The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Boredom at Work: A Neglected Concept
Open accessAbstract
Nearly everyone experiences episodes of boredom at work from time to time, regardless of the nature of their job. Previous research on industrial monotony is unable to explain boredom on any but the simplest of tasks. A broader view of the causes of boredom, including attributes of the task, environment, person, and person-environment fit, is proposed. Individual choices of response to feelings of boredom are also considered, and a number of research propositions are suggested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334
Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
White, R. W. (1959) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040934 · Cited by 5,681
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675100400101 · Cited by 3,379
Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory.
Ryan, R. M. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450 · Cited by 2,721
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393 · cited 1×
“Objective measures of task characteristic.s (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) or stimulus complexity (Wood, 1986) would suggest that different tasks with equal scores should be equally interesting to performers.”
Deci, E. L. (1976) · Organizational Dynamics · doi:10.1016/0090-2616(76)90036-x · Cited by 409
Cited by
Academic Emotions and Student Engagement
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012) · Handbook of Research on Student Engagement · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12 · Cited by 1,181
The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612456044 · Cited by 909
Psychometric measures of boredom: a review of the literature
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980309600636 · Cited by 350
Stability and Change as Simultaneous Experiences in Organizational Life
Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707707 · Cited by 330
Montani, F., Vandenberghe, C., Khedhaouria, A., & Courcy, F. (2020) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726718819055 · Cited by 252
Sulea, C., van Beek, I., Sarbescu, P., Virga, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018 · Cited by 221
Exploring the relationship between smartphone activities, flow experience, and boredom in free time
Leung, L. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.030 · Cited by 123
Spaeth, M., Weichold, K., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2015) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0039480 · Cited by 92
Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: two studies
Fisher, C. D. (1998) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199809)19:5<503::aid-job854>3.0.co;2-9
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisherl, C. D.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 395-417
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2139976611
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 0.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
