Forecasters overestimate the effect of meaningful and stimulating activities on feelings of felt boredom but underestimate their perceived effectiveness

Abstract Boredom is a common feeling linked to adverse outcomes; yet little is known about which tasks effectively alleviate it and individuals’ ability to accurately forecast their impact. We investigated both actual and predicted effectiveness of two theoretically grounded strategies for reducing boredom: participation in meaningful versus stimulating activities. In two experiments, participants completed a boring task and rated their felt boredom. Then, using either a between-participants design (Experiment 1) or within-participants design (Experiment 2), respondents forecasted or/and experienced how writing a meaningful or stimulating story would affect their boredom. They also rated the perceived effectiveness of these tasks. Overall, meaningful and stimulating activities did not significantly differ in how much they reduced felt boredom and in their perceived effectiveness. Consistent with the impact bias, forecasters overestimated the extent to which the activities would alter their felt boredom relative to experiencers. When it came to perceived effectiveness, forecasters mostly underestimated the effectiveness of these activities relative to experiencers. In Experiment 1, but not 2, the task also mattered, with forecasters overestimating the effect of stimulating activities on felt boredom and underestimating the perceived effectiveness of meaningful activities. Thus, individuals misjudge the impact of boredom-alleviation tasks. Compared to experiencers, forecasters overestimate changes in felt boredom but underestimate the activities’ perceived effectiveness.