DOES A LACK OF LIFE MEANING CAUSE BOREDOM? RESULTS FROM PSYCHOMETRIC, ...Fahlman, Shelley A;Mercer, Kimberley B;Gaskovski, Peter;Eastwood, Adrienne E;Eastwood, John D Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology; Mar 2009; 28, 3; ProQuest Central pg. 307Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2009, pp. 307-340DOES A LACK OF LIFE MEANING CAUSE BOREDOM? RESULTS FROM PSYCHOMETRIC, LONGITUDINAL, AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSESSHELLEY A. FAHLMAN, KIMBERLEY B. MERCER, PETER GASKOVSKI, ADRIENNE E. EASTWOOD, AND JOHN D. EASTWOODExistential theory and previous qualitative research have suggested that a lack of life meaning and purpose causes boredom, as well as other types of negative affect such as depression or anxiety. Although these variables have been shown to be correlated at one point in time, the relationships among these constructs have not been investigated using a controlled, quantitative research design. In Study 1a (N= 131), boredom was shown to be related to, yet psychometrically distinct from, life meaning, depression, and anxiety. In Study 1b (N = 88), life meaning significantly predicted changes in boredom across time while depression and anxiety did not. In addition, boredom was a significant predictor of changes in life meaning across time, while depression and anxiety were not. Finally, in Study 2 (N = 102), manipulating perceptions of life meaning significantly changed boredom, while a manipulation of mood did not. The nature of the relationship between life meaning and boredom, as well as some clinical implications, are discussed.Boredom is a common yet insidious human experience. Although boredom makes "no grand gestures, nor great cries" (Baudelaire, 1993, p. 7) and, on first glance, appears deceptively simple, a closer examination reveals an intractable and complex malady. The term boredom is used to refer to a wide range of experience, from trivial and transient dissatisfaction, to extreme, chronic suffering. In terms of its defining elements, however, boredom involves dissatisfaction with and disengagement from one's environment and/or current ac-Portions of this research (Study 2) are based on the Master's thesis of the first author.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. John Eastwood, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. E-mail: johneast@yorku.ca.307Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.308

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGtivity (e.g., Fenichel, 1951; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). Although a bored individual wishes to be engaged in satisfying activity, the individual may feel that there is "nothing to do," that they cannot identify an activity that would satisfy their desire, or that they must do things they do not want to do (Fahlman, Mercer, Flora, & Eastwood, 2008). The English word "boredom" has a relatively specific and recent historical origin (Spacks, 1995), but the psychological state to which it refers has been explored by observers of the human condition since antiquity (Kuhn, 1976). Among modern thinkers, Schopenhauer (1995) describes ennui as a "lifeless yearning without a definite object, a deadening languor" (p. 85). Byron calls boredom "that awful yawn which sleep cannot abate" (Steffan & Pratt, 1971, p. 405). Finally, Fromm (1955) claims that "among the evils of life, there are few which are as painful as boredom, and consequently every attempt is made to avoid it" (p. 202).In contrast to its treatment in literary and philosophical work, boredom has received relatively little attention in the psychological literature. In fact, Smith (1981) noted that between 1926 and 1980 an average of less than one paper per year was published on the topic. In more recent years, however, this trend has been shifting, and a growing body of literature has demonstrated that boredom is associated with significant psychological, behavioral, and social difficulties (e.g., Blaszczynski, McConaghy, & Frankova, 1990; Harris, 2000; Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000). Most consistently, studies have shown that boredom is correlated with various types of negative affect, including depression, anxiety, apathy, hopelessness, and lacking a sense of meaning or purpose in life (Ahmed, 1990; Bargdill, 2000; Blaszczynski et al., 1990; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; MacDon-ald & Holland, 2002; Passik, Inman, Kirsh, Theobald, & Dickerson, 2003; Sommers & Vodanovich, 2000; Vodanovich & Verner, 1991; Weinstein, Xie, & Cleanthous, 1995). With such relations to different forms of negative affect, boredom is surely not simply a transient form of suffering. In fact, several authors have documented cases of individuals experiencing chronic boredom (e.g., Bargdill, 2000; Drob & Bernard, 1987)one even describing a man who was "almost bored to death" (Maltsberger, 2000).Although the associations between boredom and various types of negative affect have been reliably demonstrated, there have been few efforts to fully understand or interpret these findings within a theoretical framework. However, one such frameworkthe ex-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL.

309istential traditionprovides a clear frame for understanding the relationship between boredom, negative affect, and life meaning. Although diverse in their thinking, many existential theorists posit that lacking a sense of life meaning is at the forefront of human suffering, and that experiences of boredom and negative affect are central components of this lack of purpose or meaning. Frankl (1959/1962/1984), for example, emphasizes the fundamental importance of having of a sense of meaning in one's life. Indeed, for him, the quest to find and fulfill a sense of meaning is the essence of human motivation, a basic striving that he calls the "will to meaning" (Frankl, 1978). According to Frankl (1959/1962/1984, 1978), the conditions of modern society have left many individuals with a feeling of meaninglessnessan affliction he refers to as an existential vacuum. When this condition remains unresolved, individuals are said to "lack the awareness of a meaning worth living for. They are haunted by the experience of their inner emptiness, a void within themselves" (Frankl, 1959/1962/1984, p. 128). Frankl further contends that "the existential vacuum manifests itself mainly in a state of boredom" (p. 129). Yet, he also notes that the existential vacuum is associated with negative affective states, such as dysphoria, as well as resulting maladaptive behaviors, such as aggression or suicide.A similar but distinct conceptualization of boredom and negative affect is offered by Maddi, in which he too underlines the importance of the search for meaning (Maddi, 1967,1970). For Maddi (1970), both boredom and negative affect arise from a psychopa-thology of meaningwhat he refers to as existential sickness or existential neurosis, which he defines as "a settled, continuous state of meaninglessness, apathy, and aimlessness" (p. 140). The affective component of this existential sickness involves a "general absence of emotions, pleasant or unpleasant, with the exception of boredom" (p. 140, emphasis added). Although boredom is the primary affective symptom, existential sickness can also manifest in intermittent periods of depression. Yet, according to Maddi, if the condition is prolonged, depression recedes and the individual is overcome by "apathy and boredom, and more apathy and boredom, in a humdrum cycle of indifference" (p. 140).At least two empirical studies have examined the relationship between life meaning and boredom using qualitative methods. First,Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.310

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGDrob and Bernard (1987), on the basis of clinical case studies, challenged the classic psychoanalytic assumption that chronic boredom is a consequence of defensive operations (i.e., that boredom develops after instinctual aims are blocked from awareness, resulting in impoverished desire, fantasy and emotion, e.g., Wangh, 1975). Instead, Drob and Bernard concluded that the chronically bored individual is devoid of purpose: he or she has failed to achieve a fundamental life project that gives meaning to his or her life. Although this lack of direction may, in part, result from defensive factors, it is the lack of purpose or meaning which is the critical causal factor in the development of chronic boredom. Accordingly, Drob and Bernard suggest that it is only when the individual has adopted a meaningful life project or theme that boredom can be overcome.More recently, Bargdill (2000) has adopted a similar view of boredom. In conducting interviews with individuals who were bored with their lives, Bargdill found that emotional ambivalence is a key element of life boredomambivalence which developed after these individuals had compromised their personal life projects, goals, or dreams. After replacing their desires with less desired projects, they became emotionally torn. On the one hand, they felt anger and blame toward the world and others, particularly toward those whom they felt had "forced" them to compromise their personal projects; on the other hand, they felt shame and self-blame, realizing they had sold short their own dreams to pursue those of others. Moreover, the boredom they felt toward their modified projects spread to other aspects of their lives. This chronic boredom was accompanied by feelings of emptiness, and eventually individuals became passive and avoidant toward their lives. Bargdill thus concluded that losing or turning away from personally meaningful life goals leads to feeling "stuck" in a chronic state of boredom. In short, the work of Bargdill (2000), like that of Drob and Bernard (1987), suggests that the loss of or failure to develop meaningful life goals causes the experience of chronic boredom.Existential theory and these two qualitative studies suggest that boredom arises from a lack of life meaning. Although previous research has shown that these variables are significantly related when measured at one point in time (e.g., MacDonald & Holland, 2002; Weinstein, Xie, & Cleanthous, 1995), cause cannot be inferred from correlations alone. In order to remedy this gap in existing research, the present research evaluated the relationships among these vari-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL

311ables using a quantitative, controlled research design. Specifically, the existential hypothesis that a lack of meaning causes boredom was tested. In addition, because existential theory implies that boredom's relationship to negative affect can be accounted for by life meaning, a related sub-goal of the present research was to examine this possibility.In order to demonstrate that changes in life meaning cause changes in boredom, it first must be shown that these constructs can be reliably and distinctly measured. Then, the temporal precedence of life meaning must be demonstrated by examining its effect on boredom across time (in addition to its impact on depression and anxiety). Finally, the presumed "cause" must be shown to correlate with its presumed effect when other relevant variables are held constantthat is, the causal variable must be selectively manipulated via a controlled experimental design. This was the approach taken in the present investigation. Specifically, boredom, life meaning, and negative affect (i.e., depression and anxiety) were first examined for psychometric distinctiveness (Study la). Next, the variables were examined across time in order to evaluate their predictive value (Study lb). Finally, an experimental approach was used to examine whether temporarily manipulating perceptions of life meaning and purpose would have the expected impact on boredom, as opposed to manipulating negative affect alone (Study 2).STUDY 1AThe purpose of Study la was to determine whether boredom, life meaning, depression and anxiety are correlated, yet psychometri-cally distinct, constructs. To achieve this purpose, structural equation modeling analyses were used to determine whether these variables could be best described as four separate constructs.METHODParticipants and ProcedureParticipants were 138 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses. They were 77% female (n - 106) with a mean age of 19.4 (SD = 2.5, range 17 to 36). Participants receivedReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.312

