Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought.

Abstract

Researchers of mind wandering frequently assume that (a) participants are motivated to do well on the tasks they are given, and (b) task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) that occur during task performance reflect unintentional, unwanted thoughts that occur despite participants' best intentions to maintain task-focus. Given the relatively boring and tedious nature of most mind-wandering tasks, however, there is the possibility that some participants have little motivation to do well on such tasks, and that this lack of motivation might in turn result in increases specifically in intentional TUTs. In the present study, we explored these possibilities, finding that individuals reporting lower motivation to perform well on a sustained-attention task reported more intentional relative to unintentional TUTs compared with individuals reporting higher motivation. Interestingly, our results indicate that the extent to which participants engage in intentional versus unintentional TUTs does not differentially relate to performance: both types of off-task thought were found to be equally associated with performance decrements. Participants with low levels of task-motivation also engaged in more overall TUTs, however, and this increase in TUTs was associated with greater performance decrements. We discuss these findings in the context of the literature on mind wandering, highlighting the importance of assessing the intentionality of TUTs and motivation to perform well on tasks assessing mind wandering.

Intentionality and meta-awareness of mind wandering: Are they one and the same, or distinct dimensions?

“…Although theoretical consideration of the intentionality of mind wandering has largely been absent over the past few decades, in a recent series of studies some researchers have revisited the distinction between intentional and unintentional mind wandering (Forster & Lavie, 2009; Seli, Cheyne, et al, 2015; Seli, Risko, Purdon, & Smilek, 2016; Seli, Risko, & Smilek, 2016b; Seli, Smallwood, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2015; Seli, Wammes, et al, 2015). Critically, in some of this research it has been shown that these two types of mind wandering appear to reflect unique cognitive experiences.…”

“…In the present article, we focus on two important dimensions of mind wandering: intentionality (i.e., whether it is engaged with intention) and meta-awareness (i.e., whether an individual is aware of its occurrence). Although the meta-awareness dimension has long played a pivotal role in theoretical accounts of mind wandering (Schooler, 2002), only recently have researchers begun to focus more prominently on the theoretical importance of the intentionality dimension (Forster & Lavie, 2009; Seli, Cheyne, Xu, Purdon, & Smilek, 2015; Seli, Risko, & Smilek, 2016b; Seli, Risko, Smilek, & Schacter, 2016; Seli, Wammes, Risko, & Smilek, 2015). However, at face value, the dimensions of intentionality and meta-awareness appear to share considerable overlap, and there remains the possibility that they may even be completely redundant.…”

Studying in the region of proximal learning reduces mind wandering

“…As people spend more time on a task, fatigue and boredom increase, making it more likely for their minds to drift off Metcalfe & Xu, 2016;Smallwood et al, 2003;Smallwood, Riby, Heim, & Davies, 2006). Work on individual differences also suggests that motivation and interest alter one's tendency to mind wander (Antrobus, Singer, & Greenberg, 1966;Grodsky & Giambra, 1990-1991Jackson & Balota, 2012;Krawietz, Tamplin, Radvansky, 2012;Seli, Cheyne, Xu, Purdon, & Smilek, 2015;Unsworth et al, 2012;Unsworth & McMillan, 2013). For example, Unsworth and McMillan proposed a model in which interest predicted motivation, and motivation in turn predicted mind wandering.…”

Reduced mind-wandering in mild cognitive impairment: Testing the spontaneous retrieval deficit hypothesis.

“…For example, the often-used Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) requires participants to respond to highly frequent targets (digits 1 to 9) and withhold responses to infrequent non-targets (e.g., the digit 3), while being randomly probed whether they are on-task or off-task. The proportion of probes with reported mind-wandering can be relatively low even in young participants, (McVay & Kane, 2009;Smallwood, O'Connor, Sudberry, Haskell, & Ballantyne, 2004), and recent findings indicate that a fairly large proportion of thoughts rated as off-task (i.e., 34% -41%) are actually deliberate task-unrelated thoughts that participants intentionally engage in for various reasons (e.g., boredom) (Seli, Cheyne, Xu, Purdon, & Smilek, 2015;. Consequently, using the standard version of the SART for assessing the spontaneous retrieval deficit hypothesis may be problematic given the strong emphasis of this hypothesis on the reduction in spontaneous rather than intentional mind-wandering in aMCI.…”