The number of manipulation trials showed little variation across participants and was deliberately not statistically controlled¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The mean number of manipulation trials was M = 74.17 (SD = 6.29) in the overchallenge condition and M = 174.51 (SD = 11.82) in the underchallenge condition, and the authors chose not to control for this variable. → Test Boredom While Working on Difficult Versus Easy Tasks: Online Supplementary Materials 2022

Evidence¶

Test Boredom While Working on Difficult Versus Easy Tasks: Online Supplementary Materials 2022¶

Test Boredom While Working on Difficult Versus Easy Tasks: Online Supplementary Materials. (2022). https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Test+Boredom+While+Working+on+Difficult+Versus+Easy+Tasks%22

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Supplemental Material S5 (Study 2) explains that the number of manipulation trials was not statistically controlled because its meaning is unclear and, per the authors, "our data show that there was no substantial variation in the number of manipulation trials across participants," with the printed means and standard deviations for both conditions.

"In the overchallenge condition, the mean number of manipulation trials participants worked on was M = 74.17, with a relatively small standard deviation of SD = 6.29. Similarly, in the underchallenge condition, the mean was M = 174.51"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The experimental manipulation succeeded: most participants reported overchallenge during difficult tasks and underchallenge during easy tasks — related
• Test boredom relates positively to over- and underchallenge and negatively to intrinsic and extrinsic value — related
• Abundance hypothesis: state test boredom relates negatively to performance on the difficult test part but not the easy part — related