McVay Jennifer C, Unsworth Nash, McMillan Brittany D, Kane Michael J
Department of Psychology.
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon.
Can J Exp Psychol. 2013 Mar;67(1):41-50. doi: 10.1037/a0031252.
To evaluate the claim that mind-wandering demands executive resources, and more specifically that people with better executive control will have the resources to engage in more future-oriented thought than will those with poorer executive control, we reanalyzed thought-report data from 2 independently conducted studies (J. C. McVay & M. J. Kane, 2012, Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 141, pp. 302-320; N. Unsworth & B. D. McMillan, in press, Mind-wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition) on working memory capacity (WMC), mind-wandering, and reading comprehension. Both of these individual-differences studies assessed large samples of university subjects' WMC abilities via multiple tasks and probed their immediate thought content while reading; in reporting any task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs), subjects indicated whether those thoughts were about the future or the past, if applicable. In contrast to previously published findings indicating that higher WMC subjects mind-wandered about the future more than did lower WMC subjects (B. Baird, J. Smallwood, & J. W. Schooler, 2011, Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering, Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 20, pp. 1604-1611), we found only weak to modest negative correlations between WMC and future-oriented TUTs. If anything, our findings suggest that higher WMC subjects' TUTs were somewhat less often future-oriented than were lower WMC subjects'. Either WMC is not truly associated with mind-wandering about the future, or we have identified some important boundary conditions around that association.
为了评估关于思绪游荡需要执行资源这一说法,更具体地说,评估具有更好执行控制能力的人比执行控制能力较差的人有更多资源去进行更多面向未来的思考这一说法,我们重新分析了来自两项独立进行的研究的思维报告数据(J.C. 麦克维 & M.J. 凯恩,2012年,《工作记忆容量为何能预测阅读理解的差异?关于思绪游荡和执行性注意的影响》,《实验心理学杂志:总论》,第141卷,第302 - 320页;N. 昂斯沃思 & B.D. 麦克米兰,即将发表,《思绪游荡与阅读理解:考察工作记忆容量、兴趣、动机和主题经验的作用》,《实验心理学杂志:学习、记忆与认知》),这些数据涉及工作记忆容量(WMC)、思绪游荡和阅读理解。这两项个体差异研究均通过多项任务评估了大量大学受试者的WMC能力,并在他们阅读时探究其即时思维内容;在报告任何与任务无关的想法(TUTs)时,受试者需表明这些想法是否与未来或过去有关(如适用)。与之前发表的研究结果不同,之前的研究表明WMC较高的受试者比WMC较低的受试者更多地进行关于未来的思绪游荡(B. 贝尔德、J. 斯莫尔伍德 & J.W. 斯库勒,2011年,《回到未来:自传式规划与思绪游荡的功能》,《意识与认知》,第20卷,第1604 - 1611页),我们发现WMC与面向未来的TUTs之间只有微弱到中等程度的负相关。如果有什么不同的话,我们的研究结果表明,WMC较高的受试者的TUTs与未来相关的频率略低于WMC较低的受试者。要么WMC与关于未来的思绪游荡并非真正相关,要么我们已经确定了围绕该关联的一些重要边界条件。