The Stress of Boredom and Monotony: a Consideration of the Evidence

REVIEW ARTICLE

The Stress of Boredom and Monotony: A Consideration of the Evidence

RICHARD I. THACKRAY, PHD

ombination capable of eliciting considerable stress.

INTRODUCTION

Boredom and monotony are widely Most of us would readily agree that recognized as undesirable side effects of boredom and monotony are unpleasant, repetitious work. With an increasing undesirable states. During recent years, trend toward the application of computer however, a number of investigators have control, more jobs are becoming auto- begun to refer to monotony and boredom, mated and, despite a concomitant demand especially that resulting from repetitive for programing and other computer- industrial work, not simply as undesirable related work associated with a high de- aspects of automation, but as stressors that gree of job satisfaction, there is concern may be as potentially harmful to the indi- that this trend will result in a net increase vidual as are the more commonly ac- in the number of fragmented and routine knowledged effects of exposure to over- jobs; in this event the effects of boredom stimulation or conditions of excessive and monotony will become increasingly workload (1-7). If boredom and montony important considerations in job design are significant determinants of stress, then and personnel management. attempts to reduce the strain of excessive workloads through increased automation could have the ironic effect of replacing one sort of stressor with another. From the Civil Aeromedical Institute, Federal Av- iation Administration, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The intent of this article is to review the Address requests for reprints to: Dr. Richard I. literature that bears on the alleged rela- Thackray, AAC-118, CAMI-FAA, P.O. Box 25082, tionship of boredom and monotony to Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Received for publication March 18, 1980; revision stress. For purposes of this discussion, received November 3, 1980. boredom and monotony will be used in-

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 165

Copyright © 1981 by the American Psychosorr : Society, In Published by Elsevier North Holland, Inc 52 Vanderbllt Ave, New York, NY 10017 0033-3I74/81/020165I2S02 SO RICHARD I. THACKRAY terchangeably to refer to the experience LABORATORY STUDIES that arises from exposure to stimulus conditions which are perceived to be either uniform or repetitive, and which also in- Task Performance duce a desire for change or variety. This is To my knowledge, the only laboratory essentially the same definition of bore- study of monotony that has actually com- dom and monotony as proposed by Smith pared sympathetic-adrenomedullary ac- (8). tivity both during performance of a The studies reviewed will be drawn monotonous (vigilance) task and during largely from the literature on vigilance, performance of a highly stimulating sen- sensory deprivation, and repetitive indus- sorimotor task was conducted by Frank- trial work. It is, of course, recognized that enhaeuser, Nordheden, Myrsten, and Post exposure to such stimulus conditions is (4). Because of its importance, this study not always perceived as monotonous and will be considered in some detail. All that monotony can certainly arise in the subjects performed the complex sen- presence of multiple, varied stimulation. sorimotor task on one 3-hr occasion and However, virtually all studies in which the vigilance task on another. A third boredom or montony are either measured session (control) was spent reading variables or inferred to be generally pre- magazines. Subjective ratings of boredom, sent, and in which physiological indices unpleasantness, concentration, and irrita- of stress are also available, are studies tion obtained during task performance re- dealing with repetitive uniform stimulus vealed that boredom was the feeling state conditions of the type mentioned above. that differed most in the two tasks, with Stress will be used in the Selye (9) boredom being considerably higher dur- sense to refer to the nonspecific response ing vigilance performance. Urinary excre- of the body to any demands placed on it, tion of adrenaline and noradrenaline was with principal measures of stress being measured prior to and during the two task biochemical indices of increased sympa- conditions and the control condition. thetic-adrenomedullary and pituitary- Analyses of variance of these data re- adrenocortical activity. Since autonomic vealed significant differences between the and electrocortical changes associated three conditions for both measures. In- with increased "activation" or "arousal" terestingly enough, although mean values (10) are commonly considered to be com- for adrenaline and noradrenaline were ponents of the generalized stress response generally higher during the course of both (2, 11, 12), some studies employing re- treatment conditions than during the con- sponses of the central or autonomic ner- trol condition, both catecholamines in- vous system will be considered when creased rather markedly during perfor- biochemical indices are lacking. Finally, mance of the complex task, but they either since clinical and experimental evidence declined continuously or showed a de- suggests that chronic or recurrent eleva- cline followed by a slight increase during tion of arousal levels may lead to a variety the vigilance task. Also, the greater level of diseases (2, 13, 14), studies purporting of noradrenaline excretion during vigi- to relate monotony to the incidence of lance performance relative to the control illness will also be included. condition was present even prior to the

166 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) BOREDOM AND STRESS start of these conditions. Since the authors that administration of benzedrine signifi- failed to report individual comparisons cantly increased wakefulness, blood pres- between the treatment and control condi- sure, and heart rate, with a significant tions at the various measurement periods, reduction in reported boredom (18). it is impossible to determine whether cat- Two more recent performance studies, echolamines for both task conditions were in which boredom was a measured vari- significantly greater than the control, or able and arousal was assessed physiologi- whether the significant main effect for cally, fail to provide any strong support treatment groups was the result of the for Barmack's findings, although neither much greater increase in sympathetic- of these studies offers any real support for adrenomedullary activity during perfor- the opposing view that boredom is a state mance of the complex task. On the basis of of high arousal. the evidence presented by Franken- London, Schubert, and Washburn (19) haeuser et al (4), it would appear prema- manipulated boredom by using tasks dif- ture to conclude that the monotony of fering in interest. Tasks rated high in repetitive stimulation is associated with boredom were found to induce higher any significant increase in sympathetic- levels of heart rate and skin potential than adrenomedullary activity. was the case with tasks rated low in bore- Other performance studies in which dom. However, the apparent difference in boredom was a measured variable have heart rate between the high- and low- generally tended to rely on autonomic boredom conditions was on the order of rather than biochemical indices of one beat per min, and palmar skin con- sympathetic-adrenomedullary activity. ductance, the third measure of arousal The most extensive series of studies was used, failed to differentiate between the conducted in the 1930s by Barmack two conditions. Since subjects also rated (15-18). themselves as being significantly more In his initial study, Barmack (15) was tired and sleepy during the monotonous concerned with how boredom was related tasks than during the interesting ones, to changes in oxygen consumption and the authors' conclusions favoring a blood pressure during performance of a heightened arousal interpretation of bore- repetitive task. His data strongly dom are not convincing. suggested an inverse relationship be- Thackray, Bailey, and Touchstone (21) tween reported boredom and physiologi- examined the degree to which reported cal arousal, i.e., with reports of sustained boredom and monotony were related to interest, oxygen consumption and systolic performance on a complex monitoring and diastolic blood pressure either re- task and explored the general pattern of mained the same or increased, while re- physiological changes associated with ports of increasing boredom were as- boredom. Subjects performed a simulated sociated with declining levels of air traffic control task for 1 hr. Recordings physiological activity. In addition, he also of blood pressure, oral temperature, skin found reports of increasing boredom to be conductance, body movement, heart rate associated with decreased performance ef- and heart rate variability, and perfor- ficiency and increased drowsiness. One of mance measures of detection latency were Barmack's most interesting findings was obtained. In addition, subjects rated their

