Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Dean Liu and Version 1 by Jing Zhao.

Online deviant behaviors have received increasing attention. This study examined the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors as well as the mediating role of rumination and the moderating role of gender in the relationship.

  • online deviant behaviors
  • boredom proneness
  • rumination

1. Introduction

With the development of information technology, the Internet has played an important role in people’s lives. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, people have had to rely more on the Internet to maintain social contacts, work, and study because of family isolation. Compared to the end of 2019, China’s Internet traffic had increased by approximately 50% by mid-2020 [1]. However, the ever-increasing rate of Internet use is a double-edged sword that has brought convenience to our lives and is inevitably accompanied by deviant behaviors. Most notably, 34.5% of Chinese juvenile Internet users have encountered various kinds of undesirable Internet information, such as obscenity, bloody violence, self-mutilation, and suicide [2]. Therefore, online deviant behaviors have received increasing attention from researchers.
In the literature, online deviant behaviors usually refer to cyber delinquency, cyber deviance, or online deviance [3,4,5][3][4][5]. These are types of behaviors that refer to harming oneself or others because the individual is not adjusting well to the Internet environment through online flaming, deception on the Internet, and online obscenity and pornography [6,7,8,9][6][7][8][9]. Online deviant behaviors are closely related to academic failure, psychological crises, and criminal behaviors [7,10,11][7][10][11]. Given these adverse effects of online deviant behaviors, it is necessary to identify trigger factors and underlying mechanisms.
Previous studies have shown that individual factors (such as moral disengagement [12], self-control [13], interpersonal needs [14], etc.) and environmental factors (for example, Internet anonymity [13], social ostracism [15], family patterns [16], peer network deviant behaviors [17], etc.) are closely related to online deviant behaviors. However, less is known about the psychopathology-related variables among individual factors. Boredom is ubiquitous in human existence [18]; especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, boredom was reported as one of the most salient negative experiences [19]. Therefore, wresearchers explored the association between boredom and online deviant behaviors.

2. Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors

In previous studies, there have been two main aspects of boredom: state boredom and trait boredom. When boredom is experienced as a result of external circumstances, it is called state boredom, which is situation-dependent and transient [20]. State boredom is not intrinsically harmful but how a person responds to boredom can lead to either positive or negative consequences [21]. Additionally, the different ways to cope with boredom might depend in part on individual differences in boredom proneness. Boredom proneness is viewed as a trait, which affects an individual’s perception of environmental stimulation and persists through situational change [20,22][20][22]. Individuals with high boredom proneness are more likely to involve attentional and impulse control difficulties, which leads to momentary boredom and thus the negative consequences [23]. Following this reason, the current study focuses on boredom proneness.
According to sensation-seeking theory and arousal theory, people who maintain their health must be exposed to a variety of stimuli to achieve optimal arousal levels [22,24][22][24]. However, individuals with a high level of boredom proneness are more likely to perceive the environment as monotonous and constrained; thus, they would have a strong desire for sensation seeking, such as substances use [25], alcohol abuse [26], rule breaking [27], social network addiction [28], and problematic smartphone use [29]. Boredom proneness is a prominent risk factor for deviant behaviors. A study has confirmed that boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors are significantly correlated [30].

3. The Mediation of Rumination

Recently, rumination—one’s tendency to think repetitively, uncontrollably, and intrusively about the possible causes and consequences of stressors [31]—has received growing attention as a risk factor for deviant behavior. It is regarded as a highly dysfunctional cognitive strategy for coping with stressful events [32]. Research has shown that rumination positively correlates with offline passive consequences (such as depression [33[33][34],34], aggression [35], suicide [36], and so on), and online negative outcomes (such as problematic mobile phone use [37], online trolling [38], and so on). Resource depletion theory argues that rumination leads to individuals’ limited cognitive resources being occupied too much and results in damaged executive control function and failure of self-control [39]; thus, individuals with rumination are prone to engage in deviant behaviors. Consequently, wresearchers deem that rumination is positively associated with online deviant behaviors.
According to the stress-reactive model of rumination, individuals who experience a stressful event or negative emotion would experience rumination [32]. As a common negative emotion, boredom positively correlates with rumination [40,41,42][40][41][42]. Similarly, elaborated control theory may explain this relationship; that is, rumination occurs when people recognize discrepancies between desired goals and current states [43]. In addition, boredom reflects a discrepancy between the current, meaningless situation and a desired, more meaningful situation [44]. However, these studies mainly focused on boredom in certain situations (for example, workplace, school, during the COVID-19 lockdown, etc.). Whether one feels boredom may partly depend on boredom proneness and it is possible that individuals with high boredom proneness struggle with more feelings of boredom. Based on this reasoning, wresearchers deem that boredom proneness correlates with rumination.
Taken together, wresearchers put forward the hypothesis that rumination plays a mediating role between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors.

4. The Moderation of Gender

Gender differences in online deviant behaviors have been examined in previous studies. Males are more likely to engage in online deviant behaviors than females [5[5][18],18], particularly in certain forms of online deviant behaviors (such as deviant cyber-sexual activities [45] and cyberbullying [46]). Hence, wresearchers consider gender differences here and deem that gender may act as a moderator between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors. There are two reasons for this: First, according to the general strain theory, male with strains are more conducive to violence, while females are more prone to the escapist form of crime [47]. Being engaged in boredom is regarded as a strain; thus, males with high boredom proneness engage in more online deviant behaviors than females. Second, sensation-seeking theory confirms that someone with a high level of boredom proneness tends to engage in high sensation-seeking activities to avoid or reduce boredom and empirical studies have shown that males prefer exciting and risky behaviors compared to females, such as online deviant behaviors.
Furthermore, the stress-reactive model of rumination states that rumination can exaggerate the influence of extreme information on cognition, which makes it difficult for individuals to disengage from negative information [31]. Hence, rumination may aggravate the relationship between boredom and online deviant behaviors. Owing to gender differences in online deviant behaviors, wresearchers deem that gender also plays a moderating role between rumination and online deviant behaviors. That is, for males, rumination results in more online deviant behaviors than females.

References

  1. Liu, Y. Internet Traffic during the Outbreak Increased by 50% from the End of Last Year. Science and Technology Daily 2020. Available online: http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2020-04/24/content_443783.htm?div=-1 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  2. Chinese Communist Youth League Central Committee; China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). 2020 Research Report on Internet Use among Minors in China. 2021. Available online: http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/qsnbg/202107/P020210720571098696248.pdf2 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  3. Bae, S.M. The influence of strain factors, social control factors, self-control and computer use on adolescent cyber delinquency: Korean National Panel Study. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 78, 74–80.
  4. Lee, B.H. Explaining cyber deviance among school-aged youth. Child Indic. Res. 2018, 11, 563–584.
  5. Baek, H. Computer-specific parental management and online deviance across gender in South Korea: A test of self-control theory. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2018, 12, 68–83.
  6. Jin, C.C.; Zou, H. The relationship between parental monitoring and adolescents’ online deviant behavior: Personality as a mediator. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2013, 6, 63–68.
  7. Udris, R. Cyber deviance among adolescents and the role of family, school, and neighborhood: A cross-national study. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2016, 10, 127–146.
  8. Nam, S.J. The longitudinal relationships between cyber delinquency, aggression, and offline delinquency: An autoregressive cross-lagged model. J. Early Adolesc. 2021, 41, 634–652.
  9. Chen, J.K.; Chang, C.W.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.C.; Wei, H.S. Cyber deviance among adolescents in Taiwan: Prevalence and correlates. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 126, 106042.
  10. Wright, M.F. Cyber victimization and psychological adjustment difficulties among adolescents: The role of technology mediation and social support from school resource officers. Polic. Int. J. 2016, 39, 536–550.
  11. Dvoryanchikov, N.V.; Bovina, I.B.; Delibalt, V.V.; Dozortseva, E.G. Deviant online behavior in adolescent and youth circles: In search of a risk assessment model. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2020, 8, 105–119.
  12. Yang, J.P.; Wang, X.C.; Gao, L. Moral disengagement and college students’ deviant behavior online: The moderating effect of moral identity. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2015, 31, 311–318.
  13. Niu, G.F.; Zhou, Z.K.; Sun, X.J.; Fan, C.Y. The effects of perceived Internet anonymity and peers’ online deviant behaviors on college students’online deviant behaviors: The mediating effect of self-control. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2015, 11, 73–78.
  14. Jin, T.L.; Lu, G.Z.; Zhang, L.; Yan, M.Z.; Liu, Y.L. The effect of college students’ interpersonal needs on their online deviant behaviors: The mediating effect of social anxiety. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2016, 9, 85–89.
  15. Wang, C.; Chen, G.; Liu, Y.N.; Niu, G.F.; Yin, H.M. The influence of social ostracism on online deviant behaviors: The mediating role of self-control and the moderating role of moral identity. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2020, 36, 208–215.
  16. Kokkinos, C.M.; Antoniadou, N.; Asdre, A.; Voulgaridou, K. Parenting and Internet behavior predictors of cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among preadolescents. Deviant Behav. 2016, 37, 439–455.
  17. Udris, R. Psychological and social factors as predictors of online and offline deviant behavior among Japanese adolescents. Deviant Behav. 2017, 38, 792–809.
  18. Chin, A.; Markey, A.; Bhargava, S.; Kassam, K.S.; Loewenstein, G. Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion 2017, 17, 359–368.
  19. Zhai, Y.; Du, X. Mental health care for international Chinese students affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, e22.
  20. Zhou, H.; Wang, Q.; Dong, Y. Boredom: A long and revival research topic. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 20, 98–107.
  21. Danckert, J.; Mugon, J.; Struk, A.; Eastwood, J. Boredom: What Is It Good For? In The Function of Emotions; Lench, H., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 93–119.
  22. van Tilburg, W.A.P.; Igou, E.R.; Sedikides, C. In search of meaningfulness: Nostalgia as an antidote to boredom. Emotion 2013, 13, 450–461.
  23. Mercer-Lynn, K.B.; Bar, R.J.; Eastwood, J.D. Causes of boredom: The person, the situation, or both? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 56, 122–126.
  24. Zuckerman, M.; Eysenck, S.B.; Eysenck, H.J. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1978, 46, 139–149.
  25. Weybright, E.H.; Caldwell, L.L.; Ram, N.; Smith, E.A.; Wegner, L. Boredom prone or nothing to do? distinguishing between state and trait leisure boredom and its association with substance use in South African adolescents. Leis. Sci. 2015, 37, 311–331.
  26. Biolcati, R.; Mancini, G.; Trombini, E. Proneness to boredom and risk behaviors during adolescents’ free time. Psychol. Rep. 2017, 121, 303–323.
  27. Drody, A.C.; Hicks, L.J.; Danckert, J. Boredom proneness and rule-breaking: A persistent relation one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 251.
  28. Bai, J.; Mo, K.Y.; Peng, Y.; Hao, W.X.; Qu, Y.S.; Lei, X.Y.; Yang, Y. The relationship between the use of mobile social media and subjective well-being: The mediating effect of boredom proneness. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 568492.
  29. Hong, W.; Liu, R.D.; Ding, Y.; Zhen, R.; Jiang, R.H.; Fu, X.C. Autonomy need dissatisfaction in daily life and problematic mobile phone use: The mediating roles of boredom proneness and mobile phone gaming. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5305.
  30. Jin, T.L.; Lu, G.Z.; Zhang, S.C.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.L.; Li, X.X. Effect of boredom proneness on online deviant behavior in undergraduates: Mediating role of negative online experience. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 24, 640–643.
  31. Nolen-Hoeksema, S.; Wisco, B.E.; Lyubomirsky, S. Rethinking rumination. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 3, 400–424.
  32. Alloy, L.B.; Abramson, L.Y.; Hogan, M.E.; Whitehouse, W.G.; Rose, D.T.; Robinson, M.S.; Kim, R.S.; Lapkin, J.B. The Temple Wisconsin cognitive vulnerability to depression project: Lifetime history of Axis I psychopathology in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2000, 109, 403–418.
  33. Liu, Z.Y.; Shen, L.Y.; Wu, X.Y.; Zhen, R.; Zhou, X. Basic psychological need satisfaction and depression in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating roles of feelings of safety and rumination. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2022.
  34. Dawson, G.C.; Adrian, M.; Chu, P.; McCauley, E.; Vander Stoep, A. Associations between sex, rumination, and depressive symptoms in late adolescence: A four-Year longitudinal investigation. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2022, 1–11.
  35. Kim, E.-L.; Gentile, D.A.; Anderson, C.A.; Barlett, C.P. Are mindful people less aggressive? The role of emotion regulation in the relations between mindfulness and aggression. Aggress. Behav. 2022, 48, 546–562.
  36. Johnson, S.L.; Robison, M.; Anvar, S.; Swerdlow, B.A.; Timpano, K.R. Emotion-related impulsivity and rumination: Unique and conjoint effects on suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury across two samples. Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 2022, 52, 642–654.
  37. Gao, L.F.; Yang, C.; Yang, X.J.; Chu, X.W.; Liu, Q.Q.; Zhou, Z.K. Negative emotion and problematic mobile phone use: The mediating role of rumination and the moderating role of social support. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 25, 138–151.
  38. Liu, M.F.; Wu, B.Y.; Li, F.; Wang, X.Q.; Geng, F.L. Does mindfulness reduce trolling? The relationship between trait mindfulness and online trolling: The mediating role of anger rumination and the moderating role of online disinhibition. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 301, 36–43.
  39. Chen, X.; Feng, Z.Z. Trait Rumination and Deficits of Executive Functions. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2015, 23, 1065–1069.
  40. Sousa, T.; Neves, P. Two tales of rumination and burnout: Examining the effects of boredom and overload. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 70, 1018–1044.
  41. Ding, X.; Du, J.X.; Zhou, Y.Y.; An, Y.Y.; Xu, W.; Zhang, N. State mindfulness, rumination, and emotions in daily life: An ambulatory assessment study. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 22, 369–377.
  42. Waterschoot, J.; Van der Kaap-Deeder, J.; Morbée, S.; Soenens, B.; Vansteenkiste, M. “How to unlock myself from boredom?” The role of mindfulness and a dual awareness- and action-oriented pathway during the COVID-19 lockdown. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 175, 110729.
  43. Watkins, E.R. Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 163–206.
  44. Elpidorou, A. The good of boredom. Philos. Psychol. 2018, 31, 323–351.
  45. Klein, J.L.; Cooper, D.T. Deviant cyber-sexual activities in young adults: Exploring prevalence and predictions using in-person sexual activities and social learning theory. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2019, 48, 619–630.
  46. Chen, J.K.; Chen, L.M. Cyberbullying among adolescents in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China: A cross-national study in Chinese societies. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work. Dev. 2020, 30, 227–241.
  47. Broidy, L.; Agnew, R. Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 1997, 34, 275–306.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback