Next Article in Journal
The Effect of WhatsApp Usage on Employee Innovative Performance at the Workplace: Perspective from the Stressor–Strain–Outcome Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Personality Traits Concerning Media Use Decisions on Fear of Missing Out and Social Media Use Behavior
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Relationships among Problematic Smartphone Use, Mathematics Achievement, Teacher–Student Relationships, and Subjective Well-Being: Results from a Large-Scale Survey in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/bs12110455
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Gender

by
Jing Zhao
1,†,
Shisheng Chen
2,†,
Xiaochun Xie
3,
Jin Wang
4 and
Xiaodong Wang
1,*
1
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
2
Department of Student Affairs, Fujian College of Water Conservancy and Electric Power, Yongan 366000, China
3
School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
4
School of Mechanical Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Behav. Sci. 2022, 12(11), 455; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110455
Submission received: 21 September 2022 / Revised: 11 November 2022 / Accepted: 14 November 2022 / Published: 16 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Frontiers in Cyberpsychology: The Influences of Internet and Online Applications in Daily Life)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Online deviant behaviors have received increasing attention. This study examined the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors as well as the mediating role of rumination and the moderating role of gender in the relationship. A sample of 1001 college students (Mage = 20.20 ± 1.52 years, 50.25% female) was recruited to complete a set of questionnaires assessing the main variables. The results show that boredom proneness was positively associated with online deviant behaviors and that rumination played a mediating role in this relationship. Moreover, gender differences were found in the relationship, which was stronger for males than females. Despite several limitations, this study deepens our understanding of the influencing mechanism of boredom proneness on online deviant behaviors, which could provide practical implications for the prevention and intervention of online deviant behaviors.

1. Introduction

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

1.1. Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors

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

1.2. The Mediation of Rumination

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

1.3. The Moderation of Gender

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

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A convenience sampling method was adopted to recruit students (including undergraduate and vocational college students) to participate in this study. After obtaining informed consent, a sample of 1100 participants anonymously completed an online questionnaire that could be completed in ten minutes. Because they reported the same values for all items, 99 participants were excluded. The remaining 1001 valid responses were used for further analysis. Among the total sample (Mage = 20.20, SDage = 1.52, Rangeage = 17–24), 518 were undergraduate students and 483 were vocational college students; 493 were male and 508 were female.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Online Deviant Behaviors

The Scale of Adolescent Internet Deviance [48], a widely used scale in previous studies in China, was adopted to measure online deviant behaviors with 35 items. These items can be divided into three dimensions: online flaming (e.g., “when I have a conflict with someone online, I will send them offensive symbols/pictures”), online cheating behaviors (e.g., “I often make up my own experience”), and online pornography (e.g., “On the Internet, I download/watch pornographic movies/pictures”). Participants were asked to respond on a five-point scale (1 “never” to 5 ”always”), with higher scores indicating a higher frequency of online deviant behaviors. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.90 in this study.

2.2.2. Boredom Proneness

The Short Boredom Proneness Scale developed by Struk et al. with eight items (e.g., “I often find myself at ‘loose ends,’ not knowing what to do.”) was adopted, which has been translated and used in Chinese studies with adequate validity and reliability [49,50]. Participants were asked to respond to each item on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree”. A higher score indicates a higher level of boredom and Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.86 in this study.

2.2.3. Rumination

Nolen-Hoeksema Ruminative Responses Scale, translated and used in Chinese samples with favorable validity and reliability, was adopted to measure rumination with 22 items [51]. Participants were asked to respond to each item on a four-point scale (1 “never” to 4 “always”) and a higher score indicates a higher level of ruminative responses. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.87 in this study.

2.3. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 25.0. First, descriptive statistics and correlational analyses were conducted. Second, the PROCESS macro for SPSS was adopted to test the moderated mediation model with 5000 bias-corrected samples, and the effect was considered significant when the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include zero [52]. Specifically, Model 4 was used to test the mediating model with rumination as the mediator; Model 15 was used to test the integrated model with rumination as the mediator and gender as the moderator.

3. Results

3.1. Test for Common Method Bias

Using self-reported questionnaires to collect data may lead to common method bias. To reduce this possible bias, we used some methods, such as anonymous surveys, appropriate changes in response sentences (such as strongly disagree or strongly agree, never or always), and different scoring methods (such as four points, five points, and seven points). Statistical analyses were performed using Harman’s single-factor test. The results show that there were seven factors with a characteristic root greater than 1 and the first factor explaining the cumulative variation is 38.77%, which is less than 40%, indicating that there is not serious problem with common method bias [53].

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Main Variables

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations among the main variables. Boredom proneness was positively correlated with rumination and online deviant behaviors and rumination was positively correlated with online deviant behaviors.

3.3. Testing the Hypothesized Moderated Mediation Model

The PROCESS macro for SPSS with 5000 bootstrapping samplings was used to test the proposed hypotheses [54]. First, the simple mediating model analysis (Model 4) is shown in Table 2. The total effect of boredom proneness on online deviant behaviors was 0.36 (Boot SE = 0.03; Boot 95% CI = (0.30; 0.42)) and the mediating effect of rumination was 0.17 (Boot SE = 0.02; Boot 95% CI = (0.12; 0.22)), which accounted for 46.34% of the total effect.
Second, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 15) was used to examine the moderated mediation model (shown in Figure 1). The main results consist of two parts: the regression analysis model and conditional effect analysis and they are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. As shown in Table 2, boredom proneness was positively associated with rumination and rumination was positively associated with online deviant behaviors, while boredom proneness was not significantly associated with online deviant behaviors. Therefore, rumination can fully mediate the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors. Moreover, the interaction effects of boredom proneness and gender, rumination, and gender on online deviant behaviors were significant, indicating gender played the moderating role in the association between boredom, rumination, and online deviant behaviors.
Finally, as shown in Table 3, the direct effects of boredom proneness differed between males and females. For females, the direct effect included zero; for males, the direct effect was positive and excluded zero. For males and females, the mediating effects were positive and excluded zero and the moderated mediation index was significant. That is, for males, the mediating effect of rumination was significantly stronger than for females.
To examine the moderation of gender, simple slope tests were performed and simple effect analysis plots were drawn (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The results shown in Figure 2 demonstrate that, for females, there was no significant correlation between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors (simple slope = 0.08, t = 1.90, p > 0.05); for males, boredom proneness is significantly correlated with online deviant behaviors (simple slope = 0.26, t = 6.52, p < 0.01); in other words, males with higher levels of boredom proneness may exhibit more online deviant behaviors. As shown in Figure 3, for females, the positive correlation between rumination and online deviant behaviors was significant (simple slope = 0.29, t = 6.46, p < 0.01); while for males, rumination also positively predicted online deviant behaviors (simple slope = 0.44, t = 5.91, p < 0.01).

4. Discussion

This study examined the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors and the underlying mechanism. The results indicate that the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors was stronger for males than females. For males, boredom proneness is not only directly related to online deviant behaviors but also indirectly influenced online deviant behaviors through rumination; for females, boredom proneness was related to online deviant behaviors only through rumination.

4.1. Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors

As hypothesized, the results suggest that boredom proneness is positively associated with online deviant behaviors. Consistent with research on other risky behaviors [24,25,26,27,28,29], boredom proneness is considered a risk factor for online deviant behaviors. In line with sensation-seeking theory and arousal theory, individuals with high boredom proneness are usually in a low-arousal state, which promotes them to engage in risky behaviors; moreover, their life satisfaction is lower, which urges them to turn to the Internet [54]. Thus, they may tend to exhibit online deviant behaviors to achieve an optimal arousal state. In addition, dual self-consciousness theory can also explain this phenomenon. When individuals with high boredom proneness use the Internet, their private self-consciousness increases and public self-consciousness decreases [30]; thus, they pay more attention to their own feelings and less attention to others, causing individuals to engage in online deviant behaviors.

4.2. Rumination as a Mediator

Rumination mediated the positive association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors. As a kind of a predisposed vulnerability, individuals with boredom proneness are more likely to fall into the feelings of boredom, which is associated with emotional exhaustion [40]. According to the stress-reactive model of rumination, individuals with negative emotions are more likely to provoke rumination [32]. Therefore, individuals with high levels of boredom proneness are prone to trigger rumination.
On the other hand, rumination can increase online deviant behaviors. Rumination continuously directs individuals’ attention to boredom with a non-accepting attitude and prevents them from properly disengaging from boredom. That is, individuals engaged in rumination exaggerate the influence of boredom rather than actively taking action to get out of boredom; moreover, they become extremely sensitive to various negative stimuli. The Internet is full of various types of negative information; thus, when using the Internet, someone with rumination is more likely to engage in online deviant behaviors due to anonymity [38]. In addition, this study supports resource depletion theory [39], that is, when an individual’s cognitive resources are limited. Rumination induced by boredom leads to cognitive resources being more occupied and normal cognitive mechanisms being impaired; thus, they engage in more deviant behaviors when surfing the Internet. Therefore, rumination strengthens the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors.

4.3. Gender as a Moderator

This study found different effects of boredom proneness on online deviant behaviors across gender. Specifically, among males, the total effect of boredom proneness on online deviant behaviors is 0.44, including the direct effect (0.26) and indirect effect through rumination (0.19); however, among females, the direct effect is not significant and the indirect effect through rumination is only 0.13. That is, males with boredom proneness are more likely to engage in online deviant behaviors. However, if rumination is not triggered, females with boredom proneness are less likely to engage in online deviant behaviors. This can be explained from several aspects. First, in line with general strain theory, males with boredom are more conducive to violence, while females are more prone to the escapist form of crime [47]; therefore, males with boredom proneness take more online deviant behaviors. Second, evolutionary psychology refers to the adaptive functions of violence, competition, and aggression for males, and gender differences in hormones (i.e., testosterone) provide a physiological basis for males’ deviant behaviors [55]. Third, from the perspective of gender socialization theory, females pay more attention to interpersonal relationships, whereas males are more likely to focus on competition and goal achievement due to gender roles and social norms [13]. Therefore, males with boredom proneness engage in more online deviant behaviors.

5. Implications and Limitations

The current findings have several implications. Theoretically, this study deepens our understanding of the risk factors and mechanisms of online deviant behaviors. Practically, the results may provide suggestions for the prevention and intervention of online deviant behaviors. First, given the high prevalence of boredom and the importance of boredom proneness in online deviant behaviors, mental health educators should pay more attention to students with high levels of boredom proneness and take active measures to raise their arousal state and reduce boredom experience, such as outdoor recreational activities. Second, rumination plays a mediating role between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors and rumination strengthens their association. Thus, it is necessary to implement some interventions to reduce rumination, such as cognitive control training [56,57]. Third, the study indicated gender differences; therefore, mental health educators should focus on the online deviant behaviors of males with boredom proneness. While females with boredom proneness have less online deviant behaviors they may tend to internalize boredom elements. Therefore, mental health educators should encourage them to release boredom to avoid more serious psychological problems.
This study has several limitations. First, the self-reported method used may have led to deviations in this study; therefore, more objective measurements are needed. Second, causal inference cannot be achieved due to the cross-sectional design and a longitudinal or experimental design should be adopted in the future. Finally, participants were recruited from two universities in China, which may have limited the generalizability of the results. Future studies should recruit different categories of people so as to expand the generalizability.

