Exploring the Reliability and Nomological Network of Probed Mind-Blanking Reports


Chandni Lal 1

Introduction

Rates of “mind-blanking” (MB) were similar across tasks in our secondary analyses of Robinson et al. (2020), but further evidence is required to establish the reliability of MB reports. Beyond reliability, we know little about construct validity. How is MB propensity related to other psychological constructs?

Current Study

We assess MB and mind wandering (MW) rates across 4 sustained attention tasks & 2 probe types to examine whether MB in the lab is reported consistently, or whether aspects of the task, thought probe, or time in session influence MB rates and MB correlations. Subjects completed retrospective questionnaires on traits and experiences such as ADHD, negative affect, depression symptoms, sleep quality, & mindfulness.

Methods

Subjects: N = 250 UNCG undergraduates

Procedure: 1) Responded to temporal or content probes while completing

  • SART go/no-go response task

  • Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT): press key when stopwatch starts counting up.

  • Metronome Response Task (MRT): responded in sync with auditory clicks.

  • Motivational PVT: PVT framed as a game

  1. Completed a battery of surveys.

Results

References

Robison, M. K., Miller, A. L., & Unsworth, N. (2020). A multi-faceted approach to understanding individual differences in mind-wandering. Cognition, 198, 104078 

Probed mind-blanking reports are reliable across tasks and probe types & are weakly correlated with psychological constructs