scholarly journals An Individual Differences Investigation of the Relation between Life Event Stress And Working Memory Capacity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Goller
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Protective Factor ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Negative Life Event ◽  
Life Event ◽  
Life Event Stress ◽  
Trait Level ◽  
Event Stress

The effects of stress in both academic and social settings are well established. However, the effects of stress on cognitive functioning are less so. This study explored the relation between life event stress and cognitive functioning; first by attempting to replicate a negative association between life event stress and working memory capacity and then by testing if the propensity to mind wander, the emotional valence of mind wandering, or the tendency to ruminate are potential mechanisms through which life stress can affect working memory capacity. In addition, I tested if trait level mindfulness is a protective factor against the effects of life stress on working memory capacity. Negative life event stress did not correlate with working memory capacity. Mind wandering, the valance of mind wandering, rumination, and trait level mindfulness did not serve as mediators in the relationship between working memory capacity and negative life event stress. When compared to neutral and positively valanced mind wandering, negatively valanced mind wandering was not more harmful to SART reaction time. However, when compared to neutral, but not positively valanced mind wandering, negatively valanced mind wandering was more harmful to SART accuracy. Finally, no evidence was found for trait level mindfulness serving as a protective factor.

An Individual Differences Investigation of the Relations Among Life Event Stress, Working Memory Capacity, and Mind Wandering: A Replication-Extension Study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Goller ◽  
Jonathan Britten Banks ◽  
Matt Ethan Meier
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Extension Study ◽  
Negative Life Event ◽  
Life Event ◽  
Life Event Stress ◽  
Event Stress

Klein and Boals (2001, Experiments 1 and 2) found that working memory capacity correlated negatively with perceived negative life event stress and speculated the relation may be driven by thoughts produced from these experiences. Here, we sought to replicate the association between working memory capacity and perceived negative life experience and to assess potential mediators of this association such as mind wandering propensity, rumination propensity, and the sum of negatively-valenced mind wandering reports. In this preregistered replication and extension study, with data collected from three hundred and fifty-six subjects (ns differ among analyses), we found no evidence suggesting that perceived negative life stress is associated with working memory capacity. Additionally, we found evidence consistent with the claim that negatively-valenced mind wandering is uniquely detrimental to cognitive task performance, but we highlight a potential confound that may account for this association that should be addressed in future work.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document