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 167 RICHARD I. THACKRAY feelings of boredom, monotony, and atten- catecholamine levels during vigilance tiveness at the beginning and end of the performance that appear to be similar in session. For the total group, a significant design, but with findings directly con- increase in detection latencies was ac- trary to those of Frankenhaeuser et al. (4). companied by significant increases in In both studies, indwelling catheters were boredom, monotony, and body move- used to allow relatively continuous mea- ment, along with significant decreases in surements of biochemical changes during conductance, heart rate, blood pressure, vigilance performance, as well as during a oral temperature, and attentiveness. How- control period of magazine reading or ever, subjects falling at the extremes of viewing travelogue slides. Relative to the rated boredom differed on only a few control condition, there was an initial variables, with the high-boredom group significant rise in adrenaline at the begin- showing a greater increase in detection ning of task performance (which was at- latencies and heart rate variability and a tributed to anticipation) followed by a greater decrease in attentiveness. The au- decline to control levels by the end of the thors concluded that the nature of the task session (180 min in the earlier study, pattern associated with extremely high 60 min in the more recent one). (It should feelings of boredom suggested a pattern be recalled that Frankenhaeuser et al. (4) more closely associated with attentional found adrenaline to increase towards the processes than with "arousal," although end of vigilance performance.) In neither they theorized that this change in indices study did noradrenaline levels for the of attention was probably the initial man- experimental condition differ from those ifestation of a greater decline in arousal for the control condition. among the high-boredom subjects that Additional studies of vigilance and might well have extended to some of the arousal have relied on autonomic or elec- other physiological measures had the ses- trocortical measures. One of the most sion been longer. commonly used measures in these studies Although numerous other studies have is palmar skin resistance (or its reciprocal, investigated changes in arousal during conductance). The general finding is that exposure to vigilance or repetitive task continued performance of repetitive or situations, their primary intent has been vigilance-type tasks is associated with de- to examine the extent to which perfor- clining performance efficiency and in- mance covaries with arousal. While bore- creasing skin resistance (declining con- dom must be inferred in the studies to be ductance) (23-27). With the possible ex- considered now, it is commonly accepted ception of a study by Ross, Dardano, and that most individuals find tasks of the Hackman (28), who compared individual type used to be boring and monotonous. trends, there appears to be no evidence of Indeed, all of the studies considered thus an overall conductance increase during far have deliberately employed such tasks performance of typical vigilance tasks. to induce boredom, with Barmack (15), in Other commonly employed measures particular, showing that rated boredom include heart rate (20, 25-27, 29, 30), increases progressively during the course respiration rate (26, 27), and measures of of repetitive performance. electroencephalograph (EEG) amplitude O'Hanlon (21) and O'Hanlon and Hor- or frequency (24, 31). While these mea- vath (22) report two studies dealing with sures frequently do not reflect as pro-

168 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) BOREDOM AND STRESS nounced a decline in arousal as does con- by subjects who terminate a deprivation ductance, and may even show no change, study early. In a study dealing with fac- they nevertheless do not reveal changes tors associated with tolerance for sensory that would suggest any increase in arousal deprivation, Myers (36) found two gen- level. eral, uncorrelated types of adverse reaction to deprivation. One was tedium and the other was labeled "negativity of sub- Sensory Deprivation or Isolation jective experience" (operationally defined Exposure to conditions of isolation or by terms denoting a frightening, subjec- sensory deprivation is frequently felt to be tive "bad trip"). Subjects who terminated stressful (32). Usually, it is the boredom or at some time during the course of the monotony bejieved to be produced by 7-day study scored significantly higher on these environmental conditions that is negativity of subjective experience than implicated as a primary stressor (33). did those who completed the study, but In a recent review, Suedfeld (33) has there was no difference between the two dealt with the stressfulness of sensory subject groups with respect to the tedium deprivation. He notes that "the harmful- measure. ness of sensory deprivation has been dis- While it is not always easy in studies of cussed at great length, often without sensory deprivation to separate the effects much evaluation of the known factors" (p. of boredom from those of fear or appre- 61), and states further that the known facts hension, the available evidence suggests are very different from the myths that that subjects who elect to endure pro- continue to be perpetuated. In a question- longed deprivation or isolation are bored naire sent to over 20 leading researchers by the experience but do not rate the in the field of sensory deprivation, Sued- experience as frightening or stressful (36). feld found that out of 3,300 subjects who On the other hand, those who prematurely had participated in sensory deprivation terminate the sessions tend to do so studies only one subject experienced primarily for reasons of fear or apprehen- stress that was sufficiently pronounced to sion rather than because of boredom require any subsequent treatment. (36,37). Because of this difference be- This is not to deny that boredom is tween subjects who remain and those who commonly experienced in studies of sen- terminate sensory deprivation, it is of sory and perceptual deprivation. Most in- interest to examine biochemical changes vestigators, however, have relied on an- in the two groups. ecdotal reports of boredom among sub- Of the few studies that have examined jects or have noted comments concerning catecholamine levels, the general finding boredom in postexperimental interviews. is that there is little or no difference in Those few studies using a standardized either adrenaline or noradrenaline output questionnaire, such as the Isolation between subjects who remain for the en- Symptom Questionnaire (34), which tire experiment and control subjects (38). yields a measure labeled "tedium stress," In two separate 7-day studies, urinary tend to show that tedium is significantly excretion levels of catecholamines during greater among deprivation subjects than perceptual deprivation (39) and during among controls (35). Yet, boredom does immobilization (40) were compared with not appear to be a principal reason given levels of control subjects. In neither study

