[Paleopsych] Boredom proneness and psychosocial development. John D. Watt; Stephen J. Vodanovich.

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Tue May 17 14:49:54 UTC 2005

Boredom proneness and psychosocial development. John D. Watt; Stephen J. 
The Journal of Psychology, May 1999 v133 i3 p303(1)

Author's Abstract:

The effect of boredom proneness as measured by the Boredom Proneness Scale (R. 
F. Farmer & N. D. Sundberg, 1986) on college students' psychosocial development 
was investigated via the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment 
(SDTLA; R. B. Winston, T K. Miller, & J. S. Prince, 1995). Low boredom-prone 
students had significantly higher scores on the following SDTLA measures: 
career planning, lifestyle planning, peer relationships, educational 
involvement, instrumental autonomy, emotional autonomy, interdependence, 
academic autonomy, and salubrious lifestyle. Gender differences on boredom 
proneness and psychosocial development measures are discussed.

According to Chickering and Reisser (1993, p. 2), "Psychosocial theories view 
development as a series of developmental tasks or stages, including qualitative 
changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relating to others and to 
oneself." In the context of higher education, psychosocial development refers 
to the study of how traditional-aged college students resolve biological and 
psychological changes within themselves in relation to environmental 
experiences and expectations. Although a number of psychosocial theories have 
been proposed to help explain how individuals develop psychosocially, 
Chickering's conceptualization has, perhaps, been the most influential 
(Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Through his research, Chickering recognized that students in higher education 
experience unique challenges and opportunities and undergo changes in more than 
their intellectual development. Specifically, Chickering (1969) identified 
seven broad changes experienced by traditional-aged college students. 
Chickering and Reisser (1993) revised, renamed, and reordered the original 
seven vectors into the following developmental stages: developing competence, 
managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing 
mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, 
and developing integrity. Chickering's intention was to develop a 
conceptualization that could be used by researchers to address the needs of 
students beyond basic academic concerns. Chickering and Reisser stated that 
"human development should be the organizing purpose for higher education" and 
"community colleges and four-year institutions can have significant impact on 
student development along the major vectors" (p. 265).

One variable that may significantly affect college students' psychosocial 
development is boredom. Boredom is, perhaps, best viewed as "an aversion for 
repetitive experience of any kind, routine work, or dull and boring people and 
extreme restlessness under conditions when escape from constancy is impossible" 
(Zuckerman, 1979, p. 103) and "a state of relatively low arousal and 
dissatisfaction, which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating situation" 
(Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993, p. 3). Mikulas and Vodanovich (p. 3) discussed 
boredom in terms of state, meaning a "state of being or state of consciousness, 
a particular combination of perceptions, affect, cognitions, and attributions." 
That is, this definition reflects the common consideration of boredom as a 
transitory state. It should be noted, however, that boredom has also been 
discussed and assessed in trait terms (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; Iso-Ahola & 
Weissinger, 1990; Watt & Ewing, 1996).

Boredom has been associated with a host of social and psychological issues. In 
education, it has been linked to low grades and diminished academic achievement 
(Freeman, 1993; Maroldo, 1986), truancy (Irving & Parker-Jenkins, 1995), 
dropout rates (Robinson, 1975; Sartoris & Vanderwell, 1981; Tidwell, 1988), 
school dissatisfaction (Aldridge & DeLucia, 1989; Gjesne, 1977), and 
oppositional behavior (Larson & Richards, 1991). In industry, boredom has been 
associated with job dissatisfaction (O'Hanlon, 1981), property damage (Drory, 
1982), and increased accident rates (Branton, 1970).

