Solving the Boredom Puzzle: Exploring Creativity With Self-Distancing in a Moderated Mediation Model

Abstract

While boredom proneness has been widely studied, debate continues about whether it enhances or impedes creativity. This study examined the mediating role of self-distancing and the moderating effect of workplace anxiety on the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity. Drawing on self-distancing theory, this study applied a moderated mediation model to explore the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity. The analysis of data from 283 employees revealed a significant positive relationship between boredom proneness and creativity, as well as a notable positive association between self-distancing and creativity. These findings suggested that self-distancing mediates the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity. Furthermore, workplace anxiety intensified the indirect effect of boredom proneness on creativity through self-distancing. This study deepens the understanding of boredom proneness and creativity offering valuable theoretical and practical insights within the self-distancing framework.

Keywords

boredom proneness self-distancing workplace anxiety creativity moderated mediation model

Introduction

Creativity, defined as the production of novel and useful ideas (Harvey & Berry, 2023), is a key driver of organizational innovation and growth, enhancing employees’ creative potential (Jia et al., 2024; Lua et al., 2024; Stollberger et al., 2024). It plays a crucial role in shaping employees’ innovative behavior (van Knippenberg & Hirst, 2020; Wu & Gu, 2024). This dynamic process involves interactions between individuals and their environments (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; van Knippenberg & Hirst, 2020) and centers on the generating practical and original ideas or products (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). While past research has investigated creativity at the team and organizational levels (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Y. Li et al., 2018), a significant gap remains in understanding the psychological mechanisms, emotional influences, and boundary conditions affecting individual-level creativity (Harvey & Berry, 2023; Lua et al., 2024).

Boredom proneness, an aversive individual trait, is marked by an uncomfortable emotional state that arises when a person perceives insufficient stimulation and struggles to maintain focus (Fultz et al., 2023; Tam et al., 2021). While it often leads to negative consequences (Dadzie et al., 2024; Park et al., 2019; Sung et al., 2020), boredom proneness can also yield positive outcomes (Fultz et al., 2023; Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Recent research suggests that boredom signals an urgency to alter the status quo and alleviate discomfort (Elpidorou, 2018). Studies on boredom proneness reveal conflicting views on its impact on creativity (e.g., Belinda et al., 2024; Nettinga, 2022). Some studies suggest that boredom proneness can boost creativity by motivating individuals to seek novel, engaging activities, fostering creative thinking as they attempt to escape boredom (Mann & Cadman, 2014; Nettinga, 2022). Conversely, other scholars argue that creativity may be hindered by disengagement, lack of focus, and reduced motivation, ultimately limiting creative output (Belinda et al., 2024; Park et al., 2019). This inconsistency may arise from contextual differences (A. Lee et al., 2020), individual characteristics (Lua et al., 2024), or the specific nature of the boredom experienced (Belinda et al., 2024; Lim et al., 2024). These findings highlight the complexity of the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity, suggesting that its effects are context-dependent and shaped by individual factors. By synthesizing these perspectives (Chou et al., 2024), this study seeks to deepen our understanding of how boredom proneness influences creativity, ultimately guiding innovative enhancement strategies.

Grounding itself in self-distancing theory—which suggests that distancing oneself from a situation can lead to more objective and constructive reflection (Vieira et al., 2023)—this study proposes that individuals can engage in adaptive reflection on experiences of boredom (Cova et al., 2019; Mayiwar et al., 2024). Self-distancing is a psychological mechanism that enables individuals to adopt an external observer’s perspective (Cova et al., 2019). This mechanism clarifies the complex relationship between boredom proneness and creativity by encouraging individuals to step back and objectively assess challenges, thereby enhancing their problem-solving strategies (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). By visualizing self-distance or adopting a third-person (observer) perspective, individuals can improve their long-term coping abilities (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). Furthermore, self-distancing fosters an objective view of experiences, facilitating emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility (Stollberger et al., 2024), which, in turn, enhances creativity. This process underlines the mediating role of self-distancing in the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity by enabling individuals to navigate emotional responses effectively. Ultimately, self-distancing helps employees detach from negative emotions, preventing entanglement with unfavorable feelings (Kross & Ayduk, 2017).

Workplace anxiety acts as a key moderator in the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity, shaping how individuals respond to perceived threats and distractions. Anxiety, often triggered by uncertain threats (Gao et al., 2024), frequently leads to rumination and difficulty in concentrating on creative tasks (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018). However, it can also heighten sensitivity to environmental cues, prompting anxious individuals to monitor their surroundings closely (B. Cheng, 2013). Through the lens of self-distancing theory, adopting a third-person perspective can help anxious individuals manage their emotions, transforming heightened awareness into creative insight. This distancing enables them to detach from anxiety-induced negative emotions and focus on problem solving, especially during moments of boredom (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018; Yin et al., 2023). Workplace anxiety not only intensifies the challenges posed by boredom but also presents an opportunity to use self-distancing to boost creativity. Thus, recognizing workplace anxiety as a moderator clarifies how emotional regulation through self-distancing can transform anxiety into a catalyst for creative thinking.

This study employs self-distancing theory to examine the intricate relationships between boredom proneness, self-distancing, and creativity within a moderated mediation framework. By incorporating workplace anxiety as a moderating variable, this study aims to elucidate how proneness to boredom influences self-distancing and in turn, impacts creativity. The objective is to clarify the connections between these constructs, highlighting self-distancing as a mediating factor and workplace anxiety as a contextual boundary condition. Ultimately, this study seeks to deepen understanding of how these elements interact, offering valuable insights for fostering creativity in the workplace. Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical model.

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework for creativity.

Theory and Hypotheses

The Self-Distancing Theory

Self-distancing theory explains adaptive self-reflection and self-regulation in response to negative events (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). This framework involves creating psychological distance from oneself and encompasses two perspectives: the self-immersed perspective (low distance), in which individuals recall a situation from their personal viewpoint (Ayduk & Kross, 2010), and the self-distanced perspective (high distance), which adopts an observer’s viewpoint to reconstruct experiences (Ayduk & Kross, 2010; Lau & Tov, 2023). From a self-distanced perspective, the self is viewed as an object of observation, enabling a broader and more objective scrutiny of past experiences (Cova et al., 2019; Kross & Ayduk, 2017).