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 169 RICHARD I. THACKRAY did the catecholamine levels of experi- erally in the expected direction, and all mental subjects who completed the exper- were associated with significant increases iment differ from control levels. Both in adrenaline. studies, however, showed higher ad- A similar study by Patkai (43) examined renaline, but not noradrenaline, excretion catecholamine excretion and subjective among quitters relative to those who re- response to several kinds of situations mained for the entire session. designed to evoke either pleasant or un- Comparable studies examining ad- pleasant feelings. The four situations con- renocortical activity of quitters with those sisted of a) playing bingo, b) performing who remain during prolonged depriva- paper-pencil tests, c) watching medico- tion or isolation have apparently not surgical films, and d) reading magazines. been conducted (38). However, Zubek (38) Lowest adrenaline values were obtained concludes that 11-oxycorticoids, 17- for the magazine-reading (inactive) condi- hydroxycorticosteroids, 17-ketogenic tion. This was also the condition rated the steroids, and 17-ketosteroids all appear lowest in interest (highest boredom). unaffected by prolonged perceptual deprivation or isolation per se. An excep- Summary tionally long confinement study (105 days) revealed no evidence of stress as The findings of these laboratory studies defined by an increase in adrenal cortical clearly suggest that feelings of boredom or activity among those experimental sub- monotony are accompanied by low or jects who remained relative to control declining rather than high or increasing subjects (41). levels of physiological activation. Thus, because changes in certain physiological Other Tasks or Simulus indices are the most widely acceptable Conditions criteria of stress (44), it must be concluded Several studies have been conducted that boredom is not associated with such that bear upon the issue of boredom and physiological effects and does not, there- stress but do not fit the two previous fore, contribute to stress in the conven- categories of studies. In these studies, tional sense of the word. boredom is not even a factor of primary It should be noted, however, that in the interest. Levi (42), for example, compared laboratory studies just considered the catecholamine response to a bland, monotonous environments are those in natural-scenery film (control condition) which the subject responds in a rather with responses to three films each chosen passive manner to a set of nondemanding to evoke one of three emotional patterns: experimental conditions. Thus, although a) laughter and happiness, b) agitation sensory deprivation, viewing bland and hostility, and c) fear. Interestingly, travelogue films, and watching for the self-reported boredom was the only sub- appearance of an infrequent signal in a jective measure to increase significantly vigilance experiment differ in detail, all during the natural-scenery film, and this are characterized by a similar redundancy / film condition was the only one in which reduction of the sensory environment in both adrenaline and noradrenaline levels which little or no active participation is significantly decreased. Subjective re- required and few demands are placed sponses to the other three films were gen- upon the subjects.

170 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981)

BOREDOM AND STRESS

When boredom and monotony are the by management, physical constraint im- subjects of stress studies in the field, a posed by job, etc.), performing a simple number of additional elements, not usu- correlation of monotony with adrenaline ally found in laboratory studies, may be excretion without adequately holding included. These elements will now be constant or partialling out the effects of considered. these other job features does not allow one to conclude anything about the effect of FIELD STUDIES monotony per se on stress. It should be noted that the authors (6) are aware of this An extensive investigation dealing methodological problem and state their with the impact of technology on workers' conclusions regarding monotony and health and job satisfaction has been un- stress as tentative. derway in Sweden since 1965 (5). Most of A large-scale study of job demands and the studies conducted under this program worker health has recently been reported appear to have involved employees of the by Caplan et al. (1). In this study, 23 sawmill industry. Johansson, Aronsson, occupations ranging from factory jobs to and Lindstrom (6), for example, studied scientific/professional occupations were indices of stress in two groups of em- examined in detail. For purposes of this ployees. One group, which they refer to as presentation, only those jobs in which the high-risk group, consisted of workers workers reported boredom and monotony who operated high-speed saws and edg- to be particularly undesirable features of ing equipment, while the control group their jobs will be singled out. These jobs consisted of repairmen and maintenance were forklift driver, assembler (machine- workers. Urinary excretion of adrenaline paced), assembler (machine-paced relief), during the workday, past history of ill- assembler (nonmachine-paced), and ness, and self-ratings of boredom, machine tender. Again, however, bore- monotony, and tension were all signifi- dom was only one characteristic of these cantly higher in the high-risk than in the jobs. With minor exceptions all of the control group. The authors chose to focus above occupations fell into a cluster on monotony as a principal factor con- characterized by above average feelings of tributing to stress in the high-risk group. a) general job dissatisfaction, b) ambiguity However, although the jobs of the high- concerning future job security, c) un- risk group were apparently more derutilization of skills, d) poor social sup- monotonous than those of the control port from others, and e) low participation. group, the former group worked also on Workers in this cluster of jobs tended to machine-paced tasks with extremely short report more anxiety, depression, irrita- operating cycles that placed continuous, tion, and somatic complaints. Yet, none of high demands on the ability to make fast the other indices of stress, including be- and correct decisions. Jobs of the control havioral (smoking, coffee consumption, group were largely self-paced. Since obesity) and physiological indicators monotony coexisted along with many (pulse rate, blood pressure, levels of cor- other possibly stressful aspects of the jobs tisol, cholesterol, thyroid hormones, and of the high-risk group (no opportunity to serum uric acid), were higher in this clus- change jobs, isolation from others, ter of jobs than in the other occupations hazardous work, little interest displayed studied; nor was the incidence of disease

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 171 RICHARD I. THACKRAY higher. As with the previously considered air traffic controllers. During a significant Swedish study of sawmill workers, even if portion of their time, controllers are faced the above cluster of factory jobs had not with high traffic density, high "stress" shown definitive evidence of stress, one situations, but with situations of low to could not implicate boredom as a princi- moderate traffic density. Controllers pal source of stress in view of the many much prefer high density conditions to other seemingly stressful characteristics those of low traffic load, which they con- of these jobs. sider boring and generally objectionable Reports of high occupational stress (45). In spite of their distaste for working among telegraphers in Australia under boring, low traffic load conditions, prompted another recent study (3). Stress physiological indices of stress suggest in this occupational group was repre- these conditions to be less stressful. Thus, sented as arising from a "monotonous, controllers show significant increases in high skilled, repetitive task that demanded catecholamine levels and 17-hydroxy- intense concentration amid noise and corticosteroids during times when traffic other distractions under conditions of load is high, but no significant increase in machine pacing" (3, pp. 649-650). These these measures when traffic is light (46). job conditions were attributed to the in- Melton, Smith, McKenzie, Wicks and Sal- troduction of semiautomated telegraphy divar (47) have recently extended these equipment. Medical records revealed that latter findings in a study that correlated telegraphers had a somewhat higher rate excretion levels of adrenaline, norad- and duration of sickness absence than did renaline, and 17-ketogenic steroids with the control groups (mail sorters and annual traffic counts across different mechanics), with this higher incidence of facilities having traffic densities ranging illness confined largely to the rather large from very low to extremely high. The number (33%) of telegraphers diagnosed correlation of adrenaline level (the others as neurotic. Among the entire group of were nonsignificant) with traffic count telegraphers (neurotics included), the was 0.96. While the relationship of bore- three most commonly stated reasons for dom to adrenaline level must admittedly job dissatisfaction were a) monotony, b) be inferred in this study, if we couple lack of sense of achievement, and c) loss these results with Smith's (45) finding of personal contact. All of these reasons that controllers find low workloads to be were related to the introduction of auto- boring, there is clearly no evidence here to mated equipment. However, again there is support the belief that boredom is stress- no way of determining from this study ful. what role, if any, monotony played in precipitating neurotic disorders or in contributing to illness in general, since the CONCLUSIONS effect of monotony cannot be separated from the effects of a number of other work There can be no doubt that boredom elements also related to job dissatisfaction and monotony are negative factors and and (possibly) to stress. that, with respect to the working envi- The final research findings to be con- ronment, these factors can be detrimental sidered involve the question of stress in to morale, performance, and eventually to

172 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) BOREDOM AND STRESS the quality of work produced. Thus, it is hypothesized that the monotony of a re- not the intent of this article to denigrate petitive situation results in a process that view nor to discourage attempts to somewhat analogous to that of habitua- reduce the monotony of industrial work tion (decreased arousal or cortical alert- through job enlargement and enrichment ness), which, when combined with the programs. The main purpose of this re- opposing requirement to maintain a con- view has been to examine the validity of stant high level of alertness (increased yet another claimed effect of boredom and arousal), results in considerable effort or monotony, that these factors are stressors energy expenditure on the part of the and that, because they are stressors, they individual. This is supported by the fact may produce effects even more damaging that these sawmill employees commonly than those mentioned above. reported utter exhaustion and fatigue at Experimental evidence that boredom the end of their shifts. Monotony in com- and monotony can, through effecting in- bination with a need for high alertness creases in neuroendocrine activity, pro- appears related to stress in other indus- duce the syndrome of stress, is highly trial jobs as well. Thus, repetitive, important and should be examined care- machine-paced work with a need for in- fully. This has been the purpose of the tense concentration and errorless perfor- present article. From the laboratory mance also characterized the work envi- studies reviewed here we cannot con- ronment of the telegraphers studied by clude that feelings of boredom and Ferguson (3). Compared with supervisors, monotony are accompanied by any signif- mechanics, and sorters, telegraphers icant increase in the commonly employed complained the most of monotony and indices of stress or arousal. had the highest incidence of stress-related Given the fact that monotony is almost disease. In the study by Caplan et al. (1), always associated with low or declining forklift drivers, machine-paced as- levels of arousal in laboratory studies of semblers, nonmachine-paced assemblers, repetitive, uniform stimulation, why is and machine tenders were the occupa- stress or increased arousal so frequently tions in which high levels of boredom felt to be associated with the monotony were reported. Interestingly enough, al- induced by repetitive tasks in industry? though all of these occupational groups The answer may lie with elements of the complained of boredom and job dissatis- total job other than monotony. The study faction, only among the machine-paced of Swedish sawmill employees discussed workers were somatic complaints, anxi- previously illustrates one such element. ety, depression, and frequency of dispen- Although workers in the high-risk group sary visits uniformly the highest. As Cap- rated their jobs as boring and monoton- lan et al. note, ". . . if one were to pick out ous, the jobs themselves were charac- the most stressed occupational groups, terized by fast, machine-paced work de- they would tend to be the machine-paced manding continuous attention and alert- assembly line workers" (p. 191). ness in order to avoid production The coupling of monotonous, repetitive "bottlenecks" or serious personal injury. work with requirements for high alert- If one were to analyze separately these ness, continuous and rapid decisions, and various job elements, it could be various penalties for any errors that occur,

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 173 RICHARD I. THACKRAY may very well represent a combination that may be potentially harmful to the that is quite stressful. Such a combination individual. This review has examined the has also been recognized by others, nota results of laboratory and field studies for bly Frankenhaeuser and Gardell (48) and evidence of increased neuroendocrine ac- Johansson et al. (6), as being potentially tivity during exposure to those repetitive very stressful. However, these inves- stimulus or work conditions that typically tigators attribute the stressfulness of this evoke feelings of boredom and monotony. combination to the additive effects of two Laboratory findings of physiological separate stressors which they refer to as change during sensory deprivation and understimulation and overstimulation. vigilance performance failed to support The position advanced in the present arti- the claim that boredom is associated with cle is that it is the coupling of a monoton- increased neuroendocrine activity. When ous (arousal-reducing) task characteristic the effects of fear, novelty, or anticipation with the opposing requirement for high were taken into account, the general find- arousal that may make this combination ing was that boredom and monotony are particularly stressful. associated with low or declining, rather In conclusion, it would seem that re- than high or increasing, levels of arousal. ports of boredom or monotony could serve Field studies of occupational stress most usefully as "marker items" or likewise revealed no clear evidence that "flags" to warn that some of the elements monotony per se is stressful. However, in an automated job may be contributing when a monotonous task is coupled with not only to lowered attentiveness, but to a machine-paced demand for continuous general work dissatisfaction as well. attention (a combination found in a Whether or not such a job is also stressful number of the studies), there was sugges- cannot be determined from reports of tive evidence that this combination is boredom or monotony alone. Future re- quite stressful. It was hypothesized that search in this area should not continue to combining a monotonous, repetitive task employ some of the simplistic assump- with the opposing requirement for a con- tions used in the past. If there is stress stant high level of alertness could result in associated with high levels of automation, considerable effort expenditure and sophisticated techniques and approaches fatigue. This was advanced as one possi- will be necessary if any real progress is to ble explanation for the recurring belief be made in our understanding of which that monotony is stressful. job elements, either by themselves or in The belief that boredom and monotony combination, actually do contribute sig- per se are stressors appears to be based nificantly to occupational stress. more upon myth than upon the available data. If monotony does contribute to occupational stress, it probably does so SUMMARY through complex interactions with other job variables. If these interactions are to be Within recent years, it has become in- understood, future research will have to creasingly common for boredom and employ far more sophisticated approaches monotony to be referred to as stressors than have been used in the past.

174 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) BOREDOM AND STRESS

REFERENCES

1. Caplan RD, Cobb S, Franch JRP Jr. Harrison RV, Pinneau SR Jr: Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC, Dept Health Educ Welfare Pub No. 75-160, 1975 2. Cox T: Stress. Baltimore, University Park Press, 1978 3. Ferguson D: A study of occupational stress and health. Ergonomics 16:649-663, 1973 4. Frankenhaeuser M, Nordheden B, Myrsten A, Post B: Psychophysiological reactions to understimulation and overstimulation. Acta Psychol (Amsterdam) 35:298-308, 1971 5. Gardell B: Technology, alienation, and mental health. Reports from the Psychol Lab, Univ of Stockholm, Sweden, No. 456, 1975 6. Johansson G, Aronsson G, Lindstrom BO: Social psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanized work. Ergonomics 21:583-599, 1978 7. Reighard HL: Aviation medicine FAA Office of Aviation Med Report No. AM-76-8, 1976 8. Smith PC: The prediction of individual differences in susceptibility to industrial monotony. J Appl Psychol 39:322-329, 1955 9. Selye H: The Stress of Life. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956 10. Lindsley DB: Emotion, in Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Edited by SS Stevens. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1951, pp. 473-516 11. Lazarus RS: Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1966 12. Oken D: The psychophysiology and psychoendocrinology of stress and emotion, in Psychological Stress. Edited by MH Appley, R Trumbull. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967, pp. 43-76. 13. Frankenhaeuser M: Sympathetic-adrenomedullary activity, behavior and the psychosocial environment, in Research in Psychophysiology. Edited by P Venables, MJ Christie. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1975, pp. 71-94 14. Kagan AR, Levi L: Health and environment—psychosocial stimuli: a review. Soc Sci Med 8:225—241, 1974 15. Barmack JE: Boredom and other factors in the physiology of mental effort: an exploratory study. Arch Psychol No. 218, New York, 1937 16. Barmack JE: The effect of benzedrine sulfate (benzyl methyl carbinamine) upon the report of boredom and other factors. J Psychol 5:125-133, 1938 17. Barmack JE: The length of the work period and the work curve. J Exp Psychol 25:109-115, 1939 18. Barmack JE: Studies on the psychophysiology of boredom: part I. The effect of 15 mgs. of benzedrine sulfate and 60 mgs. of ephedrine hydrochloride on blood pressure, report of boredom, and other factors. J Exp Psychol 25:494-505, 1939 19. London HD, Schubert SP, Washburn D: Increase of autonomic arousal by boredom. J Abnorm Psychol 80:29-36, 1972 20. Thackray RI, Bailey JP, Touchstone RM: Physiological, subjective, and performance correlates of reported boredom and monotony while performing a simulated radar control task, in Vigilance: Theory, Operational Performance, and Physiological Correlates. Edited by RR Mackie. New York, Plenum Publishing Company, 1977, pp. 203-215 21. O'Hanlan JF Jr: Adrenaline and noradrenaline: relation to performance in a visual vigilance task. Science 150:507-509, 1965 22. O'Hanlon JF, Jr Horvath SM: Interrelationships among performance, circulating concentrations of adrenaline, noradrenaline, glucose, and the free fatty acids in men performing a monitoring task. Psychophysiology 10:251-259, 1973 23. Andreassi JL: Skin-conductance and reaction-time in a continuous auditory monitoring task. Am J Psychol 79:470-474, 1966 24. Davis DR, Krkovic A: Skin-conductance, alpha-activity, and vigilance. Am J Psychol 78:304-306,1965 25. Eason RG, Beardshall A, Jaffee S: Performance and physiological indicants of activation in a vigilance situation. Percept Mot Skills 20:3-13, 1965

Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981) 175 RICHARD I. THACKRAY

26. Stern RM: Performance and physiological arousal during two vigilance tasks varying in signal presentation rate. Percept Mot Skills 23:691-700, 1966 27. Thackray RI, Jones KN, Touchstone RM: Self-estimates of distractibility as related to performance decrement on a task requiring sustained attention. Ergonomics 16:141-152, 1973 28. Ross S, Dardano J, Hackman RC: Conductance levels during vigilance task performance. J Appl Psychol 43:65-69, 1959 29. Surwillo WW: The relation of autonomic activity to age differences in vigilance. JGerontol 21:257-260, 1966 30. Thackray RI, Jones KN, Touchstone RM: Personality and physiological correlates of performance decrement on a monotonous task requiring sustained attention. Br J Psychol 65:351-358, 1974 31. O'Hanlon JF, Jr Beatty J: Concurrence of electroencephalographic and performance changes during a simulated radar watch and some implications for the arousal theory of vigilance, in Vigilance: Theory, Operational Performance, and Physiological Correlates. Edited by RR Mackie. New York, Plenum Publishing Company, 1977, pp. 189-201 32. Levi L; Psychosocial stress and disease: a conceptual model, in Life Stress and Illness. Edited by EKE Gunderson, RH Rahe. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas. 1974. pp 8-33 33. Suedfeld P: The benefits of boredom: sensory deprivation reconsidered. Am Sci 63:60-69, 1975 34. Myers TI, Murphy DB, Terry DF: The role of expectancy in subject's responses to sustained sensory deprivation. Paper read at the Am Psychological Assoc Meeting, St. Louis, MO, September 1962 35. Myers TI: Tolerance for sensory and perceptual deprivation, in Sensory Deprivation. Fifteen Years of Research. Edited by JP Zubek. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969, pp. 289-331 36. Myers TI: Psychobiological factors associated with monotony tolerance. Report No AIR-26400-7/72-FR, Washington, DC, Am Inst for Research, 1972 37. Myers TI, Johnson E, III Smith S: Subjective stress and affect states as a function of sensory deprivation, in Proceedings of the 76th Annual American Psychological Association Convention, 1968, pp. 623-624 38. Zubek JP: Physiological and biochemical effects, in Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research. Edited by JP Zubek. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969, pp. 254-288 39. Zubek JP, Schutte W: Urinary excretion of adrenaline and noradrenaline during prolonged perceptual deprivation. J Abnorn Psychol 71:328-334, 1966 40. Zubek JP: Urinary excretion of adrenaline and noradrenaline during prolonged immobilization. J Abnorm Psychol 73:223-225, 1968 41. Vernikos-Danellis J, Leach CS, Winget SM, Goodwin AL, Beljan JR: The influence of 105 days social deprivation on adrenocortical function. Paper read at the annual meeting of the Aerosp Med Assoc, Washington, DC, 1974 42. Levi L: Sympathoadrenomedullary response to "pleasant" and "unpleasant" psychosocial stimuli. Acta Med Scan (Suppl 528) 191:55-73, 1972 43. Patkai P: Catecholamine excretion in pleasant and unpleasant situations. Acta Psychol (Amsterdam) 35:352-363, 1971 44. Appley MH, Trumbull R: On the concept of psychological stress, in Psychological Stress. Edited by MH Appley, R Trumbull. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967, pp. 1-13 45. Smith RC: Job attitudes of air traffic controllers: a comparison of three air traffic control specialties. Aerosp Med 44:918-927, 1973 46. HaleHB, Williams EW, Smith BN, Melton CE Jr: Excretion patterns of air traffic controllers. AerospMed 42:127-138, 1971 47. Melton CE, Smith RC, McKenzie JM, Wicks SM. Saldivar JT: Stress in air traffic personnel: low-density towers and flight service stations. FAA Office of Aviation Med Report No. AM-77-23, 1977 48. Frankenhaeuser M, Gardell B: Underload and overload in working life a multidisciplinary approach. J Hum Stress 2:35-46, 1976

176 Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1981)