Researching mind wandering from a first‐person perspective

Mind wandering is an inherently inner (or first‐person) phenomenon that leaves few direct traces for third‐person enquiry. Nonetheless, psychologists often study mind wandering using third‐person (e.g., behavioral or neuronal) research methods. And although research–participants may well be asked to introspect on their mind wandering experiences (e.g., via experience‐sampling or think‐aloud techniques), such introspective self‐observations typically lack methodological rigor and are hence of only preliminary value. Here, we argue that it is a missed opportunity to not train researchers to introspect on their own mind‐wandering experiences to better understand the associated mental processes. We propose a novel approach to cultivating an educated form of introspection in the study of attentional focusing and mind wandering. Our research adds to the current theoretical understanding by explicating conditions that facilitate mind wandering (e.g., the shifting and broadening of concepts) and help find the way back to the primary task (e.g., commitment; deliberate shifts between focusing and defocusing).     

Time flies like an arrow: Space-time compatibility effects suggest the use of a mental timeline

The concept of time is elusive to direct observation, yet it pervades almost every aspect of our daily lives. How is time represented, given that it cannot be perceived directly? Metaphoric mapping theory assumes that abstract concepts such as time are represented in terms of concrete, readily available dimensions. Consistent with this, many languages employ spatial metaphors to describe temporal relations. Here we investigate whether the timeis-space metaphor also affects visuospatial attention. In a first experiment, subjects categorized the names of actors in a manner compatible or incompatible with the orientation of a timeline. In two further experiments, subjects categorized or detected left- or right-side targets following prospective or retrospective time words. All three experiments show compatibility effects between the dimensions of space (left-right) and time (earlier-later) and indicate that the concept of time does indeed evoke spatial associations that facilitate responses to targets at spatially compatible locations.     

Language effects in magnitude comparison: small, but not irrelevant

It is assumed that number magnitude comparison is performed by assessing magnitude representation on a single analog mental number line. However, we have observed a unit-decade-compatibility effect in German which is inconsistent with this assumption (Nuerk, Weger, & Willmes, 2001). Incompatible magnitude comparisons in which decade and unit comparisons lead to different responses (e.g., 37_52 for which 3<5, but 7>2) are slower and less accurately responded to than compatible trials in which decade and unit comparisons lead to the same response (e.g., 42_57, for which 4<5 and 2<7). As overall distance was held constant, a single holistic magnitude representation could not account for this compatibility effect. However, because of the inversion property of the corresponding German two-digit number words ("einundzwanzig" ), the language-generality of the effect is questionable. We have therefore examined the compatibility effect with native English speakers. We were able to replicate the compatibility effect using Arabic notation. Thus, the compatibility effect is not language-specific. However, in cross-linguistic analyses language-specific modulations were observed not only for number words but also for Arabic numbers. The constraints imposed on current models by the verbal mediation of Arabic number comparison are discussed.     

Audience perceptions of candidates' appropriateness as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates

Compared to televised debates using a single-screen format, such debates using a split screen presenting both debaters simultaneously show viewers the nonverbal reactions of each debater's opponent. The authors examined how appropriate or inappropriate such nonverbal behaviors are perceived to be. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. One version used a single-screen format, showing only the speaker, whereas the other three versions used a split-screen format in which the speaker's oppodent displayed constant, occasional, or no nonverbal disagreement with the speaker. Students then rated the debaters' appropriateness. Analysis indicated that the opponent was perceived to be less appropriate when he displayed any background disagreement compared to when he did not. The students perceived the speaker as most appropriate when his opponent displayed constant nonverbal disagreement.