Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of predictions of mind wandering (MW) and the previous research they were based on

From: The contribution of latent factors of executive functioning to mind wandering: an experience sampling study

Prediction Previous research
Study Finding Operationalization
EF MW
1. Executive functioning (specifically updating) predicts lower MW as concentration increases Kane et al. (2007) WMC predicts lower MW as concentration increases, t(122) =  − 3.98*** Complex span tasks (z) TUT
  Kane et al. (2017)a WMC predicts lower MW as concentration increases, N = 274, z =  − 3.39***
Attentional restraint predicts lower MW as concentration increases, z = − 3.77***
Attentional constraint predicts lower MW as concentration increases, z =  − 2.59*b
Factor scores based on complex span and updating (working memory), restraint, and constraint tasks TUT
2. Executive functioning (specifically updating) predicts lower MW as guilty-dysphoric style increases Marcusson-Clavertz et al. (2016) WMC predicts lower MW as guilty-dysphoric style increases, t(87) =  − 2.90** Symmetry span SITUT
3. Executive functioning (specifically inhibiting/common executive functioning) predicts lower MW as positive-constructive style decreases Marcusson-Clavertz et al. (2016) High-congruency Stroop effect predicts higher MW as positive-constructive decreases, t(87) =  − 1.99* Stroop SITUT
  1. EF, Executive functioning; WMC, Working memory capacity; TUT, task-unrelated thought; SITUT, Stimulus-independent and task-unrelated thought
  2. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05
  3. aThis study evaluated the three EFs in separate models
  4. bThis z-score corresponds to a p-value of .01 but the study used a lower α threshold