Although engaging in task-unrelated thoughts can be enjoyable and functional under certain circumstances, allowing one’s mind to wander off-task will come at a cost to performance in many situations. Given that task-unrelated thoughts need to be blocked out when the current task requires full attention, it has been argued that cognitive control is necessary to prevent mind-wandering from becoming maladaptive. Extending this idea, we exposed participants to tasks of different demands and assessed mind-wandering via thought probes. Employing a latent-change model, we found mind-wandering to be adjusted to current task demands. As hypothesized, the degree of adjustment was predicted by working memory capacity, indicating that participants with higher working memory capacity were more flexible in their coordination of on- and off-task thoughts. Notably, the better the adjustment, the smaller performance decrements due to increased task demands were. On the basis of these findings, we argue that cognitive control does not simply allow blocking out task-unrelated thoughts but, rather, allows one to flexibly adjust mind-wandering to situational demands.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
One participant used the response category (b) during the first n-back block to indicate that he was thinking about his performance in the later n-back block. Therefore, (b) responses in the first n-back block were coded as TUTs. Excluding this participant does not alter the present results.
The personality questionnaire served as a break between WMC and TUT assessments and is not further considered here.
Because the CFQ was correlated neither with WMC, r(108) = .01, p = .919, nor with task performance, |rs| < .16, ps > .100, it was not considered as a predictor in the following analyses.
Because n-back task order was randomly determined for each participant, changing the order of variables in the analysis only reverses the direction of effects. Task order did not affect (or interact with) TUT rates, Fs < 1, or n-back performance, Fs < 1, and was thus not considered in the model. Others have reported order effects in within-designs, but with more extensive numbers of trials (McVay & Kane, 2009).
To avoid perfect hit and false alarm rates, we added a constant of .5 to individual hit and false alarm frequencies and increased the denominator by 1 (Snodgrass & Corwin, 1988).
The standardized regression weight of “d′ 3-back” on “Change Perf” of 1.09 is a result of the partitioning of the variance of “d′ 3-back” and does not represent a Heywood case, because none of the variance estimates is negative, and, unlike correlations, standardized regression weights can well be larger than 1 (although very rarely).
Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–484.
Broadbent, D. (1980). Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ). Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 33, 26–26.
Bunting, M. (2006). The role of processing difficulty in the predictive utility of working memory span. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 998–1004.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure change - Or should we. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.
Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 586–592.
Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, 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.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.
Kane, M. J., & McVay, J. C. (2012). What mind wandering reveals about executive-control abilities and failures. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 348–354.
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 conciousness: Esseys in honor of Jerome L. Singer (pp. 29–50). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Levinson, D. B., Smallwood, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2012). The persistence of thought: Evidence for a role of working memory in the maintenance of task-unrelated thinking. Psychological Science, 23, 375–380.
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.
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.
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2010). Does mind wandering reflect executive function or executive failure? Comment on Smallwood and Schooler (2006) and Watkins (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 188–197.
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.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency in personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 50–54.
Mooneyham, B. W., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: A review. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 11–18.
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., Franklin, M. S., Chin, J. M., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). The role of mind-wandering in measurements of general aptitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 788–798.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus User’s Guide. (Vol. 7). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Schooler, J. W., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T. C., Reichle, E. D., & Sayette, M. A. (2011). Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 319–326.
Smallwood, J. (2010). Why the global availability of mind wandering necessitates resource competition: Reply to McVay and Kane (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 202–207.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory - Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. R., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
We thank Michael J. Kane and Thorsten Meiser for helpful comments on a draft of this article and Jennifer Lehmeyer and Nele Zorn for help with data collection.
About this article
Cite this article
Rummel, J., Boywitt, C.D. Controlling the stream of thought: Working memory capacity predicts adjustment of mind-wandering to situational demands. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 1309–1315 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0580-3
- Executive control
- Working memory
- Adaptive cognition