The authors tackle an important problem in the study of boredom and chronic/trait-like boredom--that the typical measure does not seem to capture what it is assumed to. The authors instead proposed two dimensions of individual differences and developed measures for them. They then argue that these dimensions are more suitable explanations for the diverse outcome of (chronic) boredom. I have several critiques:

Introduction
Given their theoretical centrality in this study, I encourage the authors to define "adaptive" and "maladaptive" behaviors.

What the authors refer to as "adaptive and maladaptive ways of dealing with boredom" (and the DWB) is clearly an overlapping construct with boredom coping (e.g., Nett and colleagues in the context of educational boredom). The authors should discuss the ways in which their construct is different and provides additional value.

The authors' caution "against a shallow view of boredom as a purely maladaptive experience" might be a strawman argument. I think what previous studies that found associations between boredom proneness and adverse outcomes suggest is that chronic boredom and, borrowing from Tam et al. (2021), that viewing one's life as boredom is maladaptive, and not boredom experience per se. Throughout the manuscript, the authors seem to, perhaps a bit ironically, conflate boredom experience and boredom proneness. I echos the authors' call for a clearer definition of boredom proneness - that includes conceptually removing it from the transient experience of boredom.

Relatedly, the authors mentioned that “research on boredom proneness suggests that boredom primarily causes people to engage in maladaptive behaviors and prevents them from engaging in adaptive behaviors.” (p. 8). The authors are encouraged to elaborate more clearly and provide evidence for this statement: First, can research on boredom proneness offers insights on the causal relationship between state boredom and maladaptive/adaptive behavior? Second, what are the empirical basis for the assertion that boredom prevents people from engaging in adaptive behaviors? There are quite a few studies on the adaptive responses to boredom, for example, by Nett and colleagues, van Tilburg and colleagues.

Can the authors clarify their definition of “the urge to avoid and escape boredom"? On page 8, they explain it as "an individual’s sensitivity to the sensation” I find it hard to equate the tendency to avoid with the sensitivity to sensation.

The potential confound between boredom proneness and poor self-control is definitely worth exploring and examining. However, as the authors discussed, it is premature to conclude that boredom proneness is a measure of self-control. They can, for example, be causally related or reflect a shared underlying construct.

Please augment the hypotheses/predictions with a brief justification or explanation.

Method
In the abstract, the study was described as "high-powered" but in the text, I don't see a section on power analysis or explanation.

I find the psychometric network modeling intriguing. Can the authors briefly explain its advantage over more conventional ways of scale development and item selection?

I appreciate the authors' use of the distress tolerance scale as a starting point but I wish to see more explanation for it. That is, among all the neighboring constructs, why distress tolerance and why the regulation subscale of this particular measure? How were the additional items constructed?

Relatedly, how were the items in the DWB created and selected? The authors are encouraged to refer to Nett and colleagues (2010, 2011), which examined boredom coping in academic settings and identified four broad categories for boredom coping including behavioral avoidance, behavioral approach, cognitive approach, and cognitive avoidance. They also examined the individual differences of tendencies to adopt these strategies.

Similarly, can the authors explain the process they took to develop the list of specific adaptive and maladaptive behaviors? In the text (and in the survey), the authors reported that the "participants indicated how often they typically show the specified behavior in general (i.e., not only when being bored..." (p.12). However, the title of Table 3 is "Items... associated with boredom". Can the authors clarify this discrepancy? Please also report the psychometric properties of this scale. Some items include qualifiers "excessively" "later regret" etc. while others don't. I understand why the authors did so but I also wonder whether this in itself might contribute to some kind of artifactual, difficult factor--that the items are statistically grouped together because they are relatively (in this case, positively) skewed.

Discussion
The discussion ended rather abruptly. The discussion on mind-wandering seems out of place. Can the authors discuss the limitations of their study and add a brief conclusion?

Minor point:
The transition word "Moreover" appeared back-to-back on page 17.
In figure 1, do you mean "and" not "und"?
Again - just a minor point: I appreciate the authors' intention to come up with a clever title. But, at most, the study shows that boredom can lead to adaptive outcomes (which is hard to refute); this doesn't nullify (or even address) the existential notion/hyperbole of whether boredom is the root of evil. Something (e.g., boredom, as the authors maintain) that causes good can still be geminate evil (whatever that means). I guess what I'm trying to say is that the tag doesn't seem to help.

I thank the authors for thoroughly addressing the two reviewers' comments. I think the manuscript makes an important contribution to the literature, for which I congratulate the authors! I only have three remaining suggestions:
1. Compared with SBPS, the effect sizes of BAE are rather small. How do the authors understand this contrast? What does it mean when SBPS is still a robust predictor of both adaptive and maladaptive coping behaviors when BAE is controlled for?
2. I appreciate the authors' explanation of EGA but I wonder whether they can go the extra mile to explain why it "has been recommended as an approach to the validation of trait questionnaires (Christensen et al., 2020)". How is this data-driven approach superior to other more conventional ones?
3. The title of Figure 2 needs to be updated?