Understanding Boredom and Leisure in Later Life: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Anecdotal evidence and references to boredom appear frequently in mass media, but only a few studies directly examine the phenomenon of boredom, and existing literature within the context of leisure has primarily focused on adolescents. Social isolation and loneliness often intertwine with boredom, and chronic conditions are major factors that increase the risk of experiencing boredom in later life. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of boredom among older adults and assess the existing literature to gain a more holistic understanding of boredom and how it has been studied among older adults in the context of leisure.

Research Design and Methods

Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study gathered literature from 5 electronic databases through December 2022. This systematic review investigated both qualitative and quantitative evidence, and standardized data extraction and study quality assessments were conducted.

Results

A comprehensive search initially revealed 2,757 potentially relevant articles, 8 of which met the full inclusion criteria. Three studies investigated the phenomenon of leisure-boredom, and 5 studies assessed the experience of boredom in general and its relationship with leisure engagement. A majority of the studies, especially ones that examined older adults’ experience of overall boredom experience, lacked a thorough description of the phenomenon and did not use reliable and/or valid measurements.

Discussion and Implications

Findings from 8 articles offer insights into boredom; however, the discussion examines the limitations of these studies and reasons why studying boredom is important. We also speculate as to why little research has addressed leisure boredom among older adults and propose a research agenda for increasing our understanding of the ways older adults experience boredom, the effects boredom has on health and well-being, and how boredom can be alleviated and/or managed in the context of leisure.

It is difficult to gauge whether the effect of boredom on people’s lives throughout history has changed because measures of boredom were only first developed in the early 1980s to assess its impact on human behaviors (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987). However, even the ancient Greeks acknowledged boredom as something negative. Socrates was criticized for being repetitive and monotone (Kuhn, 1976) and Plato, who used the word “acedia” (i.e., tedium) defended his protagonist by asserting the need for constancy (Healy, 1984). Since the ancient Greeks, the concept of boredom has consistently appeared in the literature in various forms (e.g., arts, religious writings, and novels) with different claims of its causes and meaning, mostly governed by different societal norms and individuals’ perceptions of how they see the world (Tze et al., 2016).

In the late twentieth century, empirical studies on boredom began to appear in the literature. Scholars were surprised by the paucity of research into the topic of boredom, considering its influence on both the welfare of society and on individuals (Barbalet, 1999; Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989; Fisherl, 1993; Svendsen, 2005; Vodanovich, 2003). Anecdotal evidence and references to boredom appear frequently in mass media (e.g., magazines, professional publications, and news stories); however, few studies directly examined the phenomenon of boredom (Vodanovich, 2003). Moreover, a wide range of disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, and gerontology) addressed the breadth of literature on boredom; however, no particular field or subfield has given it sustained attention, although it has received more attention among adolescents (Vodanovich & Watt, 2016). Thus, a universal definition of boredom does not exist, nor is there a consensus on its causes.

However, scholars recently examined boredom brought on by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rules such as stay-at-home orders and social distancing. Boylen et al. (2021) found people who are prone to boredom also lacked self-control, which led them to break social distancing rules. A study by Chen (2020) noted people with a high growth need alleviated boredom through leisure crafting (i.e., intentionally planning for leisure), which also helped people connect to online communities. Thus, the pandemic sparked a renewed interest in boredom as stay-at-home orders and social distancing affected people of all ages around the world. However, scholars of these recent publications have also defined boredom in various ways.

A common understanding of boredom describes it as a personal state. Mikulas and Vodanovich (1993) explained boredom as “relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction, which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating situation” (p. 3). This occurs when a person believes that environmental demands are below their ability level, resulting in a lack of challenge (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012). Although this approach to defining the construct has been generally well accepted, contradictory evidence exists that people report boredom when their abilities are insufficient to meet situational demands; resulting in a perception of being overchallenged (e.g., Daschmann et al., 2011; Goetz et al., 2006). In this situation, one’s experience of boredom can be viewed as a state of high arousal (Barbalet, 1999) or outside the range of an optimal level of arousal (Leary & Atherton, 1986). Moreover, meaninglessness has also been considered to be a characteristic of boredom (e.g., Barbalet, 1999; Fahlman et al., 2009; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012).

Boredom can also be understood as a trait in and studied in relationship with personality traits such as openness, extraversion, and neuroticism (Gordon et al., 1997; Hunter et al., 2016; Oprea et al., 2019). The boredom proneness scale (BPS: Farmer & Sundberg, 1986) has been widely used in past studies to measure a person’s propensity to become bored (see Vodanovich, 2003), and this approach has received much attention recently. Thus, the concept of boredom can be viewed as a response to situational or individualistic factors (i.e., state), as a personality characteristic (i.e., trait), or even as an emotion (Bench & Lench, 2013).

Some scholars claim that boredom is an activity-related emotion, implying that it disappears when the boredom-evoking activity is abandoned (Pekrun et al., 2010; Van Hooff & Van Hooft, 2016). Many definitions emphasize the role that perceived monotony and repetition play in producing boredom (e.g., DeChenne & Moody, 1988; Fureix & Meagher, 2015; Tsai, 2016). Indeed, this is perhaps the most frequently discussed aspect of the construct and coincides with many individuals’ personal experiences of boredom. Other approaches consider attention difficulties as an important contributor to the feeling of boredom (e.g., Eastwood et al., 2012; Hunter & Eastwood, 2018; Pielot et al., 2015). In this regard, Eastwood et al. (2012) conceptualized that disengagement is a key factor in the experience of boredom. Despite the diverse perspectives and viewpoints on this phenomenon (Elpidorou, 2014; Vodanovich & Watt, 2016; Westgate & Steidle, 2020), it seems there is one thing scholars agree on, which is that boredom is a complex phenomenon (Caldwell, et al., 1999; Raffaelli et al., 2018).

At first glance, boredom is a concept that seems at odds with leisure; yet research on this topic indicates these constructs are often connected. In this context, boredom has been studied primarily among adolescents due to its relationship with risky behaviors (Weybright et al., 2015), healthy behaviors (Caldwell et al., 2004), youth development (Wegner et al., 2008), and internet and social media use (Biolcati et al., 2018; Donati et al., 2022). Despite the dearth of research on leisure and boredom among the older adult population, existing literature shows how leisure plays a vital role in coping with social isolation and loneliness among older adults (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Hawkley et al., 2010; Toepoel, 2013). A study by An et al. (2022) found that avoiding boredom through meaningful leisure engagement was considered one of the most important factors in defining healthy aging. Besides, older adults are likely to experience life-transitioning events (e.g., loss of spouse/friend, relocation), face negative perceptions of aging/ageism, and encounter multiple chronic conditions that can often disconnect them from their leisure engagement, thus leaving them more vulnerable to experiencing boredom (Janke et al., 2008; Payne et al., 2010; Robertson & Kenny, 2016). Therefore, boredom is a prevalent and critical matter among older adults, and it is affected by and has effects on their leisure repertoire and daily leisure engagement (An et al., 2022).

As pioneers in the study of leisure and boredom, Iso-Ahola and Weissinger (1987) examined factors that contributed to a sense of leisure as boredom, including negative attitude and lack of motivation. As the authors described, leisure boredom is “a mis-match between desired arousal-producing characteristics of leisure experiences, and perceptual or actual availability of such leisure experiences” (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990, p. 5). They also developed a reliable and valid 16-item scale to measure leisure boredom. This led to more research in the field of leisure studies, but again, this work mostly targeted adolescents and emerging adults (Biolcati et al., 2018; Gordon & Caltabiano, 1996; Iso-Ahola & Crowley, 1991; Lin et al., 2009; Skues et al., 2016; Wegner et al., 2008). Although leisure boredom is applied specifically within a leisure context, it can lead to disengagement in a person’s daily activities and decrease overall life satisfaction (Lepp, 2018; Spruyt et al., 2018), which then could result in psychosocial outcomes of feeling lonely and depressed (Spaeth et al., 2015). Because loneliness, depression, and social isolation are closely related to a person’s experience of boredom in general (Conroy et al., 2010; Goldberg et al., 2011), leisure boredom has an indirect, and oftentimes direct, connection to the experience of boredom in life. Therefore, boredom in the context of leisure (i.e., how people experience boredom in life and its relationship to leisure) and leisure boredom (i.e., people’s experience of boredom while engaging in leisure activities) are interrelated and important to fully understand the relationship between boredom and leisure.

Although much of the research on boredom has focused on adolescents, adults and older adults also experience boredom. In fact, researchers have alluded that boredom is a significant concern among older adults (Baltes & Baltes, 1990; Wilson, & Cordier, 2013; Johnson & Barer, 1992; Johnson & Barer, 1997; Kleiber & Linde, 2014; e.g., loneliness, time use, and purpose). Much of the literature focuses on functional status (i.e., activities of daily living) and disengagement or selective investment in leisure activities (Johnson & Barer, 1992; Kleiber et al., 2008) rather than understanding boredom, how to relieve it, and its effects on older adults’ daily living and well-being. However, boredom is a real issue among older adults, particularly for those who have outlived their spouses/loved ones, individuals without transportation or other resources (e.g., discretionary income and social support), and/or people who reside in supportive living communities (An et al., 2022). The intersection between boredom and health outcomes in older adults has been minimally addressed despite the demonstrated prevalence of social isolation, decreased independence, and health-related activity restriction in this population. Moreover, scholars who study boredom agree that it is a major quality-of-life issue and assert it can be detrimental to healthy aging (An et al., 2022; Losada et al., 2015). At the level of national policy, the Administration on Community Living and American Society on Aging have identified loneliness and social isolation, which are often associated with boredom, as priority issues that compromise older adults’ health and quality of life (Graham, 2020). In fact, Losada et al. (2015) reported a strong positive relationship between loneliness and boredom among older adults. Thus, reciprocal relationships between boredom and loneliness, and social isolation may exist. Lonely/isolated people may feel more bored, and people who are bored may feel lonely and/or more isolated.

As noted earlier, boredom may occur during leisure time, negatively influencing older adults’ health and well-being. However, the predominant focus of theories and research in the area of leisure and health has been on the positive relationship between these constructs. This is particularly true among older adults, as it is generally assumed that the transition to retirement provides these individuals with more free time. Historically, theoretical frameworks and models such as activity theory (Lemon et al., 1972), continuity theory (Atchley, 1989; Havens, 1968), and successful aging (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2013; Kim & Park, 2016; Rowe & Kahn, 1997) suggest that leisure activities may help older adults remain productive and maintain social roles in later life and that this has beneficial outcomes on their overall health and well-being.

Recently, there has been a resurgence of research examining leisure involvement during retirement and its influence on older adults’ health and well-being. Many of these studies examine how leisure participation changes with the onset of retirement and how this engagement is associated with socio-emotional aspects of well-being and quality of life (e.g., Bone et al., 2022; Henning et al., 2021). However, Lewis and Hill (2020) noted that although it has been relatively well established that participation in leisure activities is associated with better well-being among older adults, less is known about whether these activities actually help adults maintain purpose or meaning in their activities after retirement. In their study, they found that participants who engaged in more leisure activities tended to report a higher sense of purpose, and those who were more active in leisure activities showed less decline over time in their involvement. A decline in the sense of purposefulness among retirees was mitigated among older adults who maintained a greater level of involvement in leisure activities during this phase of their lives. However, not all activities individuals engage in during their leisure time provide meaning and purpose, and thus there is the potential for boredom to occur. As older adults’ social environments change, whether due to changes in job status with retirement, declines in physical and/or cognitive health, the adoption of caregiving responsibilities, or transitions into residential care facilities, there is an increased potential for social isolation and loneliness to occur, influencing their perceptions of boredom and affecting their overall health and well-being.

To address the gap in the literature and contribute to both the existing knowledge base and older adults’ quality of life, a systematic and theoretical approach to understanding boredom is needed. The purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of boredom among older adults and assess the existing literature to gain a more holistic understanding of boredom and how it has been studied among older adults in the context of leisure. Specific aims of this systematic review are to (a) assess how boredom research in the context of leisure and older adults has been conducted; (b) describe the relationship between leisure and boredom derived from different measurement scales and data analysis; (c) contribute to our knowledge of boredom among older adults; and (d) outline a research agenda on boredom among older adults.

Method

Study Selection Criteria

A systematic review was conducted to assess the existing research on boredom. This study included articles that met the following criteria: (i) articles focused on boredom in the context of leisure: articles that contained both “boredom” and “leisure” as one of the phenomena explored or variables measured; (ii) written in English; (iii) peer-reviewed scholarly publications; (iv) middle age samples and older (mainly older adults); and (v) empirical studies. There was no limitation on the study design or method. Therefore, we included articles based on quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods as well as theoretical/conceptual work.

Search Strategy

The process of searching and narrowing articles followed the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA: Moher et al., 2009). The researchers gathered literature from five electronic databases, EBSCOhost, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The search process occurred in January 2019 and in December 2022 to identify articles published through 2022. We also included articles by conducting a cited reference search (i.e., forward reference search) and reference list search (i.e., backward reference search) that were not identified from the five databases. To identify the components of the two main research topics (i.e., “leisure” and “boredom”), keywords were used to search literature from the five electronic databases (Table 1).

After the electronic database search, the primary investigator identified articles published in peer-reviewed journals and excluded case reports, books, newspapers, conference proceedings, patents, and theses. Then, the primary investigator combined the articles from all five electronic databases and removed duplicates. Next, the primary investigator and one additional reviewer independently screened the title and abstract of each article. Several articles contained both “boredom” and “leisure” within their study scope, but if those two keywords were not the main topics or the purpose of the study, the articles were excluded. Some of the boundaries covered by the concepts of boredom and leisure were broad (i.e., boredom can be associated with negative affect and/or depression) and diverse activities were subjectively regarded as leisure in some studies. Therefore, this study only included articles that aimed to examine both “boredom” and “leisure.” For instance, the study by McNeilly and Burke (2000) examined the attitudes and behaviors of gambling as leisure activity among older adults. Authors investigated the correlations among problem gambling behaviors, depression, life satisfaction, and motivation. Boredom was a significant factor in depression and motivated older adults to participate in gambling activities. This article, however, was excluded because the concept of “boredom” was not measured as an independent variable; rather, it was one item included in the depression scale. Conflicts over whether to include or exclude an article were resolved through group discussions with all authors of this study.

Data Extraction

A standardized data extraction form was used to extract the following information from each article included in this study: author(s), publication year, study region, sample characteristics (e.g., sample size and age), study methods, study design, main results, characteristics of boredom (i.e., definition, cause, and coping strategy), and how boredom was associated with leisure and the older population. Not all articles included information about boredom; therefore, only the available data were collected from the articles.

Study Quality Assessment

The quality assessment tools were derived from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies (National Institutes of Health, 2021). However, the NIH tool omits detailed standards for qualitative studies; therefore, we modified the 10 questions from the NIH Quality Assessment Tool and Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies (Long & Godfrey, 2004; Long et al., 2002) to align with the purpose of this study. This modified version of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool and Evaluation Tool for Qualitative Studies appraises the study’s methodologic rigor, validity of the results, and risks of bias (Aromataris & Pearson, 2014). A high-quality rating was assigned if the study met at least seven of the following criteria, and a study’s quality was designated as moderate if there were partial or at least four criteria that were met from the 10 quality assessment questionnaire criteria (Harris et al., 2001). The 10 quality assessment criteria used in this study were: (i) Was the research question clearly stated? (ii) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (iii) Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study sample stated and applied uniformly to all participants? (iv) Was there a justification to explain the study’s sample size? (v) Was boredom clearly defined and explained for consistent implementation among the study participants? (vi) Was leisure clearly defined and explained for consistent implementation among the study participants? (vii) Was a reliable and valid measurement used to measure boredom? (viii) Was a reliable and valid measurement used to measure leisure? (ix) Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between boredom and leisure if it existed? and (x) Were potential confounding variables/factors adjusted for their impact on the relationship between leisure and boredom? For studies that used qualitative methods, quality assessment questions 7 and 8 were replaced by following questions: “Was rigorous and sound method used to explore the concept of boredom?” and “Was rigorous and sound method used to explore the concept of leisure?”