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGcourse credit for participating. Questionnaire packages containing self-report measures of boredom, meaning, anxiety, and depression were included in four different orders.MeasuresBoredom Proneness Scale. The Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) is a trait scale with 28 items measuring "one's proneness toward experiencing boredom" (p. 5). The internal consistency of the 7-point Likert version has been reported to range from .79 to .83 (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990). The test-retest reliability was reported to be .79 over a one-week interval (Polly, Vodanovich, Watt, & Blanchard, 1993). Higher scores indicate greater proneness toward experiencing boredom.Boredom Coping Scale. The Boredom Coping Scale (BCS; Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum, 1984) consists of 10 forced-choice items intended "to reflect one's disposition to restructure one's perceptions and participation in potentially boring activities so as to decrease boredom" (p. 183). In other words, it assesses the ability to avoid the experience of boredom (e.g., "I easily find ways to entertain myself even if others are bored"). The internal consistency is reported to be .67, and the test-retest reliability based on a one- to three-week interval is .64 (Hamilton et al., 1984). Higher scores indicate less frequent boredom.Purpose in Life Test. The Purpose in Life Test (PIL; Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964) was developed as a means of operationalizing Viktor Frankl's concept of life meaning. It is intended to measure "the degree to which the individual [experiences] 'purpose in life' " (p. 201), which is defined as "the onto-logical significance of life from the point of view of the experiencing individual" (p. 201). The internal consistency of the PIL has been reported to range from .90 to .92 (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Re-ker, 1977), and the split-half reliability from .87 to .92 (Crumbaugh, 1968; Reker & Cousins, 1979). Reported test-retest coefficients are .83 over a one-week interval (Meier & Edwards, 1974), and .68 over a three-month interval (Reker, 1977). Higher scores indicate a greater degree of purpose in life.Life Regard Index. The Life Regard Index (LRI; Battista & Almond, 1973) is a 28-item measure of "positive life regard" (i.e., life mean-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMANETAL.313ing). All items are measured on a 5-point scale. It has an internal consistency of .86 (Debats, 1990), and test-retest reliability ranging from .80 to .94 (Battista & Almond, 1973; Debats, van der Lubbe, & Wezeman, 1993). Higher scores indicate a greater degree of life meaning.Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item scale that measures current level of depressive symptomatology in the general public. According to Radloff (1977), the internal consistency is .85 and the test re-test reliability ranges from .45 to .70. Higher scores indicate greater depressive symptomatology.Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) has two major subscales, one measuring anxiety (HADS-A) and one measuring depression (HADS-D). It contains 14 items (7 depression items, 7 anxiety items), each measured on a 4-point scale. The internal consistency ranges from .68 to .93 for HADS-A, and .67 to .90 for HADS-D (Bjelland, Dahl, Haug, & Neckelmann, 2002). Higher scores indicate greater depressive or anxious symptomatology.Self-Rating Depression Scale. The Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS; Zung, 1965) measures both physiological and psychological symptoms of depression. It contains 20 items, each measured on a 4-point Likert scale. According to a review by Thurber, Snow, and Honts (2002), the internal consistency has ranged from .79 to .88. Higher scores indicate greater depressive symptomatology.State-Trait Personality Inventory, Form YTrait Anxiety Scale. The State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI; Spielberger, 1995; Spiel-berger & Reheiser, 2004) measures both state and trait forms of cu-riousity, anxiety, depression, and anger. The total scale contains 80 items, with 10 items for each subscale. All items are measured on a 4-point scale. The Trait Anxiety scale (ANX)used in the present studymeasures the general tendency to respond with elevated anxiety to threatening situations. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward elevated anxiety.Latent FactorsFour latent factors specified were Depression, Boredom, Meaning/Purpose in Life, and Anxiety. Indicators of Depression included: (a) Cen-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.314

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD), (b) Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale (HADS-D), and (c) the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). Indicators of Boredom included: (a) the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), and (b) the Boredom Coping Scale (BCS). Indicators of Meaning/Purpose in Life included: (a) the Purpose in Life Test (PIL), and (b) the Life Regard Index (LRI). Finally, indicators of Anxiety included: (a) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety scale (HADS-A), and (b) the State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX).Measurement Models. It was predicted that boredom, life meaning, depression, and anxiety would be correlated, yet psychometrically distinct, constructs. Support for this prediction would be indicated by a four-factor model that provided a better fit to the data than four possible three-factor models. The Chi-square difference test was used to compare nested models to the four factor model. In each of the three-factor models, two of the latent factors were specified to measure the same underlying construct as follows: model 3-factorA = depression/anxiety, boredom, and meaning; model 3-factorB = depression, anxiety, and boredom/meaning; model 3-factorC = boredom/depression, meaning, and anxiety; and model 3-factorD = boredom/anxiety, depression, and meaning. All co-variances were constrained to a value of one.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTwo participants had missing data on the SDS, and one participant had missing data on the Trait Anxiety scale. In addition, two outliers (i.e., greater than three standard deviations above or below the mean) were detected on the HADS-D scale, one on the CESD scale, and one on the HADS-A scale. These seven participants were excluded from the present analysis, resulting in a sample size of 131. All variables were normally distributed. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix and standard deviations.Maximum likelihood estimation was used to estimate the fit of the obtained covariance matrix for the measurement models. Several fit indices were chosen to evaluate model fit. Chi-square (%2), with its associated p value, indicates that the specified paths in the tested model provide a good fit to the data when p is nonsignificant (p >Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMANETAL.315TABLE 1. Study 1a Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations (N = 131)123456789

