Wandering minds and wavering goals: Examining the relation between mind wandering and grit in everyday life and the classroom.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we examined the relation between mind wandering and the personality trait of 'grit.' Our hypothesis was that because mind wandering leads to a disruption of momentary goal completion, the tendency to mind wander might be inversely related to the completion of long-term goals that require sustained interest and effort (i.e., grittiness). In Study 1 we used online questionnaires and found that in everyday life, the propensity to mind wander was negatively correlated with individuals' self-reported grittiness. Interestingly, the relation between mind wandering and grit was strongest for unintentional bouts of mind wandering (as compared with intentional mind wandering). We extended these findings in Study 2 by (a) using a more heterogeneous sample of participants, (b) including a measure of conscientiousness, and (c) including another measure of general perseverance. In addition to replicating our findings from Study 1, in Study 2 we found that the grit measure uniquely predicted spontaneous mind wandering over and above a measure of conscientiousness and an alternative measure of general perseverance. Lastly, in Study 3 we extend the relation between mind wandering and grit to the classroom, finding that mind wandering during university lectures was also related to self-reported grittiness. Taken together, we suggest that the propensity to experience brief lapses of attention is associated with the propensity to stick-with and complete long-term goals. We also provide evidence that when predicting mind wandering and inattention, measures of grit are not redundant with existing measure of conscientiousness and general perseverance. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".