» Articles » PMID: 33829298

Boredom Proneness is Associated with Noisy Decision-making, Not Risk-taking

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2021 Apr 8
PMID 33829298
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Previous research shows that individuals who tend to get bored frequently and intensely-the highly boredom prone-are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. However, these studies are based largely on self-reports. Here we address this gap and suggest that noisy decision-making (DM) is a potential driver for this relationship between boredom proneness and risk-taking. In Study 1, eighty-six participants completed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) while EEG was recorded. We found blunted feedback processing with higher boredom proneness, as indexed by reduced feedback-P3 amplitudes. Risk taking, as indexed by the BART, was not higher in the highly boredom prone. In Study 2a (N = 404) we directly tested the noisy DM hypothesis in an online sample using a binary choice task, and found that with higher boredom proneness, participants were more likely to alternate between choices on a trial-to-trial basis, but were not more likely to choose the risky alternative. These findings were replicated in a new sample (Study 2b), and extended to the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; Study 3). In the IGT we found increased choice switching and reduced feedback sensitivity with higher boredom proneness. Once again, higher risk taking as indexed by the IGT was not evident in the highly boredom prone. Overall, our findings suggest that boredom proneness is associated with noisy decision-making (i.e., a tendency to alternate more between choice options regardless of risk level), and not risk-seeking per se. That is, the highly boredom prone are not necessarily attracted to risks, but rather, may be insensitive to risks due to reduced feedback sensitivity.

Citing Articles

Boredom signals deviation from a cognitive homeostatic set point.

Trudel C, Risko E, Eastwood J, van Tilburg W, Elpidorou A, Danckert J Commun Psychol. 2025; 3(1):22.

PMID: 39929959 PMC: 11811027. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-025-00209-6.


Exploring EEG resting state as a function of boredom proneness in pre-adolescents and adolescents.

Nettinga J, Naseem S, Yakobi O, Willoughby T, Danckert J Exp Brain Res. 2023; 242(1):123-135.

PMID: 37978080 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06733-3.


Adaptations of the balloon analog risk task for neuroimaging settings: a systematic review.

Compagne C, Mayer J, Gabriel D, Comte A, Magnin E, Bennabi D Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1237734.

PMID: 37790591 PMC: 10544912. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1237734.


Consumed by Boredom: Food Choice Motivation and Weight Changes during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

van Tilburg W, Pekrun R, Igou E Behav Sci (Basel). 2022; 12(10).

PMID: 36285935 PMC: 9598600. DOI: 10.3390/bs12100366.


The Struggle to Entertain Yourself: Consequences of the Internal Stimulation Factor of Boredom Proneness during Pandemic Lockdown.

Dang V, Lench H Behav Sci (Basel). 2022; 12(9).

PMID: 36135107 PMC: 9495593. DOI: 10.3390/bs12090303.


References
1.
Eastwood J, Frischen A, Fenske M, Smilek D . The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 7(5):482-95. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612456044. View

2.
Lopez-Calderon J, Luck S . ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:213. PMC: 3995046. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213. View

3.
Wolff W, Martarelli C . Bored Into Depletion? Toward a Tentative Integration of Perceived Self-Control Exertion and Boredom as Guiding Signals for Goal-Directed Behavior. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020; 15(5):1272-1283. PMC: 7477773. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620921394. View

4.
Hunter A, Eastwood J . Does state boredom cause failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention. Exp Brain Res. 2016; 236(9):2483-2492. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4749-7. View

5.
Yechiam E, Zahavi G, Arditi E . Loss restlessness and gain calmness: durable effects of losses and gains on choice switching. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 22(4):1096-103. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0749-4. View