Literature DB >> 25938246

Validating older adults' reports of less mind-wandering: An examination of eye movements and dispositional influences.

David J Frank1, Brent Nara1, Michela Zavagnin2, Dayna R Touron1, Michael J Kane1.   

Abstract

The Control Failures × Concerns theory perspective proposes that mind-wandering occurs, in part, because of failures to inhibit distracting thoughts from entering consciousness (McVay & Kane, 2012). Despite older adults (OAs) exhibiting poorer inhibition, they report less mind-wandering than do young adults (YAs). Proposed explanations include (a) that OAs' thought reports are less valid due to an unawareness of, or reluctance to report, task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) and (b) that dispositional factors protect OAs from mind-wandering. The primary goal of the current study was to test the validity of thought reports via eye-tracking. A secondary goal was to examine whether OAs' greater mindfulness (Splevins, Smith, & Simpson, 2009) or more positive mood (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999) protects them from TUTs. We found that eye movement patterns predicted OAs' TUT reports and YAs' task-related interference (TRI, or thoughts about one's performance) reports. Additionally, poor comprehension was associated with more TUTs in both age groups and more TRI in YAs. These results support the validity of OAs' thought reports. Concerning the second aim of the study, OAs' greater tendency to observe their surroundings (a facet of mindfulness) was related to increased TRI, and OAs' more positive mood and greater motivation partially mediated age differences in TUTs. OAs' reduced TUT reports appear to be genuine and potentially related to dispositional factors. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25938246     DOI: 10.1037/pag0000031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Aging        ISSN: 0882-7974


  25 in total

1.  Spontaneous future cognition: the past, present and future of an emerging topic.

Authors:  Scott Cole; Lia Kvavilashvili
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-05-11

Review 2.  How often are thoughts metacognitive? Findings from research on self-regulated learning, think-aloud protocols, and mind-wandering.

Authors:  Megan L Jordano; Dayna R Touron
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-08

3.  Mind-wandering in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Mate Gyurkovics; David A Balota; Jonathan D Jackson
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Are you mind-wandering, or is your mind on task? The effect of probe framing on mind-wandering reports.

Authors:  Yana Weinstein; Henry J De Lima; Tim van der Zee
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

5.  Cognitive aging and the distinction between intentional and unintentional mind wandering.

Authors:  Paul Seli; David Maillet; Daniel Smilek; Jonathan M Oakman; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2017-05-04

Review 6.  From mind wandering to involuntary retrieval: Age-related differences in spontaneous cognitive processes.

Authors:  David Maillet; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  When the mind wanders: Distinguishing stimulus-dependent from stimulus-independent thoughts during incidental encoding in young and older adults.

Authors:  David Maillet; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2016-06

Review 8.  The relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

Authors:  Joseph K Carpenter; Kristina Conroy; Angelina F Gomez; Laura C Curren; Stefan G Hofmann
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-11-11

9.  Do your eyes give you away? A validation study of eye-movement measures used as indicators for mindless reading.

Authors:  Lena Steindorf; Jan Rummel
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-02

10.  Mind-Wandering Across the Age Gap: Age-Related Differences in Mind-Wandering Are Partially Attributable to Age-Related Differences in Motivation.

Authors:  Paul Seli; Kevin O'Neill; Jonathan S A Carriere; Daniel Smilek; Roger E Beaty; Daniel L Schacter
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 4.077

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.