ArticleCommunications psychology2025
A systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis of the relationship between boredom and arousal.
Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Boredom is on the rise, indicating an urgent need to understand its nature and impact. While there is broad agreement on the negative affect associated with its experience, its typical level of arousal remains heavily contested. Therefore, we conducted a three-level random-effects meta-analysis on the boredom-arousal relation across multiple domains. This study was pre-registered via OSF on April 4th, 2024, and we provide the data, the coding manual, and the analysis code at https://osf.io/45zuh/ . The databases Web of Science, PsycInfo, PubMed, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched on the 27th of November, 2023. We included all quantitative correlational and experimental studies that targeted human, non-clinical participants and provided effect sizes on the boredom-arousal relation or information to calculate effect sizes. Overall, 214 effect sizes from 72 unique samples that comprised a total of 6570 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Correlational evidence (i = 75 effect sizes) suggested that more intensely experienced boredom was related to reduced arousal,
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.