The guiding principle of self-distancing is “less narration, more reconstruction” (Kross et al., 2012), which shifts focus away from negative emotions while enhancing insight and closure (Ayduk & Kross, 2010; Cova et al., 2019). This approach quickly produces a “titration effect” on negative emotions, alleviating associated pressures and uncovering meaningful insights (Dorfman et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2022). Over time, it reduces negative emotional responses and vulnerability, fostering an environment conducive to reflective thinking (Kross et al., 2012; Vieira et al., 2023).

Self-distancing activates the “cool system,” a component of the dual-system framework of self-control (Mayiwar et al., 2023; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Vieira et al., 2023). This model distinguishes between the “hot system,” which is impulsive and emotion-driven, and the “cool system,” which is reflective, emotionally neutral, and oriented toward calm problem solving. The cool system embodies self-regulation and delayed gratification (Inzlicht et al., 2021). Notably, self-distanced analysis is not entirely “cold”; rather, it involves observing emotions from an external perspective (Cova et al., 2019; Kross & Ayduk, 2017), fostering a reflective approach to self-control.

Adopting a self-distanced perspective aids in identifying elements linked to negative emotions and supports rational problem solving while avoiding prolonged rumination (Kross et al., 2012). According to Hofmann et al. (2009), the predictive factors for self-control include both impulsive and reflective behaviors, with self-distancing enabling the adaptive reconstruction of feelings and actions (Kross et al., 2012). Individual traits and situational factors influence self-control and foster creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Thus, in this study, self-distancing was identified as a mediating mechanism, with workplace anxiety acting as a boundary condition for examining the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity.

Boredom Proneness and Creativity

Creativity is defined as the ability to generate original ideas or solutions that are both novel and useful across various contexts, influenced by individual traits and situational factors (Lua et al., 2024; van Knippenberg & Hirst, 2020). Research suggests that boredom proneness can enhance creativity by prompting individuals to seek new experiences and engage in creative thinking (Park et al., 2019). Understanding this positive influence is essential for recognizing boredom proneness as a predictor of creativity and for developing strategies to harness it for innovative outcomes.

Boredom proneness is characterized by a predisposition to experience feelings of tedium, emptiness, and confinement (Isacescu et al., 2017; Struk et al., 2017). In Chinese culture, boredom is metaphorically described as having a “closed heart” or “sitting at the door,” reflecting the interaction between individuals and their environment in terms of limited stimuli or constraints (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019). This state involves a complex interplay between environmental restrictiveness and feelings of constraint or emptiness (Tam et al., 2021). Individuals with high boredom proneness are more likely to experience dullness, negative emotions, and rumination (Dadzie et al., 2024; Tam et al., 2021). However, boredom proneness can also activate self-regulation, prompting individuals to seek meaningful and engaging activities leading to both positive and negative responses (Chou et al., 2024; Ohana et al., 2024).

Self-distancing theory suggests that negative emotions activate a mechanism that allows individuals to step back from their immediate experiences, gaining a perspective on their thoughts and emotions to support self-regulation (Park et al., 2019). This process engages the “cool system,” facilitating rational judgment and enabling individuals to view situations more objectively, which in turn enhances creativity. Boredom proneness is associated with a lack of challenges and meaning (Tam et al., 2021). When individuals feel a sense of meaninglessness, they are driven to reconstruct a sense of purpose (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019). High boredom proneness intensifies the need for meaning reconstruction, creating psychological pressure that increases the likelihood of self-distancing to discover novelty and utility in the workplace (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012).

Moreover, boredom proneness serves a functional role by signaling a misalignment between expectations and reality (Struk et al., 2017). Unsatisfactory situations motivate individuals to pursue new goals and improve their emotional state (Belinda et al., 2024). Those with high boredom proneness often engage in proactive self-control and self-regulation to cope with uninteresting circumstances (Park et al., 2019). This strengthens their motivation for self-distancing, enabling a more objective approach to problems (Belinda et al., 2024) and ultimately enhancing creativity.

Finally, individuals with high boredom proneness often perceive lower levels of organizational support (Watt & Hargis, 2010). When organizations fail to provide timely assistance, these individuals are compelled to draw on their psychological resources to cope, activating the “cool system” and fostering creativity. Therefore, this study posits the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Boredom proneness is positively related to creativity.

The Mediating Role of Self-Distancing

Self-distancing is the process of adopting a detached or observer perspective to implement perspective-taking strategies, facilitate emotional regulation, and manage cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses (Kross & Ayduk, 2017; Webb et al., 2012). Research shows that self-distancing promotes mental and physical well-being, alleviates negative emotions (Dorfman et al., 2021; Seah et al., 2021), reduces fundamental attribution errors (Mayiwar et al., 2023), and enhances rational reasoning and decision-making (Watt & Hargis, 2010). When employees adopt a self-distancing perspective, they maintain an open mindset, embrace novel viewpoints, and consider multiple factors in making informed decisions (Mayiwar et al., 2024; Watt & Hargis, 2010), all of which are essential for fostering creativity.

In addition, self-distancing supports individual self-reflection and enhances employee creativity (de Stobbeleir et al., 2011). By employing this adaptive strategy, individuals can effectively navigate feelings of boredom, leading to increased creativity (Cova et al., 2019; Mayiwar et al., 2024). Furthermore, self-distancing is linked to effective emotion regulation (Seah et al., 2021), which further promotes creative thinking. Recent studies suggest that emotion regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal (Zhu et al., 2023), cognitive flexibility (Stollberger et al., 2024), and emotional intelligence (Stawicki et al., 2023), enhance creativity by fostering flexible thinking and improving problem solving. These strategies help individuals reinterpret emotions, adapt to change, and maintain a creative mindset, ultimately leading to better creative outcomes. Overall, self-distancing plays a vital role in fostering creativity. Therefore, this study posits the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2. Self-distancing is positively correlated with creativity.

Boredom proneness indicates a misalignment between an individual’s current state and performance goals, leading to increased negative emotions (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019). According to self-distancing theory, managing negative emotions requires self-distancing rather than self-immersion (Cova et al., 2019; Kross et al., 2012; Lau & Tov, 2023). Boredom proneness intensifies self-distancing among employees, enabling them to adapt to challenging or meaningless environments (Riley et al., 2022; White et al., 2019). Furthermore, it fosters creativity by encouraging the exploration of new approaches to seek novelty and utility (Harvey & Berry, 2023).

