The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought.
Abstract
Researchers of mind wandering frequently assume that (a) participants are motivated to do well on the tasks they are given, and (b) task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) that occur during task performance reflect unintentional, unwanted thoughts that occur despite participants' best intentions to maintain task-focus. Given the relatively boring and tedious nature of most mind-wandering tasks, however, there is the possibility that some participants have little motivation to do well on such tasks, and that this lack of motivation might in turn result in increases specifically in intentional TUTs. In the present study, we explored these possibilities, finding that individuals reporting lower motivation to perform well on a sustained-attention task reported more intentional relative to unintentional TUTs compared with individuals reporting higher motivation. Interestingly, our results indicate that the extent to which participants engage in intentional versus unintentional TUTs does not differentially relate to performance: both types of off-task thought were found to be equally associated with performance decrements. Participants with low levels of task-motivation also engaged in more overall TUTs, however, and this increase in TUTs was associated with greater performance decrements. We discuss these findings in the context of the literature on mind wandering, highlighting the importance of assessing the intentionality of TUTs and motivation to perform well on tasks assessing mind wandering.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 · Cited by 8,332
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176
Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought
Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1131295 · Cited by 2,792
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946 · Cited by 2,067
An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance
Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12003196 · Cited by 1,381
Re-representing consciousness: dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness
Schooler, J. W. (2002) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01949-6 · Cited by 485
Smallwood, J., & Andrews-Hanna, J. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00441 · Cited by 433
Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0029669 · Cited by 335
Smallwood, J., O'Connor, R. C., Sudbery, M. V., & Obonsawin, M. (2007) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930600911531 · Cited by 289
Levinson, D. B., Smallwood, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611431465 · Cited by 232
Cited by
Mind-Wandering With and Without Intention
Seli, P., Risko, E. F., Smilek, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.010 · Cited by 451
Self-citationMind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways
Weinstein, Y. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0891-9 · Cited by 250
Mind wandering perspective on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bozhilova, N. S., Michelini, G., Kuntsi, J., & Asherson, P. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.010 · Cited by 182
Maillet, D., & Schacter, D. L. (2016) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.017 · Cited by 135
Text difficulty, topic interest, and mind wandering during reading
Soemer, A., & Schiefele, U. (2019) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.006 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., Xu, M., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1417-1425
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2110617459
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 10.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/xlm0000116
- The paper
- Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., Xu, M., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D. (2015). Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000116
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.