In a clinical context, boredom has been reported to be significantly positively 
related to depression, anxiety, hopelessness, loneliness, hostility (Farmer & 
Sundberg, 1986; Vodanovich, Verner, & Gilbride, 1991), overt and covert 
narcissism (Wink & Donahue, 1997), alienation (Tolor, 1989), and borderline 
personality disorder (James, Berelowitz, & Vereker, 1996). Significant negative 
correlations have been reported between boredom proneness and 
self-actualization (McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991); purpose in life (Weinstein, 
Xie, & Cleanthous, 1995); sexual, relationship, and life satisfaction (Watt & 
Ewing, 1996); and persistence and sociability (Leong & Schneller, 1993). 
Boredom has also been implicated as a contributing factor in substance use 
(Johnston & O'Malley, 1986), pathological gambling (Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & 
Frankova, 1990), and eating disorders (Ganley, 1989).

Although in the past decade we have witnessed an increasing interest in boredom 
research and scholarship, it remains a neglected topic in both psychology and 
education. Our purpose in the present study was to investigate the effect of 
boredom proneness on psychosocial development among traditional-aged college 
students. On the basis of the previous review, we postulated that boredom 
proneness would be negatively correlated with psychosocial development. 
Specifically, low boredom-prone students were expected to possess significantly 
higher psychosocial development scores. Gender differences for both boredom 
proneness and psychosocial development were also examined. On the basis of past 
research (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990a; Watt & Blanchard, 1994; Watt & Ewing, 1996; 
Watt & Vodanovich, 1992a), we hypothesized that men would have significantly 
higher boredom-proneness scores than women. Because of inconsistencies in the 
literature, no specific predictions were made regarding gender differences on 
psychosocial development.



The participants were 76 female and 66 male (N = 142) student volunteers 
attending undergraduate psychology and education classes at a large university 
in the midwestern United States. The participants' ages ranged from 17 to 24 
years (M = 19.4, SD = 1.4). The majority of the participants were White 
(90.8%), 1st-year students (69.7%), unmarried (98.6), and living in a 
single-sex residence hall (35.2%).


Boredom proneness. Farmer and Sundberg's (1986) 28-item (true-false) Boredom 
Proneness Scale (BPS) was used to assess the tendency to experience boredom . 
Sample items from this measure include "It is easy for me to concentrate on my 
activities," "It takes a lot of change and variety to keep me really happy," 
and "It takes more stimulation to get me going than most people." In this 
study, the BPS was modified to a 7-point Likert-type format. Responses ranged 
from highly disagree (1) to highly agree (7); higher scores reflected greater 
boredom proneness.

Adequate internal reliability consistency for the true-false format of the BPS 
was reported by Farmer and Sundberg (1986; r = .79) and Watt and Davis (1991; r 
= .82). Comparable internal consistency reliabilities have also been reported 
by Watt and Blanchard (1994; r = .81) and Watt and Ewing (1996; r = .84), using 
the same 7-point Likert-type format used in this study. The internal 
consistency reliability of the BPS in the present study was .83.

Sufficient validity evidence for the BPS has also been reported. For instance, 
the BPS has been significantly positively related to depression, hopelessness, 
loneliness, and amotivation (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Other researchers have 
reported significant positive relationships between boredom proneness and 
impulsivity (Watt & Vodanovich, 1992b); hostility, anxiety, and depression 
(Vodanovich et al., 1991); sexual boredom and relationship dissatisfaction 
(Watt & Ewing, 1996); and poor impulse control and dogmatism (Leong & 
Schneller, 1993). Significant negative relationships have been reported between 
boredom proneness and self-actualization (McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991), life 
satisfaction (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), need for cognition (Watt & Blanchard, 
1994), and positive affect (Vodanovich et al., 1991).

Last, factor analytic evidence suggests that boredom may best be viewed as a 
multidimensional construct (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990b; Vodanovich, Watt, & 
Piotrowski, 1997). Specifically, Vodanovich and Kass (1990b) found the BPS to 
consist of the following five factors: External Stimulation (need for 
excitement, change, and variety; internal consistency reliability .78 for the 
present study), Internal Stimulation (difficulty in keeping oneself interested 
and entertained; .70 for the present study), Affective Responses (negative 
emotional reactions to boredom ; .63 for the present study), Perception of Time 
(perception of slow time passage; .72 for the present study), and Constraint 
(feelings of restlessness and impatience; .74 for the present study).

Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment. We used the Student 
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA, Form F95; Winston et al., 
1995) to assess psychosocial development among traditional-aged college 
students. The SDTLA is designed to measure certain aspects of Chickering's 
model of psychosocial development (see Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 

The 153-item SDTLA is composed of three developmental task areas: (a) 
establishing and clarifying purpose, (b) developing autonomy, and (c) having 
mature interpersonal relationships. Each task is divided into subtasks. In 
addition, the SDTLA has the Salubrious Lifestyle Scale, designed to assess the 
degree to which a student's lifestyle is consistent with or promotes good 
health and wellness practices. The SDTLA also contains a 7-item Lie Scale, to 
assess response bias.

The establishing and clarifying purpose task consists of four subtasks: (a) 
educational involvement (the degree to which students have well-defined 
educational goals and plans, are actively involved in the academic life of 
their school, and are knowledgeable about campus resources); (b) career 
planning (the degree to which students are able to formulate specific 
vocational plans, make a commitment to a chosen career field, and take the 
appropriate steps necessary to prepare themselves for eventual employment); (c) 
lifestyle planning (the degree to which students are able to establish a 
personal direction and orientation in their lives, taking into account 
personal, ethical, and religious values, future family planning, and 
educational and vocational objectives); (d) cultural participation (the degree 
to which students are actively involved in a wide variety of activities and 
exhibit a wide array of cultural interests and a developed sense of aesthetic 

The developing autonomy task is composed of four subtasks: (a) emotional 
autonomy (the degree to which students trust their own ideas and feelings, have 
self-assurance to be confident decision makers, and are able to voice 
dissenting opinions in groups); (b) interdependence (the degree to which 
students recognize the reciprocal nature of the relationship between themselves 
and their community and fulfill their citizenship duties and responsibilities); 
(c) academic autonomy (the degree to which students have developed the capacity 
to deal with ambiguity and to monitor and control behavior in ways that allow 
for the attainment of personal goals and fulfillment of responsibilities); and 
(d) instrumental autonomy (the degree to which students are able to structure 
their lives and manipulate their environment in ways that allow them to satisfy 
daily needs and meet personal responsibilities without assistance from others).

The mature interpersonal relationships task is composed of two subtasks: (a) 
peer relationships (the degree to which students have developed mature peer 
relationships characterized by greater trust, independence, frankness, and 
individuality); and (b) tolerance (the degree to which students are accepting 
of those of different backgrounds, lifestyles, beliefs, cultures, races, and 

Sufficient reliability and validity data have been supported for earlier 
versions of the SDTLA (see Hess & Winston, 1995; Winston, 1990; Winston & 
Miller, 1987). With one exception, scale and subscale reliability scores for 
the SDTLA used in the present study were judged sufficient: establishing and 
clarifying purpose task (r = .91), educational involvement subtask (r = .78), 
career planning subtask (r = .82), lifestyle planning subtask (r = .80), 
cultural participation subtask (r = .61), developing autonomy task (r = .86), 
emotional autonomy subtask (r = .71), interdependence subtask (r = .74), 
academic autonomy subtask (r = .77), instrumental autonomy subscale (r = .55), 
mature interpersonal relationships task (r = .75), peer relationships subtask 
(r = .63), tolerance subtask (r = .76), Salubrious Lifestyle Scale (r = .74), 
and Lie Scale (r = .17). Because of the poor internal consistency reliability 
associated with the Lie Scale, it was not used in further analyses.


Correlational Analyses

We computed Pearson correlation coefficients to examine the relationship 
between boredom proneness and psychosocial development. Consistent with 
expectations, the results indicated significant negative correlations between 
boredom proneness total and subscale scores and psychosocial development scores 
(see Table 1).