6. Conclusions

We found a positive association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors as well as a mediating role of rumination and a moderating role of gender in this relationship. The results show that the association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors was stronger for males than for females. For males, boredom proneness is not only directly related to online deviant behaviors but also indirectly influences online deviant behaviors through rumination; for females, boredom proneness relates to online deviant behaviors only through rumination.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Z., S.C. and X.W.; data curation, S.C. and J.W.; formal analysis, J.Z. and X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Z., S.C. and X.W.; writing—review and editing, X.X. and J.Z.; supervision, J.Z., S.C. and X.W.; funding acquisition, J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Higher Education Teaching Reform and Innovation Project in Shanxi Province (grant number J20220645), Shanxi Educational Scientific Research Institute (grant number GH-220918).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethic Institutional Review Board of North University of China (15 May 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Y. Internet Traffic during the Outbreak Increased by 50% from the End of Last Year. Science and Technology Daily 2020. Available online: http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2020-04/24/content_443783.htm?div=-1 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  2. Chinese Communist Youth League Central Committee; China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). 2020 Research Report on Internet Use among Minors in China. 2021. Available online: http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/qsnbg/202107/P020210720571098696248.pdf2 (accessed on 25 July 2022).
  3. Bae, S.M. The influence of strain factors, social control factors, self-control and computer use on adolescent cyber delinquency: Korean National Panel Study. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 78, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, B.H. Explaining cyber deviance among school-aged youth. Child Indic. Res. 2018, 11, 563–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baek, H. Computer-specific parental management and online deviance across gender in South Korea: A test of self-control theory. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2018, 12, 68–83. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jin, C.C.; Zou, H. The relationship between parental monitoring and adolescents’ online deviant behavior: Personality as a mediator. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2013, 6, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Udris, R. Cyber deviance among adolescents and the role of family, school, and neighborhood: A cross-national study. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2016, 10, 127–146. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nam, S.J. The longitudinal relationships between cyber delinquency, aggression, and offline delinquency: An autoregressive cross-lagged model. J. Early Adolesc. 2021, 41, 634–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, J.K.; Chang, C.W.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.C.; Wei, H.S. Cyber deviance among adolescents in Taiwan: Prevalence and correlates. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 126, 106042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wright, M.F. Cyber victimization and psychological adjustment difficulties among adolescents: The role of technology mediation and social support from school resource officers. Polic. Int. J. 2016, 39, 536–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dvoryanchikov, N.V.; Bovina, I.B.; Delibalt, V.V.; Dozortseva, E.G. Deviant online behavior in adolescent and youth circles: In search of a risk assessment model. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2020, 8, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, J.P.; Wang, X.C.; Gao, L. Moral disengagement and college students’ deviant behavior online: The moderating effect of moral identity. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2015, 31, 311–318. [Google Scholar]
  13. Niu, G.F.; Zhou, Z.K.; Sun, X.J.; Fan, C.Y. The effects of perceived Internet anonymity and peers’ online deviant behaviors on college students’online deviant behaviors: The mediating effect of self-control. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2015, 11, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jin, T.L.; Lu, G.Z.; Zhang, L.; Yan, M.Z.; Liu, Y.L. The effect of college students’ interpersonal needs on their online deviant behaviors: The mediating effect of social anxiety. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2016, 9, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, C.; Chen, G.; Liu, Y.N.; Niu, G.F.; Yin, H.M. The influence of social ostracism on online deviant behaviors: The mediating role of self-control and the moderating role of moral identity. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2020, 36, 208–215. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kokkinos, C.M.; Antoniadou, N.; Asdre, A.; Voulgaridou, K. Parenting and Internet behavior predictors of cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among preadolescents. Deviant Behav. 2016, 37, 439–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Udris, R. Psychological and social factors as predictors of online and offline deviant behavior among Japanese adolescents. Deviant Behav. 2017, 38, 792–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chin, A.; Markey, A.; Bhargava, S.; Kassam, K.S.; Loewenstein, G. Bored in the USA: Experience sampling and boredom in everyday life. Emotion 2017, 17, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhai, Y.; Du, X. Mental health care for international Chinese students affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, H.; Wang, Q.; Dong, Y. Boredom: A long and revival research topic. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 20, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Danckert, J.; Mugon, J.; Struk, A.; Eastwood, J. Boredom: What Is It Good For? In The Function of Emotions; Lench, H., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 93–119. [Google Scholar]
  22. van Tilburg, W.A.P.; Igou, E.R.; Sedikides, C. In search of meaningfulness: Nostalgia as an antidote to boredom. Emotion 2013, 13, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mercer-Lynn, K.B.; Bar, R.J.; Eastwood, J.D. Causes of boredom: The person, the situation, or both? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 56, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zuckerman, M.; Eysenck, S.B.; Eysenck, H.J. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1978, 46, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Weybright, E.H.; Caldwell, L.L.; Ram, N.; Smith, E.A.; Wegner, L. Boredom prone or nothing to do? distinguishing between state and trait leisure boredom and its association with substance use in South African adolescents. Leis. Sci. 2015, 37, 311–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Biolcati, R.; Mancini, G.; Trombini, E. Proneness to boredom and risk behaviors during adolescents’ free time. Psychol. Rep. 2017, 121, 303–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Drody, A.C.; Hicks, L.J.; Danckert, J. Boredom proneness and rule-breaking: A persistent relation one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bai, J.; Mo, K.Y.; Peng, Y.; Hao, W.X.; Qu, Y.S.; Lei, X.Y.; Yang, Y. The relationship between the use of mobile social media and subjective well-being: The mediating effect of boredom proneness. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 568492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hong, W.; Liu, R.D.; Ding, Y.; Zhen, R.; Jiang, R.H.; Fu, X.C. Autonomy need dissatisfaction in daily life and problematic mobile phone use: The mediating roles of boredom proneness and mobile phone gaming. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jin, T.L.; Lu, G.Z.; Zhang, S.C.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.L.; Li, X.X. Effect of boredom proneness on online deviant behavior in undergraduates: Mediating role of negative online experience. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 24, 640–643. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nolen-Hoeksema, S.; Wisco, B.E.; Lyubomirsky, S. Rethinking rumination. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 3, 400–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alloy, L.B.; Abramson, L.Y.; Hogan, M.E.; Whitehouse, W.G.; Rose, D.T.; Robinson, M.S.; Kim, R.S.; Lapkin, J.B. The Temple Wisconsin cognitive vulnerability to depression project: Lifetime history of Axis I psychopathology in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2000, 109, 403–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Z.Y.; Shen, L.Y.; Wu, X.Y.; Zhen, R.; Zhou, X. Basic psychological need satisfaction and depression in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating roles of feelings of safety and rumination. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dawson, G.C.; Adrian, M.; Chu, P.; McCauley, E.; Vander Stoep, A. Associations between sex, rumination, and depressive symptoms in late adolescence: A four-Year longitudinal investigation. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2022, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kim, E.-L.; Gentile, D.A.; Anderson, C.A.; Barlett, C.P. Are mindful people less aggressive? The role of emotion regulation in the relations between mindfulness and aggression. Aggress. Behav. 2022, 48, 546–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Johnson, S.L.; Robison, M.; Anvar, S.; Swerdlow, B.A.; Timpano, K.R. Emotion-related impulsivity and rumination: Unique and conjoint effects on suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury across two samples. Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 2022, 52, 642–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gao, L.F.; Yang, C.; Yang, X.J.; Chu, X.W.; Liu, Q.Q.; Zhou, Z.K. Negative emotion and problematic mobile phone use: The mediating role of rumination and the moderating role of social support. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 25, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, M.F.; Wu, B.Y.; Li, F.; Wang, X.Q.; Geng, F.L. Does mindfulness reduce trolling? The relationship between trait mindfulness and online trolling: The mediating role of anger rumination and the moderating role of online disinhibition. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 301, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chen, X.; Feng, Z.Z. Trait Rumination and Deficits of Executive Functions. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2015, 23, 1065–1069. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sousa, T.; Neves, P. Two tales of rumination and burnout: Examining the effects of boredom and overload. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 70, 1018–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ding, X.; Du, J.X.; Zhou, Y.Y.; An, Y.Y.; Xu, W.; Zhang, N. State mindfulness, rumination, and emotions in daily life: An ambulatory assessment study. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 22, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Waterschoot, J.; Van der Kaap-Deeder, J.; Morbée, S.; Soenens, B.; Vansteenkiste, M. “How to unlock myself from boredom?” The role of mindfulness and a dual awareness- and action-oriented pathway during the COVID-19 lockdown. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 175, 110729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Watkins, E.R. Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 163–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Elpidorou, A. The good of boredom. Philos. Psychol. 2018, 31, 323–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Klein, J.L.; Cooper, D.T. Deviant cyber-sexual activities in young adults: Exploring prevalence and predictions using in-person sexual activities and social learning theory. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2019, 48, 619–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chen, J.K.; Chen, L.M. Cyberbullying among adolescents in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China: A cross-national study in Chinese societies. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work. Dev. 2020, 30, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Broidy, L.; Agnew, R. Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 1997, 34, 275–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ma, X.H.; Lei, L. Adolescents’ Internet morality and deviant behavior online. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2010, 42, 988. [Google Scholar]
  49. Struk, A.A.; Carriere, J.S.A.; Cheyne, J.A.; Danckert, J. A Short Boredom Proneness Scale: Development and psychometric properties. Assessment 2015, 24, 346–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Peng, J.X.; Peng, X.P.; Huang, H.; Zeng, Z.Y.; Lü, J.Z.; Ding, X.X.; Miao, D.M. Reliability and validity test of the Chinese vision of Short Boredom Proneness Scale. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2019, 27, 231–282. [Google Scholar]
  51. Han, X.; Yang, H.F. Chinese version of Nolen-Hoeksema Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) used in 912 college students: Reliability and validity. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 17, 550–551. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 335–337. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhou, H.; Long, L.R. Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 12, 942–950. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, Q.; Yu, G.L.; Dong, Y.; Zhou, H. Boredom proneness and subjective well-being: The role of regulatory emotional self-efficacy. Stud. Psychol. Behav. 2014, 12, 102–106. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zou, J.L.; Wang, M.F.; Cao, R.Y.; Yan, X.M. Biological approaches to explain gender development: Review and prospect. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 17, 973–982. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kaiser, R.H.; Snyder, H.R.; Goer, F.; Clegg, R.; Ironside, M.; Pizzagalli, D.A. Attention bias in rumination and depression: Cognitive mechanisms and brain networks. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 6, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Liu, Q.P.; Zhao, X.Y.; Wang, C.Y.; XU, Y.Y.; Wang, S.Y. The relationship between rumination and attention disengagement and the underlying neural mechanism. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 29, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behavsci 12 00455 g001 550
Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.
Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.
Behavsci 12 00455 g001
Behavsci 12 00455 g002 550
Figure 2. The association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors for gender.
Figure 2. The association between boredom proneness and online deviant behaviors for gender.
Behavsci 12 00455 g002
Behavsci 12 00455 g003 550
Figure 3. The association between rumination and online deviant behaviors for gender.
Figure 3. The association between rumination and online deviant behaviors for gender.
Behavsci 12 00455 g003
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation results.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation results.
VariablesM(SD)1234
1 Gender-1
2 Boredom Proneness2.67 (1.50)0.10 **1
3 Rumination1.80 (0.60)0.050.44 **1
4 Online Deviant behaviors1.45 (0.64)0.24 **0.36 **0.46 **1
Note: ** p < 0.01; Gender—female “0”, male “1”.
Table
Table 2. The regression analysis of the moderated mediation model.
Table 2. The regression analysis of the moderated mediation model.
Dependent
Variable		Independent
Variables		R2FβBootstrap
LLCI		Bootstrap
ULCI		t
RuminationBoredom Proneness0.19241.91 ***0.440.390.5015.55 ***
Online Deviant behaviors
(Model 4)		Boredom Proneness
Rumination		0.24159.72 ***0.190.130.256.26 ***
0.370.310.4412.25 ***
RuminationBoredom Proneness0.19241.91 ***0.440.390.5015.55 ***
Online Deviant behaviorsBoredom Proneness0.3086.36 ***0.08−0.0020.171.91
(Model 15)Rumination0.290.200.376.33 ***
Gender0.410.300.517.65 ***
Boredom Proneness × Gender0.180.060.292.99 **
Rumination × Gender0.150.040.272.56 *
Note: * < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Gender: female “0”, male “1”; LL = low limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit.
Table
Table 3. The conditional direct and indirect effect analysis.
Table 3. The conditional direct and indirect effect analysis.
GenderConditional
Effect		Effect ValueBoot SEBootstrap
LLCI		Bootstrap
ULCI
Totalmoderated mediation index0.070.030.0050.14
MaleDirect Effect0.260.040.180.34
Indirect Effect0.190.030.140.26
FemaleDirect Effect0.080.04−0.0020.17
Indirect Effect0.130.020.090.17
Note: LL = low limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, J.; Chen, S.; Xie, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Gender. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110455

AMA Style

Zhao J, Chen S, Xie X, Wang J, Wang X. Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Gender. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(11):455. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110455

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Jing, Shisheng Chen, Xiaochun Xie, Jin Wang, and Xiaodong Wang. 2022. "Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Gender" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 11: 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110455

APA Style

Zhao, J., Chen, S., Xie, X., Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2022). Boredom Proneness and Online Deviant Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Gender. Behavioral Sciences, 12(11), 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110455

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop