Dear author,
Congratulations on your valuable contribution to the scientific community and, specifically, to the advancement of Boredom Studies. Your paper is, to my very knowledge, the first in analyzing the scope of responses to boredom, depending on their adaptive or maladaptive condition, in a comparison between the assumptions by the theory of the functionality of boredom and the approach to boredom proneness. Now that the journalists repeat once and again in the media that "being bored is a good thing because it makes us more creative and intelligent", it is necessary to work to make it clear that boredom itself is only a motor for action, regardless of what the action finally is, and to analyze on what depends for our responses to be adaptive or maladaptive. In addition, the development (and application) of the measurement scales (BAE & DWB) represent a tool of great value to differentiate between cases of chronic boredom as an individual pathology and those dependent on situations that are too constrictive. Again, congratulations on such a contribution.
This reviewer considers that the paper is ready for publication. However, I selected the "Accept with minor revision" option to give the authors the opportunity to revise some parts and make changes based on my comments if they want to. None of the comments or suggestions are intended to be mandatory. I reiterate that these are only comments that, hopefully, might enrich the critical apparatus of the paper and broaden its perspective on some points.
In this sense, this reviewer is enclosing the paper submitted for review with comments and suggestions so that the authors can use them as they deem appropriate. These comments or suggestions include, for example, the following:
- Differentiate from the beginning between "state-boredom" and other forms of boredom such as "profound boredom" (Elpidorou 2019; Finkielzstein 2021; Ros Velasco 2022).
- Introduce an annotation on the approaches that take the theory of functionality one step further, and that understand boredom as a state that is not only functional but also adaptive (Blumenberg 2006; Toohey 2011; Ros Velasco 2017, 2019, 2022).
- Consider the notions of chronic/chronified boredom, both dependent on the individual (Greenson 1953; O'Conner 1967; O'Hanlon 1981; Neu 1998; Schmitz 2000) and dependent on the environment (Ros Velasco 2022).
- Add study limitations in the last section. For example, the authors mentioned at the beginning that one thing is what people say they would do to escape boredom, and another is what they will really do when they have to escape boredom in real life.
Hope my comments are helpful!

References:
Blumenberg, H. (2006). Beschreibung des Menschen. Suhrkamp.
Elpidorou, A., & Freeman, L. (2019). Is profound boredom boredom?. In Heidegger on affect (pp. 177-203). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Finkielsztein, M. (2021). Boredom and Academic Work. Routledge.
Greenson, R. R. (1953). On boredom. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1(1), 7-21.
Neu, J. (1998). Boring from Within: Endogenous Versus Reactive Boredom. En W. F. Flack Jr. y J. D. Laird (Eds.), Series in Affective Science. Emotions in Psychopathology: Theory and Research, 158-170. Oxford University Press.
O’Conner, D. (1967). The Phenomena of Boredom. Journal of Existentialism 7 (27), 381-399.
O’Hanlon, J. E. (1981). Boredom: Practical Consequences and a Theory. Acta Psychologies 49 (1), 53-82.
Ros Velasco, J. (2017). Boredom: a comprehensive study of the state of affairs. Thémata. Revista de filosofía, 56, 171-198.
Ros Velasco, J. (2019). Boredom: humanising or dehumanising treatment. The Neurobiology-Psychotherapy-Pharmacology Intervention Triangle: The need for common sense in 21st century mental health, 251.
Ros Velasco, J. R. (2022). La enfermedad del aburrimiento. Alianza.
Schmitz, E. (2000). Langeweile. Lexikon der Psychologie 2, 422.
Toohey, P. (2011). Boredom: A lively history. Yale University Press.

The authors have gone through all the comments and suggestions I made in my first review, and the paper has been visibly improved. I saw they also paid attention to the comments and suggestions made by other reviewers and included amendments when possible. They made a great job in upgrading their paper, so, according to my view, it is ready for publication. My congratulations!