On the one hand, boredom proneness activates the cool system, encouraging individuals to adopt a more objective view of their situation (Belinda et al., 2024), allowing them to step back and consider the entire problem, which enhances their drive for creativity. On the other hand, self-distancing empowers employees to strengthen self-regulation and adaptability, fostering creativity based on situational behaviors (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). In contrast, individuals with low boredom proneness tend to immerse themselves in their situations (Dorfman et al., 2021), which may limit their ability to adapt and develop creatively.

Self-distancing establishes a mechanism that links boredom proneness to creativity by allowing individuals to view boredom from an external perspective (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). By stepping back from their immediate feelings of boredom, individuals are encouraged to explore new methods and perspectives (Cova et al., 2019), stimulating creative thinking (Zhu et al., 2023) and problem solving (Stollberger et al., 2024), thereby enhancing their creativity. Therefore, this study posits the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3. Self-distancing mediates the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity.

The Moderating Role of Workplace Anxiety

Workplace anxiety is a distressing emotional state characterized by physiological arousal triggered by various stimuli and potential negative outcomes. It significantly influences an individual’s response to work-related challenges (Brooks & Schweitzer, 2011; Trougakos et al., 2020). This anxiety manifests as tension, apprehension, and worry about work performance and task completion, often leading individuals to adopt self-protective response patterns (Hu et al., 2020; Kouchaki & Desai, 2015; J. M. McCarthy et al., 2016). Additionally, those with heightened workplace anxiety tend to interpret ambiguous stimuli as threats, resulting in increased vigilance and a tendency to withdraw from anxiety-inducing situations (Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).

In the context of workplace anxiety, individuals experiencing boredom increasingly rely on self-distancing as a coping strategy to navigate their emotional landscape and regain a sense of control (J. M. McCarthy et al., 2016). Boredom-prone individuals often feel disengaged and dissatisfied with their work environment, a feeling that can be intensified by heightened anxiety. Workplace anxiety signals potential threats and challenges, prompting individuals to seek ways to manage their emotional states. This increased anxiety heightens the urgency to withdraw from passive situations, further amplifying self-distancing behaviors (J. M. McCarthy et al., 2016).

Moreover, workplace anxiety underscores the importance of self-regulation in addressing the demands of the organizational environment (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018). In high-anxiety contexts, boredom-prone individuals increasingly rely on self-distancing to mitigate the adverse emotional effects of boredom and anxiety. This self-distancing enables them to gain perspective on their circumstances, reduce feelings of overwhelm, and facilitate emotional regulation. Specifically, as anxiety levels rise, individuals tend to activate the “cool system,” using self-distancing mechanisms to confront immediate challenges (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). Furthermore, self-distancing activates protective mechanisms that help individuals navigate feelings of boredom. By stepping back and observing emotions from an external viewpoint (Kross & Ayduk, 2017), individuals can effectively manage rumination and anxiety, making self-distancing a vital tool for coping with immediate challenges.

Based on self-distancing theory, workplace anxiety strengthens the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing, underscoring the crucial role of self-regulation in emotional management. Within this framework, self-distancing functions as a key coping mechanism for individuals prone to boredom, enabling them to regain a sense of control and adapt to their work environments (Barclay & Kiefer, 2019). Therefore, this study posits the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4. Workplace anxiety moderates the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing strengthening this relationship when workplace anxiety is high compared to when it is low.

Based on these assumptions, self-distancing serves as a crucial mediating mechanism between boredom proneness and creativity. Workplace anxiety plays a significant role in amplifying the positive relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing. This aligns with the moderated mediation model proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007), which emphasizes how situational factors influence the interplay between variables.

When individuals experience heightened workplace anxiety, characterized by stress and perceived discrepancies in their work environment, their need for self-regulation intensifies. This need prompts boredom-prone individuals to activate the “cool system,” a cognitive mechanism that supports enhanced emotional regulation and perspective-taking. By stepping back and adopting a self-distancing perspective, individuals can more effectively navigate feelings of boredom and anxiety, fostering an environment conducive to creative thinking.

In essence, activating self-distancing not only mitigates the adverse effects of workplace anxiety, but also fosters the exploration of new ideas and solutions, ultimately enhancing creativity. Accordingly, this study proposes a moderated mediation model illustrating how workplace anxiety moderates the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing, which, in turn, influences creativity. This model highlights the dynamic interplay between emotional states and cognitive strategies, providing insights into how individuals can leverage self-distancing to navigate challenging work environments and cultivate their creative potential.

Hypothesis 5. Workplace anxiety moderates the mediating effect of boredom proneness on creativity through self-distancing, strengthening this mediating effect when workplace anxiety is high compared to when it is low.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The data for this study were collected online from over 50 cities across 20 provincial-level administrative regions. Snowball sampling was used for participant selection (Naderifar et al., 2017), with team members distributing the questionnaire via platforms such as WeChat and email. This approach involved inviting employees from the same organization to complete the questionnaire and encouraging them to invite their colleagues to participate. All participants voluntarily took part in the study, providing written informed consent after being informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Responses were anonymized and kept confidential to protect privacy. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article are available from the authors, without undue reservation.

A 2-week data collection effort yielded 373 questionnaires. After excluding invalid responses, 283 valid submissions were retained, resulting in a response rate of 75.87%. This sample size met the requirement for survey research (Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001). The characteristics of the sample are detailed as follows:

Gender distribution: Males constitute 39.9%, and females make up 60.1%.

Age distribution: Individuals under 25 years old account for 30.0%, those aged 25 to 30 make up 50.2%, 31 to 35 years comprise 12.0%, 36 to 40 years represent 2.1%, 41 to 50 years constitute 3.9%, and 1.8% are over 50 years old.

Educational background: 6.0% completed high school or lower education, 23.7% completed vocational education, 50.9% hold a bachelor’s degree, and 19.4% held a master’s degree or higher.

Organizational categories: Government departments contributed 21.2%, public institutions 15.5%, foreign/joint ventures 5.3%, state-owned enterprises 7.8%, private enterprises 32.2%, and others 18.0%.

Organizational tenure: Those with less than 1 year of tenure constitute 29.0%, 1 to 2 years account for 31.1%, 3 to 5 years comprise 26.1%, 5 to 7 years represent 6.4%, and those with more than 7 years account for 7.4%.

Job positions: Regular employees make up 69.6%, frontline supervisors constitute 21.9%, middle-level managers represent 6.7%, and top-level managers comprise 1.8%.

Measures

The English scales used underwent a standard translation and back-translation process, with team members overseeing both stages to ensure measurement equivalence (Brislin, 1970). In addition to demographic variables, the questionnaire utilized a 5-point scale, with responses ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).

Boredom proneness was assessed using a 10-item scale developed by van Tilburg and Igou (2012), including items such as “I often feel restless and unchallenged at the same time” and “I think that the situation served no important purpose.” The scale demonstrated a reliability coefficient of 0.80.

Workplace anxiety was measured using a scale originally developed by J. McCarthy and Goffin (2004) and later modified by J. M. McCarthy et al. (2016). The scale consists of 8 items, including statements such as “I feel nervous and apprehensive about not being able to meet performance targets,” and “Even when I try as hard as I can, I still worry about whether my job performance will be good enough.” The scale demonstrated a reliability coefficient of 0.92.

Self-distancing was evaluated using three manifestation scales adapted items from Kross and Ayduk's (2017) psychological experiments, including statements such as “I focus on how my feelings about the event may change with time,”“I usually don’t care if the outcome of things is only temporary,” and “How far away from the scene I am as I visualize my experience.” The scale demonstrated a consistency reliability coefficient of 0.71.

Creativity was evaluated using a 13-item scale adapted from Zhou and George (2001), including items such as “I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas” and “I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.” In this study, the scale demonstrated a reliability coefficient of 0.95.

Control Variables

Prior research has controlled for demographic variables such as gender, age, and education level to mitigate potential confounding effects on creativity (Kwan et al., 2018). This study also controlled for variables that could potentially influence creativity, namely, organizational type and position (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

To assess common method bias, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis using Harman’s single-factor test (Fuller et al., 2016). This analysis extracted six factors explaining 66.68% of the total variance. Notably, the first factor accounted for only 23.68% of the variance, well below the 40% threshold. Thus, we concluded that the questionnaire was not significantly affected by common method bias.

Subsequently, to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of the key variables—boredom proneness, workplace anxiety, self-distancing, and creativity—confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. Detailed measurement items and their corresponding reliability and validity checks are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. Appendix 1 lists the measurement items, and Appendix 2 presents the reliability and validity results. The results indicate that all constructs demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability and validity, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .71 to .95, composite reliability (CR) values exceeding 0.60, and average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from .78 to .96.

As shown in Table 1, the four-factor model demonstrated good fit with the assumed model (χ² = 327.01, df = 146, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.046), while other factor models showed poorer fit. Subsequent analyses were conducted according to this four-factor model, aligned with the assumptions of the theoretical framework.

Table 1.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
BP, WA, SD, CR	327.01	146	0.07	0.046	0.95	0.94
BP +WA, SD, CR	856.72	149	0.13	0.81	0.81	0.78
BP, WA+SD, CR	580.09	149	0.10	0.13	0.88	0.87
BP+WA, SD+CR	996.56	151	0.14	0.16	0.77	0.74
BP+WA+ SD+CR	1768.56	152	0.19	0.19	0.56	0.51

Note. N = 283. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; WA = workplace anxiety; BP = boredom proneness; SD = self-distancing; CR = creativity.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

This study conducted a Pearson correlation analysis to examine the relationships between all control variables, independent variables, moderator variables, and dependent variables. The statistical results are presented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, boredom proneness was significantly and positively correlated with workplace anxiety, self-distancing, and creativity (r = .32, p < .01; r = .47, p < .01; r = .34, p < .01). Additionally, self-distancing was significantly and positively correlated with creativity (r = .41, p < .01), aligning with the expectations of the theoretical model. These results support the directional hypotheses and provide preliminary evidence for hypothesis validation.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Study Variables for the Hypothesized Model.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1.Gender
2.Age	−0.04
3.Education	0.09	−0.01
4.Organizational type	0.04	−0.19**	−0.09
5.Organizational tenure	−0.07	0.63**	−0.03	−0.16**
6.Organizational position	−0.17**	0.29**	−0.01	0.10	0.38**
7.Workplace anxiety	−0.02	0.01	−0.04	−0.09	−0.06	−0.09	(0.92)
8.Boredom proneness	−0.02	−0.02	0.01	−0.08	0.10	−0.02	0.32**	(0.80)
9.Self-distancing	0.02	0.05	−0.01	−0.10	0.00	0.00	0.21**	0.47**	(0.71)
10.Creativity	−0.01	0.14*	0.08	−0.02	0.09	0.19**	0.03	0.34**	0.41**	(0.95)
Mean	1.60	2.05	2.84	3.68	2.32	1.41	3.38	3.41	3.39	3.56
SD	0.49	1.07	0.81	1.88	1.17	0.70	0.81	0.53	0.56	0.58

Note. N = 283. Cronbach’s alpha is in parentheses.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

Hypothesis Testing

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant positive correlation between boredom proneness and creativity (β = .40, p < .01, Model 6) and between self-distancing and creativity (β = .42, p < .01, Model 7). Thus, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were supported.

Table 3.

Results of Multiple Regression Analyses.

Variables	Self-distancing				Creativity
Variables	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
1.Gender	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02
2.Age	0.03	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.07	0.10	0.06	0.08
3.Education	−0.01	−0.02	−0.01	−0.01	0.05	0.05	0.06	0.06
4.Organizational type	−0.03	−0.02	−0.02	−0.03	−0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01
5.Organizational tenure	−0.03*	−0.07*	−0.07	−0.06	−0.03	−0.07	−0.02	−0.04
6.Organizational position	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.15*	0.17**	0.15	0.16
Independent variableBoredom proneness		0.52**	0.50**	0.40**		0.40**		0.23**
Moderator variableWorkplace anxiety			0.03	0.01
Interactive variableBoredom proneness × Workplace anxiety				0.27**
Mediator variableSelf-distancing							0.42**	0.32**
R ²	.01	.24	.24	.30	.05	.18	.22	.25
ΔR²		.22	.22	.28		.16	.20	.23
F	0.61	12.60**	11.08**	12.99**	2.61*	8.60**	10.92**	11.45**

Note. N = 283.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

Mediation Effect Test

There was a significant positive correlation between boredom proneness and self-distancing (β = .52, p < .01, Model 2), as well as between self-distancing and creativity (β = .42, p < .01, Model 7). When self-distancing was included as the mediating variable, a positive correlation remained between boredom proneness and creativity (β = .32, p < .01, Model 8). The mediating effect of self-distancing was further tested using bootstrapping. Through the SPSS PROCESS program, based on 5,000 bootstrapping samples, the parameter estimate for the mediating effect of self-distancing between boredom proneness and creativity was 0.17 (95% confidence interval [0.09, 0.26], excluding 0), supporting Hypothesis 3.

Moderated Mediation Effect Test

Hypothesis 4 posited that workplace anxiety moderates the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing. As presented in Table 3, the interaction term between boredom proneness and workplace anxiety is positively correlated with self-distancing (β = .27, p < .01, Model 4). As shown in Figure 2, when workplace anxiety was high, the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing was significantly strengthened. However, when workplace anxiety was low, this relationship did not significantly change. The results in Table 4 further support this moderating effect. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of workplace anxiety.

Table 4.

The Results of Moderated Mediation Model.

Boredom proneness (X) → Self-distancing (M) → Creativity (Y)
	Indirect effect			Moderated mediation effect
	Estimate	SE	95% CI	Estimate	SE	95% CI
Low workplace anxiety (−1 SD)	0.07	0.04	[−0.01, 0.16]	0.09	0.03	[0.03, 0.15]
Workplace anxiety (mean)	0.14	0.04	[0.07, 0.23]
High workplace anxiety (+1 SD)	0.21	0.05	[0.11, 0.32]

Note. N = 283.

Hypothesis 5 examines the moderated mediation effect shown in Table 4. Self-distancing exhibits a moderated mediation effect at different levels of workplace anxiety. When workplace anxiety is high (above one standard deviation from the mean), boredom proneness enhances creativity through self-distancing, with an effect size of 0.05, and a 95% confidence interval of [0.11, 0.32], excluding zero, indicating a significant mediation effect. However, when workplace anxiety is low (below one standard deviation from the mean), the indirect effect of boredom proneness on creativity through self-distancing is not significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.01, 0.16]. The moderated mediation effect test supported Hypothesis 5 (r = .09, 95% confidence interval [0.03, 0.15], excluding zero). All the hypotheses of the moderated mediation model were fully supported.

Discussion

This study examined the intricate relationship between boredom proneness and creativity from the perspective of self-distancing (Kross & Ayduk, 2017) and posits that boredom proneness positively influences creativity through a significant mediating mechanism operating via the self-distancing process. Additionally, workplace anxiety served as a moderating factor, strengthening the relationship between boredom proneness and self-distancing while also influencing the mediating role of self-distancing, and a moderated mediation model was constructed to explore this relationship by considering the impact of individual traits and perceptions on creativity. This study acknowledges that while boredom proneness tends to be relatively stable, workplace anxiety represents a transient state, highlighting the dynamic interaction between individual and situational factors in shaping creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016), and these findings have important theoretical and practical implications, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Implications

This study aimed to thoroughly explore the multifaceted dimensions of boredom proneness and its impact on creativity, making several significant theoretical contributions. First, it adopts a comprehensive approach by integrating self-distancing theory to illuminate intricate mechanisms that have been overlooked in the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity within the management domain (Nettinga, 2022), offering a direct response to calls for more research on boredom proneness (Fultz et al., 2023; Westgate & Wilson, 2018). Boredom proneness, often neglected as an individual trait, is highlighted as a crucial factor influencing various aspects of individuals’ lives and work, prompting a call for scholars to pay attention to this theme by questioning whether “being bored might not be a bad thing after all” (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019; Park et al., 2019). This study contributes significantly to the existing literature by exploring the role of boredom proneness in creativity and advocating for further exploration of its effects on workplace behavior (Fultz et al., 2023; Park et al., 2019). The study recognizes boredom proneness as an underexplored research topic in management (Elpidorou, 2018) that represents a crucial aspect of people’s lives, influencing various facets of life and work, resulting in intricate behavioral patterns and garnering significant attention in scholarly discourse (Tam et al., 2021). In this study, boredom proneness emerged as a significant factor in creativity, highlighting its positive aspects (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019; Park et al., 2019) and warranting further investigation of its impact on deviant workplace behavior and job performance, prompting additional scholars to engage in related research and providing empirical evidence of boredom proneness.

Second, this study incorporates self-distancing theory to explore the complex relationships between boredom proneness and creativity by introducing self-distancing as a mediating mechanism that clarifies underlying processes (Cova et al., 2019; Kross & Ayduk, 2017). Self-distancing, defined as the psychological act of “stepping back” to reflect on one’s experiences and emotions, has profound effects on an individual’s thinking, emotions, and behavior (Lau & Tov, 2023). By bringing self-distancing into the field of management and emphasizing situational reconstruction over immersion, this study broadens the application of psychology within management (Kross & Ayduk, 2017) and examines the mechanisms by which creativity is enhanced in the context of boredom. The enhancement of creativity through a self-distancing perspective involves increasing psychological distance for self-regulation, objectively assessing situations, and generating more novel and engaging approaches to creatively meet performance expectations, providing empirical support for self-distancing theory while enriching the understanding of self-regulation, and improving one’s ability to cope with negative experiences (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). The integration of self-distancing theory offers a novel perspective on exploring boredom proneness and creativity by introducing the concept of psychological distancing to foster “outside the box” thinking. This study extends the application of psychology to management by emphasizing self-distancing, which involves a psychological “step back” to reflect on experiences and emotions. By shifting focus from immersion to situational reconstruction, this approach broadens the theoretical framework. The study examines how creativity can be heightened in response to boredom proneness from a self-distancing perspective, providing empirical support for the theory (Kross & Ayduk, 2017). This approach not only deepens our understanding of self-regulation but also offers practical insights for enhancing one’s ability to cope with negative emotions, such as boredom.

Finally, this study explored the moderating effect of workplace anxiety on the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity, recognizing the heightened prevalence of workplace anxiety during the pandemic (Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2022). Workplace anxiety arising from situational triggers has been examined for its interaction with employee traits (i.e., boredom proneness) and its influence on self-distancing and creativity (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018). This study enhances the exploration of workplace anxiety by contributing to a more robust theoretical and empirical understanding of its moderating role played by workplace anxiety (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018). Recent research has indicated that workplace anxiety has become a focal point of investigation (Nettinga, 2022; Yin et al., 2023), and that the perception of workplace anxiety has intensified because of the pandemic, which has induced anxiety in response to situations (Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2022; Trougakos et al., 2020). They concluded that individuals with high situation-based anxiety, when bored, were inclined to maintain high self-distancing and were motivated to enhance creativity. Grounded in the self-distancing theory, it introduces a new perspective to workplace anxiety research by adopting a third-person viewpoint and visualizing the event from a “fly on the wall” observer (Lau & Tov, 2023). This approach enables anxious individuals to focus on a broader context and reinterpret their experiences, thereby extending the literature on workplace anxiety. Rooted in the self-distancing theory, this study introduces a fresh perspective on creativity research within the context of workplace anxiety, further expanding the theoretical understanding of the interplay between individual characteristics, situational factors, and creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Lua et al., 2024).

Practical Implications

First, to address boredom proneness, organizations can implement mindfulness and meditation programs to boost intrinsic motivation and self-regulation (F. K. S. Lee & Zelman, 2019; O’Dea et al., 2024). Mindfulness meditation, rooted in Eastern philosophy, promotes tranquility, reduces distractions, and stimulates creativity (Wielgosz et al., 2019). Structured mindfulness workshops can help employees develop these skills. Frameworks like Gross’s (2015) emotion regulation model and Demerouti et al.’s (2024) self-regulation approach can guide employees in managing emotional responses to boredom. Techniques such as cognitive reappraisal can help employees view boredom as an opportunity for creativity. Organizations should also foster a culture of emotion regulation, providing continuous learning to maintain focus and engagement in low-stimulation environments, enhancing emotional stability, cognitive flexibility, and creative problem-solving.

Second, to address workplace anxiety, often driven by resource competition and performance pressures (B. H. Cheng & McCarthy, 2018), employees need self-distancing techniques to shift from anxious to rational thinking, fostering new ideas. Managers should offer training, encourage diverse perspectives, and provide resources and policy support to enhance creativity and organizational competitiveness (Lau & Tov, 2023; Lua et al., 2024).

Third, self-distancing should be applied cautiously, as its effects are not always beneficial. While it alleviates boredom-related emotions (Cova et al., 2019; Elpidorou, 2018), self-immersion may prove more effective in contexts involving positive emotions (Acar et al., 2019). Organizations and educators should carefully assess emotional contexts and customize interventions, encouraging self-distancing in negative situations and self-immersion in positive ones to better foster creativity.

Finally, to combat boredom and enhance creativity, organizations and educational institutions should prioritize experiential learning activities (Phan & Ninh, 2024). Workshops, collaborative projects, and hands-on experiences spark new ideas and foster resilience, adaptability, and creativity, helping individuals manage boredom through self-distancing. Additionally, cultural factors play a significant role in emotion regulation and creativity. In collectivist cultures, group-oriented approaches may prove more effective, whereas individualistic cultures may derive greater benefit from self-regulation strategies (Hofstede, 2011), such as self-distancing. Strategies should be adapted to align with cultural norms to enhance their effectiveness.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, this study employed cross-sectional data, which raises critical questions about the robustness of the causal inferences drawn from our findings (Williams & McGonagle, 2016). Although strategies were implemented to mitigate common method bias, the reliance on self-administered questionnaires introduces inherent methodological challenges that may compromise the validity of our results. For example, responses could be influenced by participants’ current emotional states or situational contexts, potentially leading to skewed data. To enhance the rigor of research design and clarify the causal relationships among variables, future studies should adopt longitudinal approaches to track changes over time, providing insights into how boredom proneness, self-distancing, and creativity evolve and interact dynamically. Additionally, employing experimental methodologies would enable researchers to manipulate key variables, thereby establishing clear cause-and-effect relationships. Such methodological improvements would not only strengthen reliability of the findings, but also yield a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between boredom proneness, self-distancing, and creativity across various contexts (Law et al., 2016). By addressing these limitations, future research could make significant contributions to the literature and offer actionable strategies for fostering creativity in workplace settings.

Second, concerning the mediation mechanism, this study focused solely on self-distancing, without incorporating the perspective of self-immersion (Ayduk & Kross, 2010). Consequently, comparing the mediation mechanisms between these two perspectives was not feasible in this study. Future research should examine and contrast different mediation mechanisms, such as self-distanced versus self-immersed perspectives, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these processes.

Third, while this study emphasizes individual traits, such as boredom proneness, creativity is influenced by the dynamic interaction between individuals and their environment (Kwan et al., 2018; M. Li et al., 2024). Future research could incorporate situational moderating variables such as organizational support (Kurtessis et al., 2015; Kwan et al., 2018), workplace friendship (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018), and other organizational contextual factors (M. Li et al., 2023; M. Li et al., 2025), to explore the antecedents and consequences of creativity (Breidenthal et al., 2020; Mao et al., 2021).

Fourth, given the complexity of the relationship between boredom proneness and creativity, incorporating diverse theoretical perspectives is crucial to enrich our understanding (Acar et al., 2019; Lua et al., 2024; Park et al., 2019). While our study highlighted the role of self-distancing in facilitating adaptive coping, the influence of time-related variables was overlooked. Future research should delve deeper into the connection between individual traits and creativity, while considering the impact of self-distancing in future contexts or changes over time.

Finally, the generalizability of this study is limited by its predominantly young sample, with 30.0% of participants under 25 and 50.2% between 25 and 30. While this demographic aligns with our focus on early career professionals, who frequently face challenges related to workplace boredom and creativity, it restricts the applicability of our findings to older populations. To enhance generalizability, future research should include a broader age range, offering a more comprehensive understanding of these issues across diverse organizational contexts and demographic groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study contributes to the underexplored terrain of creativity by examining the intertwined influence of boredom proneness and workplace anxiety guided by the self-distancing theory. This study introduced a moderated mediation model that uncovered nuanced connections between boredom proneness and creativity, accounting for specific contextual factors. Noteworthy outcomes from the data analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between boredom proneness and creativity, a positive link between self-distancing and creativity, and the mediating role of self-distancing in this relationship. Importantly, this study sheds light on the moderating impact of workplace anxiety, delineating its influence on both the direct association between boredom proneness and creativity and the mediating mechanism via self-distancing. These insights not only expand the current understanding of creativity, but also provide valuable theoretical and practical implications, particularly for cultivating and enhancing creativity from a self-distancing perspective.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Items for Constructs

Appendix 2. Summary of Reliability and Validity for Constructs

Construct	Cronbach alpha	CR	AVE
Boredom proneness	.80	0.64	0.93
Workplace anxiety	.92	0.60	0.94
Self-distancing	.71	0.54	0.78
Creativity	.95	0.66	0.96

Note. All constructs demonstrate acceptable levels of reliability and validity.

ORCID iDs

Miaomiao Li

Peihao Wang

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Review Committee at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law (approval: ETH22010) approved the study on August 15, 2022. Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before starting interviews.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Youth Fund Project for Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education of China (grant number 24YJCZH256).

Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article are available from the authors, without undue reservation.

References

Acar

O. A.

Tarakci

van Knippenberg

(2019). Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318805832

Amabile

T. M.

Pratt

M. G.

(2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001

Ayduk

Kross

(2010). From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 809–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019205

Barclay

L. J.

Kiefer

(2019). In the aftermath of unfair events: Understanding the differential effects of anxiety and anger. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1802–1829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317739107

Belinda

Melwani

Kapadia

(2024). Breaking boredom: Interrupting the residual effect of state boredom on future productivity. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(6), 829–849. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001161

Breidenthal

A. P.

Liu

Bai

Mao

(2020). The dark side of creativity: Coworker envy and ostracism as a response to employee creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.08.001

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Brooks

A. W.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2011). Can nervous nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.008

Cheng

(2013). The dark and bright sides of anxiety: A comprehensive examination of the relation between state anxiety, trait anxiety, and job performance. University of Toronto.

10.

Cheng

B. H.

McCarthy

J. M.

(2018). Understanding the dark and bright sides of anxiety: A theory of workplace anxiety. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000266

11.

Chou

S. Y.

Chang

Lakshman

(2024). From good citizens to bad apples? The effect of boredom proneness: A moral licensing perspective. Psychological Reports. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241265958

12.

Cova

Garcia

Oyanadel

Villagran

Páez

Inostroza

(2019). Adaptive reflection on negative emotional experiences: Convergences and divergence between the processing-mode theory and the theory of self-distancing reflection. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1943. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01943

13.

Dadzie

V. B.

Drody

Danckert

(2024). Exploring the relationship between boredom proneness and agency. Personality and Individual Differences, 222, 112602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112602

14.

Demerouti

Roth

Ebner

Soucek

Moser

(2024). Toward a better understanding of self-regulation promoting interventions: When performance management and job crafting meet. Human Resource Management, 63(5), 849–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22236

15.

de Stobbeleir

K. E. M.

Ashford

S. J.

Buyens

. (2011). Self-regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64870144

16.

Dorfman

Oakes

Santos

H. C.

Grossmann

(2021). Self-distancing promotes positive emotional change after adversity: Evidence from a micro-longitudinal field experiment. Journal of Personality, 89(1), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12534

17.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

18.

Elpidorou

(2018). The bored mind is a guiding mind: Toward a regulatory theory of boredom. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 455–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9515-1

19.

Eysenck

M. W.

Derakshan

(2011). New perspectives in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 955–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.019

20.

Fuller

C. M.

Simmering

M. J.

Atinc

Babin

B. J.

(2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

21.

Fultz

A. A.

Brown

J. A.

Bernieri

F. J.

(2023). The boredom prone personality: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(3), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2112205

22.

Gao

Zhang

Cao

Bian

Wang

X.-H.

(2024). The effect of negative workplace gossip about supervisor on workplace deviance and impression management: The mediating roles of anxiety and guilt. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(2), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09888-6

23.

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

24.

Harvey

Berry

J. W.

(2023). Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: How novelty and usefulness shape creativity. Academy of Management Review, 48(3), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0110

25.

Hennessey

B. A.

Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

26.

Hillebrandt

Barclay

L. J.

(2022). How COVID-19 can promote workplace cheating behavior via employee anxiety and self-interest – And how prosocial messages may overcome this effect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 858–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2612

27.

Hofmann

D. A.

Lei

Grant

A. M.

(2009). Seeking help in the shadow of doubt: The sensemaking processes underlying how nurses decide whom to ask for advice. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1261–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016557

28.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

29.

Zhou

(2020). The mind, the heart, and the leader in times of crisis: How and when COVID-19-triggered mortality salience relates to state anxiety, job engagement, and prosocial behavior. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000620

30.

Inzlicht

Werner

K. M.

Briskin

J. L.

Roberts

B. W.

(2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-061020-105721

31.

Isacescu

Struk

A. A.

Danckert

(2017). Cognitive and affective predictors of boredom proneness. Cognition & Emotion, 31(8), 1741–1748. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1259995

32.

Jia

Luo

Fang

Liao

(2024). When and how artificial intelligence augments employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 67(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0426

33.

Kotrlik

Higgins

(2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/organizational-research-determining-appropriate/docview/219816871/se-2

34.

Kouchaki

Desai

S. D.

(2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: how anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037796

35.

Kross

Ayduk

(2017). Self-distancing (pp. 81–136). Elsevier.

36.

Kross

Gard

Deldin

Clifton

Ayduk

(2012). “Asking why” from a distance: Its cognitive and emotional consequences for people with major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(3), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028808

37.

Kurtessis

J. N.

Eisenberger

Ford

M. T.

Buffardi

L. C.

Stewart

K. A.

Adis

C. S.

(2015). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554

38.

Kwan

H. K.

Zhang

Liu

Lee

(2018). Workplace ostracism and employee creativity: An integrative approach incorporating pragmatic and engagement roles. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(12), 1358–1366. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000320

39.

Lau

C. Y. H.

Tov

(2023). Effects of positive reappraisal and self-distancing on the meaningfulness of everyday negative events. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1093412. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093412

40.

Law

K. S.

Wong

C. S.

Yan

Huang

(2016). Asian researchers should be more critical: The example of testing mediators using time-lagged data. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(2), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9453-9

41.

Lee

Legood

Hughes

Tian

A. W.

Newman

Knight

(2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837

42.

Lee

F. K. S.

Zelman

D. C.

(2019). Boredom proneness as a predictor of depression, anxiety and stress: The moderating effects of dispositional mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.001

43.

Kwan

H. K.

Chen

S.-Q.

Tian

Q.-T.

(2024). Empowerment in hospitality: Does leader–follower congruence in family-supportive supervisor behaviors empower follower creativity? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655241305126

44.

Qin

(2025). Mentoring matters: Decoding the impact of downward envy on interpersonal conflict, workplace ostracism, and displaced aggression. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 40(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2023-0768

45.

Lim

C. M.

(2024). A meta-analytic review of hospitality and tourism employees’ creativity and innovative behavior. Tourism Management, 105, 104977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104977

46.

Kwan

H. K.

(2023). The antecedents and consequences of workplace envy: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09772-y

47.

Guo

Harris

T. B.

(2018). A network view of advice-giving and individual creativity in teams: A brokerage-driven, socially perpetuated phenomenon. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2210–2229. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0212

48.

Lua

Liu

Shalley

C. E.

(2024). Multilevel outcomes of creativity in organizations: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2690

49.

Mann

Cadman

(2014). Does being bored make us more creative? Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.901073

50.

Mao

Yang

(2021). The dark sides of engaging in creative processes: Coworker envy, workplace ostracism, and incivility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(4), 1261–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09707-z

51.

Mayiwar

Hærem

Furnham

(2023). Individual differences in fear and self-distancing predict information processing via problem construal. Personality and Individual Differences, 215, 112383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112383

52.

Mayiwar

Hærem

Løhre

(2024). Self-distancing regulates the effect of incidental anger (vs. fear) on affective decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 37(2), e2378. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2378

53.

McCarthy

Goffin

(2004). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 607–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00002.x

54.

McCarthy

J. M.

Trougakos

J. P.

Cheng

B. H.

(2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000044

55.

Metcalfe

Mischel

(1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3

56.

Naderifar

Goli

Ghaljaie

(2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), e67670. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670

57.

Nettinga

(2022). Examining the relationship between boredom and creativity. University of Waterloo.

58.

Ohana

Murtaza

Haq

I. U.

Al-Shatti

Chi

(2024). Why and when can CSR toward employees lead to cyberloafing? The role of workplace boredom and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05358-4

59.

O’Dea

M. K.

Igou

E. R.

van Tilburg

W. A. P.

(2024). Preventing boredom with gratitude: The role of meaning in life. Motivation and Emotion, 48(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10048-9

60.

Park

Lim

B.-C.

H. S.

(2019). Why being bored might not be a bad thing after all. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0033

61.

Phan

T. A.

Ninh

T.-T.-D.

(2024). The impact of company field trips and representative image on students’ CSR knowledge sharing intentions. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906241237721

62.

Pillemer

Rothbard

N. P.

(2018). Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309

63.

Riley

K. E.

Park

C. L.

Wong

C. C. Y.

Russell

B. S.

(2022). Mindfulness, self-distancing, and self-compassion as buffers of the effects of rumination on health behaviors: A daily diary study. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 15(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41811-022-00142-0

64.

Seah

T. H. S.

Matt

L. M.

Coifman

K. G.

(2021). Spontaneous self-distancing mediates the association between working memory capacity and emotion regulation success. Clinical Psychological Science, 9(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620953636

65.

Stawicki

Krishnakumar

Robinson

M. D.

(2023). Working with emotions: Emotional intelligence, performance and creativity in the knowledge-intensive workforce. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(2), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2021-0556

66.

Stollberger

Guillaume

van Knippenberg

(2024). Inspiring, yet tiring: How leader emotional complexity shapes follower creativity. Organization Science, 35(3), 1015–1041. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.13152

67.

Struk

A. A.

Carriere

J. S. A.

Cheyne

J. A.

Danckert

(2017). A short boredom proneness scale: Development and psychometric properties. Assessment, 24(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115609996

68.

Sung

Yih

Wilson

N. J.

(2020). Individual differences in experience after a control task: Boredom proneness, curiosity, and grit correlate with emotion. Australian Journal of Psychology, 72(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12268

69.

Tam

K. Y. Y.

van Tilburg

W. A. P.

Chan

C. S.

(2021). What is boredom proneness? A comparison of three characterizations. Journal of Personality, 89(4), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12618

70.

Trougakos

J. P.

Chawla

McCarthy

J. M.

(2020). Working in a pandemic: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 health anxiety on work, family, and health outcomes. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1234–1245. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000739

71.

van Knippenberg

Hirst

. (2020). A motivational lens model of person × situation interactions in employee creativity. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000486

72.

van Tilburg

W. A. P.

Igou

E. R

. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9

73.

Vieira

J. L.

Malivoire

B. L.

Koerner

Sumantry

(2023). An examination of worry and self-distancing as coping strategies for anxiety-provoking experiences in individuals high in worry. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 37(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2023.2270417

74.

Watt

J. D.

Hargis

M. B.

(2010). Boredom proneness: Its relationship with subjective underemployment, perceived organizational support, and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9138-9

75.

Webb

T. L.

Miles

Sheeran

(2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600

76.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097

77.

White

R. E.

Kuehn

M. M.

Duckworth

A. L.

Kross

Ayduk

. (2019). Focusing on the future from afar: Self-distancing from future stressors facilitates adaptive coping. Emotion, 19(5), 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000491

78.

Wielgosz

Goldberg

S. B.

Kral

T. R. A.

Dunne

J. D.

Davidson

R. J.

(2019). Mindfulness meditation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093423

79.

Williams

L. J.

McGonagle

A. K.

(2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9422-9

80.

(2024). Control HRM and employee creativity: A curvilinear moderated mediation model. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 62(1), e12364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12364

81.

Yin

(2023). Anxious hotel employees in China: Engaged or exhausted? Multiple effects of workplace anxiety. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 114, 103577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103577

82.

Zhou

George

J. M.

(2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410

83.

Zhu

L. Y.

Bauman

C. W.

Young

M. J.

(2023). Unlocking creative potential: Reappraising emotional events facilitates creativity for conventional thinkers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 174, 104209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104209