Can research participants comment authoritatively on the validity of their self-reports of mind wandering and task engagement? A replication and extension of Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek (2015).

Abstract

Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek (2015) found that, through retrospective confidence reports, participants can distinguish the validity of their mind wandering reports during a sustained attention ("metronome response") task. In addition, some participants were better able to make this distinction than others. Here, I sought to replicate both the within- and between-subjects' effects of confidence judgments on thought probe validity. To this end, I executed a preregistered close replication of Seli et al. (2015) and extended this work by administering the metronome response task twice and by measuring potential individual difference markers for which participants may be better than others at monitoring their thoughts: working memory capacity, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and dispositional mindfulness. With data from 291 participants, I found only weak evidence for a within-subject effect of confidence on thought-report validity in the first administration of the metronome response task and weak to nonexistent evidence for individual differences in thought monitoring. No evidence was found for individual differences in the ability to provide valid thought reports. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).