SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Anadolu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Internatıonal Anatolian Social Sciences Journal) / 2025 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4

BOREDOM REVISITED: A CRITICAL REVISION OF WENDELL O’BRIEN’S ORIGINAL FORMULATION OF BOREDOM

CAN SIKINTISINA YENİDEN BAKIŞ: WENDELL O’BRİEN’IN CAN SIKINTISINA DAİR ORİJİNAL FORMÜLASYONUNUN ELEŞTİREL BİR REVİZYONU

Argun Abrek Canbolat(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4068-7690
Pages
911–917
Publication Date
2026-01-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, O’Brien’s earlier formulation is revisited and partially revised with the aim of rendering it more comprehensive and holistic.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Boredom has largely been neglected within the analytic tradition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In his 2014 article entitled “Boredom,” Wendell O’Brien offered a conceptualization of this phenomenon, but he later revised this approach in a work published in 2022.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, O’Brien’s earlier formulation is revisited and partially revised with the aim of rendering it more comprehensive and holistic.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Can sıkıntısı · ilgi · merak

Abstract

Boredom has largely been neglected within the analytic tradition. In his 2014 article entitled “Boredom,” Wendell O’Brien offered a conceptualization of this phenomenon, but he later revised this approach in a work published in 2022. The present study proposes several modifications to O’Brien’s original account and offers reasons why his 2022 revision should be rejected. By means of a thought experiment, it is argued that boredom may arise not only from objects or situations in which we lack interest, but also from elements that initially evoke curiosity or capture attention. In this context, O’Brien’s earlier formulation is revisited and partially revised with the aim of rendering it more comprehensive and holistic.

Özet

Can sıkıntısı, analitik gelenek içerisinde büyük ölçüde göz ardı edilmiş bir konu olmuştur. Wendell O’Brien, 2014 tarihli “Can Sıkıntısı” başlıklı makalesinde bu olguya dair bir kavramsallaştırma sunmuş, ancak bu yaklaşımını 2022 yılında yayımladığı çalışmasında yeniden gözden geçirmiştir. Bu çalışmada, O’Brien’ın özgün görüşüne çeşitli değişiklikler önerilmekte ve 2022 tarihinde revize ettiği konumunun neden reddedilmesi gerektiğine dair gerekçeler sunulmaktadır. Bir düşünce deneyi aracılığıyla, can sıkıntısının yalnızca ilgi duymadığımız nesne ya da durumlar nedeniyle değil, başlangıçta merak ya da dikkat uyandıran unsurlar neticesinde de ortaya çıkabileceği ileri sürülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, O’Brien’ın önceki formülasyonu yeniden ele alınmakta ve daha kapsayıcı ve bütüncül olması amacıyla kısmen revize edilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Canbolat, A. A. (2026). BOREDOM REVISITED: A CRITICAL REVISION OF WENDELL O’BRIEN’S ORIGINAL FORMULATION OF BOREDOM. Uluslararası Anadolu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Internatıonal Anatolian Social Sciences Journal), Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4, 911–917. https://doi.org/10.47525/ulasbid.1750411

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Bargdill, R. W. (2000). The study of life boredom. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 31(2), 188–219. doi: 10.1163/15691620051090979
  2. Bench, S.W., Lench, H.C. (2013). On the function of boredom. Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 459–472. doi: 10.3390/bs3030459
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  4. Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 482–495. doi: 10.1177/1745691612456044
  5. Farmer, R., Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2
  6. Hunter, J. A., Abraham, E. H., Hunter, A. G., Goldberg, L. C., Eastwood, J. D. (2016). Personality and boredom proneness in the prediction of creativity and curiosity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 48-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.08.002
  7. İnan, İ. (2012). Philosophy of curiosity. New York: Routledge
  8. Litman, J. A., Silvia, P. J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: Evidence for interest and deprivation curiosity dimensions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(3), 318–328. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_07 O’Brien, W. (2014). Boredom. Analysis, 74, 236-244. doi: 10.1093/analys/anu041
  9. O’Brien, W. (2022). Boredom, interest and meaning in life in (ed.) Elpidorou, A. The Moral Psychology of Boredom. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  10. Philips, R. (2015). Curiosity: Care, virtue and pleasure in uncovering the new. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(3), 149-161. doi: 10.1177/0263276414565718
  11. Rafaelli, Q., Mills, C., Christoff, K. (2018). The knowns and unknowns of boredom: A review of literature. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 2451-2462. doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-4922-7
  12. Stevenson, A. (2010). Oxford English dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Stringaris, A. (2016). Editorial: Boredom and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(12), 1335–1336. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12664
  14. Svendsen, L. (2005). A philosophy of boredom. London: Reaktion Books.
  15. Toohey, P. (2011). Boredom: a lively history. Boston: Yale University Press.
  16. Troutwine, R., O’Neal, E. C. (1981). Volition, performance of a boring task and time estimation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 865-866. doi: 10.2466/pms.1981.52.3.865
  17. Ulich, E. (1987). Umgang mit monotonie und komplexität, Technische Rundschau, 5, 8-13.
  18. Van Aaart, J., Bartneck, C., Hu, J., Rauterberg, M., Salem, B. (2010). How to behave as Alice in Wonderland-about boredom and curiosity. Entertainment Computing, 1, 125-137. doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2010.09.003
  19. Westgate, E. C., Wilson, T. D. (2018). Boring thoughts and bored minds: The MAC model of boredom and cognitive engagement. Psychological Review, 125(5), 689-713. doi: 10.1037/rev0000097