Examining the effects of probe frequency, response options, and framing within the thought-probe method
A recent surge of interest in the empirical measurement of mind-wandering has led to an increase in the use of thought-probing to measure attentional states, which has led to large variation in methodologies across studies (Weinstein in Behavior Research Methods, 50, 642–661, 2018). Three sources of variation in methodology include the frequency of thought probes during a task, the number of response options provided for each probe, and the way in which various attentional states are framed during the task instructions. Method variation can potentially affect behavioral performance on the tasks in which thought probes are embedded, the experience of various attentional states within those tasks, and/or response biases to the thought probes. Therefore, such variation can be problematic, both pragmatically and theoretically. Across three experiments, we examined how manipulating probe frequency, response options, and framing affected behavioral performance and responses to thought probes. Probe frequency and framing did not affect behavioral performance or probe responses. But, in light of the present results, we argue that thought probes need at least three responses, corresponding to on-task, off-task, and task-related interference. When researchers are specifically investigating mind-wandering, the probe responses should also distinguish between mind-wandering, external distraction, and mind-blanking.
KeywordsMind-wandering Thought probes Sustained attention
This research was supported by Office of Naval Research Grant No. N00014-15-1-2790. All data are publicly available at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/uww2d) or upon request from the first author.
- Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 8719–8724. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900234106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kane, M. J., Meier, M. E., Smeekens, B. A., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2016). Individual differences in executive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their associations with schizotypy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1017–1048.CrossRefGoogle 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
- McVay, J. C., Kane, M. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2009). Tracking the train of thought from the laboratory into everyday life: An experience-sampling study of mind wandering across controlled and ecological contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 857–863. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2018). Cognitive and contextual predictors of spontaneous and deliberate mind-wandering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 85–98.Google Scholar
- 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
- Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., Xu, M., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D. (2015). Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000116 Google Scholar
- Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. (1970). Imaginal processes inventory. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
- Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar