Frustration, Anxiety & Boredom

1. Frustration, Anxiety & Boredom (I picked a fun one) Presentation: Cameron Betts version 1 28 March 2011, WPI

2. Frustration

3. Frustration – Aggression Theory Frustration: “a state that sets in if a goal-oriented act is delayed or thwarted” Dollard at al, 1939 • Aggression is always the result of frustration • Aggressive behavior requires the existence of frustration • The existence of frustration leads to some kind of aggressive behavior • The closer one is to a goal, the greater the excitement and anticipation of success • Being prevented from reaching a goal causes frustration proportionate to the excitement, degree of interference and frequency of interference Barker, Dembo and Lewin (1941) showed that children’s play was more destructive when they were able to see the toy for a time before being allowed to play with it

4. Frustration – Aggression Modifications Only some kinds of frustration: • Unreasonable Goal Interference • Researchers asked about hypothetical situations, and found that people would only become frustrated if the block was illegitimate (Pastore) or arbitrary (Cohen) • Aggression is more likely if the block is socially inappropriate • Unexpectedness of the Goal Interference • There is a problem here, as unreasonable blocks tend also to be unexpected • Intentional interference • Aggression only ensues if the interference is perceived to be intentional • This emphasizes the role of social inhibitions

5. Frustration Experiments Buss, 1963 – Varying Drive Strengths • Students were paired with a bad partner and so prevented form betting a better grade • Students competing for a grade gave their partners worse punishments Harris, 1974 – Expectation Violations • Researchers cut in front of people standing in line at banks and stores • The closer to the front of the line, the more aggression was displayed Worchel et al, 1976 • Aggressive movie watchers showed more hostility, compared to comedy watchers • Aggressive movies with commercials got the most hostility

6. Cognitive & Metacognitive Factors Referent Cognitions Theory (Folger) • Frustration is heightened if the one can imagine attaining the goal under other circumstances • This could be because the goal was that much more expected Attribution of Interference • One is more likely to be openly aggressive if the interference is perceived as purposeful • One is less likely to be openly aggressive if the interference is perceived as socially appropriate

7. Beyond Aggression Russell’s affect model might show frustration as a negative valence – high arousal state (Baker et al, 2010) • Does Russell’s model of affect inform the discussion on frustration – aggression?

8. Frustration and Boredom • Perkins & Hill proposed that frustration leads to boredom, and showed an association between them (Perkins & Hill 1985) • Frustration levels are consistent across subjects, but vary by type of activity (Larson & Richards 1991) • High frustration activities do not correspond with boring activities • Talking with a teacher (72%) • Correcting a Test (40%) • Discussion (36%) • Baker showed that boredom was less problematic for learning than frustration (Baker et al 2010) • Frustration was defined (for participants) as dissatisfaction or annoyance • Observed Frustration behaviors included banging on keyboard or mouse, pulling hair, sighing deeply, statement such as “What is going on?!” • Do these situations correspond goal interference? • Do these behaviors correspond to aggression?

9. Anxiety

10. What is Anxiety? “painful or apprehensive uneasiness of mind usually over an impending or anticipated ill” - Merriam Webster Two basic types of anxiety (Alpert & Harper): • Facilitating Anxiety • Leads to task directed drives and on-task efforts (so as to get it over with) • Debilitating Anxiety • Leads to anxiety drive and off-task responses • Liebert & Morris break this down to: • Worry – “any cognitive expression of concern about one’s own performance” • Emotionality – autonomic reactions (e.g. sweating, heart racing) While earlier models suggested that these were mutually exclusive, Alpert & Harper suggested that they may be independent There is also a question of Trait versus State

11. Why does Anxiety reduce performance? • Liebert & Morris: Anxiety divides attention between the task and worry Interference Model • Test anxiety interferes with the recall of prior learning Deficit Model • Questions the Interference model because techniques that reduced test anxiety did not improve test scores • Anxiety is caused by one’s awareness of under-preparation Think about anxiety dreams and their relationship to preparedness

12. Hembree: Test Anxiety Review of 562 studies on academic test anxiety, looking at: • Test Anxiety & Self Esteem, gender differences, performance, treatments • Is test anxiety cognitive or behavioral? • Is there a relationship between facilitating and debilitating anxiety? • Does test anxiety cause poor performance, or does anticipation of poor performance cause test anxiety?

13. Hembree: Results – High vs Low ability Low ability students experience more debilitating test anxiety than high ability students

14. Hembree: Results - Ethnicity Ethnicity differences in Debilitating Test Anxiety diminish in higher grade levels

15. Hembree: Results - Gender Females consistently show more debilitating Test Anxiety… …however this does not translate into a performance difference

16. Hembree: Conclusions • Inference model was more compelling than the Deficit model • Behavioral and Cognitive-behavioral treatments worked where study-skill training failed • Behavioral treatments for test anxiety were more effective, and reduced both Emotionality and Worry. Hembree concludes that test anxiety is behavioral: • Debilitating Anxiety and Facilitating Anxiety are independent and can be experienced simultaneously • However treatments for debilitating anxiety also seem to increase facilitating anxiety Emotionality -> Worry (Behavioral) (Cognitive)

17. Boredom

18. What is Boredom? A context in which skills are above average and challenges are below average - Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels, and Jackson (1995) Boredom derives from one’s inability to regulate attention in a directed, focused manner - Fisher (1993) Unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low physiological arousal - Harris (2000) Boredom: Trait or State?

19. What makes us Bored? When others are: • Passive • Tedious • Distracting • Exhibiting low affectivity • Exhibiting boring ingratiation • Serious • Negatively egocentric • Self-preoccupied • Banal Leary et al. At work, when there is: • Nothing to do • Only simple, undemanding tasks • Excessively difficult tasks • The absence of coworkers • Organizational constraints Fisher How do we handle it? • Day Dreaming • Motor restlessness • Exploration • Response variability • Withdrawal from the boring situation Smith

20. Cognitive and Meta-cognitive factors • Attention • Individuals with high or low distraction levels are less bored (Laird) • Boredom implies a difficulty in focusing attention (Fisher) • Time perception • Boredom leads to a perception that time is moving more slowly (Watt) • Mood-Monitoring • Scrutinizing and directing attention towards one’s mood • May reduce one’s ability to focus attention on external matters (Swinkels & Giuliano) • Mood-Labeling • Identifying and categorizing one’s mood • Correlated with positive affect (Swinkels & Giuliano) • “Enables one to concentrate on the situation at hand, without attention focused on oneself or being distracted by mood” (Harris)

21. Control – Value & BoredomPekrun 2010 Control-Value Theory speaks to boredom in several ways: • High Control can lead to boredom • An individual’s capacities are high compared to task demands (Csikszentmihayli) • Low Control can lead to boredom • Demands exceed one’s abilities (Acee, 2010) • Perceived Value is low • Specifically if the task is thought to have a low intrinsic value • Would goal-orientation predict boredom in learning?

22. Boredom vs. Neutrality • Boredom is not the same as lack of interest • Lack of interest implies neither a wish to engage in in an activity nor avoid it (lack of approach) • Boredom leads to desire to escape the situation (avoidance) Where neutrality has no valence or arousal, Boredom has negative valence and low-arousal

23. Why does Boredom affect Performance?Pekrun 2010 • Split attention • Boredom reduces task-focused attention • Promotes task-irrelevant thinking like day-dreaming • Motivation to avoid the task • Boredom is an aversive emotion that one wants to escape • Non-strategic thinking • When we are bored we do not employ meta-cognitive strategies as often • Self-regulation is also reduced • Active goal setting, strategy selection, outcome monitoring • As a result, boredom has a more consistent negative impact on performance than other negative affects • There is a positive correlation between boredom proneness and anxiety

24. Larson & Richards (1991) Three models of Boredom were put to the test: • Under-stimulation model • PsychologicalModel • Boredom happens in situations that are repetitive, habituated and unchallenging • Would indicate: more boredom in high-ability students, equal boredom in and out of school • Forced Effort Model • Psychological Model • Boredom happens in situations perceived to be homogeneous • Would indicate: more boredom with challenging material and less control • Resistance Model • Social Construct • Boredom is an active social response to power relationships • Would indicate: boredom would be correlated with anger • Boredom may be defined by a school experience 5th – 9th graders reported their boredom level and activity multiple time a day, as prompted by a pager. • Boredom was put on a scale of Boring to Exciting

25. Larson & Richards:Where are we bored? Self-explanations results “Math is dumb” “No one around”

26. Larson & Richards:What are we doing when we get bored? Kids get bored doing school work – All three models would predict this

27. Larson & Richards:Subject Matters More boredom duringabstract academic subjects Supports psychological models Less boredom during hands-on, applied classes

28. Larson & Richards:Boredom as a Trait Larson & Richards conclude that boredom is a characteristic trait: • Kids who are bored at school are also likely to be bored away from school (r=0.68) • But not associated SES variables • Consider also that the causes of boredom in school and out of school differ • No correlation between boredom and disruptive behavior • Goes against resistance model But… there is also evidence that boredom is a state: • High-ability students are more bored in school than at home • As predicted by the Under-stimulation model

29. Discussion