How Students’ Unsatisfied Needs in Class Situations Relate to Their Current Boredom: An Experience Sampling Method Study

How Students’ Unsatisfied Needs in Class Situations Relate to Their Current Boredom: An Experience Sampling Method Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article How Students’ Unsatisfied Needs in Class Situations Relate to Their Current Boredom: An Experience Sampling Method Study Anke Zeißig, Julia Moeller, Saskia M. Fischer, Ludwig Bilz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Boredom in classrooms is attributed to a lack of meaningfulness, over- or under challenging tasks, a lack of mental stimulation or a lack of autonomy. Previous research has mostly studied the effect of these few needs separately of each other, leaving questions about the comparative effects of different psychological needs on boredom unanswered. The present study integrates these predictors and combines them with six others in one joint study, to determine the respective contribution of each individual unsatisfied needs to boredom in the classroom in comparison with the others, differentiating between the situational and personal levels. A pre-registered study was conducted with 111 ninth-grade students at secondary schools. The study used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), examining students’ boredom directly in classroom situations. Unsatisfied needs and boredom were recorded on average 15 times for each student in various teaching situations. Multilevel regression analyses showed that unsatisfied needs, particularly for mental stimulation, but also for competence, autonomy, and meaningfulness, predicted students' boredom in the classroom. The unsatisfied need for relatedness (i.e. sense of belonging or relationship) was not a direct predictor of boredom, but significantly interacted with gender in predicting boredom. Unsatisfied needs for luxury/aesthetics, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving and security had no predictive effect on boredom. Differences in boredom between individuals were partly explained by gender, as boys experienced higher boredom than girls. Within the individuals, there was a difference between school subjects, with higher boredom in language than in science lessons. The study augments the previously few and isolated findings on the association between unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom. Biological sciences/Neuroscience Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Boredom Psychological Needs Education School Experience Sampling Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Boredom is one of the most frequently reported emotions among children and adolescents in learning environments (Moeller et al., 2020a ). Up to two-thirds of students are bored during the school day (Westgate & Wilson, 2018 ; Weybright et al., 2020 ) for up to half of the lesson time (Larson & Richards, 1991 ; Nett et al., 2011 ). As an achievement-related emotion, boredom impairs learning and mental well-being (Craig et al., 2004 ; Pekrun, 2017a ; Schwartze et al., 2021 ). Given the possibly lasting effects of boredom on affective, cognitive, motivational, and psychosocial developmental processes (Putwain et al., 2018 ; Schwartze et al., 2021 ; Uehara & Ikegaya, 2024 ; Zeißig, 2023 ), this study aims to provide insights into why students get bored at school. Unsatisfied needs can be a possible cause of boredom, as various definitions and empirical studies on boredom include the perception that something is missing (Zeißig et al., 2024 ). For example, Fisher ( 1993 ) defines boredom as a state during which a lack of interest is felt. Lipps ( 1903 ) emphasize that boredom is based on a need for cognitive activity when there is a lack of stimulation or excitement. Furthermore, the lack of personal meaning, significance, complexity, or challenge is seen as a cause of boredom (Barbalet, 1999 ; Czikszentmihaly, 2000; Elpidorou, 2018 ; Fahlman et al., 2009 ; Finkielsztein, 2021 ; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ). Previous research has examined only few unsatisfied needs in relation to boredom, and the previously studied needs were investigated mostly isolated of each other and rarely in the real-life situations in which boredom at school is experienced. It is therefore rather unclear how the lack of satisfaction of different needs contributed to boredom and how it relates to characteristics of the school situation versus the student. The present study integrates ten unsatisfied needs as predictors of students’ boredom in one joint study to shed light on their incremental contributions of boredom. To capture and disentangle characteristics of the classroom situations and of the students, we use experience-sampling data along with multilevel analyses. Theoretical Background The Prevalence and Antecedents of Boredom Many students report being bored every day at school, some even every class period (Yazzie-Mintz, 2010 ). Studies have found that students are bored in class around 20–40% of the time (Goetz et al., 2014 ; Larson & Richards, 1991 ; Nett et al., 2011 ; Pekrun et al., 2010 ; Shernoff et al., 2003 ). The developmental phase of adolescence has proven to be particularly vulnerable to boredom (Chin et al., 2017 ). Boredom among students increases from school year to school year in adolescence and the overall level of boredom has increased in recent years since 2008 (Weybright et al., 2020 ). Due to its high prevalence and association with learning obstacles, boredom is seen as a negative predictor of academic performance (Daniels et al., 2009 ). It is a function of both characteristics of the learning situation and the learner: Highlighting the person-specific determinants of boredom, female students tended to experience less boredom than males (Mehdi, 2021 ; Pekrun et al., 2014 ; 2017b). Highlighting the context-specific characteristics of boredom, it was found to differ within students between sciences versus language lessons (Goetz et al., 2006 ). Further theoretical arguments and empirical evidence supporting the context-specificity of boredom were provided by research that investigated monotony, repetition, waiting, lack of stimulation, impoverished external stimulation, but also stimulus saturation as triggers for boredom (Barbalet, 1999 ; Merrifield, 2014 ; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993 ; Pekrun et al., 2010 ; Smith, 1981 ). Unfulfilled performance needs, a lack of meaningfulness or the lacking subjective value of a situation, activity, or task were also considered to cause boredom (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ). Boredom also arises when individuals want to do something but are unable to do so, are unable to carry out satisfying activities, or are obliged to do something they do not want to (Eastwood et al., 2012 ; Svendsen, 2003 ). In school, too high or too low demands and a high degree of control of the teacher over the learner cause boredom (Schwartze et al., 2024 ). Boredom is thus defined as a state in which a person’s abilities are underutilized (Wolff et al., 2024 ) and is often linked to inefficient, impaired, or inadequate cognitive or attentional processes (Cheyne et al., 2006 ; Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989 ; Vodanovich & Watt, 2016 ; Wallace et al., 2003 ). An imbalance between challenges and skills (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 ), insufficient complexity of requirements (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ) and unused or insufficient cognitive resources (Danckert et al., 2018 ; Skowronski, 2012 ; Westgate & Wilson, 2018 ) go along with boredom. In all of these different determinants identified by research to date, boredom is interwoven with social and contextual factors in specific situations that leave psychological needs unsatisfied. For children and young people, the classroom is an important social context in which the individual needs of students could play an important role in the development of boredom. Therefore, the next chapters will first review the current state of research into the psychological needs of children and adolescents, before describing existing findings on unsatisfied needs and boredom in the classroom. Psychological Needs in Childhood and Adolescence Human development is centred on psychological growth, the integration of attitudes, values, norms, and opinions of others into one's own identity and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ). This takes place in interacting processes between inner psychological needs, such as attachment, self-esteem, competence, autonomy, and social environmental conditions (Bowlby, 1976 ; Epstein, 1990 ; Deci & Ryan, 1985 ). The fulfilment of psychological needs for personal growth and well-being is linked to specific situations in social environmental and living conditions (Deci & Ryan, 2002 ; Gagné & Deci, 2005 ; Hacker & Sachse; 2014 ; Martela, 2017 ; Reis et al., 2000 ). In response to external demands, individuals organize their internal resources to satisfy basic psychological needs (Ryan et al., 2012 ). The specific definition describes the psychological need as a dependence on ‘nutriments or conditions that are essential to an entity's growth and integrity’ (Ryan, 1995 , p. 410). If several motivational tendencies are incompatible due to different needs (discordance) or the real experiences and the need-related motivational goals are discrepant (incongruence), inner-psychic or organismic regulatory processes are triggered to restore the state of consistency (Grawe, 2005 ). The situational experience and regulation of inner psychological processes is then determined by approach or avoidance behaviour (Dickson & Dearing, 1979 ; Epstein, 1990 ; Gray, 1970 ). A mismatch between psychological needs and behavioural options in the social environment is associated with negative consequences (Eccles et al., 1993 ). Prolonged inconsistency is even seen as a cause of mental disorders (Grawe, 2005 ; Znoj & Grawe, 2000 ). The possibility or prevention of satisfying psychological needs is therefore also considered to be a key determinant of students' positive and negative experiences at school and their consequences for personal development (Eccles et al., 1993 ; Erturan-İlker, 2018a; Reeve, 2002 ; Standage et al., 2005 ). Deci and Ryan ( 1985 ) emphasize the importance of optimal challenges, rich sources of stimulation, and opportunities for autonomy in the school environment for learning. The need for autonomy is satisfied when individuals can act with a sense of their own will and choice (Gagné & Deci, 2005 ). The need for competence refers to the ability to respond effectively to internal and external environments and to experience optimal cognitive challenges (Bandura, 1977 ; Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ; White, 1959 ). The need for relatedness and connectedness involves other people, groups, or even society to engage in close in close relationships (Van den Broeck et al., 2016 ). Teaching that promotes autonomy takes into account the basic psychological needs and developmental tasks of the respective age group (Erturan-İlker et al., 2018b; Flunger et al., 2022 ; Guay, 2022 ; Reeve & Cheon, 2021 ). The fulfilment of students' basic psychological needs promotes an intrinsic motivation and engagement (Conesa et al., 2022 ). There are calls to include the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of psychological needs more strongly in developmental research (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2023 ). Besides the so-called basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness in the narrower sense, other psychological needs can also be significant (Pyszczynski et al., 2004 ; Ryan & Brown, 2003 ; Sheldon et al., 2001 ). Psychological needs in the broader sense are defined as tendencies toward specific psychological qualities of experience, which vary individually and are essential for personal development, success and satisfaction (Borg-Laufs, 2013 ; Prentice et al., 2014 ; Sheldon et al., 1996 , 2001 ; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998 ; Sheldon, 2011 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020 ). For example, people derive their sense of respect, worth, dignity and significance from a need for self-esteem (Greenberg et al., 1986 , James, 1890 ; Rosenberg, 1965 ). Especially in adolescence, self-esteem is a prerequisite for subjective well-being (Katsantonis et al., 2023 ). The need for meaning or significance is also emphasised as a protective factor for the mental health of adolescents (Brassai et al., 2011 ; Sophie et al., 2022 ). Meaningfulness arises from the fulfillment of values and aspects that are important to individuals and hold significance for them (Bauer et al., 2015 ; Baumeister, 1991 ). Additionally, the growing importance of social influence during adolescence is highlighted (Ciranka & van den Bos, 2019 ), and adolescents in particular tend to seek new experiences and stimulation (Kelley et al., 2004 ). These other psychological needs ̶ such as self-esteem, meaningfulness, influence, and stimulation ̶ should therefore be researched as well to better understand what students need to grow, succeed, and find satisfaction in the classroom. Previous Findings on the Relation of Unsatisfied Needs to Boredom Even the earliest theories of boredom proposed that a lack of sufficient mental stimulation is linked to feelings of boredom (Fenichel, 1934 ; Lipps, 1903 ). However, the direct connection between certain psychological needs and boredom has not been empirically researched for many years. A number of empirical studies outside the school context demonstrates that fulfilling basic needs of athletes such as autonomy and competence is negatively associated with boredom (Álvarez et al., 2009 ; González et al., 2019 ; Pulido et al., 2014 ). In a study involving college undergraduates during their leisure time, Weissinger et al. ( 1992 ) demonstrated that elements of self-determination—specifically autonomy and competence—account for the majority of the variance observed in boredom. Educational research indicates that autonomy-supportive teaching decreases boredom (Buhr et al., 2019 ; Erturan-Ilker et al., 2018a; Flunger et al., 2013 ; Khan et al., 2019 ; Shih, 2008 ; Tze et al., 2014 ), implying that satisfying the need for autonomy is also linked to reduced boredom in the classroom. A study conducted by Sulea et al. ( 2015 ) involving university students found that the needs for autonomy and competence were significant predictors of boredom, even when personality traits were taken into account. Besides these results showing that unsatisfied needs for autonomy and competence are linked to boredom, evidence also suggests that over- or under-challenging tasks and a lack of meaningfulness in activities are associated with boredom (Acee et al., 2010 ; Chan et al., 2018 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990 ; Krannich et al., 2019 ; Svendsen, 2003 ; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ). Additionally, a lack of stimulation is proposed as a cause of boredom (Eastwood et al., 2012 ; Fenichel, 1934 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ), so the need for stimulation should also be examined as a potential predictor of boredom. The Current Study: Boredom as a State of Unsatisfied Needs in the Classroom? Although boredom has long been described as an unsatisfactory state and many determinants have been identified that cause dissatisfaction and boredom, only a few isolated psychological needs have been empirically investigated in this regard. There are still no comprehensive investigations into what students miss when they are bored in certain teaching situations. In particular, there is a lack of studies that analyse such associations in a differentiated way between the level of situations (within-person) and the level of individuals (between-person). The aim of the present study is to integrate insights of theories and findings concerning psychological needs more systematically with regard to their respective contribution to students’ boredom. We want to find out whether students' perceived boredom in the classroom is predicted by certain unsatisfied psychological needs, and compare the effects of several psychological needs that have previously only been studied separately from each other ( Research question 1 ). We expect bored students in classroom situations to have certain unsatisfied psychological needs ( Hypothesis 1 ). The extant research (see Buhr et al., 2019 ; Erturan-Ilker et al., 2018a; Flunger et al., 2013 ; Khan et al., 2019 ; Shih, 2008 ; Sulea et al., 2015 ; Tze et al., 2014 ) suggests that feelings of boredom may be predicted by unsatisfied needs for autonomy (Hypothesis 1a) and competence (Hypothesis 1b). Stimulation (Hypothesis 1c, see Eastwood et al., 2012 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ) and meaningfulness (Hypothesis 1d, see Acee et al., 2010 ; Chan et al., 2018 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990 ; Krannich et al., 2019 ; Svendsen, 2003 ; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ) were also identified as predictive factors. Due to a lack of theories and prior research on the relation of boredom to the unsatisfied needs for relatedness, self-esteem, and security, we have no evidence-based hypotheses on these needs’ relations to boredom. The next research question asks what amount of variation in situational boredom is explained by differences between learning situations (level 1) versus differences between individuals (level 2; Research question 2 ). Based on existing findings (Larson & Richards, 1991 ; Moeller et al., 2020a ; Vodanovich & Watt, 2016 ) we assume that a greater proportion of variance of student’s boredom can be attributed to the within-person level compared to the between-person level ( Hypothesis 2 ). Research question 3 asks how often and how intensely students are bored, and how that level of boredom differs by characteristics of the person, such as gender, and characteristics of the situation, such as the domain of the school subject, i.e. languages and sciences. Since studies show that students are bored 20–40% of the time in class (Goetz et al., 2014 ; Larson & Richards, 1991 ; Nett et al., 2011 ; Pekrun et al., 2010 ; Shernoff et al., 2003 ), we assume that, on average, students would be bored in more than 20% of classroom situations ( Hypothesis 3a ). We also expect to find bored students in every classroom situation we analyse ( Hypothesis 3b ). Since it has been shown that boredom in the classroom occurs gender-specific more frequently in boys (Chin et al., 2017 ; Mehdi, 2021 ; Pekrun et al., 2010 ), we hypothesise that female students are bored on average less frequently and less intensively than male students ( Hypothesis 3c ). Following the findings of Goetz et al. ( 2006 ), Pekrun et al. ( 2014 ), and Shao et al. ( 2020 ) on the domain-specificity of boredom, we hypothesise more boredom in language lessons than in science lessons ( Hypothesis 3d ). Methods Ethics and Approval This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University BLINDED FOR REVIEW PROCESS. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the State of BLINDED FOR REVIEW PROCESS approved the data collection in grammar schools after submission of the data protection concepts, the questionnaire and all information on the planned procedure. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students and their legal guardians. Planning the Study and Sample Size The study was designed as an experience sampling study and preregistered with the template from Kirtley et al. ( 2020 ) (anonymised link for peer-review: https://osf.io/p7t2n/?view_only=84e60421af40492984e5bde369b4e27a ). The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) has been developed to investigate people's experiences in everyday moments in natural environments (Prescott & Csikszentmihalyi, 1981 ). In ESM, data are collected repeatedly several times a day per person over a longer period of time in everyday life (Schallberger, 1997 ). The sample size was determined based on pragmatic considerations, through resource-based sample planning and for multilevel modelling (Bolger et al., 2012 ; Kleiman, 2021 ; Maas & Hox, 2005 ), with the constraints that the time and financial resources were limited (Lakens, 2022 ; Quintana, 2021 ). We estimated the required sample size with a power simulation in order to recognise effects at the lowest level in a two-level model (Kleimann, 2021) and to take into account that the standard errors of the variances of the second level are estimated too small with a sample size below 100 (Maas & Hox, 2005 ). Accordingly, this study was designed as a pilot study and aimed for a sample size of approximately 100 subjects in order to gain initial insights on which further studies can be based. ESM surveys occurred for all students in a class at the same time in order to disrupt lessons as little as possible. We limited the ESM data collection to one week per class and one measurement per lesson, each lasting approximately one minute. This was due to the length of the ESM forms having a measurable influence on the burden and quality of the data (Eisele et al., 2022 ) and the number of possible measurements per subject and day being a significant predictor of compliance (Vachon et al., 2019 ). The sampling scheme was signal-contingent, meaning that in contrast to event-contingent or interval-contingent methods, participants were asked to report on their experiences at unpredictable intervals. Participants received signals during science and language lessons throughout the school week. Measurements were distributed semi-randomly (Myin-Germeys & Kuppens, 2022 ) at random times within the 45-minute time slots specified by the lesson plan. ESM data were gathered in all of the language and science subjects attended by the participating students. By measuring all students in a class at one point in time, it was possible to check whether experiences students’ boredom differed between individuals in the same classroom and whether different classroom situations differed in their boredom levels (averaged across students). While the ESM survey notification times not predictable for the students, teachers were informed that the measurements would take place approximately between the middle of the lesson until up to five minutes before the end of the lesson. The sample comprised of N = 111 students (42 male, 67 female) with an average of 18–19 measurements per person over a time period of five days in the 9th grade of two grammar schools. The students were between 14 and 16 years old ( M = 14.49; SD = 0.57). The time students took to respond to the ESM surveys was 1:03 min on average. Procedure The students and teachers received information material about the study and consent forms two months before the planned data collection. If the students and their guardians agreed to participate in the study and were present on the first day, they were included. All data was collected using tablet PCs (Samsung Galaxy Tab A7) programmed with the movisensXS app (app version 1.5.23, version number: 7457). The tablets were handed out on each study day. The students carried the tablet with them throughout the day. The ESM period started with an initial notification (about 15 minutes) on the first day, followed by the experience sampling data collection period over five days (18–19 measurements per student). When the signal sounded, the students completed the questionnaire (approximately one minute) and then continued with the lesson. On all study days, the first author was on site to provide support in the event of technical problems and to be available to answer questions from learners and teachers. Lessons with planned exams were excluded from the study in advance. Since experience sampling studies are naturalistic investigations that take place in real life, and since school is a context in which students have limited autonomy to decide what they do when, it had to be taken into account that students would be unable to complete ESM data at all times, which inevitably results in missing data (Vachon et al., 2019 ). Teachers and students were therefore instructed to mute the tablet if the teaching situation required it so that the signal for data collection could be ignored. Measures All items, their wording and scaling are given in the codebook in Supplement A. Socio-demographic Information We requested information on gender (female, male, diverse) for this study. Other information that was not used in this study (whether the respondents liked school, how stressed they felt by the demands of school, what grades they had in maths and German at the end of the last school year). ESM-Measures Momentary Boredom in Class. Based on the ESM study by Goetz et al. ( 2014 ), we used a one-item measurement with a unipolar Likert scale (not bored - bored) to determine how often and to what extent the respondents stated that they were bored in teaching moments. The participants were asked, ‘How was your mood just before the signal came? (Please move the arrow to the position that applies to you)’, rated on a scale of 0-100 (0 being 'not at all', 100 being 'very much'). Unsatisfied Psychological Needs. Based on the Psychological Needs Scale (Sheldon et al., 2001 ), an adapted ten-item measurement was used to determine unsatisfied psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence, stimulation, meaningfulness, self-esteem, influence, luxury, physical thriving and security) in teaching situations, using a five-point rating scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). The participants were asked, ‘With the following questions, we would like to find out whether psychological needs were not satisfied for you in the teaching situation before the signal. Please try to answer as accurately as possible!’ Example items: ‘I missed being able to work on the tasks in class in my own way’ (unsatisfied need for autonomy); I missed doing something that has a deeper meaning for me (unsatisfied need for meaning). All Items on unsatisfied psychological needs are given in Supplement A. Teaching Domain. The teaching domain (languages or sciences) was added to the data set according to the timetable and the time stamp of the data collection. Data Analysis Two indicators were determined to describe the amount and quality of data collected (Eisele et al., 2022 ; Vachon et al., 2019 ). The first compared the number of completed ESM surveys actually provided out by the participants relative to the theoretical maximum number of possible ESM surveys permitted by the protocol (compliance rate). The second indicator was the proportion of valid observations included in the analysis in relation to the maximum number of observations over the five days of the ESM study (retention rate). In accordance with the pre-registration, the data were assessed using multi-level regression analyses with Mplus 8.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017 ), with time points nested in individuals. The data were available on two levels, with the variance between situations on level 1 (within-person) and the variance between individuals on level 2 (between-person). A random-intercept-model without predictor variables (null model) was used to determine the intra class correlations (ICC), i.e. the within-person variance of boredom on level 1 and the between-person-variance on level 2. To answer research questions 1 and 2, stepwise predictors were included according to Geiser ( 2011 ) in the multilevel regression models, starting with simple random intercept models. Boredom was the metric dependent variable, teaching domain (dichotomous) was included as predictors at level 1 (within person), and gender (dichotomous) as predictor at level 2 (between person). Unsatisfied psychological needs (metric) were included as predictors at level 1 and level 2 with a robust estimator (MLR with an imputation of FIML for the estimation of models with missing values ). In addition, a random coefficient model according to the recommendations by Geiser ( 2011 ) with random slopes was specified to test whether the slope coefficients of level 1 variables vary between the person clusters and to reveal cross-level-interactions. We have included an overview of all specified models in Supplement B. Additionally, a comparison of the relative frequencies of unsatisfied psychological needs between situations in which students felt bored and situations in which they did not feel bored is achieved by dichotomizing the boredom scale. Since the slider is always centered at 50 on the boredom scale (1-100) when the query starts and is moved by the students to the left toward not bored or to the right toward bored, boredom values of 50 or higher on a scale of 1 to 100 were classified as bored, values below 50 as not bored. To answer the third research question, absolute and relative frequencies, means and standard deviations of boredom per situation and per person were calculated and the distribution of the data was visualized. Results Data Preparation and Descriptive Statistics Missing data occurred either for all persons in a class at a time point (e.g. due to class work), or for single persons for all observations on single days (e.g. due to illness), or for single observations of single persons on single days (e.g. due to a task in the lesson that did not allow answering). There were 345 missings from a total of 2,057 possible measurements. In accordance with the rules for the selection of careless responders defined in the pre-registration, 149 observations from because the ipsative (within-person, across items) range of answers of that person across all items measured at a time point was zero. The data sets of two individuals (a total of 30 observations) had to be excluded due to data protection regulations on anonymity, as their information would otherwise have made them identifiable by others. The retention rate, meaning the proportion of valid observations included in the analysis in relation to the maximum number of possible observations over the 5 days of the ESM study, was 74.5%. The total final sample that could be used for the analyses comprised of n = 1,533 observations from N = 109 students in seven classes. An overview of the data preparation rates is attached in Supplement C. A two-level basic analysis was conducted to obtain the descriptive statistics (Table 1 ). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Item Mean Variance ICC Within Between Boredom 48.76 855.21 201.64 .19 Unsatisfied need for autonomy 2.25 0.94 0.33 .26 Unsatisfied need for relatedness 2.25 0.89 0.45 .34 Unsatisfied need for competence 2.44 0.91 0.41 .31 Unsatisfied need for meaning 2.71 1.08 0.55 .34 Unsatisfied need for stimulation 2.92 1.14 0.47 .30 Unsatisfied need for self-esteem 2.40 0.79 0.66 .45 Unsatisfied need for influence 2.07 0.63 0.55 .47 Unsatisfied need for physical thriving 2.87 0.84 0.98 .54 Unsatisfied need for luxury/aesthetics 2.73 0.93 0.71 .43 Unsatisfied need for security 2.25 0.80 0.34 .30 Note. n (Level 1) = 1,533 (assessments within students), n ( Level 2) = 109 (students) We calculated the intra-class correlation (ICC) to determine the variance of boredom data between and within individuals. The multi-level analyses (null model) showed that 19.2% of the variance in boredom was due to the between-person level, i.e. differences between individuals. A larger proportion of the variance (80.8%) was at the (level 1), due to within-person differences across classroom moments. Thus, the data showed sufficient variance at both levels, between and within individuals, to continue the analyses with the different predictors on different levels, in line with our hypotheses. For most of the unsatisfied need variables, the larger proportion of variance was also at the within-person level, which is a typical finding for emotion and motivation-related ESM data. Only the unsatisfied need for physical thriving has a rather similar proportion of variance at the between-person and the within-person level. Results Regarding the Relation of Unsatisfied Psychological Needs to Students’ Boredom in the Classroom We investigated whether perceived boredom in the classroom was related to certain unsatisfied psychological needs ( Research question 1 ) and expected bored students to feel unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, autonomy, and competence in classroom situations ( Hypotheses 1a-1d ). Compared to classroom situations in which students did not feel bored ( N = 801), situations perceived as boring ( N = 732) were characterised by stronger unsatisfied psychological needs (Fig. 1 ). In particular, when students felt bored, they were substantially more likely to state 'I missed experiencing something new and exciting' (need for stimulation), and 'I missed being able to work on the assignments in class in my own way' (need for competence), compared to situations where they did not feel bored. Many students reported multiple unsatisfied psychological needs at the same time, resulting in a high intercorrelation between these needs. To account for this, we tested the ten different psychological needs as level 1 predictors of boredom in a combined multilevel regression model. To integrate previously isolated theoretical perspectives, we hypothesized that the unsatisfied psychological need for autonomy ( Hypothesis 1a ), for competence ( Hypothesis 1b ), for stimulation ( Hypothesis 1c ) and/or for meaningfulness ( Hypothesis 1d ) would be predictive to boredom experienced in the classroom. In line with these expectations, our results showed that the unsatisfied needs for stimulation ( β = .20, SE = .04, p < .001), competence ( β = .11, SE = .03, p < .001), autonomy ( β = .10, SE = .03, p = .004), and meaningfulness ( β = .09, SE = .03, p < .005), were significant predictors of boredom in the classroom. Unsatisfied needs for relatedness, luxury, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving, and security were not significant predictors of boredom in the classroom (Table 2 ), as our exploratory analyses revealed. Note Individual boredom levels above the scale midpoint of 50 on a scale from 1 to 100 were classified as being bored and below 50 as being not bored. Table 2 Results of Random Intercept Model Predicting Boredom of Students in Class by Gender, Teaching Domain and Unsatisfied Psychological Needs Predictor B S.E. [95% CI] β p Between Level Gender a -8.27 2.91 [-13.96; -2.57] − .28 .003** Unsatisfied Need for … Autonomy -2.86 7.79 [-18.13; 12.40] − .12 .714 Relatedness 6.76 6.65 [-6.28; 19.80] .32 .304 Competence 1.96 5.24 [-8.30; 12.22] .09 .709 Meaning 5.73 4.90 [-3.88; 15.33] .30 .241 Stimulation 4.80 5.82 [-6.61; 16.21] .23 .411 Self-Esteem -3.54 3.00 [-9.42; 2.35] − .20 .242 Influence -4.86 3.52 [-11.75; 2.03] − .25 .165 Physical thriving -2.30 1.81 [-5.85; 1.25] − .16 .203 Luxury 1.49 2.93 [-4.26; 7.24] .09 .611 Security 3.09 3.98 [-4.71; 10.89] .13 .438 Within Level Domain b -7.07 1.74 [-10.48; -3.66] − .12 < .001*** Unsatisfied Need for … Autonomy 2.86 0.98 [0.94; 4.77] .10 .004** Relatedness 0.93 0.97 [-.96; 2.82] .03 .333 Competence 3.22 0.82 [1.61; 4.83] .11 < .001*** Meaning 2.45 0.86 [0.75; 4.14] .09 .005** Stimulation 5.47 1.09 [3.33; 7.60] .20 < .001*** Self-Esteem 1.34 1.02 [-0.65; 3.34] .04 .186 Influence 0.44 1.13 [-1.77; 2.66] .01 .695 Physical thriving -0.11 0.99 [-2.05; 1.82] − .00 .909 Luxury 0.31 0.90 [-1.46; 2.07] .01 .733 Security 0.02 1.01 [-1.95; 1.99] .01 .985 Variance Components Between Level Residual Variance Boredom 127.84 25.48 [77.90; 177.77] .63 < .001*** Within Level Residual Variance Boredom 716.18 41.56 [634.73; 797.63] .84 < .001*** R 2 Between−Level .37 < .001*** R 2 Within−Level .16 < .001*** Note. n (Level 1) = 1,533 (assessments within students), n ( Level 2) = 109 (students) a Gender was coded 0 for male and 1 for female, b Teaching domain was coded with 0 for language and 1 for science * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Figure 2 displays the model with all the predictors and coefficients. The unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, autonomy and meaningfulness were only significant predictors at the within-person level, but not at the between-person level. In other words, learning situations that are higher than other situations in boredom also tend to be higher in unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, competence, and autonomy, whereas it cannot be said that individuals that are higher than other situations in boredom across all situations also tended to be higher in generally unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, competence, and autonomy, across all situations. This suggests that it is indeed the situation-specific need satisfaction, rather than a person’s disposition to have this need satisfied across all learning situations, that drives the association between boredom and need satisfaction. Note Standardised coefficients, rounded to two decimal places, are presented, **p < .01. ***p < .001. To summarise, the variables in this model explained 22% ( R² = .22***) of the variance in boredom within individuals and 37% ( R² = .37***) of the variance between individuals. This represents a medium to large effect (Cohen, 1992 ). Since gender can be not only a predictor of students’ emotions, but also a moderator of relations among emotions and other constructs (e.g. Moeller et al., 2015 ), we analysed whether the association between boredom and unsatisfied needs differed by gender, meaning whether gender as level 2 variable moderated the association of unsatisfied needs and boredom on level 1. For this, we calculated a random coefficient model according to the recommendations by Geiser ( 2011 ). The random slope model showed varying slopes for unsatisfied needs between persons. For this reason, we investigated possible interactions between gender at level 2 and psychological needs at level 1 using a multilevel regression analysis with a cross-level interaction. We identified a significant cross-level-interaction between gender and the need for relatedness when predicting boredom ( β = 5.11, SE = 1.78, p = .004). Figure 3 illustrates this interaction graphically. A stronger association between boredom and the unsatisfied need for relatedness was observed among female students compared to male students. Figure 3 Association between Boredom and the Unsatisfied Need for Relatedness for Male and Female Students We did not find any other interactions between gender and unsatisfied psychological needs in relation to boredom. Results Regarding Levels and Variance Decomposition of Students’ Boredom in the Classroom The average person-level average of boredom was M = 48.67. The intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated to decompose the amount of variance in boredom data due to differences between individuals (Level 2) versus within individuals across situations (Level 1; Research question 2 ). The multi-level analyses (null model) showed that 19.2% of the variance in boredom is due to the between-level, meaning differences between individuals. A larger proportion of the variance (80.8%) is at the within person level (level 1), representing variance between time points within persons. How the Different Students Felt Boredom Over Several Moments Overall, there were two out of 109 students who were bored at all moments in class (boredom values above 50), while three students were not bored at any moment (boredom values below 50), as seen in Supplement D. On average, the students were bored 47.7% of the measured moments in class. 97 out of 109 students were bored in more than 20% and 12 out of 109 students were bored in less than 20% of the measured moments in class ( Hypothesis 2a ). The individual boredom levels, meaning each student’s average boredom across all learning situations, ranged from M = 10.6 ( SD = 11.6) to M = 95.7 ( SD = 10.6). For 47 people (43.1%), the individual boredom level was above the scale midpoint of 50 on a scale from 1 to 100, meaning we classified them as being bored (on average across all learning situations), whereas 62 students (56.9%) scored below that threshold of 50 and were classified as not being bored (see Fig. 4 ). Figure 4 Distribution of Individual Boredom Mean Values of the Students To answer how often and how intensely students become bored ( Research question 2 ), we visually analysed the distribution of boredom for each person at different moments in class (Supplement D). This compares the individual students’ boredom experienced within the very same classroom situation and illustrates how differently students react to the same learning situation. To give an example for such a graph, Fig. 5 shows the momentary boredom values for each student in one randomly selected school class, with each shared classroom situation being represented as a separate unit on the x- axis. The graphs for all other school classes can be found in Supplement D. Figure 5 showed that in this class that we randomly selected for illustration purposes, the individuals differed greatly in the range of perceived boredom. There were students whose boredom scores ranged over the entire scale from 0 to 100, such as students 2, 6, 9, 12 and 13. For other students, the individual scores were in a narrower range, e.g. students 7 and 8. Some students were very bored in most of the moments in class (most of the boredom values in the upper quartile), e.g. students 11 and 14. Figure 5 Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for each Student in one Class Note Each violin graph and unit on the x-axis represents an individual student in the classroom. Each black dot represents the momentary boredom of that person at a given situation, with situations (black dots) varying within individuals (violin plots). The grey circles represent the within-person average of momentary boredom for each person. The vertical grey lines represent the within-person standard deviation of momentary boredom for each person. How Several Students who are in the Same Moment in Class React to Boredom Since we consistently assessed all students in a moment in class simultaneously, we were also able to gain insights into how different individuals experience boredom in the same classroom setting. To accomplish this, we analysed the boredom ratings within the specific classroom situations (see Supplement E). The visualizations demonstrated that students' perceived boredom varies across different shared classroom situations (Supplement E). Figure 6 , for example, illustrates how different students experienced the same classroom situations (units on x-axis) in terms of boredom. There were some teaching situations in class in which most students stated to be bored (e.g. situations 6 and 7) and others in which most students stated not to be bored (e.g. situation 16). In most situations, the students who were in a class felt very different levels of boredom (e.g. situations 1–5 and 8–12). Figure 6 Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for Shared Situations in Class Note Each violin graph and unit on the x-axis represents a shared classroom situation (e.g., the moment in which a teacher was explaining new vocabulary in a language class to all present students). Each black dot represents the momentary boredom of one particular student in that shared situation, with students (black dots) varying within shared situations (violin plots). The grey circles represent the between-person average of momentary boredom for each shared situation. The vertical grey lines represent the between-person standard deviation of momentary boredom for each shared situation. In the overall sample, in all classes in all joint teaching situations (Supplement E), we identified students who experienced boredom ( Hypothesis 2b ), with the proportion of bored students ranging between 8% and 93% across the shared learning situations. While we found no situation in which no one in a class was bored, we also did not find a single situation in which all students in a class were bored. Overall, the between-person average boredom was above M = 50 (meaning students being on average bored) in 51 shared situations (from 124 shared situations in total; 41.1%) and below M = 50 (meaning students being on average not bored) in 73 shared situations (58.9%). The between-person average boredom in the shared learning situations ranged from M = 10.7 ( SD = 17.3) to M = 84.1 ( SD = 26.5) across situations. We calculated the mean value of boredom within the same situation in the class only if data from at least five students in the situation were available. Gender- Specific Differences in Boredom We found that female students were on average less bored ( M female = 46.2, SD female = 31.7) than male students ( M male = 52.6, SD male = 33.4). Since averages do not necessarily reveal whether and how often students endorse, i.e. confirm, an experience, we also counted how often which students scored above the threshold that distinguishes endorsed boredom (scores above 50 on the response scale ranging from 0 to 100) from denied boredom (scores below 50 on the response scale ranging from 0 to 100). Female students also feeling bored less often (in 44.8% of all measured situations) than male students (in 52.4% of all measured moments). To take into account the multilevel structure of the data, we additionally tested the gender differences with a multilevel regression. The results were in line with the expectations of hypothesis 2c by showing gender as a significant predictor of boredom ( β = − .28, SE = .10, p = .003) (Table 2 ). Domain-Specific Differences in Boredom The comparison of the average boredom levels between language and science subjects suggested a significant difference ( M Language = 52.62, SD = 31.93; M Science = 43.40, SD = 32.49, t (1531) = 5.551, p < .001). Again, we verified this with a multilevel regression analysis and identified teaching domain as a significant predictor of boredom ( β = − .119, SE = .02, p < .001) (Table 2 ). In our study, boredom proved to be domain-specific ( hypothesis 2d ). On average, students were more bored in language subjects than in science subjects. Discussion This study aimed to expand existing research by examining the links between boredom and unfulfilled psychological needs, while distinguishing between the level of situations versus the level of individuals. This study integrates the previously separated theoretical approaches connecting boredom with deficiencies in autonomy and competence (Sulea et al., 2015 ; Tze et al., 2014 ), lacking purpose or meaning (Barbalet, 1999 ; Fahlman et al., 2009 ; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ), and insufficient stimulation (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993 ; O'Hanlon, 1981 ; Westgate & Wilson, 2018 ) within a single empirical framework. Our results confirmed that unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, autonomy and meaningfulness were significant predictors of boredom in the classroom on the level of situations. A further situation-level predictor was the school subject domain. On the level of individuals, only gender turned out to significantly predict students’ boredom levels. Boredom as a Function of Unsatisfied Psychological Needs in the Classroom This study investigated whether classroom boredom was associated with unsatisfied psychological needs ( Research question 1 ). In line with our expectations (Hypotheses 1a-d), boredom was predicted by the unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy in classroom environments on the level of situations, but not on the level of individuals. In other words, learning situations with higher unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy tend to be situations in which students report higher boredom than in situations with more satisfaction in these four needs. In contrast, unsatisfied needs for relatedness, luxury, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving, and security were unrelated boredom on both the situation and the person level. One contribution of the present study is its distinction between the factors influencing boredom on the level of situations (state-level) versus individuals (trait-level). We found strong variation in the school-related emotion of boredom at the within-person situation level. This underlines the importance of the individual learning situation for the development of boredom. That impression is supported by the fact that unsatisfied psychological needs, as well as the school subject domain, contributed to explaining the situation-level variance of boredom in this study. Specific situations in the social environment and living conditions such as the classroom are decisive for the fulfilment of psychological needs and the development of basic psychological functions and the personality of children and adolescents (Reeve, 2002 ; Baltes et al., 1999 ). Early theories connecting unsatisfied psychological needs to boredom (Fenichel, 1934 ; Lipps, 1903 ) have long been ignored. Since boredom can have a lasting effect on children's development (Bench & Lench, 2013 ), its connection to psychological needs in classroom situations should be considered with regard to developmental processes (Zeißig, 2023 ) and the necessary adaptation of social systems to individual needs (Ohlmeier et al., 2020 ). The unsatisfied need for stimulation - characterized by students' sense of missing novel and exciting classroom experiences - constituted the most influential boredom predictor in our analysis, aligning with established findings about inadequate stimulation and boredom (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993 ). Bench and Lench ( 2013 ) point out that social, cognitive, emotional and experiential stimulation can be missed when boredom occurs. Further research should therefore examine exactly which classroom situations leave which stimulation needs unfulfilled and lead to boredom. Another significant predictor of boredom, the unsatisfied need for competence – characterized by students' sense of missing feeling competent – can arise from both over-challenging and under-challenging tasks (Krannich et al., 2019 ). Further studies should consider that students require different cognitive demands depending on their current abilities to utilize and expand their competencies. The extent to which the unsatisfied need for competence is more likely to predict boredom when demands are too high or too low should be further investigated. The unsatisfied need for autonomy emerged as the third significant predictor of boredom in our study. Students reported unsatisfied autonomy needs when they lacked opportunities to approach classroom tasks in self-directed ways. These findings align with established educational research demonstrating the benefits of autonomy-supportive teaching practices (Buhr et al., 2019 ; Flunger et al., 2013 ; Khan et al., 2019 ; Shih, 2008 ; Tze et al., 2014 ). This remains a need for research on practical frameworks to help teachers develop and implement such pedagogical approaches effectively. The fourth predictor that became significant was the aspect of a lack of meaningfulness in connection with boredom that has been confirmed several times in research (Barbalet, 1999 ; Chan et al., 2018 ; Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012 ). However, there is little research on sense-making in schools and there is an urgent need for further research in different school contexts (Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2017 ). Sense making is an active process of constructing meaning from present situations, understanding problems or events that lead to ambiguity in everyday life (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014 ), using prior knowledge, experiences, beliefs and values embedded in the social context (Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2017 ). The extent to which students can actively participate in shaping meaningful classroom experiences presents another promising avenue for future investigation. Our findings underscore the importance of closer examination of students' psychological needs. Previous research has often focused on inter-individual differences on need satisfaction (Pekrun, 2006 ; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2023 ), whereas our results emphasize the importance of studying within-person variability in need satisfaction over time. While the need satisfaction only predicted boredom at the level of situations, there was nevertheless an interaction between person-level and situation-level predictors of boredom, in the sense of a cross-level interaction between gender and unsatisfied need relatedness, with this association being particularly pronounced among female students. These findings suggest that fulfilling the need for relatedness plays a more substantial role in mitigating boredom for girls in classroom settings. In addition to gender, other person-level, trait-like variables, such as openness to experience or dispositional boredom proneness, may be associated with certain psychological needs in teaching moments and, if unsatisfied, may promote boredom. We therefore suggest that future research should work on frameworks for studying the dynamics of boredom with an integration of trait-level determinants with the state-level determinants identified in the present study, following existing state-trait frameworks for research on emotions and motivation (Moeller et al., 2020b ). To shed more light on possible traits determining boredom, future investigations should incorporate theoretical frameworks that account for individual differences in both boredom experiences and unsatisfied psychological needs, e.g. McClelland's (1985) human motivation theory, Zuckerman's (1984) theory of sensation seeking, Cacioppo & Petty's (1982) need for cognition theory or Farmer & Sundberg's (1986) theory of boredom proneness. Variability of Boredom in the Classroom We assumed that students' boredom was related to situational and personal aspects and that this would be reflected in the proportions of variance at both levels. The hypothesis that a greater proportion of variance of student’s boredom can be attributed to the within person level compared to the between personal level ( Hypothesis 2 ) was confirmed by our data: 19.2% of the variance in boredom could be attributed between and 80.8% within person. This result supports the assumption that inter-individual differences in the experience of achievement emotions such as boredom play a role (Grazia et al., 2021 ; Pekrun, 2006 ), but that the variance at the situational level is higher (Goetz et al., 2016 ). In addition to individual predictors that can help to explain the occurrence of boredom, our findings support the call for greater attention to situation-specific determinants in social interaction systems (Ohlmeier et al., 2020 ). With research question 3 , we investigated how often and how intensively students were bored in class, differentiating between gender and teaching domain. This additional research question was relevant, because the regressions conducted for research question 1 do not reveal whether students ever endorsed feeling bored, since a correlation of any size can exist without anyone ever endorsing feeling an emotion (see Moeller, 2021 and Moeller et al., 2018 for discussions of the information about endorsement lacking in covariance-based analyses). We therefore classified responses into endorsements of boredom and denials of boredom and in every single teaching situation we examined, there were bored students. On average across individuals, students were bored in 47.7% of the investigated teaching situations, supporting our expectations of Hypotheses 3a-d. We also found that there were individual teaching situations in which the majority of students in the class were bored and other situations in which only a few students were bored. Experiences of boredom was domain-specific: Students were bored more often in languages than in science lessons. These findings support the results of previous studies that have shown that boredom is domain-specific (Goetz et al., 2006 ), and that situational aspects have a high predictive value for boredom (Chin et al., 2017 ). Female students were bored averagely less often and less intensively than male students. These findings support the results of previous studies that have shown that boredom occurs differently between female and male students and more strongly in male students (Feuchter & Preckel, 2023 ). Our findings demonstrate substantial variation in students' boredom levels within the same classroom situation, with some students experiencing relatively low boredom and others reporting significantly higher boredom across all measurement points. These results support theories on the intraindividual function of boredom, which posit that a person's subjective experience in a given situation may differ from the overall boredom pattern observed among students during a lesson (Grazia et al., 2021 ; Pawlak et al., 2022 ; Pekrun et al., 2006). Our findings align with existing research on personalized learning and adaptive instruction, demonstrating that students respond differently to instructional situations and that boredom levels depend on the specific context (Moeller et al., 2020b ; Nörenberg et al., 2022 ). Limitations and Methodological Reflections For the present study, we used the experience sampling method and were thus able to investigate boredom arising directly in classroom situations in connection with ten different psychological needs. ESM is an ecologically valid method that provides detailed, context-sensitive insights into the momentary processes of an individual's daily life (Prescott & Csikszentmihalyi, 1981 ). The present study was only conducted in two grammar schools and in one age group, which limits the generalizability of the data and makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about the validity of the findings for other age groups and school contexts. Such a limited generalizability of ESM studies is typical (see Moeller et al., 2022 ) and warrants systematic follow-up studies on the replicability and generalizability of the findings. When planning the study, the aim was to obtain as many situation measurements as possible. At the same time, conducting research in real-life school situations makes it necessary to take precautions so as not to disrupt the ongoing teaching and learning processes and to avoid participant dropout due to the burden, duration, or frequency of the repeated measurements (Stone et al., 2003 ). In our study, the compliance rate of 83.2% was slightly above the average value of 79.7% determined in a meta-analysis (Vachon et al., 2019 ). This suggests that the students did not feel unduly burdened by the duration and frequency of the ESM measurement. In addition, we had established rules for the selection of careless responders in the pre-registration phase, thereby objectifying the procedure (Dunn et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, we cannot be certain that all measurement data accurately capture the actual experience at the respective moment. Students may have responded in a socially desirable way or may have had different levels of concentration when entering the data. With regard to data collection with tablet-computer, operating or input errors cannot be ruled out. In addition, a slider had to be used to indicate boredom, which was initially positioned in the middle. As a result, students tended to move the slider to the right or left and rarely back to the middle. This limits the accuracy of the measurement, and the distribution of the data shows a notch in the middle of the scale ( z Skewness = 1.92, z Kurtosis = -10.49). To keep the assessments as short as possible within the ESM, single-item measurements were used (Verhagen et al., 2016 ), in line with previous studies using similar measures of boredom. Such one-item measures are typical for ESM studies, but their reliability and validity can be difficult to assess (Allen et al., 2022 ; Dejonckheere et al., 2022 ). One further challenge in our study was the measurement of unsatisfied psychological needs, for which no measurement instruments have yet been developed. Measurement instruments for psychological needs in the sense of self-determination theory capture three universal basic human needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Since these measures are typically administered as retrospective, time-insensitive assessments, low need satisfaction scores in these measures do not necessarily indicate a lack of situational need fulfilment (Bartholomew et al., 2011 ). In order to determine whether a bored student had an unsatisfied need in a given situation, we selected one item per need from the Psychological Needs Scale (Sheldon et al., 2001 ) that seems most indicative for a need deficiency in learning situations for 9th grade students and formulated the single items for the ESM survey of unsatisfied psychological needs in classroom situations as simply and concretely as possible (see Codebook in Supplement A). These items can prospectively be used for studies on the assessment of unsatisfied needs but require validation by further studies. Another limitation of this study is the sample size, which may not have been sufficient to uncover cross-level interaction effects between gender, unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom (Hox & McNeish, 2020 ). In the future, further level 2 predictors (individual level), such as personality variables, should be included in the investigation of the relationship between unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom. Other level 1 predictors, such as lesson design, learning environment, demands on students, and opportunities for interaction, could also help to gain more insights into the dynamics of boredom. From a content perspective, it should be noted that our test subjects were teenagers. Adolescence is accompanied by serious cognitive changes that can lead to more efficient and faster cognitive processes (Spoto et al., 2021 ) and thus to more rapid under-stimulation or under-challenge. Identity formation is seen as a central task of adolescent development, which is accompanied by a systematic change in the self-concept. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that attention to one's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs increases, confidence in one's judgment increases and different, even contradictory aspects of the self are integrated (Knopf & Mack, 2011 ). A discrepancy between the topics, stimuli and demands offered at school and the changing learning and developmental needs as well as the inner psychological needs for self-development of young people can increase boredom (Eccles et al., 1993 ). Therefore, it is likely that the relationships between boredom and unsatisfied needs are different for children in other developmental phases or for adults than those found in our study. Conclusion and Implications for Education This study investigated boredom and unsatisfied psychological needs in students in real classroom situations. Focusing on ten psychological needs, our results showed that boredom in the classroom was significantly associated with the needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy. This underlines the importance of the individual teaching situation for the occurrence of boredom. Students are more likely to be bored if they do not experience new and exciting things in class, if they do not feel competent, for instance due to over- or underchallenge, if they are not doing something that has a deeper meaning for them, and if they are not able to complete tasks in their own way. While this study cannot offer specific recommendations for teachers on identifying and addressing students' psychological needs to reduce boredom - as this would require substantially more research - but we want to provide a foundational framework for potential changes: our results show that boredom and the perception of unsatisfied needs are strongly situation-dependent. In teaching situations, students can perceive a wide variety of things as new and stimulating or meaningful or even develop them themselves if they have the opportunity to get involved and actively help shape topics or work steps. Since no teacher is able to find the right topic, the right teaching method or the right pace for every student in every lesson or situation, we believe that a promising strategy to prevent boredom in students would be to personalize instruction to tailor it better to individual and current students’ needs. For example, the feeling of being competent and up to a task can be achieved for all students in a class, if divergent questions are asked in class instead of convergent ones. In other words, rather than relying on questions with singular correct answers (e.g., “How much is 56*43?”) – which typically allow only quick-responding or teacher-favoured students to demonstrate competence – educators could adapt questioning techniques to enable all learners to provide responses aligned with their individual knowledge levels, interests, and confidence (e.g. ‘Which equations can give 2,408?’). Further ideas for such changes could potentially be co-developed through teacher-student collaboration. Educational approaches should extend beyond the traditional emphasis on knowledge acquisition, cognitive ability, and standardized testing outcomes. Rather, greater focus should be placed on competency development through the careful selection and intentional design of learning environments (Sternberg, 2003 ). This becomes feasible when classroom instruction incorporates individualized and interactive pedagogies that address students' psychological needs. However, supporting teachers in this demanding role requires equal attention to educators' own psychological needs and professional constraints. Teachers may also need more self-determination, meaningfulness and stimulation in the school system to avoid burnout or bore-out and to remain healthy, attentive, stimulating, relational, exemplary, meaningful and supportive to students. This is a task for education policy. Declarations Ethical approval This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of (ANONYMISED) (application: 27.06.2023, approval number: EK2023-06, approval date: 31.07.2023). The Ministry of (ANONYMISED) approved the data collection in grammar schools after submission of the data protection concepts, the questionnaire and all information on the planned procedure (application: 20.06.2023, approval number: WU 31.16-54131-56/2023, approval date: 14.07.2023). Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all participating students and their legal guardians before data collection (informed consent date: 16.02.2024). Information forms containing all details about the study (objectives of the study, participation and withdrawal, procedure, the data to be collected, data processing, data protection and anonymity of the survey) were provided to the participating schools in advance. The schools distributed these to the students and their legal guardians. If the students and their legal guardians agreed to participate in the study, they submitted a signed document to the school. The schools collected the consent forms and reported the number of participating students per class to the study management, who prepared the corresponding number of PC tablets for data collection and brought them to the collection days. The tablets were numbered, and only the class teachers could assign the numbers of the PC tablets to specific students. Data collection was completely anonymous, i.e., the study management and the research team were not informed of the identity of the individual students at any time. Author Contribution All authors contributed to the study conception and design and substantially involved in the development of the methodology, data analysis, and critically reviewed the work. LB and JM contributed decisively to the development of the study, the models and the analysis strategy. results, models, figures, and to revising the text. SF supported the data collection and data analysis and was responsible for checking all calculations. JM provided significant support in the preparation of the figutres and tables. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Overview of contributions:Concept and structure of the work: AZ, LB, JMDevelopment of the theory section: AZDevelopment of research questions and hypotheses: AZ, JM, LBSetting up the study and programming the tablets: AZData collection: AZ, supported by SFData analysis strategy: AZ, JM, SF, LBCarrying out the data analysis: AZ, supported by SFWriting the paper: AZPreparation of figures and tables: AZ, JMEditing and revising: AZ, SF, LB, JM Acknowledgement We are very grateful to Andreas Neubauer (DIPF Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurth am Main) for his feedback on the methodology and development of the study. Stefan Hey and Robert Zschetzsche (Movisens GmbH Karlsruhe) gave us valuable technical support in the programming of the tablets for the collection of ESM data and their safeguarding. Data Availability Electronic Supplement F. Application form for the use of research data References Acee TW, Kim H, Kim HJ, Kim JI, Chu HNR, Kim M, Cho Y, Wicker FW (2010) Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemp Educ Psychol 35(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002 Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S (2022) Single item measures in psychological science: A call to action. Eur J Psychol Assess 38(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 Álvarez MS, Balaguer I, Castillo I, Duda JL (2009) Coach autonomy support and quality of sport engagement in young soccer players. Span J Psychol 12(1):138–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001554 Baltes PB, Staudinger UM, Lindenberger U (1999) Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annu Rev Psychol 50:471–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471 Barbalet JM (1999) Boredom and social meaning. Br J Sociol 50(4):631–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/000713199358572 Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan RM, Bosch JA, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C (2011) Self-Determination Theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 37(11):1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125 Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bauer JJ, Park SW, Montoya RM, Wayment HA (2015) Growth motivation toward two paths of eudaimonic self-development. J Happiness Stud 16:185–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9504-9 Baumeister RF (1991) Meanings of life. Guilford, New York Bench SW, Lench HC (2013) On the function of boredom. Behav Sci 3(3):459–472. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459 Bolger N, Stadler G, Laurenceau J-P (2012) Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS (eds) Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. Guilford, New York, pp 285–301 Borg-Laufs M (2013) Basic psychological needs in childhood and adolescence. J Educ Res 3:41–51. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v3i0.7851 Bowlby J (1976) Attachment and loss. Basic Books, New York Brassai L, Piko BF, Steger MF (2011) Meaning in life: Is it a protective factor for adolescents' psychological health? Int J Behav Med 18(1):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9089-6 Buhr EE, Daniels LM, Goegan LD (2019) Cognitive appraisals mediate relationships between two basic psychological needs and emotions in a massive open online course. Comput Hum Behav 96:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.009 Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42(1):116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 Chan CS, van Tilburg WAP, Igou ER, Poon CY, Tam KY, Wong VU, Cheung SK (2018) Situational meaninglessness and state boredom: Cross-sectional and experience-sampling findings. Motiv Emotion 42:555–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9693-3 Cheyne JA, Carriere JS, Smilek D (2006) Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures. Conscious Cogn 15(3):578–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.11.009 Chin A, Markey A, Bhargava S, Kassam KS, Loewenstein G (2017) Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion 17(2):359–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000232 Ciranka S, van den Bos W (2019) Social influence in adolescent decision-making: A formal framework. Front Psychol 10:1915. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01915 Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Conesa PJ, Onandia-Hinchado I, Dunabeitia JA, Moreno MÁ (2022) Basic psychological needs in the classroom: A literature review in elementary and middle school students. Learn Motiv 79:101819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101819 Craig SD, Graesser AC, Sullins J, Gholson B (2004) Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. J Educ Media 29(3):241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165042000283101 Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. Harper and Row, New York Csikszentmihalyi M (2000) Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Damrad-Frye R, Laird JD (1989) The experience of boredom: The role of the self-perception of attention. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(2):315–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.315 Danckert J, Mugon J, Struk A, Eastwood J (2018) Boredom: What is it good for? In: Lench HC (ed) The function of emotions: When and why emotions help us. Springer, Cham, pp 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4_6 Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Pekrun R, Haynes TL, Perry RP, Newall NE (2009) A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. J Educ Psychol 101(4):948–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016096 Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 11(4):227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Deci EL, Ryan RM (2002) Selbstbestimmungsforschung: Überlegungen und zukünftige Richtungen. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM (eds) Handbuch der Selbstbestimmungsforschung. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, pp 431–441 Dejonckheere E, Demeyer F, Geusens B, Piot M, Tuerlinckx F, Verdonck S, Mestdagh M (2022) Assessing the reliability of single-item momentary affective measurements in experience sampling. Psychol Assess 34(12):1138–1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001178 Dickson A, Dearing MF (1979) Appetitive-aversive interactions and inhibitory processes. In: Dickson A, Boakes RA (eds) Mechanisms of learning and motivation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 203–231 Dunn AM, Heggestad ED, Shanock LR, Theilgard N (2018) Intra-individual response variability as an indicator of insufficient effort responding: Comparison to other indicators and relationships with individual differences. J Bus Psychol 33(1):105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9479-0 Eastwood JD, Frischen A, Fenske MJ, Smilek D (2012) The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(5):482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044 Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Reuman D, Flanagan C, Mac Iver D (1993) Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. Adolesc Their Fam pp 74–85 Eisele G, Vachon H, Lafit G, Kuppens P, Houben M, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W (2022) The effects of sampling frequency and questionnaire length on perceived burden, compliance, and careless responding in experience sampling data in a student population. Assessment 29(2):136–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120957102 Elpidorou A (2018) The bored mind is a guiding mind: Toward a regulatory theory of boredom. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 17:455–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9515-1 Epstein S (1990) Cognitive-experiental self-theory. In: Pervin LA (ed) Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Guilford, New York, pp 165–192 Erturan-Ilker G, Yu C, Alemdaroglu BU, Köklü Y (2018a) Basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation in physical education to predict health-related fitness level. J Sport Health Res 10(1):91–100 Erturan-Ilker G, Quested E, Appleton P, Duda JL (2018b) A cross-cultural study testing the universality of basic psychological needs theory across different academic subjects. Psychol Sch 55(4):350–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22113 Fahlman SA, Mercer KB, Gaskovski P, Eastwood AE, Eastwood JD (2009) Does a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimental analyses. J Soc Clin Psychol 28(3):307–340. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.307 Farmer R, Sundberg ND (1986) Boredom proneness – the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess 50(1):4–17 Fenichel O (1934) Zur Psychologie der Langeweile. Imago (Leipzig) Feuchter MD, Preckel F (2023) Gender differences in academic boredom and its development in secondary school. Learn Individ Differ 108:102379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102379 Finkielsztein M (2021) Boredom and academic work. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003180258 Fisher CD (1993) Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Hum Relat 46(3):395–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600305 Flunger B, Pretsch J, Schmitt M, Ludwig P (2013) The role of explicit need strength for emotions during learning. Learn Individ Differ 23:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.001 Flunger B, Hollmann L, Hornstra L, Murayama K (2022) It’s more about a lesson than a domain: Lesson-specific autonomy support, motivation, and engagement in math and a second language. Learn Instr 77:101500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101500 Gagné M, Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav 26(4):331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322 Ganon-Shilon S, Schechter C (2017) Making sense of school leaders’ sense-making. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh 45(4):682–698 Geiser C (2011) Datenanalyse mit Mplus. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93192-0 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Pekrun R, Hall NC (2006) The domain specificity of academic emotional experiences. J Exp Educ 75(1):5–29. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.1.5-29 Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Hall NC, Nett UE, Pekrun R, Lipnevich AA (2014) Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motiv Emot 38(3):401–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9385-y Goetz T, Sticca F, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Elliot AJ (2016) Intra-individual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learn Instr 41:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007 González L, Castillo I, Balaguer I (2019) Exploring the role of resilience and basic psychological needs as antecedents of enjoyment and boredom in female sports. Rev Psicol Educ Engl Ed 24(2):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.02.001 Grawe K (2005) Eine konsistenztheoretische Interpretation des dualen Therapiemodells. In: Kosfelder J, Michalak J, Vocks S, Willutzki U (eds) Fortschritte der Psychotherapieforschung. Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp 281–305 Gray JA (1970) The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behav Res Ther 8(3):249–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0 Grazia V, Mameli C, Molinari L (2021) Being bored at school: Trajectories and academic outcomes. Learn Individ Differ 90:102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102049 Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T, Solomon S (1986) The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In: Baumeister RF (ed) Public self and private self. Springer Series in Social Psychology, Springer, New York, pp 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10 Guay F (2022) Applying Self-Determination Theory to Education: Regulations Types, Psychological Needs, and Autonomy Supporting Behaviors. Can J Sch Psychol 37(1):75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355 Hacker W, Sachse P (2014) Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von Tätigkeiten. 3rd edn. Hogrefe, Göttingen Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(2):250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hox J, McNeish D (2020) Small samples in multilevel modeling. In: van de Schoot R, Miocevic M (eds) Small sample size solutions. Routledge, London, pp 215–225. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273872-18 James W (1890) Das Selbst und die Selbst. In: Lernert C (ed) The multicultural readings. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 161–166 Katsantonis I, McLellan R, Marquez J (2023) Development of subjective well-being and its relationship with self-esteem in early adolescence. Br J Dev Psychol 41(2):157–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12436 Kelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF (2004) Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: Introduction to part 1. In: Dahl RE, Spear LP (eds) Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1021:27–32 Khan S, Sadia R, Hayat SZ, Tahir S (2019) Relationship between academic boredom, learning climate and academic motivation among university students. Pak J Psychol Res 34:9515. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.3.34 Kirtley OJ, Lafit G, Achterhof R, Hiekkaranta AP, Myin-Germeys I (2020) A template and tutorial for (pre-)registration of studies using Experience Sampling Methods (ESM). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2CHMU Kleiman E (2021) Power curves for multi-level studies. Kleiman Lab. https://kleimanlab.org/resources/power-curves/ Knopf M, Mack W (2011) Entwicklung kognitiver Funktionen, des Selbst und der Identität in der Adoleszenz. In: Uhlhaas PJ, Konrad K (eds) Das adoleszente Gehirn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 45–60 Krannich M, Goetz T, Lipnevich AA, Bieg M, Roos AL, Becker ES, Morger V (2019) Being over- or underchallenged in class: Effects on students' career aspirations via academic self-concept and boredom. Learn Individ Differ 69:206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.10.004 Lakens D (2022) Sample Size Justification. Collabra Psychol 8(1):33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267 Larson RW, Richards MH (1991) Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. Am J Educ 99(4):418–443. https://doi.org/10.1086/443992 Lipps T (1903) Leitfaden der Psychologie. Wilhelm Engelmann Verlag, Leipzig Maas CJM, Hox JJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1(3):86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 Maitlis S, Christianson M (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Acad Manag Ann 8(1):57–125. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 Martela F (2017) Meaningfulness as contribution. South J Philos 55(2):232–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12217 McClelland DC (1985) How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Am Psychol 40(7):812–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812 Mehdi S (2021) University students multidimensional state boredom and strategies to cope within classroom boredom. J Lang Educ 7(26):204–222 Merrifield C (2014) Toward a model of boredom: Investigating the psychophysiological, cognitive, and neural correlates of boredom. University of Waterloo, Waterloo. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/8671 Mikulas WL, Vodanovich SJ (1993) The essence of boredom. Psychol Rec 43(1):3 Moeller, J, Salmela-Aro, K, Lavonen, J, & Schneider, B (2015) Does anxiety in math and science classrooms impair math and science motivation? Gender differences beyond the mean level. Int. J. Gender Sci. Technol 7(2): 229-254. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/232935 Moeller J, Ivcevic Z, Brackett MA, White AE (2018) Mixed emotions: Network analyses of intra-individual co-occurrences within and across situations. Emotion 18:1106–1121. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000419 Moeller J, Brackett MA, Ivcevic Z, White AE (2020a) High school students’ feelings: Discoveries from a large national survey and an experience sampling study. Learn Instr 66:101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101301 Moeller J, Viljaranta J, Kracke B, Dietrich J (2020b) Disentangling objective characteristics of learning situations from subjective perceptions thereof, using an experience sampling method design. Front Learn Res 8(3):63–84. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.vi3.529 Moeller J (2021) Averting the next credibility crisis in psychological science: Within-person methods for personalized diagnostics and intervention. J Person-Oriented Res 7:53–77. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2021.23795 Moeller, J., Dietrich, J., Neubauer, A. B., Brose, A., Kühnel, J., Dehne, M., … Pekrun, R. (2022). Generalizability crisis meets heterogeneity revolution: Determining under which boundary conditions findings replicate and generalize. Pre-print https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5wsna Moneta GB, Csikszentmihalyi M (1996) The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. J Pers 64(2):275–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00512.x Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2017) Mplus User’s Guide . 8th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles Myin-Germeys I, Kuppens P (eds) (2022) The open handbook of experience sampling methodology: A step-by-step guide to designing, conducting, and analyzing ESM studies . 2nd edn. Center for Research on Experience Sampling and Ambulatory Methods, Leuven Nett UE, Goetz T, Hall NC (2011) Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol 36(1):49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003 Nörenberg L, Lazarides RC, Dietrich J, Moeller J (2022) Quo vadis personalized learning programs? Aligning technological innovation with evidence-based research on learning and instruction. Preprint: https://osf.io/87hfz O'Hanlon JF (1981) Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychol 49(1):53–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(81)90033-0 Ohlmeier S, Finkielsztein M, Pfaff H (2020) Why we are bored: towards a sociological approach to boredom. Sociol Spectrum 40(3):208–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1753134 Pawlak M, Kruk M, Zawodniak J (2022) Investigating individual trajectories in experiencing boredom in the language classroom: The case of 11 Polish students of English. Lang Teach Res 26(4):598–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820914004 Pekrun R (2006) The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educ Psychol Rev 18(4):315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 Pekrun R, Goetz T, Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Perry RP (2010) Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. J Educ Psychol 102(3):531–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019243 Pekrun R, Hall NC, Goetz T, Perry RP (2014) Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. J Educ Psychol 106(3):696–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036006 Pekrun R (2017a) Achievement emotions. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS, Yeager DS (eds) Handbook of competence and motivation , 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, p 115–134 Pekrun R (2017b) Emotion and achievement during adolescence. Child Dev Perspect 11(3):215–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12237 Prentice M, Halusic M, Sheldon KM (2014) Integrating theories of psychological needs-as-requirements and psychological needs-as-motives: A two process model. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 8(2):73–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12088 Prescott S, Csikszentmihalyi M (1981) Environmental effects on cognitive and affective states: The experiential time sampling approach. Soc Behav Personal Int J 9(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.23 Pulido JJ, Sanchez-Oliva D, Amado D, Gonzalez-Ponce I, Sanchez-Miguel PA (2014) Influence of motivational processes on enjoyment, boredom and intention to persist in young sportspersons. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat 36(3):135–149. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC163541 Putwain DW, Becker S, Symes W, Pekrun R (2018) Reciprocal relations between students’ academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learn Instr 54:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004 Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J, Solomon S, Arndt J, Schimel J (2004) Converging Toward an Integrated Theory of Self-Esteem: Reply to Crocker and Nuer (2004), Ryan and Deci (2004), and Leary (2004). Psychol Bull 130(3):483–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.483 Quintana D (2021) Power Analysis: How, why and when? https://osf.io/ny34r/ Reeve J (2002) Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM (eds) Handbook of self-determination research . University of Rochester Press, Rochester, p 183–203 Reeve J, Cheon SH (2021) Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educ Psychol 56(1):54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657 Reis HT, Sheldon KM, Gable SL, Roscoe J, Ryan RM (2000) Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(4):419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002 Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image . Princeton University Press, Princeton. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136 Ryan RM (1995) Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J Pers 63:397–427 Ryan RM, Brown KW (2003) Why We Don’t Need Self-Esteem: On Fundamental Needs, Contingent Love, and Mindfulness. Psychol Inq 14(1):71–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449046 Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78 Ryan RM, Legate N, Niemiec CP, Deci EL (2012) Beyond illusions and defense: Exploring the possibilities and limits of human autonomy and responsibility through self-determination theory. In: Shaver PR, Mikulincer M (eds) Meaning, mortality, and choice: The social psychology of existential concerns . American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, p 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/13748-012 Schallberger U (1997) Die Stabilität interindividueller Differenzen als sozialisationstheoretisches Problem. Person-Umwelt-Effekte und ihre Folgen. Z Sozialisationsforsch Erziehungssoziol 17:231–243 Schwartze MM, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Pekrun R, Reck C, Marx AKG, Fiedler D (2021) Boredom Makes Me Sick: Adolescents’ Boredom Trajectories and Their Health-Related Quality of Life. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(12):6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126308 Schwartze MM, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Lohbeck A, Bednorz D, Kleine M, Pekrun R (2024) Boredom due to being over- or under-challenged in mathematics: A latent profile analysis. Br J Educ Psychol 00:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12695 Shao K, Pekrun R, Marsh HW, Loderer K (2020) Control-value appraisals, achievement emotions, and foreign language performance: A latent interaction analysis. Learn Instr 69:101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101356 Sheldon KM, Ryan R, Reis HT (1996) What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22(12):1270–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007 Sheldon KM, Kasser T (1998) Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24(12):1319–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412006 Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325 Sheldon KM (2011) Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives on psychological needs: a two process model. Psychol Rev 118(4):552–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024758 Shernoff DJ, Csikszentmihalyi M, Shneider B, Shernoff ES (2003) Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Sch Psychol Q 18(2):158–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860 Shih SS (2008) The relation of self-determination and achievement goals to Taiwanese eighth graders’ behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork. Elem Sch J 108(4):313–334. https://doi.org/10.1086/528974 Skowronski M (2012) When the bored behave badly (or exceptionally). Pers Rev 41(2):143–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211200006 Smith RP (1981) Boredom: A Review. Hum Factors 23(3):329–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088102300308 Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M (2023) Vitamins for psychological growth: a universal foundation for motivating others. In: Bong M, Reeve J, Kim S (eds) Motivation science: controversies and insights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197662359.003.0016 Sophie V, Sara C, Jellen T, Lieven A (2022) The role of ‘peace of mind’ and ‘meaningfulness’ as psychological concepts in explaining subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud 23:3331–3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00544-z Spoto A, Iannattone S, Valentini P, Raffagnato A, Miscioscia M, Gatta M (2021) Boredom in adolescence: Validation of the Italian Version of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS) in adolescents. Children 8(4):314. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8040314 Standage M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N (2005) A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. Br J Educ Psychol 75:411–433. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22359 Sternberg RJ (2003) Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612 Stone AA, Broderick JE, Schwartz JE, Shiffman S, Litcher-Kelly L, Calvanese P (2003) Intensive momentary reporting of pain with an electronic diary: reactivity, compliance, and patient satisfaction. Pain 104(1–2):343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00040-X Sulea C, Van Beek I, Sarbescu P, Virga D, Schaufeli WB (2015) Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learn Individ Differ 42:132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018 Svendsen L (2003) A philosophy of boredom. Reaktion Books, London Tze VM, Klassen RM, Daniels LM (2014) Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemp Educ Psychol 39(3):175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001 Uehara I, Ikegaya Y (2024) The meaning of boredom: Properly managing childhood boredom could lead to more fulfilling lives. EMBO Rep 25(6):2515–2519. Vachon H, Viechtbauer W, Rintala A, Myin-Germeys I (2019) Compliance and retention with the experience sampling method over the continuum of severe mental disorders: Meta-analysis and recommendations. J Med Internet Res 21(12):e14475. https://doi.org/10.2196/14475 Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C-H, Rosen CC (2016) A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J Manag 42(5):1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 van Tilburg WAP, Igou ER (2012) On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motiv Emot 36:181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9 Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B (2020) Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motiv Emot 44(1):1–31. Verhagen SJ, Hasmi L, Drukker M, van Os J, Delespaul PA (2016) Use of the experience sampling method in the context of clinical trials. Evid Based Ment Health 19(3):86–89. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2016-102418 Vodanovich SJ, Watt JD (2016) Self-report measures of boredom: An updated review of the literature. J Psychol 150(2):196–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1074531 Wallace JC, Vodanovich SJ, Restino BM (2003) Predicting cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: An investigation within military and undergraduate samples. Pers Individ Differ 34(4):635–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00050-8 Weissinger E, Caldwell LL, Bandalos DL (1992) Relation between intrinsic motivation and boredom in leisure time. Leisure Sci 14(4):317–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513177 Westgate EC, Wilson TD (2018) Boring thoughts and bored minds: The MAC model of boredom and cognitive engagement. Psychol Rev 125(5):689–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097 Weybright EH, Schulenberg J, Caldwell LL (2020) More bored today than yesterday? National trends in adolescent boredom from 2008 to 2017. J Adolesc Health 66(3):360–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.021 White RW (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychol Rev 66(5):297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934 Wolff W, Radtke VC, Martarelli C (2024) Same same but different – What is boredom actually? In: Bieleke M, Wolff W, Martarelli C (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Boredom. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003271536 Yazzie-Mintz E (2010) Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Bloomington, IN Zeißig A (2023) Boredom as the originator of a desideratum – reflections on the creative and suppressive consequences of boredom in the school context. Front Sociol 8:1214069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1214069 Zeißig A, Kansok-Dusche J, Fischer SM, Moeller J, Bilz L (2024) The association between boredom and creativity in educational contexts: A scoping review on research approaches and empirical findings. Rev Educ 12(1):e3470. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3470 Znoj HJ, Grawe K (2000) The control of unwanted states and psychological health: Consistency safeguards. In: Grob A, Perrig W (eds) Control of human behaviour, mental processes and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp 263–282 Zuckerman M (1984) Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behav Brain Sci 7(3):413–434 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files BoredomNeedsSupplementaryinformation.pdf Electronic Supplement A. Codebook Electronic Supplement B. Overview of the Multi-Level Analyses Carried Out Electronic Supplement C. Overview of the Number of Study Participants, ESM Observations, Missing and Exclusions Electronic Supplement D. Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for each Student in a Class Electronic Supplement E. Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for Shared Situations in a Class Electronic Supplement F. Application form for the use of research data Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7211748","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":535174360,"identity":"078c34f8-f279-4bc5-a943-a3687f06ed12","order_by":0,"name":"Anke Zeißig","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anke","middleName":"","lastName":"Zeißig","suffix":""},{"id":535174361,"identity":"58893e21-e6b7-4ae9-9661-81d0d99e16af","order_by":1,"name":"Julia Moeller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Leipzig University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julia","middleName":"","lastName":"Moeller","suffix":""},{"id":535174362,"identity":"f5f280f6-f4f4-4430-8945-d1ffc7470b20","order_by":2,"name":"Saskia M. Fischer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saskia","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Fischer","suffix":""},{"id":535174363,"identity":"0195d7b3-4cc6-46f2-959a-6969c788da16","order_by":3,"name":"Ludwig Bilz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ludwig","middleName":"","lastName":"Bilz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-25 07:53:32","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94855013,"identity":"ed31dd25-5ee8-4b8e-ada6-46743c558e4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1503971,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BoredomNeedsManuscriptFile.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/a1b9e0fc1c7b376515678e33.docx"},{"id":94855015,"identity":"c9989661-5794-427e-a973-15068022ae3f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7326,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"76fdff5ae58446da8f065f57d233e450.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/aa1137f3a1fb7ded60b9ef72.json"},{"id":94855029,"identity":"8c85cd1f-f667-415a-9f47-e7f3f4882d3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2876069,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BoredomNeedsSupplementaryinformation.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/4fcdd2c5700ac112785947c4.pdf"},{"id":94855021,"identity":"31884c5b-11ee-4414-9cd6-5eaa46b13ff4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":306055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"76fdff5ae58446da8f065f57d233e4501enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/ab6f975a434043e50461d243.xml"},{"id":94855030,"identity":"fe6522c2-a16b-4058-826b-9b7892981cf3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":278733,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/2635789ff9c07915edba92e2.png"},{"id":94855036,"identity":"ec3ed358-f164-4676-87bc-7da975773cbc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":175004,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/3b826a5df1e878687c0614e5.png"},{"id":94855031,"identity":"4186c823-b908-485f-ab0e-d12dd5d3034d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":64816,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/e2e6dcbb81080f324577accb.png"},{"id":94855026,"identity":"4562a78f-b6b7-4b72-8a0d-897d5d8fa3cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":50345,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/d73d2f01de3244e85de814fc.png"},{"id":94986271,"identity":"0ff583ff-7500-4dfa-9b52-7d3320cfb586","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 07:00:08","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":283260,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/24c0dd1b2baee6b41cde7ec6.png"},{"id":94855028,"identity":"802faecd-9393-4445-af98-2b2e9a34a64f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":548510,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/4cde550d5909c28a7cacc731.png"},{"id":94855016,"identity":"46c8e4c8-0891-4cd3-9167-bee51c474ffb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":200038,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/f466c5dea73e3d81777d2d7e.png"},{"id":94855014,"identity":"6f25a238-d8e1-441b-8174-bd6655832829","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":55995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/193dd1151653908a048956d8.png"},{"id":94984959,"identity":"4a68479e-2ea0-4e9a-8dcc-96f7274ab7a0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:57:01","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":50459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/9d7375ab088179202395c3bc.png"},{"id":94855032,"identity":"4b91b9b3-4476-402d-a874-0caee6260238","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41493,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/1c83b4a25bc9a4c3033668f8.png"},{"id":94855018,"identity":"cdba2245-e337-443c-af07-5e2ed3587a71","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":58383,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/a8eb404ba3f348036780ed64.png"},{"id":94985754,"identity":"2fd6db96-2820-49e0-aa19-2a7a29ebbf82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:58:51","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":141860,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/4b7f4e4fc014c91d487af4b1.png"},{"id":94855034,"identity":"f3599ee6-1eb8-4b1d-ba97-60173eb7b820","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"xml","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":301220,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"76fdff5ae58446da8f065f57d233e4501structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/e00538a0069ad418abebcc4e.xml"},{"id":94855035,"identity":"80a45b22-60e8-4870-88b7-f1b1d7dcb402","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"html","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":316115,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/0cd5d9b862e3c954d3b704ad.html"},{"id":94855017,"identity":"d9d08a4e-9a76-4131-9b68-596f91d375fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":678156,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative Frequencies (%) of Responses to Unsatisfied Psychological Needs, Compared between Situations when Students felt Bored versus Not Bored\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/d740784cc1fc8381433a2b76.png"},{"id":94855020,"identity":"d457a181-b8a5-4c3b-9957-1852a13feeaf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":195841,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults of the Estimated Multilevel Model, Predicting Boredom by Gender and Unsatisfied Needs on the Between-Person-Level and Predicting Boredom by Domain and Unsatisfied Needs on the Within-Person-Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/390f40043df0949763ad4b1a.png"},{"id":94855024,"identity":"93a06c35-f766-41b1-aabd-dcded1b8bcc8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":181728,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAssociation between Boredom and the Unsatisfied Need for Relatedness for Male and Female Students\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/0fe9e26004f75a61eb25570e.png"},{"id":94855011,"identity":"b54f641b-a9a4-47e9-b066-bb3f65795132","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:52","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":175596,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDistribution of Individual Boredom Mean Values of the Students\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/f0dbb2c7a1d99959c3280476.png"},{"id":94985806,"identity":"9eadece3-0bde-42eb-9841-4a72de3910b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:59:02","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":576618,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDistribution of Momentary Boredom Values for each Student in one Class\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/ce9405a5c5688c21ddca4457.png"},{"id":94855025,"identity":"6e97bb7c-4c65-48e4-badb-873d93ecfa07","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1193394,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDistribution of Momentary Boredom Values for Shared Situations in Class\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/9d9dc4ec2619e8296e26fea1.png"},{"id":96832873,"identity":"5d19e9b2-ceea-42c8-94b6-98518dbce050","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 14:09:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3950930,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/a0676d8a-bfd1-4040-9f04-855a44de3450.pdf"},{"id":94855023,"identity":"adaf9064-7830-4703-aabd-43eb736dd7fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:00:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2876069,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement A. Codebook\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement B. Overview of the Multi-Level Analyses Carried Out\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement C. Overview of the Number of Study Participants, ESM Observations, Missing and Exclusions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement D. Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for each Student in a Class\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement E. Distribution of Momentary Boredom Values for Shared Situations in a Class\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement F. Application form for the use of research data\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"BoredomNeedsSupplementaryinformation.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7211748/v1/873195ddda16bb0a7ceac8ce.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eHow Students’ Unsatisfied Needs in Class Situations Relate to Their Current Boredom: An Experience Sampling Method Study\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBoredom is one of the most frequently reported emotions among children and adolescents in learning environments (Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e). Up to two-thirds of students are bored during the school day (Westgate \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR146\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Weybright et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR147\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) for up to half of the lesson time (Larson \u0026amp; Richards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Nett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). As an achievement-related emotion, boredom impairs learning and mental well-being (Craig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017a\u003c/span\u003e; Schwartze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Given the possibly lasting effects of boredom on affective, cognitive, motivational, and psychosocial developmental processes (Putwain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Schwartze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Uehara \u0026amp; Ikegaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR137\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zei\u0026szlig;ig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR151\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), this study aims to provide insights into why students get bored at school.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied needs can be a possible cause of boredom, as various definitions and empirical studies on boredom include the perception that something is missing (Zei\u0026szlig;ig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR152\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Fisher (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) defines boredom as a state during which a lack of interest is felt. Lipps (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1903\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that boredom is based on a need for cognitive activity when there is a lack of stimulation or excitement. Furthermore, the lack of personal meaning, significance, complexity, or challenge is seen as a cause of boredom (Barbalet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Czikszentmihaly, 2000; Elpidorou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Fahlman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Finkielsztein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has examined only few unsatisfied needs in relation to boredom, and the previously studied needs were investigated mostly isolated of each other and rarely in the real-life situations in which boredom at school is experienced. It is therefore rather unclear how the lack of satisfaction of different needs contributed to boredom and how it relates to characteristics of the school situation versus the student. The present study integrates ten unsatisfied needs as predictors of students\u0026rsquo; boredom in one joint study to shed light on their incremental contributions of boredom. To capture and disentangle characteristics of the classroom situations and of the students, we use experience-sampling data along with multilevel analyses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Prevalence and Antecedents of Boredom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany students report being bored every day at school, some even every class period (Yazzie-Mintz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR150\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have found that students are bored in class around 20\u0026ndash;40% of the time (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Larson \u0026amp; Richards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Nett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Shernoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR124\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The developmental phase of adolescence has proven to be particularly vulnerable to boredom (Chin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Boredom among students increases from school year to school year in adolescence and the overall level of boredom has increased in recent years since 2008 (Weybright et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR147\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to its high prevalence and association with learning obstacles, boredom is seen as a negative predictor of academic performance (Daniels et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). It is a function of both characteristics of the learning situation and the learner: Highlighting the person-specific determinants of boredom, female students tended to experience less boredom than males (Mehdi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; 2017b). Highlighting the context-specific characteristics of boredom, it was found to differ within students between sciences versus language lessons (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther theoretical arguments and empirical evidence supporting the context-specificity of boredom were provided by research that investigated monotony, repetition, waiting, lack of stimulation, impoverished external stimulation, but also stimulus saturation as triggers for boredom (Barbalet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Merrifield, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Mikulas \u0026amp; Vodanovich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). Unfulfilled performance needs, a lack of meaningfulness or the lacking subjective value of a situation, activity, or task were also considered to cause boredom (Hackman \u0026amp; Oldham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e; van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoredom also arises when individuals want to do something but are unable to do so, are unable to carry out satisfying activities, or are obliged to do something they do not want to (Eastwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Svendsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR135\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In school, too high or too low demands and a high degree of control of the teacher over the learner cause boredom (Schwartze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Boredom is thus defined as a state in which a person\u0026rsquo;s abilities are underutilized (Wolff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR149\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and is often linked to inefficient, impaired, or inadequate cognitive or attentional processes (Cheyne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Damrad-Frye \u0026amp; Laird, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Vodanovich \u0026amp; Watt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR143\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Wallace et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR144\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). An imbalance between challenges and skills (Moneta \u0026amp; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), insufficient complexity of requirements (Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) and unused or insufficient cognitive resources (Danckert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Skowronski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR126\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Westgate \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR146\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) go along with boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn all of these different determinants identified by research to date, boredom is interwoven with social and contextual factors in specific situations that leave psychological needs unsatisfied. For children and young people, the classroom is an important social context in which the individual needs of students could play an important role in the development of boredom. Therefore, the next chapters will first review the current state of research into the psychological needs of children and adolescents, before describing existing findings on unsatisfied needs and boredom in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePsychological Needs in Childhood and Adolescence\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman development is centred on psychological growth, the integration of attitudes, values, norms, and opinions of others into one's own identity and well-being (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This takes place in interacting processes between inner psychological needs, such as attachment, self-esteem, competence, autonomy, and social environmental conditions (Bowlby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e; Epstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). The fulfilment of psychological needs for personal growth and well-being is linked to specific situations in social environmental and living conditions (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Gagn\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hacker \u0026amp; Sachse; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Martela, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Reis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In response to external demands, individuals organize their internal resources to satisfy basic psychological needs (Ryan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The specific definition describes the psychological need as a dependence on \u0026lsquo;nutriments or conditions that are essential to an entity's growth and integrity\u0026rsquo; (Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, p. 410). If several motivational tendencies are incompatible due to different needs (discordance) or the real experiences and the need-related motivational goals are discrepant (incongruence), inner-psychic or organismic regulatory processes are triggered to restore the state of consistency (Grawe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The situational experience and regulation of inner psychological processes is then determined by approach or avoidance behaviour (Dickson \u0026amp; Dearing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; Epstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Gray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA mismatch between psychological needs and behavioural options in the social environment is associated with negative consequences (Eccles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Prolonged inconsistency is even seen as a cause of mental disorders (Grawe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Znoj \u0026amp; Grawe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR153\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The possibility or prevention of satisfying psychological needs is therefore also considered to be a key determinant of students' positive and negative experiences at school and their consequences for personal development (Eccles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Erturan-İlker, 2018a; Reeve, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Standage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR131\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Deci and Ryan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize the importance of optimal challenges, rich sources of stimulation, and opportunities for autonomy in the school environment for learning. The need for autonomy is satisfied when individuals can act with a sense of their own will and choice (Gagn\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The need for competence refers to the ability to respond effectively to internal and external environments and to experience optimal cognitive challenges (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; White, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR148\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1959\u003c/span\u003e). The need for relatedness and connectedness involves other people, groups, or even society to engage in close in close relationships (Van den Broeck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR139\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Teaching that promotes autonomy takes into account the basic psychological needs and developmental tasks of the respective age group (Erturan-İlker et al., 2018b; Flunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Guay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Reeve \u0026amp; Cheon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The fulfilment of students' basic psychological needs promotes an intrinsic motivation and engagement (Conesa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). There are calls to include the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of psychological needs more strongly in developmental research (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBesides the so-called basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness in the narrower sense, other psychological needs can also be significant (Pyszczynski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Ryan \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Sheldon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Psychological needs in the broader sense are defined as tendencies toward specific psychological qualities of experience, which vary individually and are essential for personal development, success and satisfaction (Borg-Laufs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Prentice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Sheldon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR120\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Sheldon \u0026amp; Kasser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR121\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Sheldon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR123\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Vansteenkiste et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR141\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, people derive their sense of respect, worth, dignity and significance from a need for self-esteem (Greenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e, James, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1890\u003c/span\u003e; Rosenberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e). Especially in adolescence, self-esteem is a prerequisite for subjective well-being (Katsantonis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The need for meaning or significance is also emphasised as a protective factor for the mental health of adolescents (Brassai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Sophie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR129\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Meaningfulness arises from the fulfillment of values and aspects that are important to individuals and hold significance for them (Bauer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Baumeister, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the growing importance of social influence during adolescence is highlighted (Ciranka \u0026amp; van den Bos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and adolescents in particular tend to seek new experiences and stimulation (Kelley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). These other psychological needs ̶ such as self-esteem, meaningfulness, influence, and stimulation ̶ should therefore be researched as well to better understand what students need to grow, succeed, and find satisfaction in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePrevious Findings on the Relation of Unsatisfied Needs to Boredom\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEven the earliest theories of boredom proposed that a lack of sufficient mental stimulation is linked to feelings of boredom (Fenichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1934\u003c/span\u003e; Lipps, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1903\u003c/span\u003e). However, the direct connection between certain psychological needs and boredom has not been empirically researched for many years. A number of empirical studies outside the school context demonstrates that fulfilling basic needs of athletes such as autonomy and competence is negatively associated with boredom (\u0026Aacute;lvarez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Pulido et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In a study involving college undergraduates during their leisure time, Weissinger et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR145\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that elements of self-determination\u0026mdash;specifically autonomy and competence\u0026mdash;account for the majority of the variance observed in boredom. Educational research indicates that autonomy-supportive teaching decreases boredom (Buhr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Erturan-Ilker et al., 2018a; Flunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Shih, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Tze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR136\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), implying that satisfying the need for autonomy is also linked to reduced boredom in the classroom. A study conducted by Sulea et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR134\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) involving university students found that the needs for autonomy and competence were significant predictors of boredom, even when personality traits were taken into account. Besides these results showing that unsatisfied needs for autonomy and competence are linked to boredom, evidence also suggests that over- or under-challenging tasks and a lack of meaningfulness in activities are associated with boredom (Acee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Krannich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Svendsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR135\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, a lack of stimulation is proposed as a cause of boredom (Eastwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Fenichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1934\u003c/span\u003e; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), so the need for stimulation should also be examined as a potential predictor of boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Current Study: Boredom as a State of Unsatisfied Needs in the Classroom?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough boredom has long been described as an unsatisfactory state and many determinants have been identified that cause dissatisfaction and boredom, only a few isolated psychological needs have been empirically investigated in this regard. There are still no comprehensive investigations into what students miss when they are bored in certain teaching situations. In particular, there is a lack of studies that analyse such associations in a differentiated way between the level of situations (within-person) and the level of individuals (between-person). The aim of the present study is to integrate insights of theories and findings concerning psychological needs more systematically with regard to their respective contribution to students\u0026rsquo; boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe want to find out whether students' perceived boredom in the classroom is predicted by certain unsatisfied psychological needs, and compare the effects of several psychological needs that have previously only been studied separately from each other (\u003cem\u003eResearch question 1\u003c/em\u003e). We expect bored students in classroom situations to have certain unsatisfied psychological needs (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/em\u003e). The extant research (see Buhr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Erturan-Ilker et al., 2018a; Flunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Shih, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Sulea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR134\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR136\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that feelings of boredom may be predicted by unsatisfied needs for autonomy (Hypothesis 1a) and competence (Hypothesis 1b). Stimulation (Hypothesis 1c, see Eastwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) and meaningfulness (Hypothesis 1d, see Acee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Krannich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Svendsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR135\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) were also identified as predictive factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to a lack of theories and prior research on the relation of boredom to the unsatisfied needs for relatedness, self-esteem, and security, we have no evidence-based hypotheses on these needs\u0026rsquo; relations to boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next research question asks what amount of variation in situational boredom is explained by differences between learning situations (level 1) versus differences between individuals (level 2; \u003cem\u003eResearch question 2\u003c/em\u003e). Based on existing findings (Larson \u0026amp; Richards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e; Vodanovich \u0026amp; Watt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR143\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) we assume that a greater proportion of variance of student\u0026rsquo;s boredom can be attributed to the within-person level compared to the between-person level (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch question 3\u003c/em\u003e asks how often and how intensely students are bored, and how that level of boredom differs by characteristics of the person, such as gender, and characteristics of the situation, such as the domain of the school subject, i.e. languages and sciences. Since studies show that students are bored 20\u0026ndash;40% of the time in class (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Larson \u0026amp; Richards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Nett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Shernoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR124\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), we assume that, on average, students would be bored in more than 20% of classroom situations (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3a\u003c/em\u003e). We also expect to find bored students in every classroom situation we analyse (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3b\u003c/em\u003e). Since it has been shown that boredom in the classroom occurs gender-specific more frequently in boys (Chin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mehdi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), we hypothesise that female students are bored on average less frequently and less intensively than male students (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3c\u003c/em\u003e). Following the findings of Goetz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), Pekrun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and Shao et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) on the domain-specificity of boredom, we hypothesise more boredom in language lessons than in science lessons (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3d\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthics and Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University BLINDED FOR REVIEW PROCESS. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the State of BLINDED FOR REVIEW PROCESS approved the data collection in grammar schools after submission of the data protection concepts, the questionnaire and all information on the planned procedure. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students and their legal guardians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePlanning the Study and Sample Size\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was designed as an experience sampling study and preregistered with the template from Kirtley et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) (anonymised link for peer-review: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/p7t2n/?view_only=84e60421af40492984e5bde369b4e27a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/p7t2n/?view_only=84e60421af40492984e5bde369b4e27a\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) has been developed to investigate people's experiences in everyday moments in natural environments (Prescott \u0026amp; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). In ESM, data are collected repeatedly several times a day per person over a longer period of time in everyday life (Schallberger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). The sample size was determined based on pragmatic considerations, through resource-based sample planning and for multilevel modelling (Bolger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kleiman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Maas \u0026amp; Hox, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), with the constraints that the time and financial resources were limited (Lakens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Quintana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). We estimated the required sample size with a power simulation in order to recognise effects at the lowest level in a two-level model (Kleimann, 2021) and to take into account that the standard errors of the variances of the second level are estimated too small with a sample size below 100 (Maas \u0026amp; Hox, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, this study was designed as a pilot study and aimed for a sample size of approximately 100 subjects in order to gain initial insights on which further studies can be based.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eESM surveys occurred for all students in a class at the same time in order to disrupt lessons as little as possible. We limited the ESM data collection to one week per class and one measurement per lesson, each lasting approximately one minute. This was due to the length of the ESM forms having a measurable influence on the burden and quality of the data (Eisele et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and the number of possible measurements per subject and day being a significant predictor of compliance (Vachon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR138\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sampling scheme was signal-contingent, meaning that in contrast to event-contingent or interval-contingent methods, participants were asked to report on their experiences at unpredictable intervals. Participants received signals during science and language lessons throughout the school week. Measurements were distributed semi-randomly (Myin-Germeys \u0026amp; Kuppens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) at random times within the 45-minute time slots specified by the lesson plan. ESM data were gathered in all of the language and science subjects attended by the participating students. By measuring all students in a class at one point in time, it was possible to check whether experiences students\u0026rsquo; boredom differed between individuals in the same classroom and whether different classroom situations differed in their boredom levels (averaged across students). While the ESM survey notification times not predictable for the students, teachers were informed that the measurements would take place approximately between the middle of the lesson until up to five minutes before the end of the lesson.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sample comprised of \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;111 students (42 male, 67 female) with an average of 18\u0026ndash;19 measurements per person over a time period of five days in the 9th grade of two grammar schools. The students were between 14 and 16 years old (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.49; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.57). The time students took to respond to the ESM surveys was 1:03 min on average.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe students and teachers received information material about the study and consent forms two months before the planned data collection. If the students and their guardians agreed to participate in the study and were present on the first day, they were included. All data was collected using tablet PCs (Samsung Galaxy Tab A7) programmed with the movisensXS app (app version 1.5.23, version number: 7457). The tablets were handed out on each study day. The students carried the tablet with them throughout the day. The ESM period started with an initial notification (about 15 minutes) on the first day, followed by the experience sampling data collection period over five days (18\u0026ndash;19 measurements per student). When the signal sounded, the students completed the questionnaire (approximately one minute) and then continued with the lesson. On all study days, the first author was on site to provide support in the event of technical problems and to be available to answer questions from learners and teachers. Lessons with planned exams were excluded from the study in advance. Since experience sampling studies are naturalistic investigations that take place in real life, and since school is a context in which students have limited autonomy to decide what they do when, it had to be taken into account that students would be unable to complete ESM data at all times, which inevitably results in missing data (Vachon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR138\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers and students were therefore instructed to mute the tablet if the teaching situation required it so that the signal for data collection could be ignored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll items, their wording and scaling are given in the codebook in Supplement A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSocio-demographic Information\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe requested information on gender (female, male, diverse) for this study. Other information that was not used in this study (whether the respondents liked school, how stressed they felt by the demands of school, what grades they had in maths and German at the end of the last school year).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eESM-Measures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMomentary Boredom in Class.\u003c/b\u003e Based on the ESM study by Goetz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), we used a one-item measurement with a unipolar Likert scale (not bored - bored) to determine how often and to what extent the respondents stated that they were bored in teaching moments. The participants were asked, \u0026lsquo;How was your mood just before the signal came? (Please move the arrow to the position that applies to you)\u0026rsquo;, rated on a scale of 0-100 (0 being 'not at all', 100 being 'very much').\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUnsatisfied Psychological Needs.\u003c/b\u003e Based on the Psychological Needs Scale (Sheldon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), an adapted ten-item measurement was used to determine unsatisfied psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence, stimulation, meaningfulness, self-esteem, influence, luxury, physical thriving and security) in teaching situations, using a five-point rating scale (\u0026lsquo;strongly disagree\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;strongly agree\u0026rsquo;). The participants were asked, \u0026lsquo;With the following questions, we would like to find out whether psychological needs were not satisfied for you in the teaching situation before the signal. Please try to answer as accurately as possible!\u0026rsquo; Example items: \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;I missed being able to work on the tasks in class in my own way\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (unsatisfied need for autonomy); I missed doing something that has a deeper meaning for me (unsatisfied need for meaning). All Items on unsatisfied psychological needs are given in Supplement A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTeaching Domain.\u003c/b\u003e The teaching domain (languages or sciences) was added to the data set according to the timetable and the time stamp of the data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo indicators were determined to describe the amount and quality of data collected (Eisele et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Vachon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR138\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The first compared the number of completed ESM surveys actually provided out by the participants relative to the theoretical maximum number of possible ESM surveys permitted by the protocol (compliance rate). The second indicator was the proportion of valid observations included in the analysis in relation to the maximum number of observations over the five days of the ESM study (retention rate).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with the pre-registration, the data were assessed using multi-level regression analyses with Mplus 8.11 (Muth\u0026eacute;n \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), with time points nested in individuals. The data were available on two levels, with the variance between situations on level 1 (within-person) and the variance between individuals on level 2 (between-person). A random-intercept-model without predictor variables (null model) was used to determine the intra class correlations (ICC), i.e. the within-person variance of boredom on level 1 and the between-person-variance on level 2. To answer research questions 1 and 2, stepwise predictors were included according to Geiser (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) in the multilevel regression models, starting with simple random intercept models. Boredom was the metric dependent variable, teaching domain (dichotomous) was included as predictors at level 1 (within person), and gender (dichotomous) as predictor at level 2 (between person). Unsatisfied psychological needs (metric) were included as predictors at level 1 and level 2 with a robust estimator (MLR with an imputation of FIML for the estimation of models with missing values ). In addition, a random coefficient model according to the recommendations by Geiser (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) with random slopes was specified to test whether the slope coefficients of level 1 variables vary between the person clusters and to reveal cross-level-interactions. We have included an overview of all specified models in Supplement B.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, a comparison of the relative frequencies of unsatisfied psychological needs between situations in which students felt bored and situations in which they did not feel bored is achieved by dichotomizing the boredom scale. Since the slider is always centered at 50 on the boredom scale (1-100) when the query starts and is moved by the students to the left toward not bored or to the right toward bored, boredom values of 50 or higher on a scale of 1 to 100 were classified as bored, values below 50 as not bored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo answer the third research question, absolute and relative frequencies, means and standard deviations of boredom per situation and per person were calculated and the distribution of the data was visualized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Preparation and Descriptive Statistics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing data occurred either for all persons in a class at a time point (e.g. due to class work), or for single persons for all observations on single days (e.g. due to illness), or for single observations of single persons on single days (e.g. due to a task in the lesson that did not allow answering). There were 345 missings from a total of 2,057 possible measurements. In accordance with the rules for the selection of careless responders defined in the pre-registration, 149 observations from because the ipsative (within-person, across items) range of answers of that person across all items measured at a time point was zero. The data sets of two individuals (a total of 30 observations) had to be excluded due to data protection regulations on anonymity, as their information would otherwise have made them identifiable by others. The retention rate, meaning the proportion of valid observations included in the analysis in relation to the maximum number of possible observations over the 5 days of the ESM study, was 74.5%. The total final sample that could be used for the analyses comprised of \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,533 observations from \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;109 students in seven classes. An overview of the data preparation rates is attached in Supplement C. A two-level basic analysis was conducted to obtain the descriptive statistics (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eICC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWithin\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBetween\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoredom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e855.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e201.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for relatedness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for meaning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for stimulation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for self-esteem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for influence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for physical thriving\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for luxury/aesthetics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied need for security\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e(Level 1)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,533 (assessments within students), \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e(\u003csub\u003eLevel 2)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;109 (students)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe calculated the intra-class correlation (ICC) to determine the variance of boredom data between and within individuals. The multi-level analyses (null model) showed that 19.2% of the variance in boredom was due to the between-person level, i.e. differences between individuals. A larger proportion of the variance (80.8%) was at the (level 1), due to within-person differences across classroom moments. Thus, the data showed sufficient variance at both levels, between and within individuals, to continue the analyses with the different predictors on different levels, in line with our hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor most of the unsatisfied need variables, the larger proportion of variance was also at the within-person level, which is a typical finding for emotion and motivation-related ESM data. Only the unsatisfied need for physical thriving has a rather similar proportion of variance at the between-person and the within-person level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults Regarding the Relation of Unsatisfied Psychological Needs to Students\u0026rsquo; Boredom in the Classroom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe investigated whether perceived boredom in the classroom was related to certain unsatisfied psychological needs (\u003cem\u003eResearch question 1\u003c/em\u003e) and expected bored students to feel unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, autonomy, and competence in classroom situations (\u003cem\u003eHypotheses 1a-1d\u003c/em\u003e). Compared to classroom situations in which students did not feel bored (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;801), situations perceived as boring (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;732) were characterised by stronger unsatisfied psychological needs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, when students felt bored, they were substantially more likely to state 'I missed experiencing something new and exciting' (need for stimulation), and 'I missed being able to work on the assignments in class in my own way' (need for competence), compared to situations where they did not feel bored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany students reported multiple unsatisfied psychological needs at the same time, resulting in a high intercorrelation between these needs. To account for this, we tested the ten different psychological needs as level 1 predictors of boredom in a combined multilevel regression model. To integrate previously isolated theoretical perspectives, we hypothesized that the unsatisfied psychological need for autonomy (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1a\u003c/em\u003e), for competence (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1b\u003c/em\u003e), for stimulation (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1c\u003c/em\u003e) and/or for meaningfulness (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1d\u003c/em\u003e) would be predictive to boredom experienced in the classroom. In line with these expectations, our results showed that the unsatisfied needs for stimulation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), competence (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), autonomy (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004), and meaningfulness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.005), were significant predictors of boredom in the classroom. Unsatisfied needs for relatedness, luxury, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving, and security were not significant predictors of boredom in the classroom (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), as our exploratory analyses revealed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndividual boredom levels above the scale midpoint of 50 on a scale from 1 to 100 were classified as being bored and below 50 as being not bored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults of Random Intercept Model Predicting Boredom of Students in Class by Gender, Teaching Domain and Unsatisfied Psychological Needs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredictor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eS.E.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e[95% CI]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBetween Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-8.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-13.96; -2.57]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.003**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied Need for \u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-18.13; 12.40]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.714\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-6.28; 19.80]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.304\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompetence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-8.30; 12.22]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.709\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeaning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-3.88; 15.33]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.241\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStimulation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-6.61; 16.21]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.411\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-Esteem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-9.42; 2.35]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.242\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInfluence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-4.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-11.75; 2.03]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.165\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical thriving\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-5.85; 1.25]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.203\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLuxury\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-4.26; 7.24]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.611\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecurity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-4.71; 10.89]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.438\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWithin Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDomain \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-7.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-10.48; -3.66]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsatisfied Need for \u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.94; 4.77]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.004**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-.96; 2.82]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompetence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[1.61; 4.83]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeaning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.75; 4.14]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.005**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStimulation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[3.33; 7.60]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-Esteem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-0.65; 3.34]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.186\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInfluence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-1.77; 2.66]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.695\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical thriving\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-2.05; 1.82]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.909\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLuxury\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-1.46; 2.07]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.733\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecurity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-1.95; 1.99]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.985\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariance Components\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBetween Level Residual Variance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoredom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e127.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[77.90; 177.77]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWithin Level Residual Variance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoredom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e716.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[634.73; 797.63]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003csub\u003eBetween\u0026minus;Level\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003csub\u003eWithin\u0026minus;Level\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. n\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e(Level 1)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,533 (assessments within students), \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e(\u003csub\u003eLevel 2)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;109 (students)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eGender was coded 0 for male and 1 for female, \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003eTeaching domain was coded with 0 for language and 1 for science\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01. ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e displays the model with all the predictors and coefficients. The unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, autonomy and meaningfulness were only significant predictors at the within-person level, but not at the between-person level. In other words, learning situations that are higher than other situations in boredom also tend to be higher in unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, competence, and autonomy, whereas it cannot be said that individuals that are higher than other situations in boredom across all situations also tended to be higher in generally unsatisfied needs for meaningfulness, stimulation, competence, and autonomy, across all situations. This suggests that it is indeed the situation-specific need satisfaction, rather than a person\u0026rsquo;s disposition to have this need satisfied across all learning situations, that drives the association between boredom and need satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardised coefficients, rounded to two decimal places, are presented, **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01. ***p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo summarise, the variables in this model explained 22% (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .22***) of the variance in boredom within individuals and 37% (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .37***) of the variance between individuals. This represents a medium to large effect (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince gender can be not only a predictor of students\u0026rsquo; emotions, but also a moderator of relations among emotions and other constructs (e.g. Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), we analysed whether the association between boredom and unsatisfied needs differed by gender, meaning whether gender as level 2 variable moderated the association of unsatisfied needs and boredom on level 1. For this, we calculated a random coefficient model according to the recommendations by Geiser (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The random slope model showed varying slopes for unsatisfied needs between persons. For this reason, we investigated possible interactions between gender at level 2 and psychological needs at level 1 using a multilevel regression analysis with a cross-level interaction. We identified a significant cross-level-interaction between gender and the need for relatedness when predicting boredom (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.11, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates this interaction graphically. A stronger association between boredom and the unsatisfied need for relatedness was observed among female students compared to male students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAssociation between Boredom and the Unsatisfied Need for Relatedness for Male and Female Students\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe did not find any other interactions between gender and unsatisfied psychological needs in relation to boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults Regarding Levels and Variance Decomposition of Students\u0026rsquo; Boredom in the Classroom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe average person-level average of boredom was \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48.67. The intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated to decompose the amount of variance in boredom data due to differences between individuals (Level 2) versus within individuals across situations (Level 1; \u003cem\u003eResearch question 2\u003c/em\u003e). The multi-level analyses (null model) showed that 19.2% of the variance in boredom is due to the between-level, meaning differences between individuals. A larger proportion of the variance (80.8%) is at the within person level (level 1), representing variance between time points within persons.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHow the Different Students Felt Boredom Over Several Moments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, there were two out of 109 students who were bored at all moments in class (boredom values above 50), while three students were not bored at any moment (boredom values below 50), as seen in Supplement D. On average, the students were bored 47.7% of the measured moments in class. 97 out of 109 students were bored in more than 20% and 12 out of 109 students were bored in less than 20% of the measured moments in class (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2a\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe individual boredom levels, meaning each student\u0026rsquo;s average boredom across all learning situations, ranged from \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.6 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.6) to \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;95.7 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.6). For 47 people (43.1%), the individual boredom level was above the scale midpoint of 50 on a scale from 1 to 100, meaning we classified them as being bored (on average across all learning situations), whereas 62 students (56.9%) scored below that threshold of 50 and were classified as not being bored (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDistribution of Individual Boredom Mean Values of the Students\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo answer how often and how intensely students become bored (\u003cem\u003eResearch question 2\u003c/em\u003e), we visually analysed the distribution of boredom for each person at different moments in class (Supplement D). This compares the individual students\u0026rsquo; boredom experienced within the very same classroom situation and illustrates how differently students react to the same learning situation. To give an example for such a graph, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows the momentary boredom values for each student in one randomly selected school class, with each shared classroom situation being represented as a separate unit on the x- axis. The graphs for all other school classes can be found in Supplement D.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e showed that in this class that we randomly selected for illustration purposes, the individuals differed greatly in the range of perceived boredom. There were students whose boredom scores ranged over the entire scale from 0 to 100, such as students 2, 6, 9, 12 and 13. For other students, the individual scores were in a narrower range, e.g. students 7 and 8. Some students were very bored in most of the moments in class (most of the boredom values in the upper quartile), e.g. students 11 and 14.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDistribution of Momentary Boredom Values for each Student in one Class\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach violin graph and unit on the x-axis represents an individual student in the classroom. Each black dot represents the momentary boredom of that person at a given situation, with situations (black dots) varying within individuals (violin plots). The grey circles represent the within-person average of momentary boredom for each person. The vertical grey lines represent the within-person standard deviation of momentary boredom for each person.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eHow Several Students who are in the Same Moment in Class React to Boredom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince we consistently assessed all students in a moment in class simultaneously, we were also able to gain insights into how different individuals experience boredom in the same classroom setting. To accomplish this, we analysed the boredom ratings within the specific classroom situations (see Supplement E). The visualizations demonstrated that students' perceived boredom varies across different shared classroom situations (Supplement E). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, for example, illustrates how different students experienced the same classroom situations (units on x-axis) in terms of boredom. There were some teaching situations in class in which most students stated to be bored (e.g. situations 6 and 7) and others in which most students stated not to be bored (e.g. situation 16). In most situations, the students who were in a class felt very different levels of boredom (e.g. situations 1\u0026ndash;5 and 8\u0026ndash;12).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDistribution of Momentary Boredom Values for Shared Situations in Class\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach violin graph and unit on the x-axis represents a shared classroom situation (e.g., the moment in which a teacher was explaining new vocabulary in a language class to all present students). Each black dot represents the momentary boredom of one particular student in that shared situation, with students (black dots) varying within shared situations (violin plots). The grey circles represent the between-person average of momentary boredom for each shared situation. The vertical grey lines represent the between-person standard deviation of momentary boredom for each shared situation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the overall sample, in all classes in all joint teaching situations (Supplement E), we identified students who experienced boredom (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2b\u003c/em\u003e), with the proportion of bored students ranging between 8% and 93% across the shared learning situations. While we found no situation in which no one in a class was bored, we also did not find a single situation in which all students in a class were bored. Overall, the between-person average boredom was above \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50 (meaning students being on average bored) in 51 shared situations (from 124 shared situations in total; 41.1%) and below \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50 (meaning students being on average not bored) in 73 shared situations (58.9%). The between-person average boredom in the shared learning situations ranged from \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.7 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.3) to \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;84.1 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.5) across situations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe calculated the mean value of boredom within the same situation in the class only if data from at least five students in the situation were available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eGender- Specific Differences in Boredom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found that female students were on average less bored (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003efemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 46.2, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003efemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 31.7) than male students (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 52.6, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 33.4). Since averages do not necessarily reveal whether and how often students endorse, i.e. confirm, an experience, we also counted how often which students scored above the threshold that distinguishes endorsed boredom (scores above 50 on the response scale ranging from 0 to 100) from denied boredom (scores below 50 on the response scale ranging from 0 to 100). Female students also feeling bored less often (in 44.8% of all measured situations) than male students (in 52.4% of all measured moments). To take into account the multilevel structure of the data, we additionally tested the gender differences with a multilevel regression. The results were in line with the expectations of hypothesis 2c by showing gender as a significant predictor of boredom (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDomain-Specific Differences in Boredom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe comparison of the average boredom levels between language and science subjects suggested a significant difference (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 52.62, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.93; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 43.40, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.49, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (1531)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.551, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Again, we verified this with a multilevel regression analysis and identified teaching domain as a significant predictor of boredom (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.119, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In our study, boredom proved to be domain-specific (\u003cem\u003ehypothesis 2d\u003c/em\u003e). On average, students were more bored in language subjects than in science subjects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to expand existing research by examining the links between boredom and unfulfilled psychological needs, while distinguishing between the level of situations versus the level of individuals. This study integrates the previously separated theoretical approaches connecting boredom with deficiencies in autonomy and competence (Sulea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR134\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR136\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), lacking purpose or meaning (Barbalet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Fahlman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and insufficient stimulation (Mikulas \u0026amp; Vodanovich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; O'Hanlon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Westgate \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR146\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) within a single empirical framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results confirmed that unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, autonomy and meaningfulness were significant predictors of boredom in the classroom on the level of situations. A further situation-level predictor was the school subject domain. On the level of individuals, only gender turned out to significantly predict students\u0026rsquo; boredom levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBoredom as a Function of Unsatisfied Psychological Needs in the Classroom\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated whether classroom boredom was associated with unsatisfied psychological needs (\u003cem\u003eResearch question 1\u003c/em\u003e). In line with our expectations (Hypotheses 1a-d), boredom was predicted by the unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy in classroom environments on the level of situations, but not on the level of individuals. In other words, learning situations with higher unsatisfied needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy tend to be situations in which students report higher boredom than in situations with more satisfaction in these four needs. In contrast, unsatisfied needs for relatedness, luxury, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving, and security were unrelated boredom on both the situation and the person level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne contribution of the present study is its distinction between the factors influencing boredom on the level of situations (state-level) versus individuals (trait-level). We found strong variation in the school-related emotion of boredom at the within-person situation level. This underlines the importance of the individual learning situation for the development of boredom. That impression is supported by the fact that unsatisfied psychological needs, as well as the school subject domain, contributed to explaining the situation-level variance of boredom in this study. Specific situations in the social environment and living conditions such as the classroom are decisive for the fulfilment of psychological needs and the development of basic psychological functions and the personality of children and adolescents (Reeve, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Baltes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Early theories connecting unsatisfied psychological needs to boredom (Fenichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1934\u003c/span\u003e; Lipps, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1903\u003c/span\u003e) have long been ignored. Since boredom can have a lasting effect on children's development (Bench \u0026amp; Lench, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), its connection to psychological needs in classroom situations should be considered with regard to developmental processes (Zei\u0026szlig;ig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR151\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and the necessary adaptation of social systems to individual needs (Ohlmeier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe unsatisfied need for stimulation - characterized by students' sense of missing novel and exciting classroom experiences - constituted the most influential boredom predictor in our analysis, aligning with established findings about inadequate stimulation and boredom (Mikulas \u0026amp; Vodanovich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Bench and Lench (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) point out that social, cognitive, emotional and experiential stimulation can be missed when boredom occurs. Further research should therefore examine exactly which classroom situations leave which stimulation needs unfulfilled and lead to boredom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother significant predictor of boredom, the unsatisfied need for competence \u0026ndash; characterized by students' sense of missing feeling competent \u0026ndash; can arise from both over-challenging and under-challenging tasks (Krannich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Further studies should consider that students require different cognitive demands depending on their current abilities to utilize and expand their competencies. The extent to which the unsatisfied need for competence is more likely to predict boredom when demands are too high or too low should be further investigated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe unsatisfied need for autonomy emerged as the third significant predictor of boredom in our study. Students reported unsatisfied autonomy needs when they lacked opportunities to approach classroom tasks in self-directed ways. These findings align with established educational research demonstrating the benefits of autonomy-supportive teaching practices (Buhr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Flunger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Shih, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Tze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR136\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This remains a need for research on practical frameworks to help teachers develop and implement such pedagogical approaches effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth predictor that became significant was the aspect of a lack of meaningfulness in connection with boredom that has been confirmed several times in research (Barbalet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Van Tilburg \u0026amp; Igou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, there is little research on sense-making in schools and there is an urgent need for further research in different school contexts (Ganon-Shilon \u0026amp; Schechter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Sense making is an active process of constructing meaning from present situations, understanding problems or events that lead to ambiguity in everyday life (Maitlis \u0026amp; Christianson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), using prior knowledge, experiences, beliefs and values embedded in the social context (Ganon-Shilon \u0026amp; Schechter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The extent to which students can actively participate in shaping meaningful classroom experiences presents another promising avenue for future investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings underscore the importance of closer examination of students' psychological needs. Previous research has often focused on inter-individual differences on need satisfaction (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), whereas our results emphasize the importance of studying within-person variability in need satisfaction over time. While the need satisfaction only predicted boredom at the level of situations, there was nevertheless an interaction between person-level and situation-level predictors of boredom, in the sense of a cross-level interaction between gender and unsatisfied need relatedness, with this association being particularly pronounced among female students. These findings suggest that fulfilling the need for relatedness plays a more substantial role in mitigating boredom for girls in classroom settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to gender, other person-level, trait-like variables, such as openness to experience or dispositional boredom proneness, may be associated with certain psychological needs in teaching moments and, if unsatisfied, may promote boredom. We therefore suggest that future research should work on frameworks for studying the dynamics of boredom with an integration of trait-level determinants with the state-level determinants identified in the present study, following existing state-trait frameworks for research on emotions and motivation (Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020b\u003c/span\u003e). To shed more light on possible traits determining boredom, future investigations should incorporate theoretical frameworks that account for individual differences in both boredom experiences and unsatisfied psychological needs, e.g. McClelland's (1985) human motivation theory, Zuckerman's (1984) theory of sensation seeking, Cacioppo \u0026amp; Petty's (1982) need for cognition theory or Farmer \u0026amp; Sundberg's (1986) theory of boredom proneness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eVariability of Boredom in the Classroom\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe assumed that students' boredom was related to situational and personal aspects and that this would be reflected in the proportions of variance at both levels. The hypothesis that a greater proportion of variance of student\u0026rsquo;s boredom can be attributed to the within person level compared to the between personal level (\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/em\u003e) was confirmed by our data: 19.2% of the variance in boredom could be attributed between and 80.8% within person. This result supports the assumption that inter-individual differences in the experience of achievement emotions such as boredom play a role (Grazia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), but that the variance at the situational level is higher (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to individual predictors that can help to explain the occurrence of boredom, our findings support the call for greater attention to situation-specific determinants in social interaction systems (Ohlmeier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith \u003cem\u003eresearch question 3\u003c/em\u003e, we investigated how often and how intensively students were bored in class, differentiating between gender and teaching domain. This additional research question was relevant, because the regressions conducted for research question 1 do not reveal whether students ever endorsed feeling bored, since a correlation of any size can exist without anyone ever endorsing feeling an emotion (see Moeller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e and Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e for discussions of the information about endorsement lacking in covariance-based analyses). We therefore classified responses into endorsements of boredom and denials of boredom and in every single teaching situation we examined, there were bored students. On average across individuals, students were bored in 47.7% of the investigated teaching situations, supporting our expectations of Hypotheses 3a-d. We also found that there were individual teaching situations in which the majority of students in the class were bored and other situations in which only a few students were bored. Experiences of boredom was domain-specific: Students were bored more often in languages than in science lessons. These findings support the results of previous studies that have shown that boredom is domain-specific (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), and that situational aspects have a high predictive value for boredom (Chin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale students were bored averagely less often and less intensively than male students. These findings support the results of previous studies that have shown that boredom occurs differently between female and male students and more strongly in male students (Feuchter \u0026amp; Preckel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings demonstrate substantial variation in students' boredom levels within the same classroom situation, with some students experiencing relatively low boredom and others reporting significantly higher boredom across all measurement points. These results support theories on the intraindividual function of boredom, which posit that a person's subjective experience in a given situation may differ from the overall boredom pattern observed among students during a lesson (Grazia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pawlak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., 2006). Our findings align with existing research on personalized learning and adaptive instruction, demonstrating that students respond differently to instructional situations and that boredom levels depend on the specific context (Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020b\u003c/span\u003e; N\u0026ouml;renberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Methodological Reflections\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the present study, we used the experience sampling method and were thus able to investigate boredom arising directly in classroom situations in connection with ten different psychological needs. ESM is an ecologically valid method that provides detailed, context-sensitive insights into the momentary processes of an individual's daily life (Prescott \u0026amp; Csikszentmihalyi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). The present study was only conducted in two grammar schools and in one age group, which limits the generalizability of the data and makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about the validity of the findings for other age groups and school contexts. Such a limited generalizability of ESM studies is typical (see Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and warrants systematic follow-up studies on the replicability and generalizability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen planning the study, the aim was to obtain as many situation measurements as possible. At the same time, conducting research in real-life school situations makes it necessary to take precautions so as not to disrupt the ongoing teaching and learning processes and to avoid participant dropout due to the burden, duration, or frequency of the repeated measurements (Stone et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR133\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In our study, the compliance rate of 83.2% was slightly above the average value of 79.7% determined in a meta-analysis (Vachon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR138\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that the students did not feel unduly burdened by the duration and frequency of the ESM measurement. In addition, we had established rules for the selection of careless responders in the pre-registration phase, thereby objectifying the procedure (Dunn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, we cannot be certain that all measurement data accurately capture the actual experience at the respective moment. Students may have responded in a socially desirable way or may have had different levels of concentration when entering the data. With regard to data collection with tablet-computer, operating or input errors cannot be ruled out. In addition, a slider had to be used to indicate boredom, which was initially positioned in the middle. As a result, students tended to move the slider to the right or left and rarely back to the middle. This limits the accuracy of the measurement, and the distribution of the data shows a notch in the middle of the scale (\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eSkewness\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.92, \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eKurtosis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = -10.49).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo keep the assessments as short as possible within the ESM, single-item measurements were used (Verhagen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR142\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), in line with previous studies using similar measures of boredom. Such one-item measures are typical for ESM studies, but their reliability and validity can be difficult to assess (Allen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dejonckheere et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne further challenge in our study was the measurement of unsatisfied psychological needs, for which no measurement instruments have yet been developed. Measurement instruments for psychological needs in the sense of self-determination theory capture three universal basic human needs (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Since these measures are typically administered as retrospective, time-insensitive assessments, low need satisfaction scores in these measures do not necessarily indicate a lack of situational need fulfilment (Bartholomew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In order to determine whether a bored student had an unsatisfied need in a given situation, we selected one item per need from the Psychological Needs Scale (Sheldon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) that seems most indicative for a need deficiency in learning situations for 9th grade students and formulated the single items for the ESM survey of unsatisfied psychological needs in classroom situations as simply and concretely as possible (see Codebook in Supplement A). These items can prospectively be used for studies on the assessment of unsatisfied needs but require validation by further studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother limitation of this study is the sample size, which may not have been sufficient to uncover cross-level interaction effects between gender, unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom (Hox \u0026amp; McNeish, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the future, further level 2 predictors (individual level), such as personality variables, should be included in the investigation of the relationship between unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom. Other level 1 predictors, such as lesson design, learning environment, demands on students, and opportunities for interaction, could also help to gain more insights into the dynamics of boredom. From a content perspective, it should be noted that our test subjects were teenagers. Adolescence is accompanied by serious cognitive changes that can lead to more efficient and faster cognitive processes (Spoto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR130\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and thus to more rapid under-stimulation or under-challenge. Identity formation is seen as a central task of adolescent development, which is accompanied by a systematic change in the self-concept. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that attention to one's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs increases, confidence in one's judgment increases and different, even contradictory aspects of the self are integrated (Knopf \u0026amp; Mack, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). A discrepancy between the topics, stimuli and demands offered at school and the changing learning and developmental needs as well as the inner psychological needs for self-development of young people can increase boredom (Eccles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it is likely that the relationships between boredom and unsatisfied needs are different for children in other developmental phases or for adults than those found in our study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and Implications for Education","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated boredom and unsatisfied psychological needs in students in real classroom situations. Focusing on ten psychological needs, our results showed that boredom in the classroom was significantly associated with the needs for stimulation, competence, meaningfulness, and autonomy. This underlines the importance of the individual teaching situation for the occurrence of boredom. Students are more likely to be bored if they do not experience new and exciting things in class, if they do not feel competent, for instance due to over- or underchallenge, if they are not doing something that has a deeper meaning for them, and if they are not able to complete tasks in their own way.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile this study cannot offer specific recommendations for teachers on identifying and addressing students' psychological needs to reduce boredom - as this would require substantially more research - but we want to provide a foundational framework for potential changes: our results show that boredom and the perception of unsatisfied needs are strongly situation-dependent. In teaching situations, students can perceive a wide variety of things as new and stimulating or meaningful or even develop them themselves if they have the opportunity to get involved and actively help shape topics or work steps. Since no teacher is able to find the right topic, the right teaching method or the right pace for every student in every lesson or situation, we believe that a promising strategy to prevent boredom in students would be to personalize instruction to tailor it better to individual and current students\u0026rsquo; needs. For example, the feeling of being competent and up to a task can be achieved for all students in a class, if divergent questions are asked in class instead of convergent ones. In other words, rather than relying on questions with singular correct answers (e.g., \u0026ldquo;How much is 56*43?\u0026rdquo;) \u0026ndash; which typically allow only quick-responding or teacher-favoured students to demonstrate competence \u0026ndash; educators could adapt questioning techniques to enable all learners to provide responses aligned with their individual knowledge levels, interests, and confidence (e.g. \u0026lsquo;Which equations can give 2,408?\u0026rsquo;). Further ideas for such changes could potentially be co-developed through teacher-student collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducational approaches should extend beyond the traditional emphasis on knowledge acquisition, cognitive ability, and standardized testing outcomes. Rather, greater focus should be placed on competency development through the careful selection and intentional design of learning environments (Sternberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR132\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This becomes feasible when classroom instruction incorporates individualized and interactive pedagogies that address students' psychological needs. However, supporting teachers in this demanding role requires equal attention to educators' own psychological needs and professional constraints. Teachers may also need more self-determination, meaningfulness and stimulation in the school system to avoid burnout or bore-out and to remain healthy, attentive, stimulating, relational, exemplary, meaningful and supportive to students. This is a task for education policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of (ANONYMISED) (application: 27.06.2023, approval number: EK2023-06, approval date: 31.07.2023). The Ministry of (ANONYMISED) approved the data collection in grammar schools after submission of the data protection concepts, the questionnaire and all information on the planned procedure (application: 20.06.2023, approval number: WU 31.16-54131-56/2023, approval date: 14.07.2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participating students and their legal guardians before data collection (informed consent date: 16.02.2024). Information forms containing all details about the study (objectives of the study, participation and withdrawal, procedure, the data to be collected, data processing, data protection and anonymity of the survey) were provided to the participating schools in advance. The schools distributed these to the students and their legal guardians. If the students and their legal guardians agreed to participate in the study, they submitted a signed document to the school. The schools collected the consent forms and reported the number of participating students per class to the study management, who prepared the corresponding number of PC tablets for data collection and brought them to the collection days. The tablets were numbered, and only the class teachers could assign the numbers of the PC tablets to specific students. Data collection was completely anonymous, i.e., the study management and the research team were not informed of the identity of the individual students at any time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design and substantially involved in the development of the methodology, data analysis, and critically reviewed the work. LB and JM contributed decisively to the development of the study, the models and the analysis strategy. results, models, figures, and to revising the text. SF supported the data collection and data analysis and was responsible for checking all calculations. JM provided significant support in the preparation of the figutres and tables. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Overview of contributions:Concept and structure of the work: AZ, LB, JMDevelopment of the theory section: AZDevelopment of research questions and hypotheses: AZ, JM, LBSetting up the study and programming the tablets: AZData collection: AZ, supported by SFData analysis strategy: AZ, JM, SF, LBCarrying out the data analysis: AZ, supported by SFWriting the paper: AZPreparation of figures and tables: AZ, JMEditing and revising: AZ, SF, LB, JM\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are very grateful to Andreas Neubauer (DIPF Leibniz-Institut f\u0026uuml;r Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurth am Main) for his feedback on the methodology and development of the study. Stefan Hey and Robert Zschetzsche (Movisens GmbH Karlsruhe) gave us valuable technical support in the programming of the tablets for the collection of ESM data and their safeguarding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElectronic Supplement F. Application form for the use of research data\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcee TW, Kim H, Kim HJ, Kim JI, Chu HNR, Kim M, Cho Y, Wicker FW (2010) Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemp Educ Psychol 35(1):17\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S (2022) Single item measures in psychological science: A call to action. Eur J Psychol Assess 38(1):1\u0026ndash;5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez MS, Balaguer I, Castillo I, Duda JL (2009) Coach autonomy support and quality of sport engagement in young soccer players. Span J Psychol 12(1):138\u0026ndash;148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001554\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaltes PB, Staudinger UM, Lindenberger U (1999) Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annu Rev Psychol 50:471\u0026ndash;507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbalet JM (1999) Boredom and social meaning. Br J Sociol 50(4):631\u0026ndash;646. https://doi.org/10.1080/000713199358572\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan RM, Bosch JA, Th\u0026oslash;gersen-Ntoumani C (2011) Self-Determination Theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 37(11):1459\u0026ndash;1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191\u0026ndash;215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBauer JJ, Park SW, Montoya RM, Wayment HA (2015) Growth motivation toward two paths of eudaimonic self-development. J Happiness Stud 16:185\u0026ndash;210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9504-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaumeister RF (1991) Meanings of life. Guilford, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBench SW, Lench HC (2013) On the function of boredom. Behav Sci 3(3):459\u0026ndash;472. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolger N, Stadler G, Laurenceau J-P (2012) Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS (eds) Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. Guilford, New York, pp 285\u0026ndash;301\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorg-Laufs M (2013) Basic psychological needs in childhood and adolescence. J Educ Res 3:41\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v3i0.7851\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowlby J (1976) Attachment and loss. Basic Books, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrassai L, Piko BF, Steger MF (2011) Meaning in life: Is it a protective factor for adolescents\u0026apos; psychological health? Int J Behav Med 18(1):44\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-010-9089-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuhr EE, Daniels LM, Goegan LD (2019) Cognitive appraisals mediate relationships between two basic psychological needs and emotions in a massive open online course. Comput Hum Behav 96:85\u0026ndash;94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42(1):116\u0026ndash;131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan CS, van Tilburg WAP, Igou ER, Poon CY, Tam KY, Wong VU, Cheung SK (2018) Situational meaninglessness and state boredom: Cross-sectional and experience-sampling findings. Motiv Emotion 42:555\u0026ndash;565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9693-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheyne JA, Carriere JS, Smilek D (2006) Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures. Conscious Cogn 15(3):578\u0026ndash;592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.11.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChin A, Markey A, Bhargava S, Kassam KS, Loewenstein G (2017) Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion 17(2):359\u0026ndash;368. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000232\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiranka S, van den Bos W (2019) Social influence in adolescent decision-making: A formal framework. Front Psychol 10:1915. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01915\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155\u0026ndash;159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConesa PJ, Onandia-Hinchado I, Dunabeitia JA, Moreno M\u0026Aacute; (2022) Basic psychological needs in the classroom: A literature review in elementary and middle school students. Learn Motiv 79:101819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101819\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCraig SD, Graesser AC, Sullins J, Gholson B (2004) Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. J Educ Media 29(3):241\u0026ndash;250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165042000283101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCsikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. Harper and Row, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCsikszentmihalyi M (2000) Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamrad-Frye R, Laird JD (1989) The experience of boredom: The role of the self-perception of attention. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(2):315\u0026ndash;320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.315\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDanckert J, Mugon J, Struk A, Eastwood J (2018) Boredom: What is it good for? In: Lench HC (ed) The function of emotions: When and why emotions help us. Springer, Cham, pp 93\u0026ndash;119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4_6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Pekrun R, Haynes TL, Perry RP, Newall NE (2009) A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. J Educ Psychol 101(4):948\u0026ndash;963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016096\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 11(4):227\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM (2002) Selbstbestimmungsforschung: \u0026Uuml;berlegungen und zuk\u0026uuml;nftige Richtungen. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM (eds) Handbuch der Selbstbestimmungsforschung. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, pp 431\u0026ndash;441\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDejonckheere E, Demeyer F, Geusens B, Piot M, Tuerlinckx F, Verdonck S, Mestdagh M (2022) Assessing the reliability of single-item momentary affective measurements in experience sampling. Psychol Assess 34(12):1138\u0026ndash;1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001178\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDickson A, Dearing MF (1979) Appetitive-aversive interactions and inhibitory processes. In: Dickson A, Boakes RA (eds) Mechanisms of learning and motivation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 203\u0026ndash;231\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunn AM, Heggestad ED, Shanock LR, Theilgard N (2018) Intra-individual response variability as an indicator of insufficient effort responding: Comparison to other indicators and relationships with individual differences. J Bus Psychol 33(1):105\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9479-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEastwood JD, Frischen A, Fenske MJ, Smilek D (2012) The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(5):482\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Reuman D, Flanagan C, Mac Iver D (1993) Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents\u0026rsquo; experiences in schools and in families. Adolesc Their Fam pp 74\u0026ndash;85\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEisele G, Vachon H, Lafit G, Kuppens P, Houben M, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W (2022) The effects of sampling frequency and questionnaire length on perceived burden, compliance, and careless responding in experience sampling data in a student population. Assessment 29(2):136\u0026ndash;151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120957102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElpidorou A (2018) The bored mind is a guiding mind: Toward a regulatory theory of boredom. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 17:455\u0026ndash;484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9515-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEpstein S (1990) Cognitive-experiental self-theory. In: Pervin LA (ed) Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Guilford, New York, pp 165\u0026ndash;192\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErturan-Ilker G, Yu C, Alemdaroglu BU, K\u0026ouml;kl\u0026uuml; Y (2018a) Basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation in physical education to predict health-related fitness level. J Sport Health Res 10(1):91\u0026ndash;100\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErturan-Ilker G, Quested E, Appleton P, Duda JL (2018b) A cross-cultural study testing the universality of basic psychological needs theory across different academic subjects. Psychol Sch 55(4):350\u0026ndash;365. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFahlman SA, Mercer KB, Gaskovski P, Eastwood AE, Eastwood JD (2009) Does a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and experimental analyses. J Soc Clin Psychol 28(3):307\u0026ndash;340. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.307\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarmer R, Sundberg ND (1986) Boredom proneness \u0026ndash; the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess 50(1):4\u0026ndash;17\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFenichel O (1934) Zur Psychologie der Langeweile. Imago (Leipzig)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeuchter MD, Preckel F (2023) Gender differences in academic boredom and its development in secondary school. Learn Individ Differ 108:102379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102379\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinkielsztein M (2021) Boredom and academic work. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003180258\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher CD (1993) Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Hum Relat 46(3):395\u0026ndash;417. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlunger B, Pretsch J, Schmitt M, Ludwig P (2013) The role of explicit need strength for emotions during learning. Learn Individ Differ 23:241\u0026ndash;248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlunger B, Hollmann L, Hornstra L, Murayama K (2022) It\u0026rsquo;s more about a lesson than a domain: Lesson-specific autonomy support, motivation, and engagement in math and a second language. Learn Instr 77:101500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101500\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGagn\u0026eacute; M, Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav 26(4):331\u0026ndash;362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGanon-Shilon S, Schechter C (2017) Making sense of school leaders\u0026rsquo; sense-making. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh 45(4):682\u0026ndash;698\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeiser C (2011) Datenanalyse mit Mplus. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einf\u0026uuml;hrung. VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93192-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoetz T, Frenzel AC, Pekrun R, Hall NC (2006) The domain specificity of academic emotional experiences. J Exp Educ 75(1):5\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.1.5-29\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoetz T, Frenzel AC, Hall NC, Nett UE, Pekrun R, Lipnevich AA (2014) Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motiv Emot 38(3):401\u0026ndash;419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9385-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoetz T, Sticca F, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Elliot AJ (2016) Intra-individual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learn Instr 41:115\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez L, Castillo I, Balaguer I (2019) Exploring the role of resilience and basic psychological needs as antecedents of enjoyment and boredom in female sports. Rev Psicol Educ Engl Ed 24(2):131\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrawe K (2005) Eine konsistenztheoretische Interpretation des dualen Therapiemodells. In: Kosfelder J, Michalak J, Vocks S, Willutzki U (eds) Fortschritte der Psychotherapieforschung. Hogrefe, G\u0026ouml;ttingen, pp 281\u0026ndash;305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGray JA (1970) The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behav Res Ther 8(3):249\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrazia V, Mameli C, Molinari L (2021) Being bored at school: Trajectories and academic outcomes. Learn Individ Differ 90:102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102049\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg J, Pyszczynski T, Solomon S (1986) The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In: Baumeister RF (ed) Public self and private self. Springer Series in Social Psychology, Springer, New York, pp 189\u0026ndash;212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuay F (2022) Applying Self-Determination Theory to Education: Regulations Types, Psychological Needs, and Autonomy Supporting Behaviors. Can J Sch Psychol 37(1):75\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHacker W, Sachse P (2014) Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von T\u0026auml;tigkeiten. 3rd edn. Hogrefe, G\u0026ouml;ttingen\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(2):250\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHox J, McNeish D (2020) Small samples in multilevel modeling. In: van de Schoot R, Miocevic M (eds) Small sample size solutions. Routledge, London, pp 215\u0026ndash;225. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273872-18\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJames W (1890) Das Selbst und die Selbst. In: Lernert C (ed) The multicultural readings. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 161\u0026ndash;166\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatsantonis I, McLellan R, Marquez J (2023) Development of subjective well-being and its relationship with self-esteem in early adolescence. Br J Dev Psychol 41(2):157\u0026ndash;171. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12436\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF (2004) Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: Introduction to part 1. In: Dahl RE, Spear LP (eds) Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1021:27\u0026ndash;32\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan S, Sadia R, Hayat SZ, Tahir S (2019) Relationship between academic boredom, learning climate and academic motivation among university students. Pak J Psychol Res 34:9515. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.3.34\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirtley OJ, Lafit G, Achterhof R, Hiekkaranta AP, Myin-Germeys I (2020) A template and tutorial for (pre-)registration of studies using Experience Sampling Methods (ESM). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2CHMU\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKleiman E (2021) Power curves for multi-level studies. Kleiman Lab. https://kleimanlab.org/resources/power-curves/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnopf M, Mack W (2011) Entwicklung kognitiver Funktionen, des Selbst und der Identit\u0026auml;t in der Adoleszenz. In: Uhlhaas PJ, Konrad K (eds) Das adoleszente Gehirn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 45\u0026ndash;60\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrannich M, Goetz T, Lipnevich AA, Bieg M, Roos AL, Becker ES, Morger V (2019) Being over- or underchallenged in class: Effects on students\u0026apos; career aspirations via academic self-concept and boredom. Learn Individ Differ 69:206\u0026ndash;218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.10.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakens D (2022) Sample Size Justification. Collabra Psychol 8(1):33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLarson RW, Richards MH (1991) Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. Am J Educ 99(4):418\u0026ndash;443. https://doi.org/10.1086/443992\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLipps T (1903) Leitfaden der Psychologie. Wilhelm Engelmann Verlag, Leipzig\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaas CJM, Hox JJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1(3):86\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaitlis S, Christianson M (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Acad Manag Ann 8(1):57\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartela F (2017) Meaningfulness as contribution. South J Philos 55(2):232\u0026ndash;256. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcClelland DC (1985) How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Am Psychol 40(7):812\u0026ndash;825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMehdi S (2021) University students multidimensional state boredom and strategies to cope within classroom boredom. J Lang Educ 7(26):204\u0026ndash;222\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerrifield C (2014) Toward a model of boredom: Investigating the psychophysiological, cognitive, and neural correlates of boredom. University of Waterloo, Waterloo. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/8671\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMikulas WL, Vodanovich SJ (1993) The essence of boredom. Psychol Rec 43(1):3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller, J, Salmela-Aro, K, Lavonen, J, \u0026amp; Schneider, B (2015) Does anxiety in math and science classrooms impair math and science motivation? Gender differences beyond the mean level. Int. J. Gender Sci. Technol 7(2): 229-254. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/232935\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller J, Ivcevic Z, Brackett MA, White AE (2018) Mixed emotions: Network analyses of intra-individual co-occurrences within and across situations. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e 18:1106\u0026ndash;1121. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000419\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller J, Brackett MA, Ivcevic Z, White AE (2020a) High school students\u0026rsquo; feelings: Discoveries from a large national survey and an experience sampling study. Learn Instr 66:101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101301\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller J, Viljaranta J, Kracke B, Dietrich J (2020b) Disentangling objective characteristics of learning situations from subjective perceptions thereof, using an experience sampling method design. Front Learn Res 8(3):63\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.vi3.529\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller J (2021) Averting the next credibility crisis in psychological science: Within-person methods for personalized diagnostics and intervention. \u003cem\u003eJ Person-Oriented Res\u003c/em\u003e 7:53\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2021.23795\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoeller, J., Dietrich, J., Neubauer, A. B., Brose, A., K\u0026uuml;hnel, J., Dehne, M., \u0026hellip; Pekrun, R. (2022). Generalizability crisis meets heterogeneity revolution: Determining under which boundary conditions findings replicate and generalize. Pre-print https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5wsna\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoneta GB, Csikszentmihalyi M (1996) The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. J Pers 64(2):275\u0026ndash;310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00512.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuth\u0026eacute;n LK, Muth\u0026eacute;n BO (2017) \u003cem\u003eMplus User\u0026rsquo;s Guide\u003c/em\u003e. 8th edn. Muth\u0026eacute;n \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMyin-Germeys I, Kuppens P (eds) (2022) \u003cem\u003eThe open handbook of experience sampling methodology: A step-by-step guide to designing, conducting, and analyzing ESM studies\u003c/em\u003e. 2nd edn. Center for Research on Experience Sampling and Ambulatory Methods, Leuven\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNett UE, Goetz T, Hall NC (2011) Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol 36(1):49\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN\u0026ouml;renberg L, Lazarides RC, Dietrich J, Moeller J (2022) Quo vadis personalized learning programs? Aligning technological innovation with evidence-based research on learning and instruction. Preprint: https://osf.io/87hfz\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Hanlon JF (1981) Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychol 49(1):53\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(81)90033-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOhlmeier S, Finkielsztein M, Pfaff H (2020) Why we are bored: towards a sociological approach to boredom. Sociol Spectrum 40(3):208\u0026ndash;225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1753134\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePawlak M, Kruk M, Zawodniak J (2022) Investigating individual trajectories in experiencing boredom in the language classroom: The case of 11 Polish students of English. Lang Teach Res 26(4):598\u0026ndash;616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820914004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePekrun R (2006) The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educ Psychol Rev 18(4):315\u0026ndash;341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePekrun R, Goetz T, Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Perry RP (2010) Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control\u0026ndash;value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. J Educ Psychol 102(3):531\u0026ndash;549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019243\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePekrun R, Hall NC, Goetz T, Perry RP (2014) Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. J Educ Psychol 106(3):696\u0026ndash;710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePekrun R (2017a) Achievement emotions. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS, Yeager DS (eds) \u003cem\u003eHandbook of competence and motivation\u003c/em\u003e, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, p 115\u0026ndash;134\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePekrun R (2017b) Emotion and achievement during adolescence. Child Dev Perspect 11(3):215\u0026ndash;221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12237\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrentice M, Halusic M, Sheldon KM (2014) Integrating theories of psychological needs-as-requirements and psychological needs-as-motives: A two process model. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 8(2):73\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12088\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrescott S, Csikszentmihalyi M (1981) Environmental effects on cognitive and affective states: The experiential time sampling approach. Soc Behav Personal Int J 9(1):23\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.23\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePulido JJ, Sanchez-Oliva D, Amado D, Gonzalez-Ponce I, Sanchez-Miguel PA (2014) Influence of motivational processes on enjoyment, boredom and intention to persist in young sportspersons. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat 36(3):135\u0026ndash;149. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC163541\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePutwain DW, Becker S, Symes W, Pekrun R (2018) Reciprocal relations between students\u0026rsquo; academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learn Instr 54:73\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePyszczynski T, Greenberg J, Solomon S, Arndt J, Schimel J (2004) Converging Toward an Integrated Theory of Self-Esteem: Reply to Crocker and Nuer (2004), Ryan and Deci (2004), and Leary (2004). Psychol Bull 130(3):483\u0026ndash;488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.483\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuintana D (2021) Power Analysis: How, why and when? https://osf.io/ny34r/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReeve J (2002) Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM (eds) \u003cem\u003eHandbook of self-determination research\u003c/em\u003e. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, p 183\u0026ndash;203\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReeve J, Cheon SH (2021) Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educ Psychol 56(1):54\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReis HT, Sheldon KM, Gable SL, Roscoe J, Ryan RM (2000) Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(4):419\u0026ndash;435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenberg M (1965) \u003cem\u003eSociety and the Adolescent Self-Image\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press, Princeton. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM (1995) Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J Pers 63:397\u0026ndash;427\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM, Brown KW (2003) Why We Don\u0026rsquo;t Need Self-Esteem: On Fundamental Needs, Contingent Love, and Mindfulness. Psychol Inq 14(1):71\u0026ndash;76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68\u0026ndash;78\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan RM, Legate N, Niemiec CP, Deci EL (2012) Beyond illusions and defense: Exploring the possibilities and limits of human autonomy and responsibility through self-determination theory. In: Shaver PR, Mikulincer M (eds) \u003cem\u003eMeaning, mortality, and choice: The social psychology of existential concerns\u003c/em\u003e. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, p 215\u0026ndash;233. https://doi.org/10.1037/13748-012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchallberger U (1997) Die Stabilit\u0026auml;t interindividueller Differenzen als sozialisationstheoretisches Problem. Person-Umwelt-Effekte und ihre Folgen. Z Sozialisationsforsch Erziehungssoziol 17:231\u0026ndash;243\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartze MM, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Pekrun R, Reck C, Marx AKG, Fiedler D (2021) Boredom Makes Me Sick: Adolescents\u0026rsquo; Boredom Trajectories and Their Health-Related Quality of Life. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(12):6308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126308\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartze MM, Frenzel AC, Goetz T, Lohbeck A, Bednorz D, Kleine M, Pekrun R (2024) Boredom due to being over- or under-challenged in mathematics: A latent profile analysis. Br J Educ Psychol 00:1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12695\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShao K, Pekrun R, Marsh HW, Loderer K (2020) Control-value appraisals, achievement emotions, and foreign language performance: A latent interaction analysis. Learn Instr 69:101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101356\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheldon KM, Ryan R, Reis HT (1996) What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22(12):1270\u0026ndash;1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheldon KM, Kasser T (1998) Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24(12):1319\u0026ndash;1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(2):325\u0026ndash;339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheldon KM (2011) Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives on psychological needs: a two process model. Psychol Rev 118(4):552\u0026ndash;569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024758\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShernoff DJ, Csikszentmihalyi M, Shneider B, Shernoff ES (2003) Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Sch Psychol Q 18(2):158\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShih SS (2008) The relation of self-determination and achievement goals to Taiwanese eighth graders\u0026rsquo; behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork. Elem Sch J 108(4):313\u0026ndash;334. https://doi.org/10.1086/528974\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkowronski M (2012) When the bored behave badly (or exceptionally). Pers Rev 41(2):143\u0026ndash;159. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211200006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith RP (1981) Boredom: A Review. Hum Factors 23(3):329\u0026ndash;340. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088102300308\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoenens B, Vansteenkiste M (2023) Vitamins for psychological growth: a universal foundation for motivating others. In: Bong M, Reeve J, Kim S (eds) Motivation science: controversies and insights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 94\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197662359.003.0016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSophie V, Sara C, Jellen T, Lieven A (2022) The role of \u0026lsquo;peace of mind\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;meaningfulness\u0026rsquo; as psychological concepts in explaining subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud 23:3331\u0026ndash;3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00544-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpoto A, Iannattone S, Valentini P, Raffagnato A, Miscioscia M, Gatta M (2021) Boredom in adolescence: Validation of the Italian Version of the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS) in adolescents. Children 8(4):314. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8040314\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStandage M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N (2005) A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. Br J Educ Psychol 75:411\u0026ndash;433. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22359\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSternberg RJ (2003) Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStone AA, Broderick JE, Schwartz JE, Shiffman S, Litcher-Kelly L, Calvanese P (2003) Intensive momentary reporting of pain with an electronic diary: reactivity, compliance, and patient satisfaction. Pain 104(1\u0026ndash;2):343\u0026ndash;351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00040-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSulea C, Van Beek I, Sarbescu P, Virga D, Schaufeli WB (2015) Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learn Individ Differ 42:132\u0026ndash;138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSvendsen L (2003) A philosophy of boredom. Reaktion Books, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTze VM, Klassen RM, Daniels LM (2014) Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemp Educ Psychol 39(3):175\u0026ndash;187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUehara I, Ikegaya Y (2024) The meaning of boredom: Properly managing childhood boredom could lead to more fulfilling lives. EMBO Rep 25(6):2515\u0026ndash;2519.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVachon H, Viechtbauer W, Rintala A, Myin-Germeys I (2019) Compliance and retention with the experience sampling method over the continuum of severe mental disorders: Meta-analysis and recommendations. J Med Internet Res 21(12):e14475. https://doi.org/10.2196/14475\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C-H, Rosen CC (2016) A review of self-determination theory\u0026rsquo;s basic psychological needs at work. J Manag 42(5):1195\u0026ndash;1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Tilburg WAP, Igou ER (2012) On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motiv Emot 36:181\u0026ndash;194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B (2020) Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motiv Emot 44(1):1\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerhagen SJ, Hasmi L, Drukker M, van Os J, Delespaul PA (2016) Use of the experience sampling method in the context of clinical trials. Evid Based Ment Health 19(3):86\u0026ndash;89. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2016-102418\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVodanovich SJ, Watt JD (2016) Self-report measures of boredom: An updated review of the literature. J Psychol 150(2):196\u0026ndash;228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1074531\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWallace JC, Vodanovich SJ, Restino BM (2003) Predicting cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: An investigation within military and undergraduate samples. Pers Individ Differ 34(4):635\u0026ndash;644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00050-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeissinger E, Caldwell LL, Bandalos DL (1992) Relation between intrinsic motivation and boredom in leisure time. Leisure Sci 14(4):317\u0026ndash;327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513177\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestgate EC, Wilson TD (2018) Boring thoughts and bored minds: The MAC model of boredom and cognitive engagement. Psychol Rev 125(5):689\u0026ndash;713. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeybright EH, Schulenberg J, Caldwell LL (2020) More bored today than yesterday? National trends in adolescent boredom from 2008 to 2017. J Adolesc Health 66(3):360\u0026ndash;365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite RW (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychol Rev 66(5):297\u0026ndash;333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolff W, Radtke VC, Martarelli C (2024) Same same but different \u0026ndash; What is boredom actually? In: Bieleke M, Wolff W, Martarelli C (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Boredom. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003271536\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYazzie-Mintz E (2010) Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation \u0026amp; Education Policy, Bloomington, IN\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZei\u0026szlig;ig A (2023) Boredom as the originator of a desideratum \u0026ndash; reflections on the creative and suppressive consequences of boredom in the school context. Front Sociol 8:1214069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1214069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZei\u0026szlig;ig A, Kansok-Dusche J, Fischer SM, Moeller J, Bilz L (2024) The association between boredom and creativity in educational contexts: A scoping review on research approaches and empirical findings. Rev Educ 12(1):e3470. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3470\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZnoj HJ, Grawe K (2000) The control of unwanted states and psychological health: Consistency safeguards. In: Grob A, Perrig W (eds) Control of human behaviour, mental processes and awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp 263\u0026ndash;282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZuckerman M (1984) Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behav Brain Sci 7(3):413\u0026ndash;434\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Boredom, Psychological Needs, Education, School, Experience Sampling","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBoredom in classrooms is attributed to a lack of meaningfulness, over- or under challenging tasks, a lack of mental stimulation or a lack of autonomy. Previous research has mostly studied the effect of these few needs separately of each other, leaving questions about the comparative effects of different psychological needs on boredom unanswered. The present study integrates these predictors and combines them with six others in one joint study, to determine the respective contribution of each individual unsatisfied needs to boredom in the classroom in comparison with the others, differentiating between the situational and personal levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA pre-registered study was conducted with 111 ninth-grade students at secondary schools. The study used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), examining students\u0026rsquo; boredom directly in classroom situations. Unsatisfied needs and boredom were recorded on average 15 times for each student in various teaching situations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMultilevel regression analyses showed that unsatisfied needs, particularly for mental stimulation, but also for competence, autonomy, and meaningfulness, predicted students' boredom in the classroom. The unsatisfied need for relatedness (i.e. sense of belonging or relationship) was not a direct predictor of boredom, but significantly interacted with gender in predicting boredom. Unsatisfied needs for luxury/aesthetics, influence, self-esteem, physical thriving and security had no predictive effect on boredom. Differences in boredom between individuals were partly explained by gender, as boys experienced higher boredom than girls. Within the individuals, there was a difference between school subjects, with higher boredom in language than in science lessons. The study augments the previously few and isolated findings on the association between unsatisfied psychological needs and boredom.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Students’ Unsatisfied Needs in Class Situations Relate to Their Current Boredom: An Experience Sampling Method Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-31 12:00:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7211748/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f29cc352-bd04-4434-b8a1-08ef8e28e280","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":57221457,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience"},{"id":57221458,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":57221459,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-26T14:08:45+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-31 12:00:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7211748","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7211748","identity":"rs-7211748","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}