Attentional control as an ability to regulate information processing during goal-directed behavior is critical to many theories of human cognition and thought to predict a large range of everyday behaviors. However, in recent years, failures to reliably assess individual differences in attentional control have sparked a debate concerning whether attentional control, as currently conceptualized and assessed, can be regarded as a valid psychometric construct. In this consensus paper, we summarize the current debate from theoretical, methodological, and analytical perspectives. First, we propose a consensus-based definition of attentional control and the cognitive mechanisms that potentially contribute to individual differences in attentional control. Next, guided by the findings of an in-depth literature survey, we discuss the psychometric considerations that are critical when assessing attentional control. We then provide suggestions for recent methodological and analytical approaches that can alleviate the most common concerns. We conclude that, to truly advance our understanding of the construct of attentional control, we must develop a theory-driven and empirically supported consensus on how we define, operationalize, and assess attentional control. This consensus paper presents a first step to achieve this goal; a shift toward transparent reporting, sharing of materials and data, and cross-laboratory efforts will further accelerate progress.

Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1,000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yielded different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research.

This study investigated the academic traits and habits that predict individual differences in mind-wandering during lectures, and whether this mind-wandering propensity mediates the associations between academic traits and course outcomes (final grade and situational interest in the material). Undergraduates (N=851) from 10 psychology classes at two U.S. universities responded to thought probes presented during two lectures, one before and one after the first exam; they also indicated sitting in the front, middle, or back third of the classroom. At each probe, students categorized their thought content, such as indicating on-task or task-unrelated thought (TUT). Students completed on-line, academic-trait questionnaires at the beginning of the course and a situational interest questionnaire at the end; instructors reported students’ final course grades. Average TUT rate was 24% but individuals’ rates varied widely (SD=18%). TUT rates also increased substantially from the front to the back of the classroom. Multiple-group analyses (with groups representing 10 classrooms) indicated that: (a) classroom media-multitasking habits, initial interest in the course topic, and everyday propensity for mind-wandering and boredom accounted for unique variance in TUT rate (beyond other academic-trait predictors); (b) TUT rate accounted for unique (modest) variance in course grade and situational interest, and; (c) classroom media multitasking and propensity for mind-wandering and boredom had indirect associations with course grades via TUT rate, and these predictor variables, along with initial interest, also had indirect associations with end-of-term situational interest via TUT rate. Some educationally relevant traits and behaviors predict course outcomes in part because they predict in-class mind-wandering.

Mind wandering assessment relies heavily on the thought probe technique as a reliable and valid method to assess momentary task-unrelated thought (TUT), but there is little guidance available to help researchers decide how many probes to include within a task. Too few probes may lead to unreliable measurement, but too many probes might artificially disrupt normal thought flow and produce reactive effects. Is there a “Goldilocks zone” for how few thought probes can be used to reliably and validly assess individual differences in mind wandering propensity? We address this question by reanalyzing two published datasets (Study 1, n = 541; Study 2, n’s ≈ 260 per condition) in which thought probes were presented in multiple tasks. Our primary analyses randomly sampled probes in increments of two for each subject in each task. A series of confirmatory factor analyses for each probe “bin” size tested whether the latent correlations between TUT rate and theoretically relevant constructs like working memory capacity, attention control ability, disorganized schizotypy, and retrospective self-reported mind wandering changed as more probes were used to assess TUT rate. TUT rates were remarkably similar across increasing probe-bin sizes and zero-order correlations within and between tasks stabilized at 8–10 probes; moreover, TUT-rate correlations with other latent variables stabilized at about 8 thought probes. Our provisional recommendation (with caveats) is that researchers may use as few as 8 thought probes in prototypical cognitive tasks to gain reliable and valid information about individual differences in TUT rate.

We conducted an exploratory study of adult individual differences in the contents of mind-wandering experiences and in the moment-to-moment consistency of that off-task thought content within tasks. This secondary analysis of a published dataset (Kane et al., 2016) examined the content-based thought reports that 472-541 undergraduates made within five probed tasks across three sessions, and tested whether executive-control abilities (working memory capacity [WMC], attention-restraint ability), or personality dimensions of schizotypy (positive, disorganized, negative), predicted particular contents of task-unrelated thought (TUT) or the (in)stability of TUT content across successive thought reports. Latent variable models indicated trait-like consistency in both TUT content and short-term TUT content stability across tasks and sessions; some subjects mind-wandered about some things more than others, and some subjects were more temporally consistent in their TUT content than were others. Higher executive control was associated with more evaluative thoughts about task performance and fewer thoughts about current physical or emotional states; higher positive and disorganized schizotypy was associated with more fantastical daydream and worry content. Contrary to expectations, executive ability correlated positively with TUT instability: higher-ability students had more shifting and varied TUT content within a task. Post hoc analysis suggested that better executive control predicted inconsistent TUT content because it also predicted shorter streaks of mind-wandering; tuning back in to task-related thought may decouple trains of off-task thought and afford novel, spontaneous, or cued thought content. [Data, sample analysis scripts and output, and manuscript preprint are available via the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/guhw7/.]