Gender Differences

Specifying age and class standing (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th year) as covariates, we 
computed a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to test for 
the effect of gender on psychosocial development scores. With Wilks's 
criterion, an overall main effect for gender was found, F(11, 128) - 2.3, p 
[less than] .05, [[Eta].sup.2] = .16. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated 
that women had significantly higher scores on the following psychosocial 
development measures: educational involvement, F(1, 138) = 7.9, p [less than] 
.01; lifestyle planning, F(1, 138) = 9.2, p [less than] .005; instrumental 
autonomy, F(1, 138) = 5.5, p [less than] .05; tolerance, F(1,138) = 8.0, p 
[less than] .005; salubrious lifestyle, F(1, 138) = 5.6, p [less than] .05; and 
academic autonomy, F(1, 138) = 4.8, p [less than] .05.

Age and class standing were selected as covariates because past research has 
generally revealed a relationship between psychosocial development and these 
two variables (Pascarella 8,: Terenzini, 1991). Age, however, did not provide 
reliable adjustment to any of the dependent variables and, thus, was omitted 
from future analyses. Means, adjusted means, and standard deviations for 
psychosocial development by gender are reported in Table 2.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was computed to test for 
the effect of gender on the five factors of the BPS. The findings indicated an 
overall main effect for gender, F(5, 133) = 4.1, p [less than] .005, 
[[Eta].sup.2] = .13. Univariate contrasts indicated that men (M = 32.7, SD = 
8.2, n = 65) had significantly [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] higher scores 
than women (M = 28.0, SD = 7.2, n = 74) on external stimulation, F(1, 137) = 
13.1, p [less than] .001. No significant differences related to gender were 
found on the other BPS subscales.

Multivariate Analyses

A median split was conducted on the distribution of boredom proneness scores, 
to categorize participants into high (M = 43.6, SD = 11.1, n = 73) and low (M = 
34.0, SD = 9.8, n = 66) boredom groups. We computed a two-way MANCOVA to assess 
the effect of boredom proneness on psychosocial development scores, after 
adjusting for the effects of gender and class standing. A significant main 
effect for boredom proneness was found, F(11, 125) = 5.3, p [less than] .001, 
[[Eta].sup.2] = .32. Univariate analyses indicated that the low boredom-prone 
students had significantly higher scores than the students with high boredom 
proneness on the following measures of psychosocial development: educational 
involvement, F(1, 135) = 20.8, p [less than] .001; career planning, F(1, 135) = 
10.2, p [less than] .005; lifestyle planning, F(1, 135) = 22.5, p [less than] 
.001; peer relationships, F(1, 135) = 23.1, p [less than] .001; instrumental 
autonomy, F(1, 135) = 17.2, p [less than] .001; emotional autonomy, F(1, 135) = 
15.0, p [less than] .001; salubrious lifestyle, F(1, 135) = 20.8, p [less than] 
.001; interdependence, F(1, 135) = 14.1, p [less than] .001; cultural

participation, F(1, 135) = 6.2, p .05; and academic autonomy, F(1, 135) = 25.8, 
p [less than] .05 (see Table 3).



Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p. 557) commented that "Students not only make 
statistically significant gains in factual knowledge and in a range of general 
cognitive and intellectual skills; they also change on a broad array of value, 
attitudinal, psychosocial, and moral dimensions." One variable that may 
negatively affect college students' psychosocial development is boredom 

Correlational analyses revealed significant negative relationships between 
boredom proneness and psychosocial development (see Table 1). In addition, 
after we controlled for the effects of gender and class standing, low 
boredomprone students were found to possess significantly higher psychosocial 
development scores. Our findings are consistent with the characterization of 
the boredom -prone person as one who (a) lacks motivation, goals, ambition, and 
a sense of meaning or purpose; (b) experiences varying degrees of negative 
affect, such as hopelessness, anxiety, depression, hostility, and loneliness; 
and (c) engages in maladaptive and unhealthy behaviors.

