The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Everyday attention failures: An individual differences investigation.
Abstract
The present study examined individual differences in everyday attention failures. Undergraduate students completed various cognitive ability measures in the laboratory and recorded everyday attention failures in a diary over the course of a week. The majority of attention failures were failures of distraction or mind wandering in educational contexts (in class or while studying). Latent variable techniques were used to perform analyses, and the results suggested that individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control were related to some but not all everyday attention failures. Furthermore, everyday attention failures predicted SAT scores and partially accounted for the relation between cognitive abilities and SAT scores. These results provide important evidence for individual differences in everyday attention failures as well as for the ecological validity of laboratory measures of working memory capacity and attention control.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In fact, environmental distraction and mind-wandering are the major causes of attention failure among university students (Unsworth, McMillan, Brewer, & Spillers, 2012).”
From The indirect relationship of media multitasking self-efficacy on learning performance within the personal learning environment: Implications from the mechanism of perceived attention problems and self-regulation strategies (2017) · cites this paper as Unsworth, McMillan, Brewer, & Spillers, 2012
Citations
Cites
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates.
Broadbent, D., Cooper, P. F., Fitzgerald, P. H., & Parkes, K. (1982) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x · Cited by 2,967
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
Dinges, D. F., & Powell, J. W. (1985) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200977 · Cited by 1,812
Categorization of action slips
Norman, D. A. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.1 · Cited by 1,736
A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 · Cited by 1,414
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.104 · Cited by 1,307
Executive Attention, Working Memory Capacity, and a Two-Factor Theory of Cognitive Control
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2003) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(03)44005-x · Cited by 1,104
Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01948.x · Cited by 979
Cited by
Sorted by citations
There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing
Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. I. (2013) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002 · Cited by 1,237
Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. M. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014 · Cited by 905
Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0029669 · Cited by 335
Self-citationPupillary correlates of lapses of sustained attention
Nash Unsworth, A., & Robison, M. K. (2016) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-016-0417-4 · Cited by 315
Mind wandering and education: from the classroom to online learning
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00495 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Unsworth, N., McMillan, B. D., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1765-1772
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2028359980
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 12.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- individual differences, working memory capacity, attentional control, mind wandering, distraction, cognitive ability, SAT scores, ecological validity
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Reading, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
