Working memory capacity and (in)voluntary mind wandering

Alexander Soemer,Ulrich Schiefele

doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01737-4

Abstract

According to influential accounts of mind wandering (MW), working memory capacity (WMC) plays a key role in controlling the amount of off-task thought during the execution of a demanding task. Whereas WMC has primarily been associated with reduced levels of involuntarily occurring MW episodes in prior research, here we demonstrate for the first time that high-WMC individuals exhibit lower levels of voluntary MW. One hundred and eighty participants carried out a demanding reading task and reported their attentional state in response to random thought probes. In addition, participants’ WMC was measured with two common complex span tasks (operation span and symmetry span). As a result, WMC was negatively related to both voluntary and involuntary MW, and the two forms of MW partially mediated the positive effect of WMC on reading performance. Furthermore, the negative relation between voluntary WM and reading remained significant after controlling for interest. Thus, in contrast to prior research suggesting that voluntary MW might be more closely related to motivation rather than WMC, the present results demonstrate that high-WMC individuals tend to limit both involuntary and voluntary MW more strictly than low-WMC individuals.

Highlights

According to influential accounts of mind wandering (MW), working memory capacity (WMC) plays a key role in controlling the amount of off-task thought during the execution of a demanding task
WMC, interest and topic familiarity were positively correlated with comprehension, whereas both forms of MW were negatively correlated with comprehension, interest, and topic familiarity
The current study investigated the relations between WMC, voluntary/involuntary MW, and performance in a reading comprehension task

Summary

Introduction

According to influential accounts of mind wandering (MW), working memory capacity (WMC) plays a key role in controlling the amount of off-task thought during the execution of a demanding task. Based on this account of working memory, some researchers have argued that the occurrence of MW reflects failures of executive control, whereby personal concerns of an individual overtake the Psychon Bull Rev (2020) 27:758–767 focus of attention and disrupt execution of the primary task (Kane & McVay, 2012; McVay & Kane, 2012) In support of this view, it has been observed that high-WMC individuals report fewer MW episodes than low-WMC individuals while carrying out a demanding task, and this difference partially explains their better task performance (e.g., McVay & Kane, 2012; Robison & Unsworth, 2018). Taking into consideration such cases of MW, some researchers have argued for making a distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary” MW (e.g., Seli et al, 2016). Here, voluntary MW is defined as some kind of MW that an individual freely chooses to engage in, whereas involuntary MW occurs despite an individual’s best effort to focus on the primary task

Methods

Results

Conclusion