Two authors (J.A. and M.L.) independently reviewed and scored the extent to which the study fulfilled the criteria, and each item was scored from 0 to 1 point (0 = no/information not available, 0.5 = partially, 1 = yes) for each of the quality assessment criteria. A thorough assessment was conducted to estimate the strength of the scientific evidence and transparency of the research aims, background information about the research topic, sampling procedure, measurement, methods, and results. Based on the summed quality assessment score, each of the studies was categorized as low (score 0–3), moderate (score 4–6), and high quality (score 7–10). The third researcher (L.L.P.) reviewed the assessments and confirmed ratings. Sources of bias for each study are described in the results below.

Results

Study Selection

The results of the article search are summarized in Figure 1. A total of 2,757 articles were initially selected from the five electronic databases. Of the initially selected articles, 793 duplicate articles were excluded. Once all unique articles were identified (n = 1,964), a screening process took place where 1,785 articles were excluded based on the title (n = 1,449) and abstract (n = 336). The next step checked the eligibility of the articles. Authors mainly examined each study’s sample age (middle-aged or older) and reviewed the study selection criteria (i.e., published in a peer-reviewed journal, written in English). As a result, another 151 articles were excluded, leaving the authors with 28 articles for full-text review. All 28 remaining articles were downloaded as PDF files for full-text peer review and discussion. After the full-text screening, 20 articles were excluded for the following reasons: (i) the focus of the article was not related to “boredom” (n = 7); (ii) the article was not related to “leisure” (n = 5); (iii) the article was an editorial/letter to the editor (n = 4); (iv) not an empirical study (general review paper, n = 2); (v) conference proceeding (n = 1); and (vi) did not meet the sample age criteria (n = 1). Consequently, eight articles met the criteria for the final pool of articles for this study (i.e., Breen, 2009; Clarke & Clarkson, 2008; Ejaz et al., 1997; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987; Lobo, 1996; Losada et al., 2015; Searle et al., 1995, 1998).

The selection procedure was conducted by the primary investigator with one additional reviewer who independently performed the selection process from the abstract and title search step. Authors resolved differences of opinion on the articles through discussion, and interrater reliability analysis (using Cohen’s kappa) was performed for each investigator’s selections in order to determine consistency among the raters. The interrater reliability was 0.75, which represents substantial agreement (McHugh, 2012). Also, during the full-text review, a panel of three experts who have subject matter expertise about older adults and boredom in the context of leisure assisted with the review process and made sure articles were included and excluded according to the study’s purpose and selection criteria.

Study Characteristics

Table 2 summarizes information about the eight selected articles. The characteristics gathered include year, study region, sample size and age, study design, methodology/method, boredom criteria (i.e., boredom in general vs leisure boredom), and published journal. In terms of the study region, two studies each were conducted in the United States (Ejaz et al.,1997; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987), Canada (Searle et al., 1995, 1998), and Australia (Breen, 2009; Lobo, 1996). The two remaining studies were conducted in New Zealand (Clarke & Clarkson, 2008) and Spain (Losada et al., 2015). The publication years ranged from 1987 to 2015. Of the eight articles, three were studies that examined the concept of “leisure boredom” and five were about boredom in general. All three “leisure boredom” articles were published before 2000 and relatively recent articles were about general boredom in relation to leisure behavior among older adults.

Two articles (Breen, 2009; Lobo, 1996) adopted qualitative methodology and the remaining six articles used quantitative methodology. In terms of the study design and method, four studies were cross-sectional and used survey research methods (Clarke & Clarkson, 2008; Ejaz et al., 1997; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987; Losada et al., 2015) and two studies used a randomized controlled design with a pretest and posttest survey (Searle et al., 1995, 1998). One was a case study with focus groups (Breen, 2009), and one was a longitudinal design using group discussion and in-depth interviews (Lobo, 1996). The sample size among the eight articles ranged from 22 to 395, with 72 participants on average for articles using qualitative methodology and 143 participants on average for articles using quantitative methodology. The sample in a study by Iso-Ahola and Weissinger (1987), was composed of community residents with an average age of 44 years, whereas the participants in the Lobo study (1996) were between 50 and 55 years old. The remaining six articles all had samples whose participants were 65 years of age and over with an average age of 75.52 years. Moreover, these articles were published in diverse journals from different fields of study. Three articles were published in leisure-focused journals (i.e., Society and Leisure and Journal of Leisure Research: Lobo, 1996; Searle et al., 1995, 1998), two articles were from psychology journals (i.e., New Zealand Journal of Psychology and Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology: Clarke & Clarkson, 2008; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987), and the remaining articles were published in Journal of Travel and Tourism (Breen, 2009), Activities, Adaptation and Aging (Ejaz et al., 1997), and International Psychogeriatrics (Losada et al., 2015).

Study Quality

Table 3 shows the overview of the quality assessment of the eight studies. The study quality score ranged from 4.5 to 8 with an average score of 6.5, indicating moderate quality. Most articles provided clear research questions, a description of the study population, and sample selection criteria. Articles also clearly defined and explained the concept of leisure to ensure consistency in understanding the concept among study participants. These studies used reliable and valid scales to measure leisure. However, only two studies (Ejaz et al., 1997; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987) clearly defined and explained the concept of boredom. There was no thorough discussion of boredom in the other articles, and the readers could only infer how boredom was defined and perceived by the authors. Not surprisingly, half of the articles did not use reliable and valid scales to measure boredom. Other than the three studies that used the leisure boredom scale to measure participants’ leisure boredom, no articles used an existing scale to measure boredom in general. Rather, these researchers used a single item that asked about participants’ perceived boredom.

Information About Leisure and Boredom

Definition and causes of boredom

Iso-Ahola and Weissinger (1987) clearly defined boredom as a negative state of mind or mood that reflects a mismatch between optimal experiences and actual experiences available to individuals. Therefore, leisure boredom could arise from low motivation to participate and continue leisure engagement, lack of control and/or perceived competence to do leisure activities, and sociological (e.g., income and sex) and psychological (e.g., awareness of the contribution of leisure to life) factors (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987; Searle et al., 1995, 1998). Although a definition of leisure boredom was stated by the authors in these articles (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987; Searle et al., 1995, 1998), no clear definition of boredom was proposed in the remaining articles that examined boredom in general in the context of leisure. As aforementioned, a definition of boredom based on each study’s context had to be inferred. These inferred definitions can largely be divided into two perspectives: inactivity and free time. First, boredom was viewed as not being involved in any activity (i.e., nothing to do: Breen, 2009; Ejaz et al., 1997; Losada et al., 2015). The reasons for “inactivity” were lack of resources (e.g., money, transportation), ongoing health conditions (e.g., depression, decline in physical function), and limited social interaction opportunities (e.g., lack of friends, living in nursing home). The other definition of boredom was described as “unwanted/forced free time” (Breen, 2009; Clarke & Clarkson, 2008; Lobo, 1996). This perspective focuses on time being closely related to “inactivity” because older adults were often exposed to unwanted free time where there was nothing for them to do. Clarke and Clarkson (2008) found that even when older adults engaged in an activity (i.e., gambling), they still felt bored due to amotivation. That is, these older adults did not have any defined goals or expected outcomes for gambling. Rather, they lacked (intrinsic or extrinsic) motivation and the purpose of playing the games (e.g., scratch-off lottery tickets, electronic games/slots, and cards) was to just pass time.

Managing boredom

The authors of all selected articles provided some suggestions on how to manage boredom in the context of leisure and feeling bored from engaging in leisure (i.e., leisure boredom). In terms of leisure boredom, Iso-Ahola and Weissinger (1987) found that a lack of awareness of the potential psychological value of leisure was a major factor leading to perceptions of leisure boredom. Therefore, it is important to increase individuals’ awareness of the potential benefits and value of leisure by offering leisure education and counseling, which could prevent them from feeling bored from leisure (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987). This finding was consistent with two other studies on leisure boredom conducted by Searle and colleagues (1995; 1998) that reported leisure education enhanced older adults’ perceived leisure control and leisure competence, which significantly reduced their level of leisure boredom. Additional variables that were positively associated with managing leisure boredom were level of motivation, being intrinsically motivated (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1987), life satisfaction, and general locus of control (Searle et al., 1995, 1998).

In all studies except the one that examined boredom in general (Ejaz et al., 1997), it was evident that engaging in leisure activities helped prevent and/or manage experiencing boredom among older adults (Breen, 2009; Clarke & Clarkson, 2008; Lobo, 1996; Losada et al., 2015). Ejaz and colleagues (1997) examined the effect of group leisure activities and social relationships on perceived boredom among older adults residing in nursing homes. They found nursing home residents’ participation in structured group activities was not sufficient to alleviate their perceived boredom. Those activities did not prevent them from feeling depressed, engaging in negative interactions with other residents, and having an insufficient number of friends.

As all remaining studies suggested that leisure activities have a positive relationship with perceived boredom among older adults, each study had unique findings that added more insight into the relationship between leisure and boredom. Studies by Breen (2009) and Clarke and Clarkson (2008) examined older adults’ gambling behaviors as their regular leisure activity and found that avoiding boredom was their biggest motivation for engaging in gambling. Also, it was evident that both very passive activities within the casino (e.g., bingo or slots) and more strategic games (e.g., poker and roulette) contributed to reducing boredom among participants (Breen, 2009). Clarke and Clarkson (2008) examined the motivations of regular continuous gamblers (i.e., electronic gambling machines, casinos, and track betting, whereby winnings can be immediately risked again within the same session) and regular noncontinuous gamblers (e.g., Lotto). They found regular continuous gamblers were amotivated, suggesting they gambled out of boredom. Another study by Lobo (1996) explored older adults’ experience of coping with unobligated time due to unemployment. It was found that older adults did not particularly perceive increased free time due to unemployment as increased leisure time. Participants considered unemployment as merely more free time, but “enforced free time,” causing them to perceive the time as pressure to be productive rather than as time that could be devoted to leisure. Also, reduced income as a result of job loss influenced participants’ leisure engagement. Those who used their free time to engage in some leisure activities, however, reported feeling less bored. Among participants experiencing a lack of purpose and structure in life combined with a feeling of being depressed and bored due to unemployment, leisure played a positive role for many in managing their unobligated time (Lobo, 1996). Lastly, Losada et al. (2015) examined behavioral correlates of anxiety among older adults and found leisure activities allowed older adults to capitalize on pleasant activities and healthy lifestyles, which helped them to experience less boredom. Also, lack of social support, lack of leisure activities, watching TV, loneliness, lack of vitality, experiential avoidance (i.e., a tendency to escape negative emotions), poor physical functioning, and anxiety were all significantly correlated with boredom (Losada et al., 2015).

Discussion

This study is the first known systematic review of the concept of boredom in the context of leisure among the aging population, with the aim of identifying, describing, and critiquing existing literature to gain a more holistic understanding of the experience of boredom and its association with leisure. Findings from these studies foster an understanding of how leisure can alleviate feelings of boredom and how leisure itself can cause boredom during situations due to factors such as a lack of motivation, locus of control, lack of available leisure activities, and health problems that limit leisure engagement. The findings of this systematic review offer some insights into boredom; however, this discussion examines the limitations of the existing studies and the reasons for studying boredom are important. We also speculate as to why such little research has addressed leisure boredom among older adults and propose a research agenda for increasing our understanding of the ways older adults experience boredom, the effects boredom has on health and well-being, and how boredom can be alleviated and/or managed in the context of leisure.

Limitations of the Selected Articles

Study characteristics

Research on leisure boredom among older adults has been sporadically published over the last 30-plus years, with only Losada et al. (2015) being published within the last decade. The seven remaining studies were conducted over 10 years ago, and five of those seven articles were published over 20 years ago. Although research on the broad concept of boredom has been steady over the last 30 years, much of the work is conceptual. Within this body of knowledge, boredom has been studied mostly in the context of education, work, and relationships. To a lesser extent, the research on leisure boredom has focused on adolescence, specifically with regard to how boredom affects risky behavior (e.g., Caldwell et al., 1999; Weybright et al., 2015). According to Piotrowski’s (2013) bibliometric content analysis, although over 300 studies were conducted on boredom (across all age groups), almost twice the number of articles were published more recently (1991–2013) than the nascent research (1923–1990), and only 35 of the studies address boredom in a leisure context. Moreover, the findings of these studies do not align well with how the concept of boredom has been examined in general, and 25 of the studies examined the concept of leisure boredom solely within the context of risky behavior among adolescents (e.g., Wegner & Flisher, 2009). Thus, this analysis of existing studies demonstrates the dearth of research on leisure boredom.

Study quality

Although the average score for study quality was 6.5, indicating moderate quality, the articles consistently scored low on two criteria: providing a clear definition of boredom and using reliable and valid measurements for boredom. This was more prevalent among articles that examined boredom in general compared to leisure boredom studies. Although numerous studies define boredom (e.g., Eastwood et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2011; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993; Raffaelli et al., 2018), few authors in this systematic review provided their perspective and understanding of the phenomenon. Rather, the concept of boredom was more of a secondary or tertiary aim instead of the primary focus of the study. In fact, only one study (Ejaz et al., 1997) had a clear goal to specifically study boredom and leisure among older adults. Also, none of the five studies that examined boredom in general used a reliable and valid scale to measure boredom. According to Vodanovich and Watt (2016), 16 different boredom scales exist with two trait assessments (i.e., boredom proneness scale and boredom susceptibility subscale of the sensation-seeking scale), five context-specific trait boredom scales (e.g., boredom coping scale, free time boredom scale), three assessments of state boredom (e.g., multidimensional state boredom scale, state boredom measure), and six context-specific state boredom measures (e.g., job boredom scale, relationship boredom, academic boredom scale). Therefore, using a single item to ask about participants’ perceived boredom in all five studies (excluding the leisure boredom articles) clearly shows how the concept of boredom is overlooked among older adults in the context of leisure. Single-item measures of boredom also discount the complexity of the concept of boredom based on the myriad of causes and consequences of boredom.

Importance of Boredom and Factors That Contribute to Leisure Boredom

In later life, there is some evidence that older adults have more free time after they retire from full-time work and decrease their involvement in parenting or other responsibilities (Bonsang & Klein, 2012). Although caregiving can also increase, theoretically, these “golden years” should allow more time for leisure engagement. However, older adults may experience constraints to leisure that interfere with their ability to make full use of leisure in meaningful and fulfilling ways (Hutchinson & Nimrod, 2012). For example, research suggests that older adults engage in fewer physically active leisure pursuits (Watson et al., 2016). Also, as people get older, they may have less energy for social and physical activities (Orsega-Smith et al., 2004), limited mobility (e.g., due to chronic conditions, fear of falling), and transportation issues (e.g., impaired vision, fixed incomes, urban residents), and/or have other constraints (e.g., caregiving, leisure opportunities, cultural norms, and values) that reduce their involvement in leisure. Moreover, loneliness is increasingly an issue among older adults, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic (Dahlberg, 2021; Son et al., 2021). Loneliness is also associated with boredom (Conroy et al., 2010). It is plausible that loneliness could cause boredom and that boredom may cause loneliness, indicating a bidirectional relationship. Thus, a variety of factors may constrain older adults’ participation in valued leisure activities, which in turn can contribute to increased boredom.

Another issue that may contribute to boredom is the lack of arousal. Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009) posited that low skill may lead to boredom; however, low arousal may also contribute to feelings of boredom (Berlyne, 1960; Van Hooft & Van Hooff, 2018). Low arousal may be triggered by isolation (which can also cause loneliness), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), medication side effects, a lack of meaning in one’s life, and/or mental health conditions such as depression (Benning & Ait Oumeziane, 2017). Because MCI is a growing concern among older adults and there is a strong emphasis on brain health (i.e., cognitive plasticity), it is even more important to address low arousal in order to reduce and/or prevent boredom. Also, boredom is usually described as a transient unpleasant affective state that can be characterized by subjective feelings (Scherer, 2005). This state of boredom can be affected by aspects of cognition and low arousal, but also by bodily symptoms (ongoing chronic conditions), action tendencies (seeking distraction and engagement in meaningful behavior), and motivation (change or escape the situation; Eastwood et al., 2012; Van der Heijden et al., 2012). As older adults often face the emergence of multiple chronic conditions with symptoms (e.g., pain, fatigue, sleep issues) that decrease their functional abilities as well as motivation, they are more vulnerable to experiencing boredom.

Boredom has commonly been discussed as a combination of low arousal and dissatisfaction or displeasure (e.g., Daniels, 2000; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993; Pekrun, 1992; Russell, 1980; Warr, 1987). As such, it is this combination that is believed to distinguish a low-arousal, unpleasant state (e.g., boredom) from other unpleasant states characterized by high arousal (e.g., anxiety). Although there has debatably been greater agreement that boredom consists of low arousal, other approaches have depicted boredom in relation to high arousal such as agitation, frustration, and restlessness (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; Bernstein, 1975; Fisherl, 1993). In fact, there is qualitative evidence that experiential aspects associated with boredom include high arousal feelings (e.g., restlessness and frustration; Barbalet, 1999; Martin et al., 2006). Further study on this is needed to fully capture one’s experience of boredom.

It is plausible that many of the aforementioned factors influence each other in complex and bidirectional ways. Self-determination (i.e., competence, autonomy, relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 2012) is another issue that might be entangled with factors such as loneliness, depression, MCI, and low arousal. Searle et al. (1998) assessed locus of control, perceived competence, leisure boredom, and life satisfaction in their intervention study of leisure boredom among older adults. Although they found that the leisure education intervention significantly improved locus of control, perceived competence, and decreased leisure boredom, very little research followed this intervention study. Despite the demographic changes that have occurred with the aging of the Baby Boomers and the significant increase in the older population (United States Census Bureau, 2019), only three studies on leisure boredom among older adults were published in scholarly journals after the Searle et al. study was published. Of these studies, one (Losada et al., 2015) used a single item to measure boredom and the other two studies focused exclusively on gaming (i.e., bingo and other gambling; Breen, 2009; Clarke & Clarkson, 2008) as a leisure activity. Clarke and Clarkson measured intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation (amotivation was a proxy for boredom), and Breen examined bingo players’ experiences using a case study. Breen’s findings were more nuanced than Losada et al.’s (2015) and Clarke and Clarkson’s (2008) due to the interpretive case-study framework. Breen found that older adults engaged in bingo to reduce isolation and loneliness, maintain their health, have a break from their home life, and manage depression by getting out and being around people doing an activity. Older adults in this study expressed they felt the activity yielded some value (i.e., benefit) for the cost. Breen also acknowledged the connection between flow and leisure boredom, which was overlooked by the other authors.

We assert that Searle et al. (1998) had the right idea when they tested a leisure education program as the core of their intervention study. In fact, leisure education is widely used in recreation programs for people with disabilities, individuals in rehabilitation recovering from injuries or addiction, and in psychiatric/behavioral health settings. However, rarely is leisure education aimed toward the older population. Yet, older adults face transitions (i.e., retirement, chronic health conditions, losing a spouse) in which leisure education would be a helpful resource to increase engagement in meaningful leisure activities and enhance quality of life. In fact, Kleiber and Linde (2014) make the case for leisure education to assist older adults with the transition to retirement. Although retirement can offer opportunities for pursuing new (or old) hobbies and activities, it can also be a time when retirees may find it difficult to fill their time with meaningful activities, thereby triggering feelings of malaise and ultimately boredom (An et al., 2022). Moreover, leisure education is key to Caldwell’s “Timewise” program, which aims to help adolescents alleviate their own boredom through increased knowledge of leisure awareness, values, benefits, and resources (Caldwell et al., 2004). Although Kleiber and Linde (2014) did not identify boredom per se in their article, they do imply that negative outcomes can result from being ill-prepared to utilize leisure time in retirement. Moreover, Janke et al., (2020) noted that leisure education is important for people with chronic conditions, particularly as a means to helping them adapt and substitute valued leisure they can no longer do (at all or the way they prefer) such as triathlons, golf, running, knitting, etc. to experience similar benefits.

Another shortcoming of the existing studies on boredom among older adults is the fact that none of the studies in this systematic review examined more vulnerable older populations and, hence, may be more likely to experience boredom. For example, people who have multiple chronic conditions may be more prone to boredom due to symptom flare-ups, and people who live in assisted/nursing facilities and no longer drive may have more limited access to leisure activities they like to do, thereby increasing the risk of boredom.

Future Research Goals and Programming Strategies

Several research foci could be pursued to enhance our knowledge of factors that affect boredom and how programs can be designed and delivered to prevent or alleviate boredom. As previously mentioned, the older population continues to increase and there is a movement toward “aging in place” in their existing homes, while a smaller percentage choose to reside in retirement communities or assisted living communities. Regardless of the setting (i.e., residential communities or at home), isolation and loneliness are issues for older adults (Jansson et al., 2017). Although various leisure and fitness activities are offered in retirement and assisted living communities, and are also provided at local senior and recreation centers, some people may not have the interest, energy, or functional ability to enable their participation. For these reasons and more, boredom is likely to occur, which negatively affects their well-being and quality of life. Thus, scholars should consider designing studies that assess the causes, experiences, and consequences of isolation, loneliness, and boredom, as they may be intertwined. Teasing out the characteristics of boredom and determining vulnerability to boredom can help to identify target audiences for research studies. Also, some people (e.g., people from diverse backgrounds, rural vs urban, lower socioeconomic status) may be more at risk of boredom than other individuals.

Another consideration is that personality may be an important factor to one’s propensity to experience boredom (i.e., boredom proneness). Perhaps individuals who are higher in extroversion, lower in neuroticism, higher in conscientiousness and openness to experience, and those who are more agreeable experience less boredom (Hunter et al., 2016). Also, two of the five orthogonal factors from the BPS (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990), external stimulation and internal stimulation, were indicated to have a relationship with personality traits. External stimulation was negatively associated with honesty/humility, emotionality, and conscientiousness, and internal stimulation was positively related to extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (Culp, 2006). Further research is needed to test the direct relationship between personality and boredom proneness. In a similar vein, people with different personality traits may have more or less ability to alleviate boredom. This should be explored in the aging population.

Breen (2009) called for more longitudinal studies of aging that include boredom and other conditions that may be causes or outcomes of boredom, such as isolation and loneliness. A number of existing longitudinal studies, such as the Health and Retirement Study, could add a measure of boredom so it can be tracked among cohorts of older adults. Another option, as suggested by Payne and Zabriskie (2014) and Carpenter and Robertson (1999), is to establish a longitudinal study of aging and leisure in North America. Carpenter conducted A Study of Leisure During Adulthood, which followed 88 middle-aged adults for 10 years to assess changes and stability in leisure values, attitudes, participation, benefits, life events, and well-being (Janke et al., 2010). Although boredom may have been implied as an experience within the findings, it was not an explicit goal of the study. Thus, a new longitudinal study of aging that incorporates boredom and leisure (e.g., values, attitudes, resources, benefits, outcomes) is important to increase our understanding of boredom risk over adulthood and throughout later life.

Further, more intervention studies that utilize leisure education in combination with health behavior change or health promotion programs are recommended to help us understand if leisure education provides a value-added benefit to existing evidence-based health and wellness programs such as the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP; Lorig et al., 1999), Active Living Every Day (Blair et al., 2010), Walk with Ease (Callahan et al., 2011), or Fit and Strong (Hughes et al., 2010). Janke et al. (2020) suggested that leisure education be incorporated within CDSMP and demonstrated how doing so could enhance the program experience, reduce boredom when identified by participants, and improve health and well-being outcomes. Because boredom can have negative health consequences and poor health can cause boredom, using leisure education with an aim toward increasing participation and reducing boredom could be helpful for older people.

From a programming standpoint, research is needed to develop and establish a program that addresses boredom in middle-aged and older adults. Pilot testing would be important to establish the efficacy, acceptability and feasibility of such a program. Furthermore, fidelity criteria would need to be established and tested at pilot sites through an intervention study designed as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) including both control and intervention groups. Eventually such a program could be further tested through a multisite RCT and become evidence based.

In the meantime, it is important that both researchers and practitioners acknowledge boredom as a problem among older adults and increase their awareness of the potential for boredom to affect health, well-being and quality of life. Even a brief checklist to assess older adults’ arousal and stimulation, isolation, relationship characteristics (quantity and quality), activity patterns and interests would go a long way to understanding and monitoring boredom proneness. Community senior centers could team up with assisted living and long-term care facilities for training, and community health workers could be trained to spot possible signs and symptoms of boredom among older adults. A community-based “gatekeeper” program similar to what has existed for several decades in Sweden could be helpful to identify older people at high risk of isolation and loneliness, and thereby may be vulnerable to boredom. Individuals such as UPS, FedEx and Amazon drivers, US Postal Service workers, and other people who have regular contact with older citizens near their homes could be key to identifying and preventing isolation, loneliness, and boredom. At the least, they have the potential to alert someone else (local police, Area Agency on Aging, etc.) if newspapers or packages are piling up.

Recreation programming staff could be more engaged in brief assessments of recreation and leisure needs to find out what types of activities older adults used to engage in or would like to engage in at local centers, recreation facilities, parks, and in one’s home. Meeting older adults where they are is key to identifying activities that align with their interests, values, and current abilities, as they may be constrained by health issues and energy levels.

Conclusion

This study offered the first systematic review of leisure and boredom among older adults. Although existing research has been sporadic and varied in quality over the last four decades, there is an opportunity to make a significant positive impact through both research and programming strategies by addressing boredom in the aging population. Everyone is aging, and those charged with caring for older adults (e.g., family members, professionals, community health workers, neighbors, and friends) would benefit from an increased knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of boredom as well as how to prevent and alleviate boredom in adulthood and later life. Thus, the investment of time and resources into the study of leisure and boredom among older adults, and identifying best practices for managing boredom, will significantly contribute to both research and professional practice.

Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References