Boredom-related Coping Strategies

Among the first validated measures of boredom-related coping strategies was that developed by Hamilton, Haier, and Buchsbaum (Boredom Coping Scale; 1984) which, according to Vodanovich (2003b), was notably lacking in theoretical sophistication. However, subsequent theoretical and empirical research in which students’ strategies for coping with boredom is explored has, until recently, remained virtually nonexistent (Vodanovich, 2003b).

Nevertheless, considerable research has been directed toward the development of classificatory frameworks concerning the specific strategies used by individuals to cope with stress. Most notably, a conceptual model of coping strategies proposed by Holahan, Moos, and Schaefer (1996) has received significant empirical attention (see Davis et al., 2008;

Holahan et al., 2005; Holahan et al., 2007; Moos & Holahan, 2003) and could be adapted as a framework for understanding how students cope with boredom.

3.2.2.1 Classification of coping strategies

According to Holahan et al. (1996), there exist two critical dimensions underlying the various coping strategies available: (1) having an approach versus avoidance focus, and (2) being cognitive or behavioral in nature. Individuals who adopt approach strategies attempt to address the problem directly, whereas those who endorse avoidance-oriented strategies focus instead on withdrawal from an aversive situation. Concerning the second dimension,

coping strategies are also assumed to involve changes in cognitions with respect to altering one’s thinking in response to the situation, or alternatively, changes in observable behaviors aimed at changing one’s environment (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Classification of Coping Strategies

Approach Avoidance

Cognitive Changing one’s perception of the aversive situation.

Introducing thoughts not associated with the aversive

situation.

Behavioral Actions aimed at reducing the aversive nature of the situation.

Actions not associated with the aversive situation.

When considered in combination, these underlying dimensions result in four discrete categories of coping strategies employed by individuals in stressful settings. Cognitive-approach strategies involve changing one’s perception of the situation, for example, comparing one’ s aversive circumstances with those of worse-off others. In contrast, behavioral-approach strategies refer to actions aimed at changing the situation itself, such as efforts to directly reduce the aversive nature of the offending stimuli. With respect to avoidance strategies, cognitive-avoidance strategies refer to distracting oneself by focusing on less aversive thoughts not related to the situation. Alternatively, behavioral-avoidance coping occurs when one distracts oneself from a given situation by engaging in unrelated behaviors such as initiating unrelated activities, social interaction, etc. (Holahan et al., 1996).

Following from the focus of the above conceptual framework on coping strategies related to stress, in the previous Study I this model was adapted to account for how individuals cope with situations interpreted as adverse due not to stress, but instead due to boredom. More specifically, four reliable coping measures specific to boredom as experienced by students in the classroom were evaluated with respect to cognitive-approach strategies (e.g., reminding oneself of the importance of a boring class), behavioral-approach strategies (e.g., asking the teacher to assign alternate activities), cognitive-avoidance strategies (e.g., thinking about a topic from another class), and behavioral-avoidance strategies (e.g., chatting with classmates during a boring class). Consistent with recent findings underscoring the domain-specific nature of academic emotions (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun et al., 2007), boredom-related coping strategies were assessed in the previous Study I with

analyses (LPA) distinguished between three types of students on the basis of their relative endorsement of the above four strategies.

The first group, referred to as Reappraisers, scored the highest of all three groups on the cognitive-approach scale. The second group, labeled as Criticizers, instead demonstrated a marked tendency to instead cope with boredom through the use of behavioral-approach strategies. Finally, a third group of students classified as Evaders were identified as more strongly endorsing both types of avoidance strategies, particularly behavioral-avoidance strategies, relative to other students. To summarize, recent research of Study I based on the conceptual framework proposed by Holahan et al. (1996) suggests that coping strategies are indeed understood and used by students to deal with boredom in the classroom, and further, that meaningful clusters of students can be identified on the basis of preferred boredom-related coping strategies.

3.2.2.2 Effectiveness of boredom-related coping strategies

With respect to the potential benefits of boredom-related coping strategies, the question arises as to which of these three groups is the most effective in minimizing feelings of boredom in an actual classroom setting. In Study I of this dissertation, students classified as Reappraisers who relied primarily on cognitive-approach strategies involving cognitive reconstruals of boring mathematics classes (e.g., focusing on utility value) were indeed found to experience less boredom than students who cope with boredom through behavioral-approach strategies (Criticizers) or avoidance strategies (Evaders). Moreover, Reappraisers were also found to perform better with respect to mathematics achievement, experience greater enjoyment and lower anxiety concerning their mathematics classes, and report greater perceived value of mathematics than the other two groups.

These findings are consistent with theoretical assumptions (Pekrun et al., in press) and empirical research (Goetz et al., 2009) suggesting that boredom is greater in learning situations perceived as low in value, as compared to other learning-related emotions that correlate positively with perceptions of value. The link between boredom and perceived value is further highlighted in related research by Rana (2007) suggesting that boredom may be reduced by finding meaning in a given task, as well as studies showing value-enhancing teaching techniques to augment motivation while also reducing boredom levels (e.g., Green-Demers et al., 1998). Taken together, these related findings are consistent with the preliminary results of Study I in underscoring the potential boredom-reducing effects of

coping strategies aimed at enhancing the perceived value of boring classroom settings.

On the other hand, avoidance strategies appear to be significantly less effective with respect to learning-related boredom. More specifically, findings from Study I revealed that students who reported greater use of cognitive- and behavioral-avoidance strategies, referred to as Evaders, demonstrated the highest levels of boredom and the most worrisome pattern of achievement-related emotions (e.g., low enjoyment), motivation (e.g., low effort and interest), as well as cognitions relative to other students (e.g., low self-concept and value). Such findings are also directly in line with those of Holahan et al. (2005; 2007) in which stress avoidance strategies are consistently correlated with symptoms of stress and depression, as well as empirical findings from related coping models showing avoidance coping strategies to have generally maladaptive consequences (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003).