People Prefer Electric Shocks to Tedium

Many people prefer any activity to simply sitting quietly—even an electric shock

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone,” said French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal in the mid-17th century. The sentiment may be truer today than ever, according to a paper published July 4 in Science. Researchers asked participants to rate how much they enjoyed being in a room with nothing to do. Of 409 participants, nearly half said that they did not like the experience. When asked to do the same at home for six to 15 minutes, a third said that they had cheated.

In one telling experiment, each of 55 participants was seated alone in a quiet, empty room with nothing to do—except they had access to a button that would deliver an electric shock to their ankle which they had previously described as “unpleasant.” In their 15 minutes of solitude, 67 percent of the men and 25 percent of the women chose to shock themselves instead of simply sitting quietly. Lead author Timothy Wilson, a University of Virginia psychologist, says that with smartphones, tablets and TVs within reach anytime, many of us may not know what to do when we have time to ponder without distraction—but the electric shock results were still surprising. He suggests we could make our downtime—even traffic jams and waiting rooms—more relaxing and interesting by learning how to be alone with our thoughts.

“I suspect that practice helps, as does finding topics that you enjoy thinking about in detail and can return to time and again, so that you don't have to start from scratch each time,” Wilson says.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe