Is Boredom the Opposite of Interest?

The Hidden Link Between Boredom and Interest

A new study challenges the idea that boredom is inherently bad and should always be eliminated from learning environments. Instead, it suggests that motivation is highly dynamic, and simplistic efforts to prevent boredom at all costs might actually be counterproductive. What is so interesting about this to me is that it's evidence against the traditional "deficit model" of boredom, which assumes that boredom is a) bad and b) simply the absence of interest. It's not.

One really weird thing from this study: earlier boredom is linked to later increases in interest. Why is this? Firstly, highly competent students might experience boredom from being under-challenged while maintaining underlying interest, especially in a school context where easily mastered subjects become attractive due to guaranteed success.

Secondly, students who are bored due to being over-challenged might respond by increasing their engagement through extra lessons, intensive studying, and more interaction with teachers and peers, which could develop into genuine interest over time. (Hmmm, not sure this follows. This is the one I am struggling with tbh - need to read more on this.)

Thirdly, students might develop cognitive coping strategies when faced with boring but mandatory content, actively working to reappraise and find interest in topics they must repeatedly engage with, essentially transforming their relationship with the material through necessity. (Again, I think this might be something that a minority of students do)

Another finding which chimes with cognitive science: Domain-specific interventions may be more effective than general approaches to managing boredom/ interest. So making things more 'engaging' through gamification, multimedia, making lessons "fun." etc. without considering how students actually build knowledge on a specific topic is probably not effective.

AI and boredom: More evidence to me that the main application of AI in education is its adaptive function. The authors suggest some kind of Ai powered error analysis systems could help identify whether a student’s disengagement is due to under-challenge, over-challenge, or subject-specific motivational issues. Again if developers can really get this right then we might be on to something.

Another interesting thing: The correlations between constructs were consistently higher within domains (e.g., math boredom with math interest) than between domains (e.g., math boredom with German interest). This would seem to suggest that as students progress, their emotional and motivational experiences become more subject-specific. This is a pattern we see again and again when discussing categories; the idea that differences are greater within them than between them making a lot of categories largely useless.

Key takeaways: Motivation is not a fixed state. We need more sophisticated, adaptive (and dare I say it, domain-specific) approaches to motivation in learning rather than simplistic “boredom prevention” strategies through fuzzy concepts like engagement. Next time students say 'this is boring', instead of trying to con them into learning, consider this instead:

• Focus on subject-specific strategies rather than general motivation techniques

• Consider how the nature of the subject matter influences student engagement

• Develop targeted approaches that address the unique challenges and opportunities within each domain.

• Motivation doesn’t have to always be high and constant—instead, it ebbs and flows, often in response to difficulty levels, perceived competence, and instructional approaches.

• Instead of simply trying to "fix" boredom, educators should focus on creating conditions where interest can emerge over time, even from moments of disengagement.

You can read the full paper here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-025-09991-5