The Effect of “Novelty Input” and “Novelty Output” on Boredom During Home Quarantine in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Moderating Effects of Trait Creativity
Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020)
AbstractGovernments have adopted strict home quarantine measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. A monotonous, barren, and under-stimulating environment can cause state boredom, and people often deal with boredom via novelty-seeking behavior. Novelty-seeking behavior can be divided into “novelty input” and “novelty output.” The former refers to obtaining novel information such as browsing the Web; the latter refers to engaging in creative behavior such as literary creation. This study explores the relationship between two types of novelty-seeking behavior and individual state boredom during home quarantine, along with the moderation effect of trait creativity. The study sample consists of 582 Chinese college students who were quarantined at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale, the Williams Creativity Aptitude Test, and self-compiled questionnaires of novelty input and novelty output. The results show that there is no significant relationship between novelty input or novelty output and boredom during the COVID-19 quarantine. Trait creativity is found to negatively moderate the relationship between the two means of novelty seeking and boredom. Specifically, novelty output negatively predicts the state boredom of individuals with high creativity, while novelty input positively predicts the state boredom of individuals with low creativity. Our findings suggest that different novelty-seeking behaviors may have different effects on the boredom level of individuals with high versus low creativity during quarantine. During a quarantine period, individuals should avoid excessively engaging in novelty input behaviors aimed at escaping boring situations.
Similar books and articles
Novelty Seeking and Mental Health in Chinese University Students Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: A Longitudinal Study.Wendy Wen Li, Huizhen Yu, Dan J. Miller, Fang Yang & Christopher Rouen - 2020 - Frontiers in Psychology 11.
'Explicating "Creativity".Paisley Livingston - 2018 - In Berys Gaut & Matthew Kieran (eds.), Routledge Handbook on Creativity and Philosophy. London: Routledge. pp. 108-123.
The Moral Dimensions of Boredom: A Call for Research.Andreas Elpidorou - 2017 - Review of General Psychology 21 (1):30-48.
Assessing the Novelty of Computer-Generated Narratives Using Empirical Metrics.Federico Peinado, Virginia Francisco, Raquel Hervás & Pablo Gervás - 2010 - Minds and Machines 20 (4):565-588.
Conceptualizing Evolutionary Novelty: Moving Beyond Definitional Debates.Ingo Brigandt & Alan C. Love - 2012 - Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318:417-427.
Wittgenstein, Seeing-As, and Novelty.William Child - 2018 - In Michael Beaney, Dominic Shaw & Brendan Harrington (eds.), Aspect Perception After Wittgenstein: Seeing-As and Novelty. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 29-48.
Use-Novelty, Severity, and a Systematic Neglect of Relevant Alternatives.Tetsuji Iseda - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):413.
The Bored Mind is a Guiding Mind: Toward a Regulatory Theory of Boredom.Andreas Elpidorou - 2018 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 17 (3):455-484.
Encompassing Stability and Novelty in Organization Studies: An Events-Based Approach.A. Hussenot & S. Missonier - 2016 - Organization Studies 37 (4):523-546.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Boring Thoughts and Bored Minds: The MAC Model of Boredom and Cognitive Engagement.Erin C. Westgate & Timothy D. Wilson - 2018 - Psychological Review 125 (5):689-713.