Film clips, music, and self-referential statements (termed Velten , after their originator) have been successfully used to temporarily induce sadness and happiness. However, there is little research on the effectiveness of these procedures combined, particularly in internet-based settings, and whether Velten statements contribute to alter mood beyond the effect of simple instructions to close one's eyes and enter the targeted mood. In Study 1 ( N = 106) we examined the effectiveness 80 Velten statements (positive, negative, neutral-self, neutral-facts) to create brief and effective sets that might be used in future research. In Study 2 ( N = 445) we examined the effect size of 8-min combined mood induction procedures, which presented video clips in the first half and music excerpts with Velten statements or closed eyes instructions in the second half. Participants answered questionnaires on social desirability, joviality, and sadness before being randomly assigned to 1 of 7 groups varying in Valence (positive, negative, neutral) and Velten (closed eyes control, self-referential Velten, and, in the case of neutral condition, factual statements). Subsequently, participants completed the joviality and sadness scales a second time. Compared to the neutral conditions, the positive mood inductions increased joviality (Hedges G = 1.35, 95% CI [1.07, 1.63]), whereas the negative mood inductions increased sadness (Hedges G = 1.28, 95% CI [1.01, 1.55]). We did not observe any significant difference between Velten and closed eyes instructions in inducing joviality or sadness, nor did we observe any significant difference between neutral Velten statements referring to self and facts. Although social desirability bias was associated with reports of greater joviality and lower sadness, it could not account for the effects of the positive and negative mood induction procedures. We conclude that these combined mood induction procedures can be used in online research to study happy and sad mood.

Previous studies have indicated that a sad mood and sleep deprivation increase mind wandering, but it is unclear whether these associations reflect reduced effort in concentrating on the task at hand or diminished cognitive control. In an internet-based experiment, participants completed a sleep disturbance questionnaire followed by a complex span task and a 2-back task with thought-sampling probes. Subsequently, participants underwent a positive, neutral, or negative mood induction prior to repeating the 2-back. The results (N = 504) replicated the finding of increased task-unrelated thoughts following sad mood induction, B = 0.56 (SE = 0.14), p < 0.01, d = 0.31. Unguided thoughts were increased following sad mood induction, B = 0.31 (0.13), p = 0.02, but working memory did not significantly moderate this association (p = 0.31). People reported a lower degree of trying to concentrate on the 2-back after the sad mood induction, B = −0.07 (0.04), p = 0.04, but actual performance was not affected (p = 0.46). Sleep disturbances showed small associations with taskunrelated, B = 0.23 (0.08), p < 0.01, and unguided thoughts, B = 0.32 (0.08), p < 0.01. This study strengthens the evidence that a sad mood and poor sleep relate to mind wandering.Across virtually all everyday activities, people frequently think about task-unrelated matters (mind wandering) 1 , a state in which mentation is decoupled from the external environment 2 . Mind wandering is more likely to occur during a sad mood 3 and after sleep deprivation 4 . Individuals with greater cognitive resources mind wander less during cognitive tests, supporting the view that at least some types of mind wandering relate to cognitive failures 5 . Applied research has related mind wandering to diminished performance on everyday tasks like reading 6 and driving 7 , suggesting that it is imperative to understand the ebb and flow of mind wandering to minimize its costs while maximizing its potential benefits (e.g., creativity, planning) 8 . However, researchers vary greatly in how they define mind wandering or which of its aspects they have evaluated, which makes it difficult to synthesize the literature 9 .To add clarity, Seli and colleagues applied the family-resemblance framework and defined mind wandering as having no necessary features, but all exemplars of mind wandering should share at least some common features (e.g., task-unrelated, stimulus-independent, unguided, guided, and meandering thoughts or images) 9 . They recommended researchers clarify which feature of mind wandering they are measuring, and, if feasible, examine multiple features to understand their relations and distinctiveness. For instance, task-unrelated thoughts that are unguided (i.e., spontaneous, uncontrolled) versus those that are guided (i.e., intentional, controlled) relate differently to personality and clinical variables 10 and task contexts 11 . In this online experiment, we examined three properties of mental activity pertaining to mind wandering: 1) task-unrelated thoughts, 2) unguided th...

Accumulating evidence suggests that individuals with greater executive resources spend less time mind wandering. Independent strands of research further suggest that this association depends on concentration and a guilty-dysphoric daydreaming style. However, it remains unclear whether this association is specific to particular features of executive functioning or certain operationalizations of mind wandering, including task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs, comprising external distractions and mind wandering) and stimulus-independent and task-unrelated thoughts (SITUTs, comprising mind wandering only). This study sought to clarify these associations by using confirmatory factor analysis to compute latent scores for distinct executive functions based on nine cognitive tasks and relating them to experience sampling reports of mind wandering. We expected that individuals with greater executive control (specifically updating) would show a stronger reduction in SITUTs as momentary concentration and guilty-dysphoric style increase. A bifactor model of the cognitive battery indicated a general factor (common executive functioning) and ancillary factors (updating and shifting). A significant interaction between updating and concentration on mind wandering was observed with mind wandering defined as TUTs, but not as SITUTs (N = 187). A post hoc analysis clarified this discrepancy by showing that as concentration increases, both external distractions and mind wandering decrease more strongly among people with greater updating. Moreover, common executive functioning predicted a more negative slope of guilty-dysphoric style on SITUTs, whereas updating and shifting predicted more positive slopes. The opposite slopes of these executive functions on daily life mind wandering may reflect a stability-flexibility trade-off between goal maintenance and goal replacement abilities.

No abstract