Our findings revealed a significant gender difference with respect to boredom 
proneness. Specifically, the men had significantly higher boredom -proneness 
scores than the women on the external stimulation subscale, which assessed an 
individual's need for challenge, excitement, and variety. The finding of a 
gender difference with respect to a high need for external stimulation is 
congruent with past findings (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990a; Watt & Blanchard, 1994; 
Watt & Vodanovich, 1992a). That is, men appear to experience greater boredom 
than women in situations where a perceived lack of external stimulation exists. 
One possible reason for the reported gender difference is that men tend to make 
more stable and less complex attributions for their boredom than women (Polly, 
Vodanovich, Watt, & Blanchard, 1993).

Unfortunately, little empirical attention has been focused on how best to 
alleviate boredom . Polly et al. (1993, p. 130) suggested that "long-term 
strategies that focus on increasing the ability to generate internal 
stimulation or activity may prove successful in reducing the likelihood of 
boredom." Watt and Blanchard (1994) also speculated that boredom proneness may 
be alleviated by the self-generation of information or by keeping oneself 
entertained. Presumably, individuals who are capable of providing their own 
stimulation are better able to escape the negative experience of boredom. 
Indeed, Trunnell, White, Cederquist, and Braza (1996) reported using meditative 
techniques, such as mindfulness (being fully present and engaged in life as it 
is currently happening), to reduce boredom among college students engaging in 
educational outdoor experiences. Future researchers should continue to explore 
additional adaptive ways of reducing boredom, as well as examining whether such 
reductions may result in an increase in psychosocial development.

Gender differences were also reported for psychosocial development. 
Specifically, the women had significantly higher scores measuring educational 
involvement, lifestyle planning, instrumental autonomy, tolerance, salubrious 
lifestyle, and academic autonomy.

Extant research does suggest that gender may influence the psychosocial 
development of students in higher education. Specifically, research on the 
effects of gender seems to indicate that there are different developmental 
patterns for women and men, especially concerning the issues of intimacy, 
identity, and autonomy. For women it appears that an increased emphasis on 
connectedness and relationships positively promotes their development of 
identity and autonomy (Gilligan, 1982; Straub, 1987; Straub & Rodgers, 1986; 
Thomas & Chickering, 1984). Men, in contrast, are believed to develop identity 
and autonomy through separation (Gilligan, 1982).

College student development professionals study the psychosocial development of 
students in order to better understand their developmental tasks and stages. A 
more complete understanding of students' developmental tasks and stages and the 
variables that affect them is crucial in order to design and implement more 
effective programs and services, as well as provide individual and group 
counseling services related to general and specific student developmental 


Aldridge, M., & DeLucia, R. C. (1989). Boredom: The academic plague of first 
year students. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 1(2), 43-56.

Blaszczynski, A., McConaghy, N., & Frankova, A. (1990). Boredom proneness in 
pathological gambling. Psychological Reports, 67, 35-42.

Branton, P. (1970). A field study of repetitive manual work in relation to 
accidents at the workplace. International Journal of Production Research, 8, 

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness and task 
effectiveness at work. Personnel Psychology, 35, 141-151.

Farmer, R. F., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness - the development 
and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4-17.

Freeman, J. (1993). Boredom, high ability and achievement. In V. P. Varma 
(Ed.), How and why children fail (pp. 29-40). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Ganley, R. M. (1989). Emotion and eating in obesity: A review of the 
literature. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8, 343-361.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's 
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gjesne, T. (1977). General satisfaction and boredom at school as a function of 
the pupil's personality characteristics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational 
Research, 21, 113-146.

Hess, W. D., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1995). Developmental task achievement and 
students' intentions to participate in developmental activities. Journal of 
College Student Development, 36, 314-321.

Irving, B. A., & Parker-Jenkins, M. (1995). Tackling truancy: An examination of 
persistent non-attendance amongst disaffected school pupils and positive 
support strategies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 225-235.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: 
Conceptualization, reliability, and validity of the leisure boredom scale. 
Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 1-17.

James, A., Berelowitz, J. A., & Vereker, M. (1996). Borderline personality 
disorder: A study in adolescence. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 
5(1), 11-17.

Johnston, L. D., & O'Malley, P. M. (1986). Why do the nation's students use 
drugs and alcohol: Self reported reasons from nine national surveys. Journal of 
Drug Issues, 16, 29-66.

Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: 
Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 

Leong, F. T., & Schneller, G. R. (1993). Boredom proneness: Temperamental and 
cognitive components. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 233-239.

Maroldo, G. K. (1986). Shyness, boredom, and grade point average among college 
students. Psychological Reports, 59, 395-398.

McLeod, C. R, & Vodanovich, S. J. (1991). The relationship between 
self-actualization and boredom proneness. Journal of Social Behavior and 
Personality, 6, 137-146.

Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The 
Psychological Record, 43, 3-12.

O'Hanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta 
Psychologica, 49, 53-82.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: 
Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: 

Polly, L. M., Vodanovich, S. J., Watt, J. D., & Blanchard, M. J. (1993). The 
effects of attributional processes on boredom proneness. Journal of Social 
Behavior and Personality, 8, 123-132.

Robinson, W. P. (1975). Boredom at school. British Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 45, 141-152.

Sartoris, P. C., & Vanderwell, A. R. (1981). Student reasons for withdrawing 
from the University of Alberta: 1978-79. Canadian Counsellor, 15, 168-174.

Straub, C. (1987). Women's development of autonomy and Chickering's theory. 
Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 198-204.

Straub, C., & Rodgers, R. F. (1986). An exploration of Chickering's theory and 
women's development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 216-224.

Thomas, R., & Chickering, A. (1984). Education and identity revisited. Journal 
of College Student Personnel, 25, 392-399.

Tidwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school 
departures. Adolescence, 23, 939-954.

Tolor, A. (1989). Boredom as related to alienation, assertiveness, 
internal-external expectancy, and sleep patterns. Journal of Clinical 
Psychology, 45, 260-265.

Trunnell, E. P., White, F., Cederquist, J., & Braza, J. (1996). Optimizing an 
outdoor experience for experiential learning by decreasing boredom through 
mindfulness training. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 43-49.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990a). Age and gender differences in boredom 
proneness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 297-307.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990b). A factor analytic study of the 
Boredom Proneness Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 115-123.

Vodanovich, S. J., Verner, K. M., & Gilbride, T. V. (1991). Boredom proneness: 
Its relationship between positive and negative affect. Psychological Reports, 
69, 1139-1146.

Vodanovich, S. J., Watt, J. D., & Piotrowski, C. (1997). Boredom proneness in 
African-American college students: A factor analytic perspective. Education, 
118(2), 229-236.

Watt, J. D., & Blanchard, M. J. (1994). Boredom proneness and the need for 
cognition. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 44-51.

Watt, J. D., & Davis, F. E. (1991). The prevalence of boredom proneness and 
depression among profoundly deaf residential school adolescents. American 
Annals of the Deaf 136, 409-413.

Watt, J. D., & Ewing, J. E. (1996). Toward the development and validation of a 
measure of sexual boredom. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 57-66.

Watt, J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1992a). An examination of race and gender 
differences in boredom proneness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 
7, 169-175.

Watt, J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1992b). Relationship between boredom 
proneness and impulsivity. Psychological Reports, 70, 688-690.

Weinstein, L., Xie, X., & Cleanthous, C. C. (1995). Purpose in life, boredom, 
and volunteerism in a group of retirees. Psychological Reports, 76, 482.

Wink, P., & Donahue, K. (1997). The relation between two types of narcissism 
and boredom. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 136-140.

Winston, R. B., Jr. (1990). The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle 
Inventory: An approach to measuring students' psychosocial development. Journal 
of College Student Development, 31, 108-120.

Winston, R. B., Jr., & Miller, T. K. (1987). Student Developmental Task and 
Lifestyle Inventory manual. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Winston, R. B., Jr., Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1995). Student 
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (unpublished instrument). Athens: 
The University of Georgia.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. 
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

More information about the paleopsych mailing list