Are mind wandering rates an artifact of the probe-caught method? Using self-caught mind wandering in the classroom to test, and reject, this possibility
Mind wandering (MW) reports often rely on individuals responding to specific external thought probes. Researchers have used this probe-caught method almost exclusively, due to its reliability across a wide range of testing situations. However, it remains an open question whether the probe-caught MW rates in more complex settings converge with those for simpler tasks, because of the rather artificial and controlled nature of the probe-caught methodology itself, which is shared across the different settings. To address this issue, we measured MW in a real-world lecture, during which students indicated whether they were mind wandering by simply catching themselves (as one would normally do in real life) or by catching themselves and responding to thought probes. Across three separate lectures, self-caught MW reports were stable and unaffected by the inclusion of MW probes. That the probe rates were similar to those found in prior classroom research and did not affect the self-caught MW rates strongly suggests that the past consistency of probe-caught MW rates across a range of different settings is not an artifact of the thought-probe method. Our study also indicates that the self-caught MW methodology is a reliable way to acquire MW data. The extension of measurement techniques to include students’ self-caught reports provides valuable information about how to successfully and naturalistically monitor MW in lecture settings, outside the laboratory.
KeywordsMind wandering Self-report Lectures Attention
The authors thank Avarna Fernandes, Faith Jabs, and Sonia Milani for help with the data collection and coding, and Janel Fergusson for the use of her classroom sessions. This research was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant to A.K., and by an NSERC Canadian Graduate Scholarship to T.L.V.-S.
- Giambra, L. M. (1993). Sustained attention in older adults: Performance and processes. In J. Cerella, J. M. Rybash, W. Hoyer, & M. L. Commons (Eds.), Adult information processing: Limits on loss (pp. 259–272). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Hollis, R. B., & Was, C. A. (2014). Mind wandering and online learning: How working memory, interest, and mind wandering impact learning from videos. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3084–3089). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Drifting from slow to “D’oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 525–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025896 Google Scholar
- Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (R package version 0.9.12-2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
- Schooler, J. W., Reichle, E. D., & Halpern, D. V. (2004). Zoning out while reading: Evidence for dissociations between experience and metaconsciousness. In D. T. Levin (Ed.), Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp. 203–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029669 Google Scholar