scholarly journals An Exploratory Analysis of Individual Differences in Mind Wandering Content and Consistency

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Welhaf ◽  
Bridget Anne Smeekens ◽  
Paul Silvia ◽  
Matt Ethan Meier ◽  
Thomas Richard Kwapil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Latent Variable ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Emotional States ◽  
Adult Individual ◽  
The Moment

We conducted an exploratory study of adult individual differences in the contents of mind-wandering experiences and in the moment-to-moment consistency of that off-task thought content within tasks. This secondary analysis of a published dataset (Kane et al., 2016) examined the content-based thought reports that 472-541 undergraduates made within five probed tasks across three sessions, and tested whether executive-control abilities (working memory capacity [WMC], attention-restraint ability), or personality dimensions of schizotypy (positive, disorganized, negative), predicted particular contents of task-unrelated thought (TUT) or the (in)stability of TUT content across successive thought reports. Latent variable models indicated trait-like consistency in both TUT content and short-term TUT content stability across tasks and sessions; some subjects mind-wandered about some things more than others, and some subjects were more temporally consistent in their TUT content than were others. Higher executive control was associated with more evaluative thoughts about task performance and fewer thoughts about current physical or emotional states; higher positive and disorganized schizotypy was associated with more fantastical daydream and worry content. Contrary to expectations, executive ability correlated positively with TUT instability: higher-ability students had more shifting and varied TUT content within a task. Post hoc analysis suggested that better executive control predicted inconsistent TUT content because it also predicted shorter streaks of mind-wandering; tuning back in to task-related thought may decouple trains of off-task thought and afford novel, spontaneous, or cued thought content. [Data, sample analysis scripts and output, and manuscript preprint are available via the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/guhw7/.]

scholarly journals For Whom the Mind Wanders, and When, Varies Across Laboratory and Daily-Life Settings

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1271-1289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kane ◽  
Georgina M. Gross ◽  
Charlotte A. Chun ◽  
Bridget A. Smeekens ◽  
Matt E. Meier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Life Experience ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Laboratory Findings ◽  
The Mind

Undergraduates ( N = 274) participated in a weeklong daily-life experience-sampling study of mind wandering after being assessed in the lab for executive-control abilities (working memory capacity; attention-restraint ability; attention-constraint ability; and propensity for task-unrelated thoughts, or TUTs) and personality traits. Eight times a day, electronic devices prompted subjects to report on their current thoughts and context. Working memory capacity and attention abilities predicted subjects’ TUT rates in the lab, but predicted the frequency of daily-life mind wandering only as a function of subjects’ momentary attempts to concentrate. This pattern replicates prior daily-life findings but conflicts with laboratory findings. Results for personality factors also revealed different associations in the lab and daily life: Only neuroticism predicted TUT rate in the lab, but only openness predicted mind-wandering rate in daily life (both predicted the content of daily-life mind wandering). Cognitive and personality factors also predicted dimensions of everyday thought other than mind wandering, such as subjective judgments of controllability of thought. Mind wandering in people’s daily environments and TUTs during controlled and artificial laboratory tasks have different correlates (and perhaps causes). Thus, mind-wandering theories based solely on lab phenomena may be incomplete.

scholarly journals Testing the Attention-Distractibility Trait

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Thought Probes ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
And Task

Forster and Lavie (2014, 2016) found that task-irrelevant distraction correlated positively with a measure of mind-wandering and a report of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptomology. Based primarily on these results, Forster and Lavie claimed to establish an attention-distractibility trait. Here, I sought to replicate the associations among measures of task-irrelevant distraction, mind wandering, and ADHD symptomology, and to test if these associations could be distinguished from associations with working memory capacity and task-relevant distraction. With data collected from two hundred and twenty-six subjects (ns differ among analyses), the results from the current study suggest that the measure of task-irrelevant distraction is not (or only very weakly) associated with measures of mind wandering (measured both with a stand-alone questionnaire and in-task thought probes) and ADHD symptomology. Additionally, the measure of irrelevant-distraction exhibited low internal consistency suggesting that (as measured) it is not capable of being a an individual differences measure. [Preregistration, data, analysis scripts and output are available via the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/bhs24/].

scholarly journals Examining the Relations among Working Memory Capacity, ADHD Symptology and Conscious Experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Beikmohamadi
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Conscious Experience ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Adhd Symptoms ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Children With Adhd

An operational definition of mind wandering is when one has thoughts unrelated to the current task(s) (Smallwood & Schooler, 2015). Mind blanking can be thought of as a subtype of mind wandering where there is an inability to report the content of these task-unrelated thoughts. Van den Driessche et al. (2017) found that children and young adults with more Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms report more mind blanking than those with fewer ADHD symptoms and that non-medicated children with ADHD reported less mind wandering and more mind blanking than medicated children with ADHD. Van den Driessche et al. speculated that medication facilitated executive control and that executive resources support mind wandering (and on-task thought). These findings also bear on the theoretical debate on the role of executive functions in conscious experience. Some argue that executive functions support mind wandering (Levinson et al., 2012; Smallwood, 2010), while others argue and that mind wandering situationally results from a lack (or failure) of executive control (McVay & Kane, 2010; Meier, 2019). In this study, with a young adult sample, I tested the association between ADHD symptomology and conscious experience and if executive resources moderate the proportion of reporting mind blanking and mind wandering. The current study found evidence for Van den Driessche et al.’s finding of a positive and significant association between mind blanking and ADHD symptomology. The current study was also broadly consistent with Van den Driessche et al.’s finding of an ADHD-related trade-off involving mind blanking, but importantly differs from Van den Driessche et al. in that mind wandering was not involved in this trade-off. The current study did not find an association between working memory capacity and mind wandering. Thus, I found no evidence for executive resources supporting mind wandering, consistent with previous studies (McVay & Kane, 2009, 2012a, 2012b; Meier, 2019; Robison & Unsworth, 2018; Unsworth & McMillan, 2013, 2014).

scholarly journals Can Research Participants Comment Authoritatively on the Validity of Their Self-Reports of Mind Wandering and Task Engagement? A Replication and Extension of Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Task Engagement ◽  
Dispositional Mindfulness ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Response Task ◽  
Better Than

Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek (2015) found that, through retrospective confidence reports, subjects can distinguish the validity of their mind wandering reports during a sustained attention (“metronome response”) task. In addition, some subjects were better able to make this distinction than others. Here, I sought to replicate both the within and between-subjects’ effects of confidence judgments on thought probe validity. To this end, I executed a preregistered close replication of Seli et al. (2015) and extended this work by administering the metronome response task twice and by measuring potential individual difference markers for which subjects may be better than others at monitoring their thoughts: working memory capacity, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and dispositional mindfulness. With data from 291 subjects, I found only weak evidence for a within-subjects effect of confidence on thought-report validity in the first administration of the metronome response task and weak to non-existent evidence for individual differences in thought monitoring. No evidence was found for individual differences in the ability to provide valid thought reports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document