Increasing participant motivation reduces rates of intentional and unintentional mind wandering
- 515 Downloads
We explored the possibility that increasing participants’ motivation to perform well on a focal task can reduce mind wandering. Participants completed a sustained-attention task either with standard instructions (normal motivation), or with instructions informing them that they could be excused from the experiment early if they achieved a certain level of performance (higher motivation). Throughout the task, we assessed rates of mind wandering (both intentional and unintentional types) via thought probes. Results showed that the motivation manipulation led to significant reductions in both intentional and unintentional mind wandering as well as improvements in task performance. Most critically, we found that our simple motivation manipulation led to a dramatic reduction in probe-caught mind-wandering rates (49%) compared to a control condition (67%), which suggests the utility of motivation-based methods to reduce people’s propensity to mind-wander.
This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant to D. Smilek, and by an NSERC Post-Doctoral Fellowship to P. Seli. We would like to extend our thanks to Brandon Ralph for his help with data collection.
Compliance with ethical standards
This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant (Grant number 06459) to Daniel Smilek.
Conflict of interest
Paul Seli declares that he has no conflict of interest. Daniel L. Schacter declares that he has no conflict of interest. Evan F. Risko declares that he has no conflict of interest. Daniel Smilek declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Grodsky, A., & Giambra, L. M. (1990–1991). The consistency across vigilance and reading tasks of individual differences in the occurrence of task-unrelated and task-related images and thoughts. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 10, 39–52.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2012), “PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling”, white paper, The Ohio State University. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
- Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Klinger, E. (1971). Structure and functions of fantasy. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
- Klinger, E. (1999). Thought flow: Properties and mechanisms underlying shifts in content. In J. A. Singer & P. Salovey (Eds.), At play in the fields of consciousness: Essays in honor of Jerome L. Singer (pp. 29–50). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Klinger, E. (2009). Daydreaming and fantasizing: Thought flow and motivation. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 225–239). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Seli, P., Carriere, J. S., Levene, M., & Smilek, D. (2013a). How few and far between? Examining the effects of probe rate on self-reported mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 430.Google Scholar
- Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013b). Wandering minds and wavering rhythms: Linking mind-wandering and behavioral variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1–5.Google Scholar
- Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Cheyne, J. A., Cortes, K., & Smilek, D. (2015b). Can research participants comment authoritatively on the validity of their self-reports of mind-wandering and task engagement? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 703–709.Google Scholar
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21-word solution. Dialogue: The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 4–7.Google Scholar