1. Introduction
Authoritarian attitudes
have once again become a topic of public focus, as large-scale polls report
rising endorsement of rigid and exclusionary worldviews (Decker et al., 2024; Zick et al., 2023). Such orientations often intensify
in periods of uncertainty and crisis when people seek order, control, and clear
guidance (Hogg et al., 2010;
Van Prooijen & Krouwel,
2019).
According to system justification theory, conservative,
religious, and status quo-maintaining ideologies are especially attractive to
people who have higher epistemic, existential, and relational motives (Jost et
al., 2018). These fundamental human needs—namely,
to understand the world, to avoid existential threats and to experience
fulfilling interpersonal relationships can lead to the adoption of political
beliefs—which an individual usually regards as the result of rational processes—to
satisfy these human needs (Jost et al., 2008). The system justification theory shows that a
turn towards radical ideologies does not necessarily result from a weighing up
of arguments, but can be triggered by the fulfilment of other, mostly
unconscious needs. Beyond classic threat accounts, everyday experiential states
may also shape citizens’ receptivity to authoritarian ideas. One factor for
such a state is boredom, which signals low perceived meaning and insufficient engagement,
and which can prompt efforts to restore purpose and direction (Eastwood et al.,
2012; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012; Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Despite many opportunities for
distraction, boredom remains a socially relevant topic in communication or
interaction and has been linked to polarized judgments, harsher evaluations of
outgroups (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2011, 2016), and shifts toward rigid norms
(Anderson, 2021; Heller et al., 2022a; Wolff et al., 2020).
Building on this perspective, we focused on state boredom
as an antecedent of authoritarian attitudes. When people feel bored, they
experience a lack of meaningful stimulation that can heighten the appeal of
clear rules, firm hierarchy, and stable authority.
We further expected that the link differs in strength
between people: individual difference in the search of meaning might interact
with state boredom. In general, search for meaning reflects an active
motivation to restore coherence and significance (Steger et al., 2008). Individuals who are strongly
engaged in seeking meaning may be especially sensitive to the aversive signal
of boredom (Elpidorou, 2018). In such cases, boredom may more
readily translate into a desire for order and certainty and thereby providing
stronger support for authoritarian ideas. The aim of the present study was
therefore to test whether state boredom predicts authoritarian attitudes and
whether individuals’ search for meaning affects this association.
Guided by this framework, we hypothesized two
relationships: (a) that higher levels of state boredom are positively
associated with authoritarian attitudes, and (b) that this association is
moderated by the search for meaning.
1.1. Boredom as an Aversive State
Boredom is widely
understood as a negative emotional experience with high everyday relevance, yet
the literature offers no single definition that fully captures all of its
contours (Danckert & Eastwood, 2020; Finkielsztein,
2024; Vodanovich & Watt, 2016). A highly cited definition
describes boredom as the aversive feeling of wanting to act while failing to
find a satisfying activity, accompanied by an unoccupied mind and the sense
that cognitive resources remain unused (Eastwood et al., 2012; Eastwood & Gorelik, 2019). People often report reduced
attention, a perceived loss of meaning (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012), and a feeling of time moving
slowly during a state of boredom (Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Physiologically, low and high
arousal patterns are observed in bored persons, thus, it is yet unclear what
actually drives the changes in mental states (Bench & Lench, 2013; Merrifield & Danckert, 2014).
In addition, psychological literature on boredom
distinguishes situational experiences of boredom from dispositional tendencies
(Farmer & Sundberg, 1986;
Vodanovich, 2003). State boredom is brief and
context dependent and can affect anyone in under-stimulating or incoherent
settings, while trait boredom reflects a relatively stable individual proneness
to experience boredom across many situations.
Further, recent models treat boredom as a regulatory
signal that emerges when environmental demands fail to match the need for
cognitive stimulation (Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Behavioral responses to boredom
vary widely and can be adaptive or maladaptive, from prosocial giving (Van
Tilburg & Igou, 2017)
and creativity (Mann & Cadman, 2014)
to substance abuse (LePera, 2011),
gambling (Mercer & Eastwood, 2010),
binge eating (Abramson & Stinson, 1977), or shifts toward more rigid
political positions depending on the person and context (Van Tilburg &
Igou, 2016).
1.2. Search for Meaning and Preference
for Rigid Ideologies
Searching for meaning
refers to the strength and activity of people’s efforts to build a sense of
purpose, significance, and direction in life (Steger et al., 2006). As a result, this search is
dynamic and individualized (Delle Fave & Fava, 2011; Wong & Fry, 1998), and it can intensify or weaken in
response to major life events (Vötter, 2019), cultural context (Yang et al., 2024), or mental health conditions
(Wittchen & Hoyer, 2011).
Krog (2014) was able to demonstrate that a
sense of meaning is a key factor in psychological well-being. Furthermore,
Schnell et al. (2010)
divide the experience of meaning into two dimensions: meaningfulness and crisis
of meaning. Schnell et al. (2018)
used crisis in the experience of meaning as a basis for developing a scale for
use in preventive work. They also argued that a crisis of meaningfulness should
be distinguished from depression even though the two share similarities and
both cause distress. It thus becomes apparent that a life without meaning
entails aversive consequences, prompting individuals to imbue their existence
with personal meaning. Basically, the search for meaning is meant to be a
fundamental human motive and experienced meaninglessness is treated as a risk
factor for health and adjustment (Frankl, 2006). System justification theory provides a
striking illustration of how fundamental human motivations can foster specific—indeed
radical—attitudes, even when doing so does not actually benefit one’s own group
(Jost et al., 2017). In addition, two aspects are of
relevance here: The existence of meaning refers to the perceived availability
of coherence and purpose, whereas the search for meaning refers to the active
effort to gather meaning (Li et al., 2021;
Steger et al., 2006). Greater presence of meaning
relates to higher well-being and less depression. In contrast, strong efforts
to search for meaning have diverse effects. These efforts can co-occur with
distress and lower life satisfaction. Outcomes depend on moderating factors and
whether the search is frustrating or empowering (Barbalet,
1999; He et al., 2023; Park et al., 2020; Steger et al., 2006, 2009).
For example, meaning is one of the five core components
of the PERMA-Model and it relates to domains such as family, community, work,
justice, knowledge, politics, or spirituality (Seligman, 2011, 2018). PERMA is an acronym standing for
P = Positive Emotions, E = Engagement (Flow), R = Relationships, M = Meaning, A
= Accomplishment (Seligman, 2011).
With the PERMA model, Martin Seligmann, a leading figure in positive
psychology, has created a framework that provides the building blocks for a
successful, fulfilling life. As is customary in positive psychology, the focus
is not on deficits or on measuring performance metrics alone; rather, it is
about well-being, which in turn can have a positive impact on other aspects of
life. The PERMA-Theory demonstrates that finding meaning is also a fundamental
human need. As mentioned earlier, the fulfilment of human needs can also
influence political attitudes (Jost et al., 2017).
People tend to search for meaning when they experience
threats to perceived meaning or overall coherence. When a direct and active
reaction of repair is difficult to implement or even impossible, people may
then reaffirm belief systems that promise order or desired values (He et al., 2023; Womick et al., 2019, 2022), and which are triggered by accounts of
social exclusion, loss of structure, role loss, uncertainty, boredom, and
perceived incoherence (Greenberg et al., 1992; Heine et al., 2006; Landau et al., 2015; Thill et al., 2020; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012). This compensatory tendency helps
to explain why search for meaning can increase receptivity to ideological
frameworks that promise structure—such as authoritarian worldviews—especially
under states of less meaningful stimulation, i.e. boredom (Van Tilburg &
Igou, 2016). In other words, the search for
meaning represents a key psychological mechanism through which boredom may
translate into a preference for rigid norms, firm authority, and clear societal
rules.
1.3. Authority as an
Attractive Outcome
Authoritarian attitudes
are commonly understood as relatively stable ideological orientations that
privilege collective security, social order, and clear rules even when such
order limits individual autonomy (Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt
& Bizumic, 2013). Contemporary work summarizes three recurring
facets: submission to legitimate authority, aggressive enforcement of norms,
and conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1981).
These orientations predict outgroup derogation and support for punitive policies,
and they frequently coincide with sympathy for radical right offerings, though
they are not identical to right wing extremism (Conway et al., 2018; Duckitt
& Sibley, 2010; Lilly et al., 2025). Evidence for different facets of
authoritarian attitudes shows that authoritarian aggression correlates with
support for harsh punishment and prejudice, whereas conventionalism associated
with value conservatism tends to show weaker direct links to prejudice (Dunwoody
& Funke, 2016). Authoritarianism also overlaps
with religious fundamentalism, which reveals its appeal to communities in which
rigid moral orders provide identity and guidance (Pollack et al., 2024; Womick et al., 2022). Such orientations are shaped by
experience and social influence, and they intensify under perceived danger and
uncertainty. There are two orientations of this kind: a ‘dangerous-world-view’
is closely linked to security and order motives, while competitive dominance
motives are linked to a social dominance orientation (Asbrock et al., 2010; Duckitt,
2001, 2006). Experiences of loss of meaning and control
further raise the appeal of clear norms and firm hierarchy by promising
coherence and guidance (Heine et al., 2006; Heller et al., 2022a, 2022b;
Van Tilburg & Igou, 2011, 2016).
Perceived meaninglessness is typical for boredom and
mediates for example the connection between boredom and impulsiveness (Moynihan
et al., 2017), so boredom regulation is a
potential route from everyday disengagement to ideological rigidity (Moynihan
et al., 2017; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2016; Wolff et al., 2020), boredom might influence political
self-placement and a search of meaning motivation links such boredom to more
extreme political positions. At the same time, authoritarianism addresses the
search for meaning by offering stable norms and unambiguous role prescriptions.
Exposure to authoritarian values increases the subjective sense of meaning,
which helps explain sustained appeal when personal significance feels
threatened (Womick et al., 2019, 2021). In many contexts the promises of
order, certainty and shared identity are tightly linked to authority and
conventional order (Greenberg et al., 1992; Hogg, 2007; Hogg et al., 2010).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participation was
voluntary, anonymous, and based on a convenience sample of the German-speaking
general population. Inclusion criteria required participants to be of legal age
and have sufficient German language skills. 359 participants completed the questionnaire
in full. Nine responses were excluded because participants did not meet the
inclusion criteria, yielding a final sample of N = 350. The sample consisted of
49% men and 51% women, with a mean age of 23.25 years (SD = 1.26). The largest
age group comprised participants aged 21–29 years (46%), followed by those aged
18–20 years (28%), 30–39 years (9%), 40–49 years (6%), 50–59 years (6%), and 60
years or older (3%). Regarding educational background, 43% of participants
reported holding a general university entrance qualification (Abitur or
equivalent), 22% held an academic degree (Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Doctorate),
13% had completed vocational training, 13% reported an intermediate secondary
qualification, and 7% held a lower secondary school certificate.
Geographically, the majority of respondents were located in North Rhine-Westphalia (74%), with smaller
proportions from Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Hessen, and other federal states.
2.2. Questionnaires
State boredom was
assessed using the German Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS; Zerr et
al., 2024). The 29-item self-report
instrument measures disengagement, arousal, inattention, time perception, and
need for stimulation (e.g., ‘I feel bored’, ‘My thoughts wander’). Items were
rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true, 7 = completely true),
with higher scores indicating greater boredom. Internal consistency was α =
.95.
The search for meaning was measured using the German
Search for Meaning subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Pfeifer
et al., 2024). The subscale includes five items
(e.g., ‘I am looking for a purpose or mission in life’) rated on a 7-point
scale (1 = absolutely untrue, 7 = absolutely
true). Internal consistency was α = .87.
Authoritarian Attitudes was assessed with the Balanced
Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale (B-RWA-6; Aichholzer
& Zeglovits, 2015). The six-item scale captures
authoritarian submission, aggression, and conventionalism (e.g., ‘We should be
grateful for leaders who tell us what to do’). Responses were given on a
5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). After reverse
coding, higher values indicate stronger authoritarian attitudes (α = .62).
The
questionnaire was online available between June 27 and July 31, 2025, via the
platform Unipark (www.unipark.com).
2.3. Analyses
Accordingly, two
hypotheses were derived:
H1
State boredom predicts authoritarian attitudes.
H1
Search for meaning moderates this relationship, such that the positive
correlation between state boredom and authoritarian attitudes becomes higher as
measures of search for meaning increase.
To
examine the association between state boredom, search for meaning, and
authoritarian attitudes, a series of regression-based analyses was conducted
using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 30.0; IBM Corp., 2020). Prior to analysis, total scores according to
each scale’s specifications were calculated and scale scores were
z-standardized afterwards.
First,
descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations were
calculated. Next, simple linear and moderated regression models were run using
the PROCESS macro (Model 1; Hayes, 2022).
Outcomes and predictors were centered and scaled (i.e., transformed into
z-scores) to facilitate interpretation of the coefficients in standard
deviation units, thus as standardized effect sizes. Robust HC3 standard errors
were used whenever heteroskedasticity was indicated by the Breusch–Pagan test
(Hayes & Cai, 2007).
Significant interactions were probed using simple slopes at (–1 SD), M, and (+1
SD) of the moderator. Further, a Johnson-Neyman technique was used to probe the
interaction between state boredom and search for meaning on authoritarian attitudes.
Assumptions of linearity, normality of residuals, homoscedasticity, and
independence were evaluated through standard diagnostics and were considered
adequately met.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics,
scale reliabilities, and correlations are presented in Table 1. Overall, the
reliabilities of the measures were good to excellent and closely matched those
reported in the respective validation studies (Aichholzer
& Zeglovits, 2015; Cohen, 1988; Pfeifer et al., 2024; Zerr et al., 2024). Participants reported relatively high levels
of state boredom (M = 106.63, SD = 36.20), closely mirroring the German
validation study on experimentally induced boredom (M = 106.22, SD = 35.84).
The Search for Meaning subscale also showed mean values comparable to the
German validation sample (M = 20.31, SD = 8.86). Notably, the standard
deviation was a bit higher, suggesting greater heterogeneity in meaning-seeking
within the present sample. Authoritarian attitudes were moderate on average (M
= 18.49, SD = 4.32), and correlations were largely consistent with previous
research. State boredom correlated strongly and positively with search for
meaning (r = .64, p < .001), which is in line with prior findings
demonstrating a robust link between boredom and search for meaning (Chan et
al., 2018; Igou et al., 2024; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012; Van Tilburg et al., 2013; Westgate & Wilson, 2018). The association between state
boredom and authoritarian attitudes was positive and of moderate size (r = .28,
p < .001). The smallest correlation found described the relation between
search for meaning and authoritarian attitudes, which was positive but weak (r
= .17, p < .001).
Table 1. Reliabilities, Descriptive Statistics
and Pearson Product–Moment Correlations
|
Variable |
M |
SD |
α |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
1 State Boredom |
106.63 |
36.20 |
0.96 |
- |
|
|
|
2 Search for Meaning |
20.31 |
8.86 |
0.94 |
0.64** |
- |
|
|
3 RWA |
18.49 |
4.32 |
0.66 |
0.284** |
0.172** |
- |
Note.cN = 350; α = Cronbachs Alpha.; ** p
< 0.001; RWA = Right-Wing-Authoritarianism.
3.1. Regression Analyses
A simple regression with
state boredom as predictor and authoritarian attitudes as outcome explained
6.0% of the total variance (R² = .064; F(1, 349) =
23.630; p < .001). Higher boredom predicted higher authoritarian attitudes (β = .252; SE = .053; t = 4.861; p < .001). Next, we tested whether
search for meaning moderates the association between boredom and authoritarian
attitudes (for details, see Table 2): the overall model explained 8.9% of the
total variance (R² = .089; F(3, 346) = 7.726; p <
.001; note, HC3-robust standard errors were used). The main effect of boredom
was positive and significant (β = .252; SE = .063; t = 4.014; p
< .001), while the main effect of meaning search was not (β = .003; SE = .066; t = 0.496; p = .960). The interaction between
boredom and search of meaning was significant, even though the effect size was
small (β = .159; SE = .059; t = 2.682; p < .01).
Further, testing for multicollinearity showed low overall values for State
Boredom (VIF: 1.606; Tolerance: 0.623), Search for Meaning (VIF: 1.656;
Tolerance: 0.604) and the interaction of both (VIF: 1.053; Tolerance: 0.949).
Table 2. Regression Analysis Predicting Authoritarian
Attitudes with Search for Meaning as Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
Variable |
β |
SE |
t |
p |
|
LL |
UL |
|
Constant |
-.078 |
.058 |
-1.35 |
.179 |
|
-0.194 |
0.036 |
|
State Boredom
(A) |
.252 |
.063 |
4.014 |
.001 |
|
0.129 |
0.376 |
|
Meaning (B) |
.003 |
.066 |
0.496 |
.960 |
|
-0.128 |
0.135 |
|
State Boredom
x Meaning |
.159 |
.059 |
2.682 |
.007 |
|
0.042 |
0.275 |
Note. N = 350; Standardized coefficients were reported; R2
= .089; F(3, 346) = 7.726, p < .001.; CI =
confidence interval.
Simple slope analyses indicated that the boredom–authoritarianism link
increased with search for meaning (see Figure 1). At small values for search
for meaning (−1 SD) the slope was not significant (β = .093;
SE = .082; t = 1.135; p = .257, while it was for average search of meaning
values (β = .252;
SE = .063; t = 4.014; p < .001). At largest values of search for meaning (+1
SD) the slope was steepest (β = .412; SE = .090; t = 4.562; p < .001).
This pattern supports the hypothesis that search for meaning amplifies the
positive association between boredom and authoritarian attitudes. Last but not least, a Johnson-Neyman technique was used to
probe the interaction between state boredom and search for meaning: the effect
of state boredom on authoritarian attitudes was non-significant within search
for meaning values below -0.63. The effect was statistically significant (p
< .05) only when the search for meaning reaches values of -0.63 and higher,
showing that about 30% of our observation (ranging lower than half a standard
deviation below the average of search for meaning values) showed not
significant moderator effect, while about 70% did.
Taken together, these
findings provide robust empirical support for both hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conditional Effect of State Boredom on Authoritarian Attitudes
as a Function of Individuals’ Search for Meaning
4. Discussion
The present study
examined the relation between boredom, authoritarian attitudes and search for
meaning. Moreover, we demonstrated in a German sample, that the individual
search for meaning significantly moderated the positive link between boredom
and authoritarian attitude; the boredom–authoritarianism relation was
negligible at low values for search for meaning and strongest at high values of
search for meaning. Thus, boredom related to authoritarian attitudes most
clearly among participants striving intensively for meaning.
These findings align with accounts that see boredom as an
aversive signal for lack of meaning that intensify needs for structure,
clarity, and control (Eastwood et al., 2012; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012; Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Further, experiences that
undermine coherence or control are meant to activate security motives and norm
enforcement (Duckitt, 2001). These latter ideas and theoretical
perspectives are supported by the present study results: when search for
meaning is intensified, boredom is more readily channeled into ideational
order, rendering authority and clear rules comparatively attractive. This interpretation
dovetails with evidence that authoritarian belief systems supply meaning by
themselves and offer to sustain appeal under felt significance deficits (Womick
et al., 2019, 2021). In addition, boredom is linked to polarized
judgments and more rigid positions via meaning-regulation processes (Moynihan
et al., 2017; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2016; Wolff et al., 2020).
4.1. Limitations and
Future Directions
Causal claims are
prohibited by the cross-sectional design of the study, therefore the temporal
order of effects of third variables are equally likely in explaining all
observed relations (Bortz & Schuster, 2011; Cook et al., 2002).
We also used established instruments for boredom, search
for meaning, and authoritarianism, all being self-report scales (mono-method
biases are likely). The balanced format of the RWA scale reduces acquiescence
but typically lowers internal consistency, which was modest here and likely
attenuates effects rather than exaggerates them (Schriesheim
et al., 1991).
A post hoc power analysis using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al.,
2007) showed that the regression
analyses were run with high statistical power (=R1-Power= .999 and
R2-power=0.898, respectively). Future research might clarify whether changes in
boredom precede shifts in ideology in daily life contexts (Gana et al., 2019). Experimental inductions of
boredom through monotony or underload, combined with manipulations of meaning
affordances, might establish causal links and test boundary conditions.
Although state boredom and search for meaning were
strongly correlated (r = .64), multicollinearity diagnostics remained well
below critical thresholds (all VIFs < 2). The overlap between both
constructs is theoretically plausible because contemporary boredom theories
conceptualize boredom as a state closely tied to perceived meaninglessness and
insufficiently meaningful engagement. Previous research further suggests that
perceived meaninglessness represents a central mechanism linking boredom to other
psychological outcomes such as impulsiveness (Moynihan et al., 2017).
4.2. Conclusion
The present study
demonstrates that state boredom is associated with stronger authoritarian
attitudes, and that this relationship is pronounced among individuals with a
heightened search for meaning. Boredom appears to signal a lack of meaningful
stimulation and, for those highly involved in search for meaning is more
readily translated into a preference for order, clarity, and hierarchy. This
pattern aligns with accounts that link aversive states to efforts toward
restoring coherence, thereby potentially explaining why disengagement spills
over into ideological rigidity. Being of correlational nature, the present data
nevertheless highlights that boredom as a psychologically mundane yet
politically, relevant state and that interventions that build tolerance for
ambiguity or strengthen reflective coping with boredom, might reduce the pull
of authoritarian solutions, when seeking for meaning in life.
References
Abramson, E. E., & Stinson, S.
G. (1977). Boredom and Eating in Obese and Non-obese Individuals. Addictive
Behaviors, 2(4), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(77)90015-6
Aichholzer, J., & Zeglovits, E. (2015). Balancierte Kurzskala autoritärer Einstellungen
(B-RWA-6). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher
Items und Skalen (ZIS).
Altemeyer,
B. (1981). Right-wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer,
B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism,
Quest, and Prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
2(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
Anderson, B.
(2021). Affect and Critique: A Politics of Boredom*. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 39(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758211002998
Asbrock, F.,
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right‐wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation
and the Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice: A Longitudinal Test. European
Journal of Personality, 24(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.746
Barbalet, J. M. (1999). Boredom and Social Meaning. The British journal of
sociology, 50(4), 631–646.
Bench, S.,
& Lench, H. (2013). On the Function of Boredom. Behavioral Sciences, 3(3),
459–472. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459
Bortz, J.,
& Schuster, C. (2011). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler: Limitierte
Sonderausgabe.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Chan, C. S., Van
Tilburg, W. A. P., Igou, E. R., Poon, C. Y. S., Tam, K. Y. Y., Wong, V. U. T.,
& Cheung, S. K. (2018). Situational Meaninglessness and State Boredom:
Cross-sectional and Experience-sampling Findings. Motivation and Emotion, 42(4),
555–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9693-3
Conway, L. G.,
Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J., & Repke, M. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness
Monster: Left‐wing Authoritarianism in the United States. Political
Psychology, 39(5), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12470
Cook, T.,
Campbell, D. T., & Shadish,
W. R. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal
Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Decker, O.,
Kiess, J., Heller, A., & Brähler,
E. (2024). Vereint im
Ressentiment. Psychosozial-Verlag.
Delle Fave, A., & Fava, G. A. (2011). Positive Psychotherapy and Social
Change. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.),
Positive Psychology as Social Change (pp. 267–291). Springer.
Duckitt, J.
(2006). Differential Effects of Right-2ing Authoritarianism and Social
Dominance Orientation on Outgroup Attitudes and Their Mediation by Threat from
and Competitiveness to Outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284282
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010).
Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics: A Dual‐process Motivational
Model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
Duckitt, J.,
& Bizumic, B. (2013). Multidimensionality of Right‐wing Authoritarian Attitudes:
Authoritarianism‐Conservatism‐Traditionalism. Political Psychology, 34(6),
841–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12022
Dunwoody, P.
T., & Funke, F. (2016). The Aggression-Submission-Conventionalism Scale:
Testing a New Three Factor Measure of Authoritarianism. Journal of Social
and Political Psychology, 4(2), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.168
Eastwood, J.
D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The Unengaged Mind:
Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 7(5), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9515-1
Fahlman, S.
A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2013). Development
and Validation of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale. Assessment, 20(1),
68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111421303
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2
Faul, F., Erdfelder,
E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power
Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Finkielsztein, M. (2024). The Essence of Boredom: The Definition of Situational
Boredom. Journal of Boredom Studies, 2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10727142
Frankl, V. E.
(2006). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
Gana, K., Broc, G., & Bailly, N. (2019). Does
the Boredom Proneness Scale Capture Traitness of Boredom?
Results from a Six-year Longitudinal Trait-State-Occasion Model. Personality
and Individual Differences, 139, 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.030
Greenberg,
J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror Management and
Tolerance: Does Mortality Salience Always Intensify Negative Reactions to
Others Who Threaten One’s Worldview? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.212
Hayes, A. F.,
& Cai, L. (2007). Using Heteroskedasticity-consistent Standard Error Estimators
in OLS Regression: An Introduction and Software Implementation. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
He, X.-X., Wang,
X., Steger, M. F., Ji, L.-J., Jing, K., Liu, M., & Ye, B. (2023). Meaning
in Life and Psychological Distress: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 104, 104381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104381
Heine, S. J.,
Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The Meaning Maintenance Model: On the
Coherence of Social Motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10(2), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1
Heller, A.,
Decker, O., Clemens, V., Fegert, J. M., Heiner, S., Brähler, E., & Schmidt, P. (2022a). Changes in Authoritarianism before and
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparisons of Latent Means across East and West
Germany, Gender, Age, and Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
941466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941466
Heller, A.,
Wicke, F. S., Kasinger, C., Beutel, M. E., Decker, O., Schuler, J., & Brähler, E. (2022b). On the Association of Interpersonal Trust with Right-wing Extremist
and Authoritarian Attitudes. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2),
460–474. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6741
Hogg, M. A.,
Meehan, C., & Farquharson, J. (2010). The Solace of Radicalism:
Self-uncertainty and Group Identification in the Face of Threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1061–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.005
IBM Corp. (2020).
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 27.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
Igou, E. R., O’Dea, M. K., Tam, K. Y. Y.,
& Van Tilburg, W. A. P. (2024). Boredom
and the Quest for Meaning. In M. Bieleke, W. Wolff
& C. Martarelli (Eds.), The Routledge
International Handbook of Boredom (pp. 90–105). Routledge.
Jost, J. T.,
Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared Reality, System Justification,
and the Relational Basis of Ideological Beliefs. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2(1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
Jost, J. T.,
Langer, M., Badaan,
V., Azevedo, F., Etchezahar, E., Ungaretti, J., &
Hennes, E. P. (2017). Ideology and the Limits of Self-interest: System Justification Motivation and Conservative
Advantages in Mass Politics. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 3(3), e1–e26. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127
Jost, J. T., Van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C.,
& Hardin, C. D. (2018). Ideological Asymmetries
in Conformity, Desire for Shared Reality, and the Spread of Misinformation. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003
Krog, D. (2014).
The Role of Meaning in Life Within the Relations of Religious Coping and
Psychological Well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 54, 2292–2308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9983-3
Landau, M. J.,
Kay, A. C., & Whitson, J. A. (2015). Compensatory Control and the Appeal of
a Structured World. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038703
LePera, N.
(2011). Relationships Between Boredom Proneness, Mindfulness, Anxiety, Depression,
and Substance Use: (741452011-003) [Dataset]. APA PsycNet.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e741452011-003
Li, J.-B., Dou,
K., & Liang, Y. (2021). The Relationship Between Presence of Meaning,
Search for Meaning, and Subjective Well-being: A Three-level Meta-analysis
Based on the Meaning in Life Questionnaire. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(1),
467–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00230-y
Lilly, K. J.,
Costello, T. H., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2025). Identifying “Types”
of Authoritarians: A Latent Profile Analysis of Left- and Right-wing Authoritarianism
and Social Dominance Orientation. European Journal of Personality, 39(4),
518–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241280319
Mann, S., &
Cadman, R. (2014). Does Being Bored Make Us More Creative? Creativity
Research Journal, 26(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901073
Manzi, C., Roccato,
M., & Russo, S. (2015). Meaning Buffers Right-wing Authoritarian Responses
to Societal Threat Via the Mediation of Loss of Perceived Control. Personality
and Individual Differences, 83, 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.009
Mercer, K. B.,
& Eastwood, J. D. (2010). Is Boredom Associated with Problem Gambling Behaviour?
It Depends on What You Mean by ‘Boredom’. International Gambling Studies, 10(1),
91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459791003754414
Merrifield,
C., & Danckert, J. (2014). Characterizing the Psychophysiological Signature
of Boredom. Experimental Brain Research, 232(2), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3755-2
Moynihan, A.
B., Igou, E. R., & Van Tilburg, W. A. P. (2017). Boredom Increases
Impulsiveness: A Meaning-regulation Perspective. Social Psychology, 48(5),
293–309. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000317
Park, C. L.,
Knott, C. L., Williams, R. M., Clark, E. M., Williams, B. R., & Schulz, E.
(2020). Meaning in Life Predicts Decreased Depressive Symptoms and Increased
Positive Affect over Time but Does Not Buffer Stress Effects in a National
Sample of African-Americans.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(8), 3037–3049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00212-9
Pfeifer, E.,
Wulf, H., Metz, K., Wüster, A.-L., Pischel, M., & Wittmann, M. (2024). Correlations Between Meaning
in Life and Nature Connectedness: German-language Validation of Two Topic-related
Measures and Practical Implications. Spiritual Care, 13(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/spircare-2024-0011
Pollack, D.,
Müller, O., & Demmrich, S. (2024). Religious Fundamentalism: A Conceptual and Empirical Study
Among Muslims of Turkish Origin in Germany. Sociology of Religion,
srae035. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srae035
Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The Effect of
Negation and Polar Opposite Item Reversals on Questionnaire Reliability and
Validity: An Experimental Investigation. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 51(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511005
Schnell, T.
(2010) Existential Indifference: Another Quality of Meaning in Life. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167809360259
Schnell, T., Gerter, R., & Krampe, H. (2018). Crisis of Meaning Predicts Suicidality in
Youth Independently of Depression. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis
Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 39(4), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000503
Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A
Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. Free Press.
Seligman, M. (2018). PERMA and the Building Blocks of Well-being. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1437466
Steger, M. F.,
Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire:
Assessing the Presence of and Search for Meaning in Life. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Steger, M. F.,
Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the
Search for Meaning in Life: Personality, Cognitive Style, and the Dynamic
Between Seeking and Experiencing Meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2),
199–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x
Steger, M. F.,
Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in Life across the Life Span:
Levels and Correlates of Meaning in Life from Emerging Adulthood to Older Adulthood.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303127
Thill, S., Houssemand,
C., & Pignault, A. (2020). Effects of Meaning in Life
and of Work on Health in Unemployment. Health Psychology Open, 7(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102920967258
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2019).
Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 28(2), 159–163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418817755
Van
Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2011). On Boredom and Social Identity: A
Pragmatic Meaning-regulation Approach. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37(12), 1679–1691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211418530
Van
Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2012). On Boredom: Lack of Challenge and Meaning
as Distinct Boredom Experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 181–194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9
Van Tilburg, W. A. P., Igou, E. R., &
Sedikides, C. (2013). In search of Meaningfulness: Nostalgia as an Antidote to Boredom.
Emotion, 13(3), 450–461.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030442
Van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou,
E. R. (2016). Going to Political Extremes in Response
to Boredom. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(6), 687–699.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2205
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1218925
Vodanovich,
S. J. (2003). Psychometric Measures of Boredom: A Review of the Literature. The
Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600636
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1074531
Vötter,
B. (2019). Crisis of Meaning and Subjective Well-being: The Mediating Role of
Resilience and Self-control among Gifted Adults. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1),
15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010015
Westgate, E.
C., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Boring Thoughts and Bored Minds: The MAC Model
of Boredom and Cognitive Engagement. Psychological Review, 125(5),
689–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097
Wittchen,
H.-U., & Hoyer, J. (Eds.) (2011). Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie. Springer.
Wolff, W., Martarelli,
C. S., Schüler, J., & Bieleke, M. (2020). High
Boredom Proneness and Low Trait Self-control Impair Adherence to Social
Distancing Guidelines during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155420
Womick, J.,
Ward, S. J., Heintzelman, S. J., Woody, B., & King, L. A. (2019). The Existential
Function of Right‐wing Authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 87(5),
1056–1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12457
Womick, J.,
Eckelkamp, J., Luzzo, S., Ward, S. J., Baker, S. G., Salamun,
A., & King, L. A. (2021). Exposure to Authoritarian Values Leads to Lower Positive
Affect, Higher Negative Affect, and Higher Meaning in Life. PLoS
One, 16(9), e0256759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256759
Womick, J.,
Woody, B., & King, L. A. (2022). Religious Fundamentalism, Right‐wing Authoritarianism,
and Meaning in Life. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12665
Yang, T., Bi,
C., & Wu, L. (2024). Cultural Identity, Meaning Search, and Life
Satisfaction: Collectivism as a Moderator. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 37(4), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2023.2279099
Zerr, K.,
Seiler, J. P.-H., Rumpel, S., & Tüscher,
O. (2024). Validation of a German Version of the Boredom Proneness Scale and
the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale. Scientific Reports, 14(1),
2905. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53236-4
Zick, A., Küpper, B., Mokros, N., & Achour, S. (2023). Die distanzierte Mitte: Rechtsextreme und demokratiegefährdende Einstellungen in Deutschland 2022/23. Dietz.