Mind wandering probes as a source of mind wandering depends on attention control demands

被引:9
作者
Greve, Maren [1 ]
Was, Christopher A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Kent State Univ, Dept Psychol Sci, 144 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44303 USA
关键词
Mind wandering; Thought probes; Working memory; Operation span; Attention; WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; SUSTAINED ATTENTION; THOUGHT; TASK; EXPERIENCE; FAILURES; TRAIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.concog.2022.103355
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Mind wandering is a topic of great interest in many areas, but as with all psychological constructs, the interpretation of experimental results might depend on the way it is measured. A common way of measuring mind wandering in experiments is with self-report thought probes. An important question with this methodology is if the probe itself may be influencing participants' mind wandering. Previous research suggests that multiple thought probes throughout a task may lead to less mind wandering. However, in some studies (e.g., Schubert et al, 2019) the probes occurred during a recorded lecture video and in the others (e.g., Seli et al, 2016) the probes occurred during a sustained attention to response task (SART). What is missing in the current literature is a comparison of the effect the number of thought probes has on mind wandering during a task that requires a greater deal of thought control throughout the task to perform well, such as a complex span task or working memory. As such, in the two experiments presented here we randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions. Conditions contained a minimum of one and a maximum of six probes. In the first experiment, we found that participants who had received fewer probes mind wandered less during an operation span task, supporting our hypothesis. In the second experiment, we found that participants who had received fewer probes mind wandered more during a video lecture. The results suggest that thought probes interact with attentional control demands to influence mind wandering.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Absorbed in Thought: The Effect of Mind Wandering on the Processing of Relevant and Irrelevant Events
    Barron, Evelyn
    Riby, Leigh M.
    Greer, Joanna
    Smallwood, Jonathan
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2011, 22 (05) : 596 - 601
  • [2] Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering
    Christoff, Kalina
    Gordon, Alan M.
    Smallwood, Jonathan
    Smith, Rachelle
    Schooler, Jonathan W.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2009, 106 (21) : 8719 - 8724
  • [3] Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide
    Conway, ARA
    Kane, MJ
    Bunting, MF
    Hambrick, DZ
    Wilhelm, O
    Engle, RW
    [J]. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2005, 12 (05) : 769 - 786
  • [4] You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention
    Dang, Jasmine S.
    Figueroa, Ivonne J.
    Helton, William S.
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2018, 236 (08) : 2255 - 2262
  • [5] Engle RW, 2004, PSYCHOL LEARN MOTIV, V44, P145
  • [6] Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts
    Feng, Shi
    D'Mello, Sidney
    Graesser, Arthur C.
    [J]. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2013, 20 (03) : 586 - 592
  • [7] TASK-UNRELATED THOUGHT FREQUENCY AS A FUNCTION OF AGE - A LABORATORY STUDY
    GIAMBRA, LM
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING, 1989, 4 (02) : 136 - 143
  • [8] A LABORATORY METHOD FOR INVESTIGATING INFLUENCES ON SWITCHING ATTENTION TO TASK-UNRELATED IMAGERY AND THOUGHT
    GIAMBRA, LM
    [J]. CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION, 1995, 4 (01) : 1 - 21
  • [9] Gruszka A, 2010, SPRINGER SER HUM EXC, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7
  • [10] The troubling science of neurophenomenology
    Head, James
    Helton, William S.
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2018, 236 (09) : 2463 - 2467