<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
There is scientific evidence that boredom can increase error rates.  </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
My gut feeling would tell me that boredom decreases vigilance, which then  would increase the chance of errors. <strong><a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vigilance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vigilance</a></strong> being defined as <strong>sustained attention</strong> <a href="http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Oken, 2006)</a>. </p>

<p>And indeed, <strong>vigilance has been directly linked to boredom</strong>, and more specifically, boredom decreases the amount of vigilance. In fact, an accepted measure of vigilance is the error rate in task performance <a href="http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Pattyn <em>et al</em>., 2008)</a>, based on earlier observations that motor task performance decreases with lower vigilance levels <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14216122" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(MacWorth, 1968)</a>. </p>

<p>Another way to measure alertness or vigilance is with EEG. Generally, <strong><a href="http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">low EEG frequencies</a></strong> are associated with sleepiness and reduces alertness (Delta band with 0 - 4 Hz oscillations), while <a href="http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">high frequencies</a> are associated with alert states (Gamma band at >30 Hz). Figure 1 shows that EEGs with low frequencies are associated with higher error rates <a href="http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Oken, 2006)</a>.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Vc90I.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Vc90I.jpg" alt="EEG vs error rate"></a><br>
<sup>Fig. 1. Error rates plotted against EEG spectral frequencies. As time went by, the subject lost attentiveness, EEG frequencies went down and error rates went up. source: <a href="http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Oken, 2006)</a></sup>   </p>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14216122" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MacWorth, <em>Can J Psychol</em> (1964); <strong>18</strong>: 209-23</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Oken <em>et al</em>., <em>Clin Neurophysiol</em> (2006); <strong>117</strong>(9): 1885–901</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pattyn <em>et al</em>., <em>Physiology &amp; Behavior</em> (2008); <strong>93</strong>(1–2): 69-378</a></sub>  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-23T19:07:58.480Z
2017-08-23T23:04:05.777Z
2017-08-23T23:04:05.777Z
AliceD
<p>There seems to be a common view in programming / software engineering:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“because it’s boring, it’s very easy to make errors”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And then the solution to this is often to introduce some level(s) of abstraction to avoid what is classed as boring.</p>

<p>What's the evidence to justify this?</p>

<hr>

<p>The quote is from lecturer of a Haskell course I am taking right now, <a href="https://afp-2017.github.io/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://afp-2017.github.io/index.html</a> .</p>

<p>A quick Google reveals similar statements, such as</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Repetition easily induces mistakes</p>
</blockquote>

<p>from "Secure Development for Mobile Apps: How to Design and Code Secure Mobile Applications with PHP and JavaScript" by J.D. Glaser</p>

<p>I <em>think</em> I have heard similar statements from professional software engineers, relating to justifying more levels of abstraction in code. However, I am unable to think of specific other instances.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-22T10:09:35.430Z
Welcome to CogSci. I must say it does sound plausible; boring --> loss of interest --> loss of concentration --> less vigilance --> errors
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-22T17:36:37.313Z
As @AliceD mentioned in his comment, it is plausible and along with his route to errors, there can be complacency especially with repetition.  Complacency can lead to errors when unforeseen differences in circumstances arise.  I will be interested in anything which comes out of this but I do wonder if a lot of the answer will be primarily opinion based
Chris Rogers
<attention><software><human-error>
Is there evidence for “because it’s boring, it’s very easy to make errors”
Michal Charemza
# Is there evidence for “because it’s boring, it’s very easy to make errors”

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-22)

There seems to be a common view in programming / software engineering:

> “because it’s boring, it’s very easy to make errors”

And then the solution to this is often to introduce some level(s) of abstraction to avoid what is classed as boring.

What's the evidence to justify this?

---

The quote is from lecturer of a Haskell course I am taking right now, <https://afp-2017.github.io/index.html> .

A quick Google reveals similar statements, such as

> Repetition easily induces mistakes

from "Secure Development for Mobile Apps: How to Design and Code Secure Mobile Applications with PHP and JavaScript" by J.D. Glaser

I *think* I have heard similar statements from professional software engineers, relating to justifying more levels of abstraction in code. However, I am unable to think of specific other instances.

**Tags:** attention, software, human-error

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome to CogSci. I must say it does sound plausible; boring --> loss of interest --> loss of concentration --> less vigilance --> errors  
> **username_2**: As @username_1 mentioned in his comment, it is plausible and along with his route to errors, there can be complacency especially with repetition.  Complacency can lead to errors when unforeseen differences in circumstances arise.  I will be interested in anything which comes out of this but I do wonder if a lot of the answer will be primarily opinion based  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-08-23. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

**Short answer**  
There is scientific evidence that boredom can increase error rates.

**Background**  
My gut feeling would tell me that boredom decreases vigilance, which then would increase the chance of errors. **[Vigilance](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vigilance)** being defined as **sustained attention** [(Oken, 2006)](http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman).

And indeed, **vigilance has been directly linked to boredom**, and more specifically, boredom decreases the amount of vigilance. In fact, an accepted measure of vigilance is the error rate in task performance [(Pattyn *et al*., 2008)](http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/), based on earlier observations that motor task performance decreases with lower vigilance levels [(MacWorth, 1968)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14216122).

Another way to measure alertness or vigilance is with EEG. Generally, **[low EEG frequencies](http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/)** are associated with sleepiness and reduces alertness (Delta band with 0 - 4 Hz oscillations), while [high frequencies](http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/) are associated with alert states (Gamma band at >30 Hz). Figure 1 shows that EEGs with low frequencies are associated with higher error rates [(Oken, 2006)](http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman).

[![EEG vs error rate](https://i.sstatic.net/Vc90I.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Vc90I.jpg)  
Fig. 1. Error rates plotted against EEG spectral frequencies. As time went by, the subject lost attentiveness, EEG frequencies went down and error rates went up. source: [(Oken, 2006)](http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman)

**References**  
**-** [MacWorth, *Can J Psychol* (1964); **18**: 209-23](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14216122)  
**-** [Oken *et al*., *Clin Neurophysiol* (2006); **117**(9): 1885–901](http://DanckertOpens%20the%20author%20workspaceOpens%20the%20author%20workspace.%20Author%20links%20open%20the%20author%20workspace.Ava-Ann%20A.Allman)  
**-** [Pattyn *et al*., *Physiology & Behavior* (2008); **93**(1–2): 69-378](http://neurosky.com/2015/05/greek-alphabet-soup-making-sense-of-eeg-bands/)


---

