Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 398–408 | Cite as

Examining the effects of probe frequency, response options, and framing within the thought-probe method

  • Matthew K. RobisonEmail author
  • Ashley L. Miller
  • Nash Unsworth
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Mind-wandering Thought probes Sustained attention 

Notes

Author note

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.

References

  1. Antrobus, J. S., Singer, J. L., & Greenberg, S. (1966). Studies in the stream of consciousness: Experimental enhancement and suppression of spontaneous cognitive processes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23, 399–417.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1966.23.2.399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, B., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1604–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callard, F., Smallwood, J., Golchert, J., & Margulies, D. S. (2013). The era of the wandering mind? Twenty-first century research on self-generated mental activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 891.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheyne, J. A., Carriere, J. S. A., & Smilek, D. (2006). Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 578–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2009). Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition, 111, 345–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giambra, L. M. (1977–78). Adult male daydreaming across the lifespan: A replication, further analyses, and tentative norms based upon retrospective reports. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 8, 197–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson, J. D., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: Converging evidence from the Sustained Attention to Response Task and reading for comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 27, 106–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, J. D., Weinstein, Y., & Balota, D. A. (2013). Can mind-wandering be timeless? Atemporal focus and aging in mind-wandering paradigms. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 742.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kane, M. J., Brown, L. E., Little, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. (2007). For whom the mind wanders, and when: An experience-sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life. Psychological Science, 18, 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330, 932.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krawietz, S. A., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A. (2012). Aging and mind wandering during text comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 27, 951–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 196–204.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014104 Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. McVay, J. C., Meier, M. E., Touron, D. R., & Kane, M. J. (2013). Aging ebbs the flow of thought: Adult age differences in mind wandering, executive control, and self-evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 142, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). “Oops!”: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robison, M. K., Gath, K. I., & Unsworth, N. (2017). The neurotic wandering mind: An individual differences investigation of mind-wandering, neuroticism, and executive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 649–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Schoen, J. R. (1970). Use of consciousness sampling to study teaching methods. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 287–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Seli, P., Carriere, J. S. A., Levene, M., & Smilek, D. (2013). How few and far between? Examining the effects of probe rate on self-reported mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 430.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00430 Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D. (2017). Intrusive thoughts: Linking spontaneous mind wandering and OCD symptomatology. Psychological Research, 81, 392–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0756-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seli, P., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2016). On the necessity of distinguishing between unintentional and intentional mind wandering. Psychological Science, 27, 685–691.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616634068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Smilek, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Mind-wandering with and without intention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. S. (1970). Imaginal processes inventory. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  30. Smallwood, J., Nind, L., & O’Connor, R. C. (2009). When is your head at? An exploration of the factors associated with the temporal focus of the wandering mind. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 118–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Stawarczyk, D., Majerus, S., Maj, M., Van der Linden, M., & D’Argembeau, A. (2011). Mind- wandering: Phenomenology and function as assessed with a novel experience sampling method. Acta Psychologica, 136, 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Unsworth, N., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J. (2012). Variation in cognitive failures: An individual differences investigation of everyday attention and memory failures. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2016). Pupillary correlates of lapses of sustained attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 601–615.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0417-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2018). Tracking arousal state and mind wandering with pupillometry. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18, 638–664.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0594-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ward, A. F., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Mind-blanking: When the mind goes away. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 650.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00650 Google Scholar
  38. Weinstein, Y. (2018). Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 642–661.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinstein, Y., De Lima, H. J., & van der Zee, T. (2018). Are you mind-wandering, or is your mind on task? The effect of probe framing on mind-wandering reports. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 754–760.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1322-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations