (1986) who used a clerical workers. is of female This finding sample primarily comprised also consistent with the definition and offered by Mikulas of boredom Vodanovich (1993) who defined boredom partly as a state of dissatisfac tion. The present extends the and Seib (1997) of Gould study findings restaurant who reported boredom to workers be less prone significantly satisfied with the Work Itself and the Job in General whereas scales, to be less satisfied their job as a they found high BP teachers only with
whole.

The

significantly absenteeism.

are current findings indicate that high levels of job boredom with tenure associated and greater longer organizational At first glance the relationship between level job boredom

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of JDI by Boredom Scales, Proneness Boredom Outcome Measures Low 32.25 12.4 Pay8 Promotion8 29.84 15.1 25.28 18.5 Supervision11 Coworkers8 JIG8 Absenteeismb Tenure' 36.34 14.4 35.20 14.9 38.90 11.7 2.09 2.1 2.17 2.6 Note. **p < 8n = 241; .001. bn = 238; cn = 273. Absenteeism, and Tenure

Proneness

Group

High
20.97 12.9 21.22 16.2 16.28 17.6 29.34 15.3 27.54 15.6 30.03 13.4 2.10 2.0 2.16 2.0 <1 <1 30.15** 15.16** 13.40** 14.97** 18.20** 47.57**

Work Itseir

tenure That counter-intuitive. appears is, the find organizational tenure their jobs that with indicate individuals longer job perceive ings more boring. This finding as significantly is congruent with Drory (1982) a significant, who between and correlation boredom positive reported tenure. On the other hand, Hill (1975) found a negative, albeit nonsignif a positive icant relationship between these two variables. Conceptually, and is consistent and job tenure with the an ex as which has been offered 1978) process theory (Landy, opponent the for boredom 1987). (Muchinsky, theory job Specifically, planation to the same stimuli that repeated exposure (e.g., job tasks) suggests in less satisfaction and which results leads to lower levels of arousal, greater boredom. a the present is the first to establish As far as it is known, study rates. Past link between and absenteeism work significant job boredom as acci and such outcomes correlations between boredom has reported levels (e.g., dents (Branton 1982) and lowered performance 1970; Drory, and The boredom variable connection between errors, output). high job association between boredom levels the job satisfaction literature where increased absenteeism also parallels to the to miss work, relates low satisfaction tendency (high boredom) a one & not direct is Steers link this 1978). Rhodes, (see, although

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S. J. KASS,

S. J. VODANOVICH,

AND

A. CALLENDER

325

offer tangential The findings support for the job boredom regarding have & and Characteristics Model Job 1976) (Hackman Oldham, impli our That cations efforts. for work/job is, findings imply that at design in the re tempts to enrich jobs (and reduce boredom) may be beneficiad human factors and dissatisfaction. duction of absenteeism Perhaps or at monot boredom aimed 1997) reducing techniques (e.g., Salvendy, as autonomy and skill variety may such dimensions ony by increasing in improving various work outcomes. be effective that it may be beneficial for organi The present results also suggest to the systematic assessment of both to devote greater attention zations to be bored. Measuring percep employee's job boredom and the tendency in the use their jobs may assist of boredom within tions of the extent A more where needed. of job design precise they are most techniques construct may aid in the identification assessment of boredom proneness or careers that involve repe of those likely to react poorly to occupations and may be advantageous for personnel tition and monotony, selection, initiatives. and career planning vocational guidance, It should be noted that the present unique study offers a relatively in the area to the literature. For instance, contribution prior research has been limited by the use of homogeneous samples age), (e.g., gender, that lack reported psychomet job type, and the use of boredom measures em In contrast, the present research ric data (e.g., reliability, validity). a a across diverse race) sample (e.g., age, gender, ploys large, employee of jobs. variety In conclusion, needed examining a variety of work assess the effects mance measures tributions is the present that additional research study suggests state and trait boredom and the relationship between to It would be beneficial outcomes. for future research on a variety of other perfor of both "types" of boredom con and work quality. Additional such as productivity

be gained research using divergent through countries) given past research samples (e.g., organizations, especially in boredom that has reported levels (e.g., Sundberg, cultural differences & Watt, & Saoud, 1999). It appears Farmer, 1991; Vodanovich Latkin, in jobs requiring relevant that this type of research would be particularly are where the effects attention of boredom sustained (e.g., vigilance)
more salient.

to the field may

REFERENCES
S. M. of the boredom scale. Percep (1990). proneness Ahmed, Psychometric properties tual & Motor Skills, 71, 963-966. H. (1975). Boredom and the ready-made Ufe. Social Research, 42, 512-537. Bernstein, in relation to accidents at the P. (1970). A field manual work Branton, study of repetitive Journal International Research, 8, 93-107. workplace. of Production

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

D. E. Chronic of repetitive effects and nonrepetitive In C. J. work. (1979). & T. Cox to stress: Occupational London: Interna (Eds.), Response aspects. Mackay tional Publishers Corporation. R. D., Cobb, S., Franch, J. R. P. Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr. (1975). Caplan, Job demands and worker of Health and Education Welfare health. (Publi Department cation No. D.C. 75-160), Washington, A. differences in boredom at Individual and task effectiveness (1982). proneness Drory, work. Personnel 35, 141-151. Psychology, N. D. (1986). Boredom The development and correlates proneness: Farmer, R., & Sundberg, of a new scale. Journal 50, 4-17. Assessment, of Personality Broadbent, of boredom. In D. Rapaport O. (1951). On the psychology and (Ed.), Organization New York: Columbia Press. of thought (pp. 349-361). pathology University R. M. in obesity: A review and eating Interna of the literature. (1989). Emotion Ganley, tional Journal 8, 343-361. Disorders, of Eating B. (1971). Alienation in the modern industrial environment. In and mental health Gardell, L. Levi New York: Oxford Uni (Vol. 1, pp. 148-180). stress, and disease (Ed.), Society, Press. versity P. (1966). Structure of boredom. Journal and Social 3, Geiwitz, of Personality Psychology, 592-600. as a function T. (1977). General at school satisfaction and boredom of the pupil's Gjesne, characteristics. Scandinavian Journal 21, 113 Research, personality of Educational 146. as a function proneness Gould, C, & Seib, H. M. (April 1997). Job satisfaction of boredom Fenichel, and central at the 43rd annual Southeastern presented life interests. Paper Psychologi cal Association Atlanta. meeting, R. Journal (1953). On boredom. 1, Greenson, Association, of the American Psychoanalytic 7-21. J. R., & Oldham, of work^est of a G. R. (1976). Motivation the design Hackman, through Behavior and Human 16, 250-279. theory. Organizational Performance, in a monotonous Journal and variety task. British Hill, A. B. (1975). Extraversion seeking 66, 243-254. of Psychology, A M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. Job satisfaction and job performance: (1985). Iaffaldano, 97, 251-273. Bulletin, meta-analysis. Psychological P. C, Brannick, M. T., & Gibson, W. M. of a Job (1989). Construction Ironson, G. H., Smith, in General scale: A comparison of global, and specific measures. Journal of composity, 74, 193-200. Applied Psychology, to Type A S. J., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1990). Boredom Its relationship proneness: Kass, A Journal behavior and sensation Behavior, pattern seeking. Psychology: of Human 27, 7-16. in monotonous work. K. (1973). Temporal of subsidiary behavior Journal Kishida, change 2, 75-89. of Human Ergology, of job satisfaction. Journal F.J. (1978). An opponent process Psy theory of Applied Landy, 63, 533-547. chology, of job boredom. of a measure the development and validation (1986). Toward Lee, T. W. Manhattan Journal 15, 22-28. of Business, College P. (1997). The generic scale: Scale develop MacDonald, S., & Maclntyre, job satisfaction ment and its correlates. Assistance 13, 1-16. Quarterly, Employee Books. J. F. (1969). Vigilance and habituation. Baltimore: Mackworth, Penguin task. Applied E. N. (1977). A study of a light repetitive Manenica, I., & Corlett, Ergonom ics, 8, 103-109. British Journal in the development of bulimia. J. E. (1989). The role of body image Martin, 52, 262-265. of Occupational Therapy, and between self-actualization C. R., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1991). The relationship McLeod, and Personality, Journal Behavior boredom issue]. 6, proneness. [Special of Social 137-146. W. L., & Vodanovich, Mikulas, 43, 3-12. Record, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S. J. KASS, S. J. VODANOVICH, AND A. CALLENDER

327

Journal A review of the literature. absenteeism: P. M. (1977). Employee of Muchinsky, Vocational 10, 316?340. Behavior, to Work. Press. P. M. (1987). Psychology Dorsey Chicago: Applied Muchinsky, An empirical and method turnover: P. M., & Tuttle, M. L. (1979). Employee Muchinsky, assessment. Journal 14, 43-77. Behavior, of Vocational ological Practical and a theory. Acta Psychologica, J. F. (1981). Boredom: consequences O'Hanlon, 49, 53-82. of attri M. J. (1993). The effects S. J., Watt, J. D., & Blanchard, Polly, L. M., Vodanovich, on boredom Journal and Personality, butional processes proneness. of Social Behavior Rupp, 8, 123-132. in self-reported D. E., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1997). The role of boredom proneness & Personality, Behavior Journal 12, 925-936. anger and aggression. of Social 2nd Edition. New York: Factors and Ergonomics, G. (1997). Handbook of Human Salvendy,

Wiley. of instruction D. A., & Scerbo, M. W. (1995). Effects proneness type and boredom Sawin, for boredom and workload. Human in vigilance: Factors, 37, 752-765. Implications on the relation or conflicting G. S. (1985). An examination findings Scott, K. D., & Taylor, A meta-analysis. and absenteeism: Academy of Manage ship between job satisfaction ment Journal, 28, 599-612. in P. C, Kendall, C. L. (1969). The Measurement L. M., & Hulin, of Satisfaction Smith, IL: Rand McNally. Work and Retirement. Skokie, to psycholog Its relationship S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness: Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, Journal ical- and physical-health 56, 149-150. of Clinical Psychology, symptoms. on employee A process attendance: S. R. (1978). Major R. M., & Rhodes, influences Steers, model. Journal 63, 391-407. Psychology, of Applied in young adults: N. D., Latkin, J. (1991). Boredom Farmer, CA., R., & Saoud, Sundberg, and cultural Journal Gender 22, 209-223. of Cross-Cultural comparisons. Psychology, the clock: T. M., Kass, S. J., & Stanny, C. J. (2000). Watching S. J., Vodanovich, Taylor, to the annual submitted boredom and Relation between proneness Paper vigilance. LA. New Orleans, of the Southeastern Association conference meeting, Psychological and J. P., & Touchstone, R. M. R. L, Bailey, (1977). Physiological, subjective, Thackray, a simu while of reported boredom and monotony correlates performing performance In R. R. Mackie task. lated radar control (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational perfor mance New York: Plenum. and physiological correlates (pp. 203-216). S. J. (1990). A factor analytic S. J., & Kass, proneness Vodanovich, study of the boredom scale. Journal 55, 115-123. Assessment, of Personality to boredom? Social S. J., & Rupp, D. E. (1999). Are prone Vodanovich, procrastinators and Personality: An International Behavior 27, 11-16. Journal, S. J., Verner, K. M., & Gilbride, T. V. (1991). Boredom Its relation proneness: Vodanovich, affect. Psychological and negative 69, 1139-1146. ship to positive Reports and bore S. J., & Watt, J. D. (1999). The relationship time structure between Vodanovich, two cultures. An investigation within The Journal dom proneness: of Social Psychol ogy, 139, 143-152. M. J. (1994). Boredom J. D., & Blanchard, and the need for cognition. proneness Watt, in Personality, Journal 7, 169-175. of Research of race and gender in S. J. (1992a). An examination differences J. D., & Vodanovich, Watt, boredom Journal Behavior and Personality, proneness. 7, 169?175. of Social boredom and S. J. (1992b). between J. D., & Vodanovich, proneness Watt, Relationship 70, 688-690. impulsivity. Reports, Psychological and psychosocial J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness Watt, development. The Journal 133, 303-314. of Psychology, S. (1929). Boredom in industry. Personnel Journal, 8, 161-171. Wyatt, J. N., & Stock, F. G. L. (1929). Fatigue and boredom in repetitive work. S., Langdon, Wyatt, Health Research London. 77), Industrial (Report No. Board, M. the optimal level of arousal. (1979). Sensation Zuckerman, Hillsdale, seeking: Beyond NJ: Lawrence Inc. Erlbaum Associates,

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:15:30 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions