Previous research on on distraction and mind-wandering has been primarily focused on external stimuli. The article “Distracted by Your Mind? Individual Differences in Distractibility Predict Mind Wandering” suggests mind-wandering is based on both internal and external distraction (Forster and Lavie, 2013). In their first experiment participants searched the display screen for a target letter (X or N). This was then accompanied by either a response-competition distractor (X or N) or a task-irrelevant distractor (a cartoon character). There was also a no-distractor condition in which no distractors were present, which allowed for relevant analysis of the data. This experiment found a positive correlation between mind-wandering and interference of task-irrelevant distractors, which suggests that the mind wanders more with greater interference from task-irrelevant distractors. It would make sense that irrelevant distractors would cause greater distraction because they would pop-out, causing the mind to focus on that. The condition with response-competition distractors found a nonsignificant correlation, suggesting that mind-wandering and response-competition interference are not related. Experiment 2 sought out to determine if the distractors from experiment 1 triggered associations directly related to the irrelevant distractors, or if they triggered mind-wandering related to other things besides the distractor. Experiment 2 tested this similarly to experiment 1, but only with a no-distractor condition and an irrelevant distractor condition. Intermittent thought probes were inserted to see if people were thinking about the letter search task, the cartoon images or unrelated thoughts to either the task or distractor. Results found that although there was a positive correlation between mind-wandering and task-irrelevant distraction, this was not driven by the direct effects of the relevant distraction and instead the mind-wandering was most likely due to a more general inclination of distraction. Experiment 1 found that there was no significant correlation between response-competition interference and mind-wandering, suggesting that task relevance plays a large role in mind-wandering. Experiment 3 focuses on the idea of task relevance, while attempting to rule out the potential confounding effects from experiment 1. In this experiment a name was displayed on the screen and participants were asked if it was a superhero or a disney cartoon. There was a no-distractor condition and a distraction condition that consisted of 3 different types of image distractors: response-congruent, response-incongruent, or task irrelevant. The results showed similar results to that of experiment 1, in that mind-wandering was again positively correlated to interference from task-irrelevant distractors and that mind-wandering was not significantly correlated to interference from task-relevant distractors. Perhaps relevant distractors don’t play a role in mind-wandering because the information is still in the same topic realm as the target stimulus, which causes the information to stay in short term memory, instead of being lost and allowing for attention to be shifted to other thoughts. Overall these experiments concluded a relationship between mind-wandering and task-irrelevant distractors, while also showing that mind-wandering was not related to task-relevant response-competition distractors. The main findings in this article was that there is a dissociation between task-relevant and task-irrelevant distractors.
The article “Not all minds that wander are lost: the importance of a balanced perspective on the mind-wandering state” focuses on the idea of mind-wandering and how it can be viewed based on different contexts ( Andrews-Hanna and Smallwood, 2013). This paper aims at illustrating the costs and benefits of mind-wandering and how context plays a role in the process. Mind-wandering is often portrayed negatively because prior research has shown that it can contribute to unhappiness and it causes disruption of current activity. Mind-wandering most often occurs during simple tasks, which is a more beneficial time for the mind to wander because these are usually less demanding situations. These less demanding situations are ideal for mind-wandering because mind-wandering allows for self-reflection, creativity and time to think about one's’ future, while not having to sacrifice safety or other detrimental effects. Mind-wandering allows for personal introspection that helps with problem solving and personal growth. Mind-wandering becomes dangerous when occurring during complex tasks that require more attention. This distinction between the different situations in which mind-wandering occurs leads to the idea that mind-wandering is more complex than initially thought. This article opens the floodgates for many research ideas including more context specific research and potentially the ability to regulate self-thought to be more adaptive. Andrews-Hanna suggested the possibility of mindfulness or cognitive therapy as possible approaches, but no experimentation was done.
Although these articles are both on mind-wandering, they are also very different. Forster and Lavie tackle mind-wandering through experimentation and data, while Andrews-Hanna focuses on analysing the idea of mind-wandering and suggesting why research should be done differently. Both articles broached the topics of mind-wandering, but most of the other similar connections are small aspects of their papers. Forster’s paper focuses on the study between relevant and irrelevant distractors and the influence, or lack of influence, on mind-wandering. While, Andrews-Hanna and Smallwood have focused on mind-wandering and how the context for which it occurs can be advantageous or detrimental. Forster’s experiments previously discussed directly relate to task performance, which showed that distractors created slower reaction times and performance. Andrews-Hanna mentions the idea of negative effects of mind-wandering, but also adds the idea that mind-wandering also has great benefits. This idea of mind-wandering being positive may be controversial to the public and other scholars because people often have the idea that distraction and spacing out is a bad thing. Mind-wandering has often been seen as leading to poor performance, that can negatively affect one's life such as in education (Smallwood and W. Schooler, 2014). Andrews-Hanna suggests that people stop intervention studies that aim to reduce mental-wandering, and instead we should change the context of wandering. The content regulation hypothesis focuses on this idea, suggesting that we should conduct research on how to direct our mind-wandering and train it so that we’re not negatively affected by the type and time that the self-thought occurs. This falls under the category of cognitive control and executive function. Ultimately it is a process that attempts to shape and constrains our thoughts and actions to allow us to accomplish goals. Further research would need to be done to figure out if we can upregulate cognitive control in relation to mind-wandering. Forster discusses the possibility that mind wandering is caused by a failure in executive control, but since response-competition interference and task-irrelevant interference were found to be not correlated, this could suggest that they may be controlled by a more specialized section of executive function. This idea has contrasting evidence to previous studies involving executive control. Both articles support the idea that mind-wandering and distraction is a subject that has not been researched enough, but through their papers and ideas they have paved the way for more in depth and specific research on the topic.
I think the idea of mind-wandering is fascinating, as it is a subject that I’ve never really thought about before. I too had the preconceived notions of the negativity of mind-wandering, so the potential benefits are interesting and would be something I would be interested in learning more about. I found myself thinking heavily about the theories of attentional selection and how they related to mind-wandering. The attentional selection theories were primarily described through auditory stimulus, but mind-wandering could follow any type of sensory stimulus.
Furthermore, there is definitely more research to be done on the topic of mind-wandering, but I think a most beneficial study would be based on the costs and benefits of mind-wandering. Andrews-Hanna discussed this topic in great detail, but there was no experiments to back up this information or to give us anything on how to use this information. It would be useful to determine how to decrease the costs of mind-wandering, while also increasing the benefits. This would also touch on the previously mentioned idea of attempting to upregulate cognitive control. I think also researching this topic through a neurological perspective and researching specific brain regions involved would also