Objective Boredom proneness is associated with various problematic behaviors and mental health issues. Despite its wide‐ranging implication, boredom proneness as a trait‐like construct suffers from conceptual ambiguity and measurement issues. We examined whether boredom proneness represents individual differences in (a) the frequency of getting bored, (b) the intensity of boredom, and/or (c) a holistic perception of life being boring (perceived life boredom). Method Across Study 1 (U.S. Sample, N = 495; HK Sample, N = 231) and Study 2 (N = 608), we tested the construct validity of boredom proneness by estimating its association with measures of the three possible characterizations (convergent validity), and examined to what extent associations between boredom proneness and variables relevant to well‐being (e.g., life satisfaction, psychological distress) could be reproduced with the three potential characterizations (concurrent validity). Results Results suggest that each of the three characterizations represents some aspect of boredom proneness, and they generally reproduced boredom proneness' associations with other variables. Among them, perceived life boredom had the strongest convergent and concurrent validity. Conclusion Our findings provide novel insights into the characterization of boredom proneness and its hitherto poorly understood relationship with psychological well‐being.

We synthesize established and emerging research to propose a feedback process model that explicates key antecedents, experiences, and consequences of the emotion boredom. The proposed Boredom Feedback Model posits that the dynamic process of boredom resembles a feedback loop that centers on attention shifts instigated by inadequate attentional engagement. Inadequate attentional engagement is a discrepancy between desired and actual levels of attentional engagement and is a product of external and internal influences, reflected in objective resources and cognitive appraisals. The model sheds light on several essential yet unresolved puzzles in the literature, including how people learn to cope with boredom, how to understand the relation between self-control and boredom, how the roles of attention and meaning in boredom can be integrated, why boredom is associated with both high- and low-arousal negative emotions, and what contributes to chronic boredom. The model offers testable hypotheses for future research.