Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20
Boredom at work: towards a dynamic spillover
model of need satisfaction, work motivation, and
work-related boredom
Madelon L. M. van Hooff & Edwin A. J. van Hooft
To cite this article: Madelon L. M. van Hooff & Edwin A. J. van Hooft (2017) Boredom at work:
towards a dynamic spillover model of need satisfaction, work motivation, and work-related
boredom, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26:1, 133-148, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2016.1241769
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1241769
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 18 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3467
View related articles View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Boredom at work: towards a dynamic spillover model of need satisfaction, work
motivation, and work-related boredom
Madelon L. M. van Hooffa and Edwin A. J. van Hooftb
aBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Boredom occurs regularly at work and can have negative consequences. This study aimed to increase
insight in the antecedents and processes underlying the development of work-related boredom by (a)
examining whether work-related need satisfaction and the quality-of-work motivation mediate the
associations between the work characteristics defined in the Job Characteristics Model and work-related
boredom, (b) investigating if this motivational process operates both on an “enduring,” between-person
level and a daily within-person level, and (c) examining if and how daily experiences of work-related
boredom spill over to the next day. Data among employees were collected in a cross-sectional study
(N = 115) and a 5-day daily diary study (N = 90). Study 1 results showed that need satisfaction and
quality-of-work motivation mediated the association between work characteristics and work-related
boredom. This motivational process was also found on a day-to-day basis in Study 2. This study further
revealed that work-related boredom spills over to the next day through its associations with increased
negative work attitudes and decreased intrinsic motivation. These findings provide insight in the
process by which momentary experiences of boredom at work may develop into a more enduring
experience of work-related boredom.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 11 February 2016
Accepted 22 September
2016
KEYWORDS
Boredom; work motivation;
emotions; job characteristics;
diary study
In contemporary workplaces, it is not uncommon that employees experience feelings of boredom. Research indicates that
between 15% and 87% of employees feel bored at work at
least some times (cf. Fisher, 1993; Mann, 2007; Rothlin &
Werder, 2008; Van der Heijden, Schepers, & Nijssen, 2012;
Watt & Hargis, 2010). Although academic interest in boredom
at work dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century
(see e.g., Munsterberg, 1913), research on this topic is scarce
(Fisher, 1993, in press). However, the studies that did examine
boredom at work have shown it to be associated with various
negative consequences for both the employee (e.g., distress,
depressive complaints, work injuries, job dissatisfaction) and
the employer (e.g., low effort and performance, absenteeism,
counterproductive work behaviour; Bruursema, Kessler, &
Spector, 2011; Frone, 1998; Kass, Vodanovich, Stanny, &
Taylor, 2001; Reijseger et al., 2013; Spector et al., 2006; Van
Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014). These negative consequences highlight the importance of thoroughly understanding how boredom develops among employees, as this may provide
information on how to reduce feelings of boredom at work.
Work-related boredom can be defined as a profound negative (i.e., unpleasant, dissatisfying) and deactivating (i.e., low
arousal) activity-related emotion, implying that employees
experience attentional difficulties and a negative value regarding their work activities (Fisher, 1993, 1998; Mikulas &
Vodanovich, 1993; Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry,
2010). It comprises more than just the absence of interest,
positive emotions, or intrinsic value and can instead be viewed
as a unique discrete unipolar emotional state, triggered by
specific stimulus conditions (Fisher, in press; Pekrun et al.,
2010). Boredom is different from low intrinsic motivation
because it indicates that an activity has negative rather than
low intrinsic value (Pekrun et al., 2010). Depending on the
duration of the boredom-evoking activity, feelings of boredom
may vary in duration from minutes to days or even weeks. The
emotion of boredom is distinct from other negative affective
states, as it is characterized by feeling unchallenged and perceptions of meaninglessness (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012).
Furthermore, in terms of the Job-Demands Resources model
(e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), work-related boredom has
been shown to be distinct from other employee well-being
constructs study as job burnout and work engagement
(Reijseger et al., 2013). Whereas burnout develops as a consequence of high job demands and low resources, and work
engagement results from high levels of job resources, workrelated boredom has been theorized to be caused by a combination of low demands and low resources (Reijseger et al.,
2013).
Also, it is important to distinguish (work-related) boredom
as an emotional state from its trait-like counterpart boredom
proneness (i.e., individual differences in the likelihood to
experience boredom in general across situations), as these
two are only slightly to moderately correlated (e.g., Kass
et al., 2001; Van Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014). In other words,
although boredom-prone individuals are (slightly) more likely
to experience boredom in a given situation, actual
CONTACT Madelon L. M. van Hooff [email protected]
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2017
VOL. 26, NO. 1, 133–148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1241769
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
experienced boredom also depends on situational factors
linked to the specific activity that individuals perform.
Extant theory has linked the occurrence of work-related
boredom to characteristics of employees’ activities during
the workday. For example, Fisher (1993) argued, based on
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Characteristics Model
(JCM), that tasks low on skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy, and feedback are more likely to
induce boredom. Similarly, in his theory on flow,
Csikszentmihalyi (1999) proposed that boredom occurs
when one’s skills are greater than the challenges posed
by the activity. Although previous studies examined the
role of some of these job characteristics in predicting job
boredom (see for a review Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, &
Daniels, 2009), more research is needed to better understand if and how a broader set of work characteristics
predict work-related boredom, and which psychological
mechanisms underlie the associations between work characteristics and work-related boredom. Insight in these mediating mechanisms is important, both from a theoretical
and a practical point of view. Theoretically, it increases
our understanding of how boredom develops. Practically,
mediating mechanisms provide additional starting points
for interventions that may reduce and prevent boredom,
besides from the work characteristics that cause workrelated boredom.
A first aim of the present study, therefore, was to enhance
insight in the work-related processes underlying the development of boredom experienced at work. We therefore studied
the associations between the job characteristics of the JCM
and work-related boredom and disentangled why these work
characteristics are related to boredom, by examining theoretical-relevant mediating mechanisms underlying these relationships. To this purpose, we developed and tested a model
that integrates perspectives from the JCM (Hackman &
Oldham, 1975) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci &
Ryan, 2000). We believe that combining the perspectives
from these two theories provides a valuable perspective to
study the mechanisms leading to work-related boredom,
because (a) by distinguishing the quality of employees’ work
motivation along a continuum from external to intrinsic motivation, SDT fits with and extends the assumptions of JCM,
which poses that certain work characteristics relate positively
to employees’ intrinsic work motivation; (b) quality of work
motivation has been identified as an important predictor of
affective outcomes (Vallerand, 1997); and (c) SDT makes it
possible to draw a theoretical connection between the work
characteristics of the JCM and quality of work motivation by
means of its central concept “need satisfaction” (i.e., the extent
to which human’s basic psychological needs are fulfilled).
Satisfaction of the basic human needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence allows people to thrive and grow. In
this sense, SDT’s concept of need-satisfaction shows some
similarities with the concept of “growth need strength”
included in JCM. However, unlike JCM, which focuses on
individual differences in growth need strength and views this
as a moderator in the associations between work characteristics and motivation, SDT proposes that all human beings
strive to grow and develop themselves, and that the extent
to which tasks satisfy people’s need explains subsequent
motivation.
As a second aim, we sought to investigate whether the
motivational process underlying work-related boredom as
suggested by SDT also manifests itself at a day-to-day level
within employees. More specifically, we propose that employees’ work motivation and subsequent boredom on a given day
may not only depend on job resources and need satisfaction,
but also on prework attitudes that originate from work experiences of the previous day. As such, we aim to extend knowledge on the processes underlying the development of workrelated boredom by proposing and testing a spillover hypothesis. Based on the conceptualization of boredom as a transient
affective state, the proposed spillover effect suggests that
experiencing boredom at work on a given day induces negative work attitudes the next day, resulting in reduced motivation quality, which increases the likelihood of experiencing
boredom at work. Such a spillover effect may provide insight
in how “momentary” experiences of boredom eventually spiral
into more stable “enduring” accounts of this affective state.
The present paper presents two field studies among
employees from various occupations. Consistent with our
first aim, Study 1 was designed to examine the role of work
characteristics and the general experience of work-related
need satisfaction and work motivation in the development
of work-related boredom, by using a between-individuals
design. Consistent with our second aim, Study 2 employed a
daily diary design to examine whether the theorized mechanisms between need satisfaction, work motivation, and workrelated boredom also manifest themselves on a daily basis at
the within-individuals level. Furthermore, Study 2 allowed for
examining the possible spillover of work-related boredom to
experiences during the next day. As, according to Vallerand’s
(1997) hierarchical model of motivation, situational outcomes
(in this case: work-related boredom) are mainly affected by
need satisfaction and motivation experienced at the same
hierarchical level, this study focuses on work-related need
satisfaction and work motivation. A graphical representation
of our conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.
Study 1
The vast majority of research on the work-related antecedents
of boredom has focused on monotony of the job tasks, and
found this to be positively related to work-related boredom
(Davies, 1926; Fisher, 1993; Loukidou et al., 2009; Smith, 1981).
Similarly, underutilization of skills and unchallenging jobs with
low mental demands has been suggested to be associated
with the development of work-related boredom (Caplan,
Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975; Fisher, 1987).
Furthermore, Reijseger et al. (2013) showed that job resources
such as autonomy, social support from one’s supervisor, and
social support from colleagues negatively relate to workrelated boredom.
In the present study, we aimed to enhance insight in the
associations between a broader range of work characteristics
and work-related boredom, and examined if and how the five
work characteristics of Hackman and Oldham (1975) JCM are
associated with work-related boredom. Thus, we investigated
134 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
if and how skill variety (i.e., using different skills at work), task
identity (i.e., performing a whole piece of work from beginning to end), task significance (i.e., feeling that one’s job has
an impact on other people inside or outside the organization),
autonomy (i.e., having freedom as to how to schedule and
execute one’s job), and feedback (i.e., obtaining sufficient
information about one’s effectiveness) relate to the experience
of boredom at work. The work characteristics of the JCM have
been theoretically assumed to relate negatively to workrelated boredom, because they make the job interesting and
capture the attention of the worker (Fisher, 1993). We therefore propose that skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback are negatively related to workrelated boredom, and we expect these associations to be
mediated through their associations with employees’ workrelated need satisfaction, and need satisfaction’s association
with the quality of work motivation (see Figure 1).
Work characteristics and work-related need satisfaction
In its core, SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a) poses
that the satisfaction of innate psychological needs is the basis
for motivation, and essential for facilitating optimal functioning and personal well-being. Although various psychological
needs can be identified, SDT emphasizes that satisfaction of
the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is most
crucial for human motivation, optimal functioning, and wellbeing, as these needs are essential universal nutriments for
human thriving. The need for autonomy refers to the need to
experience self-endorsement or volition in one’s actions (Ryan,
Bernstein, & Brown, 2010) and to act as the originator of one’s
own behaviour (Patrick, Knee, Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007).
The need for competence refers to the feeling of being effective in one’s actions as well as having opportunities to use
one’s capacities (Deci, 1975). The need for relatedness comprises the need to feel close and connected to others
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan, 1995). In support of the
SDT, satisfaction of these needs has been shown to relate
positively to (work-related) well-being and job attitudes (see
Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, 2016 for a metaanalysis). As Ryan and Deci (2000a) argue, specifying psychological needs as essential nutriments for optimal functioning
and well-being implies that individuals cannot thrive without
satisfying all of them, just as people cannot live with food but
no water. Consistent with this theoretical position, the satisfaction of one need has been found to positively relate to the
satisfaction of the other needs (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste,
De Witte, & Lens, 2008).
The extent to which people’s needs are satisfied importantly depends on the demands, obstacles, and affordances
in people’s environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Need satisfaction at work therefore likely depends on the characteristics of
people’s work situation. More specifically, need satisfaction is
supposed to be facilitated by characteristics of the work environment that stimulate personal growth, learning, and development, that is, by “job resources” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004),
and this postulation was indeed supported by previous
research (see Van den Broeck et al., 2016 for a meta-analysis).
The work characteristics defined in the JCM can be considered
job resources because of their motivating potential. Therefore,
we hypothesize that these work characteristics are positively
related to need satisfaction. Specifically:
Hypothesis 1: (a) Task autonomy, (b) task significance, (c)
feedback, (d) task identity, and (e) skill variety are positively
related to general work-related need satisfaction.
Work-related need satisfaction and work motivation
In the previous section, we posed that the work characteristics
of the JCM relate to employees’ work-related need satisfaction.
Based on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), we
further pose that work-related need satisfaction affects the
quality of employees’ work motivation. SDT emphasizes that
it is not only the strength of motivation but also the type or
quality of motivation that explains its effects. More specifically,
SDT conceptualizes motivation quality as the extent to which
people’s motivation is self-determined or autonomous rather
than controlled by others. Intrinsic motivation, defined as
engaging in an activity because one finds the activity inherently interesting or enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), is the
motivation type that is highest in self-determination. SDT
further distinguishes between four types of extrinsic

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the conceptual model.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 135
motivation (i.e., engaging in an activity because it is associated
with a separable, valued outcome; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) that
differ in the extent to which they imply autonomous regulation of behaviour (i.e., high self-determination) or controlled
regulation of behaviour (i.e., non-self-determination) (Gagné &
Deci, 2005). Specifically, integrated regulation (i.e., engaging in
an activity because it is an integral part of one’s identity; Deci
& Ryan, 2000) and identified regulation (i.e., engaging in an
activity because it is in accordance with one’s own goals; Deci
& Ryan, 2000) are types of extrinsic motivation that are selfdetermined and autonomous, as these reflect people’s own
identity or goals. In contrast, introjected regulation (i.e., engaging in an activity in order to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain
ego-enhancement or pride; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and external
regulation (i.e., engaging in an activity to obtain a reward or to
avoid a punishment; Deci & Ryan, 2000) are types of extrinsic
motivation that are non-self-determined, as these refer to
motivation controlled by other people’s interests or goals.
SDT poses that the quality of motivation depends on the
fulfilment of basic psychological needs. The higher the level of
need satisfaction, the more autonomously motivated behaviour
will be (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In contrast, lack of need satisfaction
is associated with the more controlled types of motivation (external and introjected regulation), because engagement in tasks
that do not satisfy one’s needs implies that task performance is
prompted by external circumstances, such as having to comply
with one’s managers’ instructions. The association between need
satisfaction and quality of motivation has been supported in
various empirical studies (see Van den Broeck et al., 2016 for a
meta-analysis). Also in the work domain, some evidence has
been found for the expected positive association between
need satisfaction and quality of motivation (e.g., De Cooman,
Stynen, Van den Broeck, Sels, & De Witte, 2013; Lynch, Plant, &
Ryan, 2005). In addition, the causal order of need satisfaction and
quality of motivation has been supported in experimental studies (e.g., Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Joussemet,
Koestner, Lekes, & Houlfort, 2004). Thus, based on the assumptions of SDT and related research, we hypothesize
Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction of the basic psychological needs in
the work domain is positively related to (a) autonomous work
motivation, and negatively to (b) controlled work motivation.
Work motivation and work-related boredom
The relevance of work motivation as an antecedent of workrelated boredom has already been suggested by Barmack
(1938), who argued that boredom develops as a consequence
of inadequate motivation during the operation of a task. To
further specify and disentangle the associations between specific types of motivation and work-related boredom, we relied
on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). We propose
that the various types of motivation are differentially related
to the experience of work-related boredom. Vallerand’s (1997)
hierarchical model of motivation distinguishes between the
quality of motivation and (affective) consequences that follow
from the quality of motivation. Specifically, Vallerand (1997)
poses that positive (affective) consequences should result
from autonomous forms of motivation (intrinsic motivation,
integrated and identified regulation) and that negative (affective) consequences should result from controlled forms of
motivation (especially external regulation). This assumption
has received some support in work-related contexts. For
example, Fernet, Trépanier, Austin, Gagné, and Forest (2015)
found that among nurses, autonomous motivation is negatively, and controlled motivation is positively related to experienced psychological strain. Based on Vallerand’s (1997) model
and extending Fernet et al.’s (2015) findings to work-related
boredom, we expect that the quality-of-work motivation is
negatively related to work-related boredom.
More precisely, employees who experience controlled motivation at work, engage in their work activities because their
behaviour is instigated by some external reward or punishment or by internal ego-involving pressures such as shame or
guilt. This will increase the possibility that employees experience their work as of little value or as being unpleasant or
uninteresting, because they are not focused on the potentially
interesting or valuable aspects of the work tasks. Instead, they
are focused on rewards, punishments, and pressures accompanying task performance. As work-related boredom is an
unpleasant, deactivated state, during which employees experience their tasks as meaningless and uninteresting, we expect
that controlled motivation is positively related to work-related
boredom. This view concurs with the control-value theory of
achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz,
& Perry, 2007), which poses that boredom develops when the
activities engaged in are experienced as having negative
intrinsic value. This implies that one’s natural tendency
would be to avoid these activities, and engagement can only
be obtained by having some form of external reward or
pressure.
On the contrary, if workers are autonomously motivated for
their work, they engage in their work activities because they
think these are interesting and pleasant, or because their work
tasks are in accordance with their goals or an integral part of their
identity. Under these circumstances, they consider fulfilling their
work tasks as inherently interesting or pleasant, or personally
important or meaningful. Therefore, we expect that autonomous
work motivation is negatively related to work-related boredom.
Although these assumptions have not been empirically
tested in a work situation, our line of reasoning is consistent
with the findings of a study on motivation and boredom for
physical education (Ntoumanis, 2001). In this study, external
regulation was found to be positively, and intrinsic motivation
was found to be negatively related to boredom. Pekrun et al.
(2010) also found intrinsic motivation to be negatively related
to boredom in educational settings. Additionally, on a more
general level, research found that, compared to an external
motivational orientation, an internal motivational orientation
was associated with less boredom during leisure time (Barnett
& Klitzing, 2006). Therefore, we hypothesize
Hypothesis 3: (a) Autonomous work motivation is negatively
related to work-related boredom, and (b) controlled work motivation is positively related to work-related boredom.
136 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
Work characteristics, need satisfaction, work motivation,
and work-related boredom
So far, we have argued that the work characteristics of the
JCM are positively related to work-related need satisfaction
(Hypothesis 1), that work-related need satisfaction is positively
related to the quality of employees’ work motivation
(Hypothesis 2), and that the quality of employees’ work motivation is negatively related to work-related boredom
(Hypothesis 3). Based on this line of reasoning, we finally
pose that work-related need satisfaction and the quality of
employees’ work motivation are the explaining mechanisms
that mediate the relationship between work characteristics
and work-related boredom. Thus,
Hypothesis 4: Skill variety, task significance, task identity,
feedback, and autonomy are negatively related to work-related
boredom, and these associations are mediated via work-related
need satisfaction by quality of employees’ work motivation.
Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected within the national head office of a large
multinational company. Employees of the head office were
personally asked whether they were willing to participate in
the study. When agreeing to participate, employees received
an envelope with a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Of the 160
questionnaires that were distributed, 115 were completed. The
sample consisted of 47% males, with an average age of
35.3 years (SD = 10.2). Participants worked on average 37.3
contractual hours a week (SD = 5.0), 73.4% had obtained a
bachelor or master degree, and their average tenure with the
company was 5.23 years (SD = 7.07). Participants were from
different departments (e.g., HR, Marketing, Finance, Sales), and
different jobs (e.g., manager, secretary, recruiter, assistant).
Measures
Task characteristics Task autonomy (e.g., “In my job, I can
act independently”; α = .80), task significance (e.g., “I consider
my job important for this company”; α = .69), feedback (e.g., “In
my job, I immediately know if I perform well”; α = .78), task
identity (e.g., “The results of my efforts are visible in the
products or services delivered by my company”; α = .77), and
skill variety (e.g., “My job is varied”; α = .89) were each measured by five items developed and validated by Biessen and
De Gilder (1993). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = disagree, 5 = agree).
Work-related need satisfaction was measured with 16
items of the validated Dutch Work-Related Basic Need
Satisfaction Scale (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte,
Soenens, & Lens, 2010), which assesses the extent to which
respondents experience that each of the three universal needs
are satisfied at work. Sample items include: “I feel free to do
my job the way I think it could best be done” (satisfaction of
the need for autonomy), “I feel competent at my job” (satisfaction of the need for competence), and “At work, I feel part of a
group” (satisfaction of the need for relatedness). All items
were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree),
with higher scores indicating that the respective needs were
satisfied to a larger degree. Following previous research on
work-related need satisfaction (e.g., Van den Broeck et al.,
2008), a composite score of need satisfaction was used in
this study (α = .84). This approach was supported by results
of a principal component analysis (promax rotation), in which
the scree plot showed a strong drop in eigenvalues after the
first factor (eigenvalue = 5.09). This finding is in line with
previous research on need satisfaction (e.g., Van den Broeck
et al., 2008) and empirically justifies the use of a general need
satisfaction scale in this study.
Quality of work motivation Autonomous motivation was
measured by two scales: Intrinsic motivation (e.g., “I do my
job, because it is fun”, α = .82) and identified regulation (e.g.,
“I do my job, because I believe it is important to me”;
α = .74). Both scales consisted of four items derived from
the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, &
Blanchard, 2000). Measures for controlled motivation were
derived from scales used in Koestner, Otis, Powers, Pelletier,
and Gagnon (2008) and Pelletier, Dion, Slovinec-D’Angelo,
and Reid (2004): Introjected regulation (e.g., “I do my job,
because I would feel embarrassed if I didn’t do it”, α = .77)
and external regulation (e.g., “I do my job, because other
people think I should do it”, α = .71) were each measured
with three items. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree).
Work-related boredom We used Lee’s (1986) boredom
questionnaire to measure work-related boredom, but consistent with the definition of boredom (Fisher, 1993; Mikulas
& Vodanovich, 1993; Pekrun et al., 2010), we included only
those items that referred to the experience of work-related
boredom as a state. Items that confounded boredom and its
potential causes (e.g., “Is your work monotonous?”) or consequences (e.g., “Do you become irritable on the job?”)
were omitted (cf. Van Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014). The five
items we used were rephrased from questions into statements and were rated on a five-point scale, ranging from 1
(disagree) to 5 (agree), with higher scores indicating higher
levels of work-related boredom. The items used were “I find
my job boring”, “There are long periods of boredom on my
job”, “My job goes by slowly”, “I often get bored with my
work”, and “The time seems to go by slowly when I’m at
work” (α = .91).
Control variables Based on previous research suggesting
or finding relationships between various demographics and
boredom (e.g., Kass et al., 2001; Loukidou et al., 2009; Van
Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014), we included a number of control
variables in our questionnaire: Gender (0 = male, 1 = female),
age (in years), tenure (in months), and education level (0 = no
bachelor/master degree, 1 = bachelor/master degree). Based on
the actual correlations in the present study, relevant control
variables were selected in the analyses to reduce the risk of
finding spurious associations between the study variables.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study
variables are presented in Table 1. Only age and tenure were
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 137
significantly associated with both work-related boredom and
one or more of the independent/mediating variables in our
study. Because of the high correlation between age and
tenure, and because associations with the core variables of
this study were somewhat stronger for age than for tenure, for
reasons of parsimony and conserving power, only age was
included as control variable in our analyses.
Preliminary analyses
Because of the relatively high correlation between workrelated boredom and intrinsic motivation (r = –.60) we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (using WLSMV estimation) to examine if these can indeed be considered empirically
distinct constructs. As Chi-square difference tests cannot be
computed based on this estimator, we used other fit indices:
comparative fit index (CFI), and weighted root mean square
residual (WRMR). Values above .95 (CFI; Hu & Bentler, 1999) or
below .90 (WRMR; Yu, 2002) are indicative of a good model fit.
Two models were compared. The first model, in which all
items were forced to load on one factor fitted the data reasonably well (CFI = .97, and WRMR = 1.49). In the second model,
two factors were specified, one depicting work-related boredom and one depicting intrinsic motivation. This model provided a better fit (CFI = .99, and WRMR = .90), and we
concluded that work-related boredom and intrinsic motivation
can be empirically distinguished.
Testing of hypotheses
To test our hypotheses, the fit of a set of nested path
models (using averaged scale scores for the study variables)
were compared using the Mplus7 statistical software package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Model 1 specified the
hypothesized relations, assuming that the associations
between work characteristics and work-related boredom
are fully mediated by work-related need satisfaction and
subsequent quality of work motivation. Additional models
were run to test whether the relationship between work
characteristics and boredom is fully or partially mediated
by need satisfaction and quality of work motivation.
Specifically, Models 2a and 2b tested for partial mediation
by including direct paths from the work characteristics to
the four indicators of work motivation, and Models 3a and
3b additionally incorporated the direct paths from the work
characteristics to work-related boredom. In all models, age
was included as a covariate and was modelled to be related
to need satisfaction, the four indicators of work motivation,
and work-related boredom. The fit of the models was compared using the standard Chi-square difference test, as well
as the CFI and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Bentler, 1990). CFI values above .95 indicate an
acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), whereas for RMSEA
values below .08 (Steiger, 2007) or below .06 (Hu &
Bentler) have been proposed as indicative of an acceptable
fit.
Results of the analyses are presented in Table 2. This table
shows that Model 1 did not provide a good fit to the data
(CFI = .76, RMSEA = .17). Adding the direct paths between the
work characteristics and work motivation in Model 2a resulted
in a significant decrease in Chi-square, indicating a better fit.
However, not all associations between the work characteristics
Table 1. Study 1 means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Gender (% female) 53%
2. Age 35.34 10.21 –.10
3. Education (% BA/MA) 73% –.05 –.27**
4. Tenure (months) 62.77 84.85 –.15 .71** –.25**
5. Task autonomy 4.37 0.51 –.03 017 –.10 .13
6. Task significance 3.71 0.63 .01 .22* –.11 .24* .33**
7. Feedback 3.58 0.65 .06 .42** –.29** .20* .37** .27**
8. Task identity 3.66 0.74 –.01 .16 –.11 .18 .33** .51** .31**
9. Skill variety 3.91 0.77 .05 .14 –.04 .11 .30** .41** .33** .35**
10. Intrinsic motivation 4.22 0.67 .14 .17 .07 .18 .38** .52** .24* .30** .59**
11. Identified regulation 3.98 0.72 .09 –.07 .05 –.09 .32** .34** .31** .15 .29** .52**
12. Introjected regulation 1.82 0.94 .10 .03 –.07 .01 –.12 –.15 –.07 –.20* –.15 –.11 .03
13. External regulation 1.63 0.79 –.01 .24** –.14 .17** –.02 –.16 –.09 –.10 –.05 –.26** –.27* .51**
14. Need satisfaction 4.07 0.44 –.04 .35** –.10 .23* .47** .45** .46** .49** .53** .55** .21* –.26** –.22*
15. Work-related boredom 1.44 0.67 .07 –.29** .03 –.23* –.28** –.34** –.34** –.26** –.64** –.60** –.24* .20* .20* –.59**
n: Between 108 and 113.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 2. Study 1 fit indices of models compared to examine associations between work characteristics, need satisfaction, quality of work motivation, and workrelated boredom.
Model χ2 (df) Δχ2 (df) Model comparison RMSEA CFI
M1: Full mediation model 105.70 (26) .17 .76
M2a: M1 + direct effects work characteristics -> work motivation 32.88 (6) 72.82 (20)** M2a vs. M1 .20 .92
M2b: M2a—non-significant direct effects work characteristics -> work motivation 57.65 (22) 48.05 (4)** M2b vs. M1 .12 .89
M3a: M2b + direct effects work characteristics -> work-related boredom 29.01 (17) 28.64 (5)** M3a vs. M2b .08 .96
M3b: M3a—non-significant direct effects work characteristics -> work-related boredom 30.77 (21) 26.88 (1)** M3b vs. M2b .07 .97
RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; CFI: comparative fit index.
**p < .01.
138 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
and the four types of work motivation were significant.
Removing these non-significant paths in Model 2b resulted
in a model that fitted better than Model 1. Model 3a, which
also included the direct paths between the five work characteristics and work-related boredom, turned out to fit significantly better than Model 2b. Finally, non-significant
associations between the work characteristics and workrelated boredom were removed in Model 3b, which not only
fitted better than Model 2b, but also showed a good fit to the
data in an absolute sense (CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07). This model
is depicted in Figure 2 (standardized results). From this figure,
it follows that – as expected – task autonomy, task identity,
and skill variety were positively related to work-related need
satisfaction (Hypothesis 1a, d, and e supported). However,
although task significance and feedback were positively correlated with work-related need satisfaction (see Table 1), these
work characteristics did not explain unique variance
(Hypothesis 1b and c not supported).
Figure 2 also shows that the hypothesized positive association of need satisfaction with the autonomous motivation
constructs is partially supported: need satisfaction was positively related to intrinsic motivation but not to identified
regulation (Hypothesis 2a partially supported). In accordance
with our hypothesis, need satisfaction was negatively related
to both controlled motivation constructs (external and introjected regulation; Hypothesis 2b supported).
With regard to the relations between autonomous motivation and boredom, Figure 2 shows that, as hypothesized,
intrinsic motivation was a significant negative predictor of
work-related boredom, but identified regulation was not
(Hypothesis 3a partially supported). Regarding controlled
motivation, both introjected and external regulation were
not significantly associated to work-related boredom
(Hypothesis 3b not supported).
Finally, Hypothesis 4 assumed the relationships between
the work characteristics and work-related boredom to be
mediated by need satisfaction and quality-of-work motivation. As only task autonomy, task identity, and skill variety
turned out to be related to need satisfaction, only intrinsic
motivation was significantly related to work-related boredom, and need satisfaction was significantly related to this
type of motivation, mediation could only be examined for
three of the five work characteristics combined with need
satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Bayesian estimation was
used (using the default priors in Mplus7) to test the significance of these indirect effects. The analyses revealed that the
(unstandardized) indirect effects of task autonomy
(B = –0.019, 95% CI between –0.057 and –0.003), task identity (B = –0.018, 95% CI between –0.042 and –0.002), and skill
variety (B = –0.013, 95% CI between –0.036 and –0.001) on
work-related boredom through need satisfaction, and subsequently intrinsic motivation were all significant. Altogether,
these results provide support for Hypothesis 4 for the work
characteristics task autonomy, task identity, and skill variety.
For task significance and feedback Hypothesis 4 was not
supported, because feedback and task significance did not
explain unique variance in work-related need satisfaction.
Also the presumed mediating role of identified, introjected,
and external regulation could not be established as these
types of motivation did not predict significant unique variance in work-related boredom.
Discussion
In the present study, we aimed to obtain insight in the associations between the work characteristics of the JCM and
work-related boredom, and the mediating role of work-related
need satisfaction and quality of work motivation in these
relations. Our results supported a partial mediation model, in
which three of the five work characteristics defined in the JCM
(i.e., skill variety, task identity, and task autonomy) were negatively related to work-related boredom through their relationships with work-related need satisfaction and subsequent
intrinsic motivation. The hypothesized mediation path was
not supported for task significance and feedback, although
these job characteristics demonstrated positive correlations
Task
autonomy
Task
significance
Feedback
Task
identity
Skill
variety
Need
satisfaction
Intrinsic
Identified
Introjected
External
Work-related
boredom
.22**
.12
.22**
.30** .26**
.01
-.33**
-.34**
-.27**
.06
.05
.15
.35** -.45**
.08
.34**
.26**
.28**
Age is included as control variable, but not
depicted in the figure for reasons of clarity
Figure 2. Final model for associations between work characteristics, work-related need satisfaction, quality of work motivation, and work-related boredom (Study 1).
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 139
with work-related need satisfaction and autonomous motivation (see Table 1). Our results support previous research that
identified lack of autonomy and skill variety as predictors of
work-related boredom. It further extends previous findings by
providing empirical support for the theoretical notion that lack
of task identity may result in feelings of boredom. Moreover,
our study extends previous research by providing insight in
the processes underlying the development of boredom at
work, showing that need satisfaction and subsequent quality
of work motivation may be explaining mechanisms in the
association between work characteristics and work-related
boredom. As such, we additionally showed that – irrespective
of specific work characteristics – lack of need satisfaction and
intrinsic motivation are important antecedents of boredom at
work.
Although this study provided insight in the underlying
motivational factors linking work characteristics and workrelated boredom, it was based on employees’ overall experience of boredom at work, in a between-participants design.
Although this provides important information about general
state levels of work-related boredom experienced across
individuals, it remains unknown if the relations found also
manifest themselves at a daily within-individual level. This is
nonetheless important to examine, because previous
research on motivation theories reported contrasting effects
on the between- and within-individuals level (e.g.,
Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Wanberg, Zhu, & Van Hooft,
2010).
Examining work-related boredom from a daily perspective is especially important, because boredom is an emotional state, and the duration of emotions may vary,
sometimes lasting for only minutes or hours (Oatley &
Jenkins, 1996). Moreover, as boredom is an activity-related
emotion, it may fade when one is longer engaged in the
boredom-inducing activity. Therefore, in order to understand
work-related boredom more fully, it is important to also
obtain insight in employees’ within-person, short-term
experiences of boredom, and to examine how the motivational process assumed to underlie its development manifests itself during shorter time intervals. Furthermore, such
dynamic day-to-day perspective allows to obtain insight in
the possible spillover of boredom from one day to another,
which increases our understanding of how day-to-day
“momentary” experiences might eventually spiral into more
stable and longer lasting “enduring” accounts of workrelated boredom. Examining work-related boredom from
short-term perspective is also important from a practical
point of view, because its potential negative consequences
may already develop within a small period of time. For
example, work-related boredom has been shown to be
strongly associated with immediate withdrawal behaviours
(such as working slowly, or spending time on non-workrelated activities) that are not functional in obtaining one’s
work goals and may be damaging for the organization (Van
Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014). Thus, based on these considerations, we designed a second study, taking a short-term, daily
perspective in order to test the motivational process underlying the development of work-related boredom at the daily
within-person level.
Study 2
In this second study, we employed a within-person perspective to investigate to what extent work-related boredom fluctuates on day-to-day basis, and to examine the associations
between work-related need satisfaction, work motivation, and
work-related boredom on a daily basis. Furthermore, we
examined whether work-related boredom is affected by
work-related boredom on the previous day, and what underlying psychological mechanisms explain this relation. To this
purpose, we conducted a 5-day diary study. As it is recommended that questionnaires in diary research should be kept
as short as possible (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003), we
included intrinsic motivation as key indicator of the qualityof-work motivation. This choice was based on the Study 1
finding that intrinsic work motivation was the only motivation
type that predicted unique variance in work-related boredom.
A dynamic process perspective on work-related need
satisfaction, work motivation, and work-related boredom
Not only boredom but also need satisfaction and motivation
are dynamic concepts fluctuating day by day, which is supported by various daily diary studies on these topics (e.g.,
Gagné, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Reis, Sheldon, Gable,
Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Ryan et al., 2010; Sheldon, Ryan, &
Reis, 1996). Similar to these studies, we expect that workrelated need satisfaction, intrinsic work motivation, and
work-related boredom show day-to-day variation. Based on
the expectation that the mechanisms on need satisfaction,
motivation, and work-related boredom described in Study 1
also manifest themselves on a day-to-day basis within individuals, we hypothesize
Hypothesis 5: Daily satisfaction of the basic psychological
needs in the work domain is positively related to daily intrinsic
work motivation.
Hypothesis 6: Daily intrinsic work motivation is negatively
related to daily work-related boredom.
Hypothesis 7: Daily need satisfaction in the work domain is
negatively related to daily work-related boredom, and this association is mediated by daily intrinsic motivation.
Spillover of work-related boredom to the next day
Boredom is an activity-related emotion, suggesting that
momentary feelings of boredom disappear once one is no
longer engaged in the boredom evoking task. However,
employees can also experience work-related boredom at a
more global level, indicating that they are generally bored
by their work. The model proposed until now does not
explain how momentary experiences of work-related boredom may eventually develop into such global, more enduring experience of this affective state. We propose that one
of the processes underlying this development is a spillover
process by which work-related boredom affects next day’s
140 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
intrinsic work motivation, and by which intrinsic motivation
on its turn affects subsequent levels of work-related boredom. If this process continues from day to day, this may
result in a downward spiral in which more enduring feelings
of work-related boredom gradually develop over time. A
first step in testing this theoretical position refers to examining whether work-related boredom may spill over to the
next day.
We specifically argue that work-related boredom does not
directly affect subsequent work motivation, but that this association is mediated by employees’ unfavourable attitudes
towards work at the start of their next working day. Namely,
given that momentary feelings of boredom disappear once
the boring task has ended, it is not likely that this emotion will
directly affect employees’ next day’s intrinsic work motivation,
because motivation relates to current task engagement. It is
nonetheless possible that cognitive “after effects” of boredom
(e.g., thinking about the boring work situation during off-job
time) negatively impinge on employees’ attitudes towards
work before they start working the following morning. This
can be understood based on the proposition by Pekrun et al.
(2010) that boredom experienced while engaging in an activity is aversive, which induces motivation to avoid the activity,
making it likely that employees who feel bored at a certain
day would prefer to avoid their work situation the following
day. However, to the extent that this is not feasible most of
the time, it may be expected that they experience a less
favourable attitude towards their work during the next morning, thus feel reluctant to start their next working day. This
negative attitude would then reduce employees’ intrinsic
motivation, because it prevents employees from experiencing
their work activities as pleasant and interesting. Such an
ordering of constructs from feelings of boredom to more
cognitive evaluations in terms of work attitudes, and subsequent work motivation and behaviour has theoretical underpinnings in theories such as affective events theory (AET;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). Specifically, AET suggests that characteristics of the work environment lead to the occurrence of
certain work events, which result in affective responses (e.g.,
boredom) that in turn shape work attitudes (e.g., positive or
negative attitudes regarding one’s work), motivation, and
behaviour. The TPB positions attitudes as a core construct
that affect subsequent motivation and behaviour (Ajzen,
1991). Applying the TPB to the present study context, prework
attitudes can be defined as the favourable or unfavourable
cognitive evaluation of the employee’s work. According the
propositions of the TPB, such attitudes are important predictors of subsequent motivation to engage in work behaviour.
Thus, based on this line of reasoning, we pose:
Hypothesis 8a: Daily work-related boredom is positively related
to an unfavourable prework attitude during the next morning.
Hypothesis 8b: An unfavourable prework attitude in the morning is negatively related to daily intrinsic work motivation during
that day.
This low level of intrinsic motivation would subsequently
relate to increased levels of work-related boredom. Therefore,
we hypothesize
Hypothesis 8c: Daily work-related boredom is negatively
related to next-day’s daily work-related boredom through its
associations with employees’ next-day’s prework attitudes and
subsequent intrinsic motivation.
Method
Participants and procedure
Participation in this study required the completion of a general
questionnaire that addressed participants’ background information, and the completion of two brief questionnaires daily for the
period of one workweek (i.e., five consecutive working days).
These daily questionnaires focused on the core variables under
study and were filled out before work (i.e., prework attitude) and
at the end of each workday (i.e., need satisfaction at work,
intrinsic work motivation, and work-related boredom). Because
the study design required substantial effort and commitment of
participants, we decided to recruit participants via professional
and personal networks and social media. To be eligible for
participation in the study, participants had to work at least 32 h
on at least 4 days per week and had to have access to a computer
with internet access to complete the questionnaires. After agreeing to take part, participants received an email with information
about the study procedures and a link to the web-based general
questionnaire. About a week thereafter, they started the completion of the daily diary surveys. During this period, each participant received two daily emails with a link to the online before
and after work questionnaires. Of the 99 persons who indicated
their willingness to participate, 90 actually completed the general questionnaire and daily questionnaires on at least one day
(91%). Altogether, 382 (M = 4.2 per participant) before-work
questionnaires, and 342 (M = 3.8 per participant) end-of-workday
questionnaires were completed.
The total number of completed daily questionnaires across
the 5 days varied between 43 and 91 (M = 76) for the before
work questionnaire and between 34 and 78 (M = 68) for the
end-of-workday questionnaire. This variation is caused by
actual non-response and by the fact that participants did
not have to complete the questionnaires on their non-work
days. Participants with missing data on one or more daily
questionnaires were included, but analyses were run making
use of the non-missing data only (i.e., we did not use
imputation techniques). Reports of work-related boredom
on 2 consecutive days were available from 221 questionnaires. Participants were employed in various industries,
such as healthcare (17.5%), IT (9.7%), trade (7.1%), construction (7.1%), or education (6.3%). They were employed in a
wide variety of jobs, such as teacher, sales assistant, physiotherapist, taxi driver, project manager, or account manager. Of the participants, 44% was female, and 71% had
obtained a bachelor or master degree. Participants’ mean
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 141
age was 36.7 years (SD = 11.0) and they worked on average
37.8 h a week (SD = 6.0).
Measures
Daily need satisfaction was measured in the after-work questionnaire by means of six items (two for each need) from the
Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (Van den Broeck
et al., 2010). Items were slightly adapted to make them suitable for day-to-day measurement. Examples are “Today, I felt I
had to do what other people ordered me to do at my work”
(satisfaction of the need for autonomy; reversed coded),
“Today, I didn’t really feel connected to the other people at
my work” (satisfaction of the need for relatedness; reversed
coded), and “Today, I felt competent in my job” (satisfaction of
the need for competence). Items were answered on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree;
mean α across the workweek = .61).
Daily intrinsic motivation was measured in the after-work
questionnaire by means of four slightly adapted items from
the SIMS (Guay et al., 2000), for example “Today, I did my job,
because it is fun”. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree; mean α
across the workweek = .91).
Daily work-related boredom was measured in the afterwork questionnaire by means of three items adapted from Lee
(1986). The items were “Today I felt bored during my work”,
“Today, I found my job boring”, and “Today, my job went by
slowly”. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree; mean α across the
workweek = .70).
Unfavourable prework attitude was measured with one
item in the before-work questionnaire (i.e., “Today, I don’t
like the idea of my coming workday”) with response options
ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely
agree. Although the use of one-item scales is suboptimal,
previous research has suggested that such measures can be
as valid as multiple item measures in cases where the construct is sufficiently narrow and unambiguous, and are
acceptable when time or space constraints prevent the use
of multi-item scales (e.g., Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).
Unfavourable prework attitude is not a complex or ambiguous construct, and therefore we felt that it can be adequately represented by a single item, in order to avoid
asking too many seemingly repetitious questions and to
keep the daily questionnaire as short as possible.
Furthermore, a similar one-item approach has previously
been proved to be a valid way to measure the extent to
which employees looked forward to their upcoming workday (van Hooff, Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2007).
Control variables We included the same control variables
as in Study 1 in our general questionnaire in Study 2: gender
(0 = male, 1 = female), age (in years), tenure (in months), and
education level (0 = no bachelor/master degree, 1 = bachelor/
master degree). Additionally, we assessed participants’ general
experience of work-related boredom by means of three of the
five items from Lee’s (1986) boredom questionnaire that were
used in Study 1 (α = .70).
Results
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations (using aggregated person-means) of the Study 2 variables. Based on these correlations and using the same
rationale as in Study 1, only age was included as control
variable in our analyses.
Preliminary analyses
For the core variables under study, we computed the proportion of variance that was on the day-level. These proportions
were substantial and varied between .60 (for intrinsic motivation) and .73 (for prework attitude). For work-related boredom,
this figure was .61, indicating that of the variance in this
measure 61% is between days and 39% is between individuals.
This clearly underlines the value of studying work-related
boredom from a day-to-day perspective.
Furthermore, we conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to examine if daily work-related boredom and
daily intrinsic motivation can be empirically distinguished. A
two-factor model (CFI = .95, WRMR = .56) fitted the data
substantially better than a one-factor model (CFI = .64,
WRMR = 1.59). In line with Study 1, we concluded that
these two variables can indeed be considered separate
constructs.
Testing of hypotheses
The data had a two-level structure with repeated day-level
measures (level 1: within-level) nested within individuals
(level 2: between-level). Our hypotheses describe relationships
at the within-individual level. These were tested with multilevel path analysis with the Mplus 7 statistical software package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012), using maximum
Table 3. Study 2 means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender (%female) 44%
2. Age 36.72 11.10 –.11
3. Tenure 8.91 9.92 –.25* .76**
4. Education (% BA/MA) 71% .23* –.28** –.33**
5. Need satisfaction 3.99 0.59 –.22* .11 .18 –.13
6. Intrinsic motivation 3.86 0.64 –.00 .22* .17 –.24* .42**
7. Negative prework attitude 1.39 0.69 .35** –.33** –.24* .22* –.16 –.22*
8. Work-related boredom 1.71 0.70 .04 –.40** –.24* .08 –.27* –.45** .33**
Correlations based on aggregated person-means. Due to incidental missing values n varies between 89 and 91.
*p < .05; ** p < .01.
142 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
likelihood estimation. We estimated one model to simultaneously test all our hypotheses. Because we were interested
in within-person processes, we centred the independent variables (i.e., work-related need satisfaction and work-related
boredom during the previous day) around the respective
person-means (cf. Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2010). This
removed the level 2 variance, and therefore these variables
were only modelled at level 1. Unfavourable prework attitude,
intrinsic motivation, and work-related boredom on the present
day were not centred, because these were outcome measures
(cf. Binnewies et al., 2010). The control variables age and
general work-related boredom were centred around the
grand mean.
Based on our hypotheses, on the within-level, our model
included associations between work-related need satisfaction
and intrinsic motivation, and between intrinsic motivation and
work-related boredom on the present day. At this level, also
the relations between work-related boredom on the previous
day and unfavourable prework attitude, and the associations
between this attitude and intrinsic motivation were included.
On the between-level, paths between unfavourable prework
attitude and intrinsic motivation, and between intrinsic motivation and work-related boredom on the present day were
included. This level also included the between-individuals control variables age and general work-related boredom, which
were modelled to be related to intrinsic motivation and workrelated boredom on the present day.
Our proposed model – which is graphically depicted in
Figure 3 – provided a good fit to the data (χ2 = 13.41,
df = 6, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07, SRMS within = .06, SRMS
between = .08). On the within-level, our model showed a
positive association between work-related need satisfaction
and intrinsic motivation, and a negative relationship between
intrinsic motivation and work-related boredom, thus supporting Hypotheses 5 and 6. To additionally examine whether a
direct association existed between work-related need satisfaction and work-related boredom, we estimated a second model
which included a direct path between need satisfaction and
work-related boredom. This model did not fit better than the
original model (χ2 = 9.63, df = 5, Δχ2 = 3.78, Δdf = 1, ns), which
implies that the association between need satisfaction and
work-related boredom is fully mediated by intrinsic motivation. To formally test this mediating effect (Hypothesis 7), the
significance of the indirect relation between need satisfaction
and work-related boredom through intrinsic motivation was
examined using Bayesian estimation in Mplus 7 (using the
Mplus 7 default priors). In support of Hypothesis 7, the results
of the analysis showed this indirect effect to be negative and
significant (B = –0.13; 95% CI between –0.19 and –0.06).
Furthermore, in support of Hypotheses 8, Figure 3 reveals a
negative relation between work-related boredom on the previous day and an unfavourable prework attitude (supporting
Hypothesis 8a), and between unfavourable prework attitude
and intrinsic motivation (supporting Hypothesis 8b). We examined if a direct association existed between work-related boredom on the previous day and work-related boredom on the
present day, but the model including this path did not fit
better than the original model (χ2 = 10.11 df = 5 Δχ2 = 3.30,
Δdf = 1, ns). Hence, we conclude that the association between
work-related boredom on the previous day and on the present
day is fully mediated by unfavourable prework attitude and
intrinsic motivation. Bayesian estimation in Mplus 7 (using the
Mplus 7 default priors) indeed showed the indirect effect of
boredom on the previous day to boredom on the present day,
through unfavourable prework attitude and intrinsic motivation to be positive and significant (B = 0.02; 95% CI between
0.001 and 0.05), which supports Hypothesis 8c.
Discussion
In Study 2, we aimed to obtain insight in the daily motivational process underlying the development of work-related
boredom, and to examine the spillover of boredom to predict
next day work-related boredom. Results first showed substantial variation in the experience of work-related boredom
within employees on the day-level, supporting our day-today approach of studying boredom. This finding implies that
although some employees experience more boredom at work
than others, feelings of boredom within employees also substantially fluctuate day by day. Second, the Study 1 findings on
Work related
boredom
previous day
Daily negative
prework
attitude
Daily
intrinsic
motivation
.15* -.27**
Age and general work-related boredom are included as control variable, but not depicted in the figure for reasons of clarity
Daily workrelated
boredom
-.46**
Between
Within
Daily workrelated need
satisfaction
Daily
negative
prework
attitude
Daily
intrinsic
motivation
Daily workrelated
boredom
.22**
-.07
-.23
Figure 3. Results of analyses examining the association between daily work-related need satisfaction, daily intrinsic work motivation, and daily work-related
boredom (Study2).
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 143
the motivational process underlying the development of
work-related boredom between individuals were replicated
in this study within individuals on the day-level. Specifically,
daily work-related satisfaction of the basic psychological
needs turned out to be negatively related to daily workrelated boredom, and this association was mediated by daily
intrinsic work motivation, both within and between individuals. Third, in line with our expectations, work-related boredom on a given day was positively related to work-related
boredom experienced during the next day through its relationship with unfavourable prework attitudes on that day and
subsequent intrinsic work motivation. This pattern of findings
suggests a negative spiral whereby daily boredom at work
induces feelings of boredom the next day, indicating how
“enduring” experiences of work-related boredom may develop
from more momentary day-to-day experiences of this affective
state.
General discussion
Despite work-related boredom being a common experience
for many employees, the motivational origins of this affective
state have remained relatively understudied. Therefore, in the
two studies presented in this paper, we examined workrelated need satisfaction and the quality of work motivation
as mechanisms underlying the development of work-related
boredom, relying on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These associations were examined from two different perspectives. In Study
1, we employed a between-individuals design and focused on
the associations between more general, “enduring” experiences of these constructs. Study 2, in contrast, employed a
daily within-individuals perspective, focusing on day-to-day
variations in these work-related concepts. Additionally, in
Study 1, we examined how the work characteristics defined
by the JCM impinge on this motivational process, and in Study
2, we further aimed to uncover how boredom develops within
individuals over time by disentangling how this motivational
process spills over from one day to the other.
Main findings
We believe that our results enhance insight in the workrelated processes associated with the development of boredom at work in at least three ways. First, we provide insight in
the work characteristics that are associated with work-related
boredom. That is, Study 1’s findings show that although skill
variety shows the strongest negative relationship, all five work
characteristics of Hackman and Oldham (1975) JCM correlate
negatively with work-related boredom. These results support
Fisher’s (1993) theorizing and extend previous research by
showing that not only monotony (or low skill variety) may
induce boredom at work but that also a lack of task identity,
low autonomy, low task significance, and little task feedback
may contribute to the development of boredom at work.
Second, we were able to shed light on the underlying
mechanisms explaining the relationship of work characteristics
with work-related boredom, both on an “enduring” betweenperson level and on a daily within-person level. In accordance
with our hypotheses, Study 1 supported work-related need
satisfaction and subsequent quality of work motivation as the
mediating mechanism, but only for skill variety, task identity,
and autonomy. Despite their significant zero-order correlations, task significance, and feedback did not explain unique
variance in need satisfaction. This may be for statistical rather
than theoretical reasons, as all task characteristics were interrelated. For example, the finding that only task identity
reached significance in our analyses may be caused by its
relatively strong correlation with task significance (r = .51).
Furthermore, the associations between the work characteristics and work-related boredom were only partially mediated
by work-related need satisfaction and quality-of-work motivation: Results also revealed direct associations between task
significance and skill variety and intrinsic motivation, and
between skill variety and work-related boredom This indicates
that there are additional mechanisms that may explain why
the work characteristics of the JCM relate to the development
of work-related boredom. For example, lack of variety may
induce certain physiological responses or attentional difficulties that relate to boredom, besides from work-related need
satisfaction and motivation. Also, the JCM proposes that skill
variety and task significance relate to the experienced meaningfulness of one’s work, which may also (partly) act as a
mediator in the relation between work characteristics and
work-related boredom.
With respect to the associations between quality of work
motivation and work-related boredom, in support of controlvalue theory (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2007), both studies
showed intrinsic motivation to be negatively related to boredom. These findings extend previous research in educational
settings (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Pekrun et al., 2010) to the
workplace by showing that performing one’s job because
one finds it interesting and enjoyable is negatively related to
experiencing boredom at work.
Contrary to our expectations, however, the three types of
extrinsic motivation included in this study (external, introjected, and identified regulation) did not explain unique variance in work-related boredom (although they were correlated
with work-related boredom in the expected direction). These
findings suggest that although engaging in work for the
reason of complying with one’s goals (i.e., identified regulation) is negatively related to boredom, and being motivated
for one’s job for extrinsic reasons – whether it is due to
external rewards or in order to avoid guilt or anxiety – is
positively related to boredom, intrinsic motivation can be
considered as the most important factor in this respect.
Future research should investigate the stability of these findings by examining the associations between quality of work
motivation and work-related boredom in other samples and
with other scales (e.g., Gagné et al., 2015).
In Study 2, we found the experience of work-related boredom to show substantial day-to-day variation. This finding
extends previous research on work-related boredom which
often viewed boredom in relation to monotonous jobs assuming that boredom is invariably high in such jobs, and empirically
supports the conceptualization of boredom as an emotion (e.g.,
Fisher, 1993; Pekrun et al., 2010; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012), being
transient and varying from one day to the other. This day-to-day
variation further underlines the relevance of examining
144 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
boredom not only from a between-individuals perspective but
also from a daily within-individuals perspective. As an important
extension to the boredom literature, which has focused on
boredom at the more general between-individuals level, Study
2 further showed that the association between daily need satisfaction and daily work-related boredom was mediated by daily
intrinsic motivation. As similar results were found in Study 1 with
respect to the indicators of the “enduring” experience of these
three constructs, this underlines the validity of our hypothesized
theoretical model.
Third, the present study extends previous research by proposing and testing a spillover hypothesis of boredom, increasing our understanding on how daily feelings of boredom may
eventually result in a more generic experience of boredom at
work. Although feelings of boredom likely disappear once the
boring task has ended (cf. Pekrun et al., 2010), cognitive “after
effects” of boredom (e.g., thinking about the boring work
situation during off-job time) were proposed to induce negative prework attitudes the next day, such as feeling resistance
towards one’s job and as such leading to reduced work motivation. In support of our spillover hypothesis, Study 2 results
demonstrate that work-related boredom experienced at one
day positively relates to next-day work-related boredom
through its associations with an unfavourable prework attitude and decreased daily intrinsic motivation. These findings
suggest that the experience of the more “enduring” experience of work-related boredom may develop as a result of a
downward spiral in which each day’s boredom affects the next
day’s boredom through employees’ motivational states before
and during work.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
We think several issues regarding the present study need
attention. First, our study relied on self-report measures,
which may have resulted in an overestimation of the associations among variables due to common method variance. We
nonetheless feel that replicating our findings in two different
studies, adopting different research designs may attenuate
this concern. Besides, many of the constructs of interest in
this study refer to subjective experiences, which can best be
mapped by means of reports by those who are involved in
these experiences. Furthermore, not all hypothesized relations
in this study were supported and several correlations were low
and/or not significant, suggesting that common method variance is not a very likely alternative explanation that may
threaten our conclusions. More generally, research (e.g.,
Spector, 2006) has demonstrated that using self-reports does
not guarantee finding significant results, potential biasing
variables (e.g., negative affectivity) do not generally inflate
correlations among study variables, and mono-method correlations are not necessarily higher than multi-method correlations. In spite of this, it would be valuable if future studies
made an effort to replicate our findings using other types of
measures. For example, job descriptions or observational data
could be used to measure work characteristics more objectively and examine how these relate to perceived work
characteristics, need satisfaction, motivation quality, and feelings of boredom.
Second, our studies were based on correlational data (with
concurrent assessments of need satisfaction, motivation, and
work-related boredom). Therefore, causality can only be
assumed on theoretical rather than empirical grounds. Even
though theory (e.g., JCM, SDT, AET, TPB) supports our proposed
order, be possible that the causal chain, or part of it, also
operates in the opposite direction. Our data from Study 2
seem to support an additional reversed causal process to
some extent, as it showed that work-related boredom on one
day was related to work-related boredom on the next day
through its association with decreased motivation on this second day. This indicates the existence of a downward spiral in
which work motivation and work-related boredom mutually
influence each other. Future studies could start to provide
further insight in causality by conducting (field) experiments
and/or employing longitudinal, full-panel designs, preferably
with a substantial number of measurement waves (Taris &
Kompier, 2003). Such designs would not only make it possible
to obtain insight in the hypothesized causal processes connecting work characteristics with work-related boredom, but would
also allow for a more detailed examination of reversed and
reciprocal causal processes. Moreover, for the daily examination
of the mechanisms underlying the development of work-related
boredom, it would be valuable if multiple measurement points
during a single workday were employed. Furthermore, (part of)
the causal chain could also be examined using experimental
designs in which – for example – motivation is manipulated to
examine its effects on levels of boredom.
Third, future research should seek to uncover to what
extent the spillover of boredom to next day motivation and
boredom is similar for all employees, or whether it depends on
personal characteristics or on contextual factors outside of
work. For example, psychological detachment from work
(e.g., Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015) or engagement in need satisfying activities after work may counteract the negative downward spiral of work-related boredom. Furthermore, future
research over a longer time span is needed to test if and
how such a downward spiral may ultimately lead to overall,
more generalized work-related boredom.
Fourth, although the positioning and conceptualization of the
construct of prework attitudes originates in extant theory (i.e., AET
and the TPB), the construct is relatively novel in the context of
daily diary research. Our study provides promising initial support
for the value of this construct, by showing that it functions as a
mediator linking the experience of work-related boredom on two
consecutive days. Nevertheless, future research is needed to
further establish its validity and theoretical and practical relevance.
Last, in the present study we focused on the work characteristics of the JCM. It would be interesting for future research to
test our proposed model using other models and conceptualizations of job characteristics (e.g., based on the job-demands control model; Karasek, 1979). In addition, future research should
examine to what extent perceptions of work characteristics fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, and how such fluctuating perceptions combine with previous day effects and prework attitudes in
predicting work motivation and feelings of boredom at work.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 145
Theoretical and practical implications
Despite the limitations, we feel that our studies contribute to the
understanding of work-related boredom in both theoretical and
practical ways. From a theoretical perspective, we shed light on
the mediating mechanisms linking work characteristics to the
development of work-related boredom. The present study illustrates the relevance of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) in understanding
the underlying mechanisms that explain the experience of boredom at the workplace, by demonstrating the importance of workrelated need satisfaction and the quality of work motivation in this
respect. Furthermore, we found that the experience of workrelated boredom shows significant day-to-day variation, and
demonstrated that the motivational processes underlying its
development not only explained between-person variation in
work-related boredom, but also played an important role in
employees’ within-person day-to-day development of boredom
at work. Moreover, we were able to give a first indication of how
the “enduring” experience of work-related boredom may develop
from the daily experience of this affective state, by introducing
and supporting a spillover hypothesis of work-related boredom.
From a practical point of view, it is important to know that
even low levels of experienced work-related boredom lead to
increases in severe negative outcomes such as reduced performance, job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, counterproductive work
behaviour, and work injuries (e.g., Bruursema et al., 2011; Frone,
1998; Kass et al., 2001; Reijseger et al., 2013; Spector et al., 2006;
Van Hooff & Van Hooft, 2014). The present study highlights the
importance of employees’ perceived work characteristics in predicting work-related boredom. Its results suggest that appropriate job design in terms of sufficient skill variety, task identity, and
autonomy are of particular importance. Additionally, given the
association between need satisfaction and boredom, boredom
may be reduced by providing employees other means – apart
from well-designed jobs – to fulfil their psychological needs at
work, for example, by stimulating employees to give each other
social support (which may contribute to satisfaction of the needs
for relatedness and competence). Our finding that boredom
experienced at one day affects boredom experienced on the
next day further underlines the importance for employers as
well as employees to be aware of employees’ boredom experienced on a daily basis, and to intervene if boredom-levels are
above an acceptable point, to prevent the development of a
downward spiral in which levels of boredom gradually increase.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Margot van der Kemp, MSc. and Jody Beltman,
MSc. for their help with collecting the study data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the FMG-UvA Research Priority Grant on
Affect Regulation.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)
90020-T
Barmack, J. E. (1938). The effect of benzedrine sulfate (benzyl methyl
carbinamine) upon the report of boredom and other factors. The
Journal of Psychology, 5, 125–133. doi:10.1080/00223980.1938.9917557
Barnett, L. A., & Klitzing, S. W. (2006). Boredom in free time: Relationships
with personality, affect, and motivation for different gender, racial and
ethnic student groups. Leisure Sciences, 28, 223–244. doi:10.1080/
01490400600598053
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Biessen, P. G. A., & De Gilder, D. (1993). BASAM: Basisvragenlijst
Amsterdam: Handleiding [Manual BASAM questionnaire]. Lisse: Swets
& Zeitlinger.
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Recovery during the
weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: a week-level
study examining intra-individual relationships. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 419–441.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it
is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.54.101601.145030
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Bored employees
misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behaviour. Work & Stress, 25, 93–107. doi:10.1080/
02678373.2011.596670
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R.
(1975). Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy?
American Psychologist, 54, 821–827. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.821
Davies, A. H. (1926). The physical and mental effects of monotony in
modern industry. British Medical Journal, 2, 427–479.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of
Personality, 62, 119–142. doi:10.1111/jopy.1994.62.issue-1
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
De Cooman, R., Stynen, D., Van den Broeck, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H.
(2013). How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(6), 1342–1352.
Fernet, C., Trépanier, S.-G., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2015).
Transformational leadership and optimal functioning at work: On the
mediating role of employees’ perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29, 11–31. doi:10.1080/02678373.2014.1003998
Fisher, C. D. (1987). Boredom: Construct, causes and consequences
(Technical Report ONR-9). College Station, TX: A&M University.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human
Relations, 46, 395–417. doi:10.1177/001872679304600305
Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–
522. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
Fisher, C. D. (in press). Interest and boredom at work. In H. M. Weiss (Ed.),
Handbook of work attitudes and affect. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 565–576. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.83.4.565
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.
v26:4
146 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck,
A., Aspeli, A. K. . . . Westbye, C. (2015). The multidimensional work
motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine
countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
24, 178–196. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). The effects of parent and
coach autonomy support on need satisfaction and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372–390. doi:10.1080/
714044203
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of
situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation
scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175–213. doi:10.1023/
A:1005614228250
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic
survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004). Introducing
uninteresting tasks to children: A comparison of the effects of rewards
and autonomy support. Journal of Personality, 72, 139–166. doi:10.1111/
j.0022-3506.2004.00259.x
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24, 285–308. doi:10.2307/2392498
Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., Stanny, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Watching the
clock: Boredom and vigilance performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
92, 969–976. doi:10.1177/003151250109203c01
Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008).
Autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress.
Journal of Personality, 76, 1201–1230. doi:10.1111/jopy.2008.76.issue-5
Lee, T. W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of
job boredom. Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 22–28.
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More than monotonous tasks. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 11, 381–405. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2009.11.issue-4
Lynch Jr, M. F., Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2005). Psychological needs and
threat to safety: Implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric
hospital for youth. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36
(4),415.
Mann, S. (2007). The boredom boom. The Psychologist, 20, 90–93.
Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The
Psychological Record, 43, 3–12.
Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). User’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding
of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 225–242. doi:10.1348/000709901158497
Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of
need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 434–457. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions:
Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research
and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. doi:10.1007/
s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value
theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions
in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education
(pp. 13–36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010).
Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents
and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 531–549. doi:10.1037/a0019243
Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S. C., Slovinec-D’Angelo, M., & Reid, R. (2004). Why do
you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation,
eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change, and psychological
adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 245–277. doi:10.1023/B:
MOEM.0000040154.40922.14
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W., Taris, T. W., Van Beek, I., &
Ouweneel, E. (2013). Watching the paint dry at work: Psychometric
examination of the Dutch boredom scale. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 26,
508–525. doi:10.1080/10615806.2012.720676
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily
well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435. doi:10.1177/
0146167200266002
Rothlin, P., & Werder, P. (2008). Boreout: Overcoming workplace demotivation. London: Kogan Page.
Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative
processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427. doi:10.1111/
jopy.1995.63.issue-3
Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends, work, and
well-being: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week
effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 29, 95–122. doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.95
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1099-1379
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279. doi:10.1177/
01461672962212007
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23, 329–340.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressordetachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36, S72–S103. doi:10.1002/job.v36.S1
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or
urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S.
(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,
446–460. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment
in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences,
42, 893–898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2003). Challenges in longitudinal designs
in occupational health psychology [editorial]. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health, 29, 1–4. doi:10.5271/sjweh.697
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 271–359). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A
review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at
work. Journal of Management, 42, 1195–1229. doi:10.1177/
0149206316632058
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008).
Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout and
engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work &
Stress, 22, 277–294. doi:10.1080/02678370802393672
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W.
(2010). Capturing autonomy, competence and relatedness at work:
Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83,
981–1002. doi:10.1348/096317909X481382
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 147
Van der Heijden, G. A. H., Schepers, J. J. L., & Nijssen, E. J. (2012).
Understanding workplace boredom among white collar employees:
Temporary reactions and individual differences. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 349–375. doi:10.1080/
1359432X.2011.578824
van Hooff, M. L., Geurts, S. A., Kompier, M. A., & Taris, T. W. (2007).
Workdays, in-between workdays and the weekend: a diary study on
effort and recovery. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 80(7), 599–613.
Van Hooff, M. L. M., & Van Hooft, E. A. J. (2014). Boredom at work: Proximal
and distal consequences of affective work-related boredom. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 348–359. doi:10.1037/a0036821
Van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge
and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion,
36, 181–194. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively
relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 1146–1153. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146
Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., & Van Hooft, E. A. J. (2010). The job-search grind:
Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort.
Academy of Management Journal, 53, 788–807. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2010.52814599
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction:
How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
247–252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Watt, J. D., & Hargis, M. B. (2010). Boredom proneness: Its relationship with
subjective underemployment, perceived organizational support, and
job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 163–174.
doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9138-9
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,
18, 1–74.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent
variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
148 M. L. M. VAN HOOFF AND E. A. J. VAN HOOFT