Depression

1. CESD

2. HADS Depression.640

3.SDS.754.625

Boredom

4. Boredom Proneness.466.445.578

5. Boredom Coping-.200-.266-.294-.595

Meaning/ Purpose

6. Purpose in Life-.654-.550-.659-.574.327

7. Life Regard Index-.541-.455-.571-.572.375.806

Anxiety

8. HADS Anxiety.556.524.527.235-.181-.399-.258

9. STPI Trait Anxiety.618.474.566.387-.171-.501-.454.488

Means15.063.4538.3896.186.30104.63102.437.5021.15

Standard deviations7.322.376.6217.792.0415.1314.413.103.57

Note. All correlations p < .05. CESD = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; SDS = Self-Rating Depression Scale..05). In addition, when values of the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) exceed .90, the tested model fits the data better than the null model. Finally, the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and 90% confidence intervals were included, for which excellent fit is indicated by values of .05 or less, adequate fit is indicated by values of .08 or less, and poor fit is indicated by values of .10 or greater (Hu & Bentler, 1999).Results indicated that the four-factor solution, with a constrained error variance,1 provided an excellent fit to the data (Table 2). In contrast, the alternative three-factor models resulted in poorer fit indices relative to the four-factor model, with the exception of1. The BPS factor loading initially exceeded one (i.e., 1.08), which is known as a Heywood case. In such a scenario, Dillon, Kumar, and Mulani (1987) recommend that the problematic error variance be constrained to zero if "the model provides a reasonable fit, the respective confidence interval for the offending estimate covers zero, and the magnitude of the corresponding estimated standard error is roughly the same as the other estimated standard errors" (p. 134). Our data met these conditions, and therefore the BPS error variance was constrained to zero, resulting in a factor loading of one.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.316

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGthree-factor model A, which combined anxiety and depression into a single factor; this model was equivalent to, but not better than, the four-factor model.2 Correlations between all four latent factors were statistically significant (p < .01) and strong (see Figure 1).In sum, these findings demonstrate that boredom is related to, yet psychometrically distinct from, life meaning, as well as other negative affects (i.e., depression and anxiety).STUDY 1BA further step in examining the relationships between these constructs entails measuring them at more than one point in time in order to determine whether they predict changes in one another. Thus, the purpose of Study lb was to explore the relationships between life meaning, boredom, depression, and anxiety across time. Based on existential theory, it was predicted that life meaning would better predict boredom across time (controlling for boredom at time one) than anxiety or depression. In addition, it was predicted that anxiety, depression, and boredom would not predict meaning across time (controlling for meaning at time one), given that meaning is believed to be the causal variable. Thus, two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, the first with boredom and the second with meaning as the dependent variable.METHODParticipants and ProcedureParticipants were drawn from the same sample as Study la; however, 88 of these individuals returned at time two, and their data was analyzed for Study lb. The returning participants were 77% female (n = 68) with a mean age of 19.5 (SD = 2.9, range 17 to 36).2. Although they are validated measures of life meaning, some items on the PIL (items 1,2,19) and LRI (items 5,10,12,16,20,24) seem to also measure boredom; thus, in order to rule out any concern with item conflation, we ran the same analyses excluding these items. Even with this strict test, results were nearly identical: the four-factor model provided an excellent fit, x2(22) = 31.56, TLI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .058, and was better than all other three-factor models, again, with the exception of three-factor model A (depression and anxiety combined).Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL.

317

FIGURE 1. Four-factor measurement model.They were not significantly different from the Study la sample on demographic variables (i.e., age or gender) or any of the dependent variables (i.e., anxiety, depression, boredom, or life meaning). For each participant, questionnaires were completed approximately three to eight weeks from the time they completed the questionnaires at time one.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.318LACK OF LIFE MEANINGTABLE 2. Study la Fit Indices for Four-Factor Model and Nested Models (N = 131)Model4-factor3-factorA3-factorB3-factorC3-factorD

xMdf)28.02 (22)32.61 (25)150.48(25)307.37(25)134.10(25)

p value.175.141.000.000.000

TLI.99.99.82.72.87

CFI.99.99.88.81.91

RMSEA.046.048.196.295.183

RMSEA 90%CI.000-.091.000-.090.170-.230.270-.320.150-.21O

X2 difference (df)4.59 (3)122.46(3)279.35(3)106.08(3)

p value.204.000.000.000

Note. Model 3-factorA = depression/anxiety, boredom and meaning; 3-factorB = depression, anxiety, boredom/meaning; 3-factorC = boredom/depression, meaning, and anxiety; and 3-factorD = boredom/anxiety, depression, and meaning. TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.MeasuresAt time two, participants completed the same questionnaire package utilized in Study la; however, for the regression analyses, one measure of each construct was utilized: boredom was measured by the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS); depression was measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD); life meaning was measured by the Purpose in Life Test (PIL); and anxiety was measured by the State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX). See Study la for a description of these measures.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAll variables were normally distributed. Four variables had missing data from one participant each. In addition, two outliers (i.e., greater than three standard deviations above or below the mean) were detected: one on CESD1 and one on BPS2. These total scores were deleted. For each hierarchical regression analysis, plots of standardized residuals were examined to assess for linearity and homosce-dasticity, and participants with standardized residuals greater than three were excluded from each analysis. In addition, the presence of multicollinearity was assessed by examining the variance inflation factors, none of which exceeded 5 for any variable in the following analyses (range 1.46 to 2.28), indicating the absence of multicol-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.TABLE 3.Correlations Between Depression, Boredom, LifeMeaning, andAnxiety at Time One and Time Two (n =88; Study lb):AHLMA

12345678910111213 1415 1617N ET AL.

Depression

10. HADD2.747.613.562.499-.269-.552-.487.441.540

11.CESD2.497.660.642.349-.228-.484-.477-.495.543.684

12.SDS2.553.683.813.538-.318-.654-.630.432.521.648.710

Boredom

13. BPS2.447.489.558.794-.645-.633-.617.411.419.505.385.588

14. BCS2-.214-.160*-.212-.469.811.307.278-.200*-.171*-.193*-.279-.327-.588

Meaning

15. PIL2-.540-.626-.681-.679.466.842.761-.481-.510-.585-.544-.696-.686 .381

16. LRI2-.469-.548-.605-.583.454.765.885-.408-.504-.541-.535-.681-.713 .371.790

Anxiety

1 7. HADA2.514.610.646.359-.210-.482-.475.702.589.529.657.599.372 -.152*-.515 -.520

18.ANX2.589.681.686.385-.258-.628-.592.643.733.599.650.705.518 -.220-.652 -.705.725

Note. All correlations p < .05 unless otherwise noted. For correlations between time one variables, see Table 1. Bolded correlations represent stability of scales across time. 1 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale (HADS-D), Time one; 2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD), Time one; 3 = Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Time one; 4 = Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS), Time one; 5 = Boredom Coping Scale (BCS), Time one, 6 = Purpose in Life Test (PIL), Time one; 7 = Life Regard Index (LRI), Time one; 8 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety Scale (HADS-A), Time one; 9 = State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale (ANX), Time one; HADD2 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression scale, Time two; CESD2 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Time two; SDS2 = Self-Rating Depression Scale, Time two; BPS2 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time two; BCS2 = Boredom Coping Scale, Time two; PIL2 = Purpose in Life Test, Time two; LRI2 = Life Regard Index, Time two; HADA2 = Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxiety scale, Time two; ANX2 = State-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale, Time two. *p > .05.O320

LACK OF LIFE MEANINGlinearity. Correlations between all time one and time two variables are presented in Table 3.Predicting Boredom Across TimeThe first analysis predicted boredom at time two (Table 4). Boredom at time one was entered first, and meaning, anxiety, and depression (all at time one) were entered second. Both the step one, F(l,83) -145.17, p < .001, and step two, F(4,80) = 40.24, p < .001, omnibus models were statistically significant. Boredom at time one accounted for 64% (R2 = .64) of the variance in boredom at time two. The addition of the three variables in step two accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in boredom at time two (AR2 - .03), which approached statistical significance, F(3,80) = 2.55, p = .061. Importantly, an examination of the individual predictors revealed that both boredom (B = .656, p < .001) and meaning (B = -.196, p = .044) were statistically significant predictors of boredom at time two, while anxiety (B = -.023, p = .798) and depression (B = .063, p = .521) were not.3Predicting Meaning Across TimeThe second analysis predicted life meaning at time two (Table 5). Meaning at time one was entered first, and boredom, anxiety, and depression (all at time one) were entered second. Both the step one, F(l,84) = 206.60, p < .001, and step two, F(4,81) = 63.82, p < .001, omnibus models were statistically significant. Meaning at time one accounted for 71% (R2- .71) of the variance in meaning at time two. The addition of the three variables in step two accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in meaning at time two (AR2 = .05), which was a statistically significant change in R-squared, F(3,81) = 5.40, p = .002. Anxiety (P = .041, p = .596) and depression (B = -.130, p - .118) were not statistically significant predictors of meaning at3. Similar to the approach taken in Study la, we ran a more stringent analysis (here, using hierarchical regression) without the problematic PIL items. Results were very similar: AR2 = .03, p = .087. Boredom (P = .674, p < .001) at time one was a statistically significant predictor of boredom at time two, while anxiety (P = -.028, p = .762) and depression (P = .073, p = .452) were not. The only difference was that the standardized beta coefficient and associated p value for the PIL decreased slightly (p = -.172, p = .070).4. Again, results were nearly identical with the problematic PIL items removed: AR2 = .04, p = .006. Meaning (P = .722, p < .001) and boredom (P = -.213, p = .002) at time one were both statistically significant predictors of meaning at time two, while anxiety (p = .085, p = .247) and depression (P = -.104, p = .182) were not.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.FAHLMAN ET AL.321TABLE 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Boredom at Time Two (BPS2) from Boredom, Meaning, Anxiety, and Depression at Time One (Study 1 b)bSEbPrPK2AR2F(AR2)(dflP

Stepl

BPS1.833.069.79812.05.000*.636

Step 2

BPS1.686.087.6567.86.000*

PIL1-.237.116-.196-2.05.044*

ANX1-.112.437-.023-0.26.798

CESD1.136.211.0630.64.521.668.0322.55(3,80).061

Note. BPS1 = Boredom Proneness Scale, Time one; PIL1 = Purpose in Life Test, Time one; ANX1 = Slate-Trait Personality InventoryTrait Anxiety scale, Time one; CESD1 = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Time one. *p < .05.time two, while unexpectedly, boredom (P = -.246, p - .001) was a significant predictor.4In sum, life meaning was a significant predictor of boredom across time, whereas anxiety and depression were not. These results are consistent with existential theory. Unexpectedly, boredom was a significant predictor of meaning across time. These results suggest that a bidirectional causal relationship may exist between life meaning and boredom. Finally, boredom appears to have a more unique relationship with life meaning than it does with negative affective states such as depression or anxiety. That is, although boredom, depression, and anxiety are significantly related at one point in time (e.g., Study la; also see Table 3), Study lb suggested that this relationship is minimal when the variance associated with life meaning is partialled out. This is consistent with existential theory, which implies that boredom is related to negative affect because both are brought about by changes in life meaning.STUDY 2The findings of Study lb suggest that life meaning can predict changes in boredom across time, which is consistent with theoretical claims and previous qualitative research (Bargdill, 2000; Drob & Bernard, 1987; Maddi, 1967, 1970; Frankl, 1959/1962/1984). The purpose of Study 2 was to provide a direct test of this hypothesis by investigating the impact of manipulating life meaning on self-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.322LACK OF LIFE MEANINGTABLE 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Meaning at Time Two (PIL2) from Meaning, Boredom, Anxiety, and Depression at Time One (Study 1b)bSEbpfp R2 ARJ F(AR2)(