‪Thanks to the entire team, Isa Steinecker, @mahiko.bsky.social‬, especially senior author
@devinterhune.bsky.social!

Thanks also to the external examiner for my PhD, Jonathan Schooler, who provided constructive comments on this work.

tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m
💾 Data and code: osf.io/8cqj7/

What do these results mean?
We propose that participants retrospectively infer experiential states from an admixture of available evidence, including both introspective cues (metacognitive awareness) and external contextual information (performance cues).
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m

Both experiments showed that confidence in being “on-task” was reduced following negative performance cues (whether explicit or implicit).
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m

In Experiment 2, we replaced explicit feedback with a more implicit manipulation.
We introduced a surreptitious delay in the appearance of the response target, subtly implying poor performance. Again, participants reported greater mind wandering on delay trials.
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m

In Experiment 1, participants completed a visual metronome response task while receiving sham feedback, unrelated to their actual performance.
We found that self-reports of mind wandering increased significantly following false “incorrect” feedback.
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m

Experience sampling paradigms frequently rely on introspective reports to assess mind wandering.

However, open questions remain:
What information do people use in producing these reports?
Are these judgments confounded by perceived task performance?
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m

To what extent are self-reports of mind wandering based on introspection vs. retrospective inference?
In our new paper, we show that external performance cues — even when false or implicit — systematically influence reports of mind wandering and associated confidence.
tinyurl.com/3ynmwc5m