Mind-wandering when studying valuable information: The roles of age, dispositional traits, and contextual factors

Abstract

The factors that trigger lapses of attention (e.g., mind-wandering) during new learning remain unclear. The present study investigated whether the likelihood of experiencing an attentional lapse depends on (a) the importance of the material being studied and (b) the learner's age. In two experiments, younger and older adults completed a delayed free recall task in which to-be-remembered words were paired with point values. Thought probes were embedded into the encoding phase of each list to provide an index of one's ability to maintain attention on task and prevent recurrent lapses of attention (i.e., the consistency of attention). Experiment 1 revealed all individuals better remembered high-value information at the expense of low-value information, and older adults were more frequently focused on the task than younger adults. Participants were also less likely to remember an item at test if they experienced an attentional lapse while learning said item, and they were more consistently focused on the task when studying high-value information than when studying low-value information. Age did not moderate either of these effects. Experiment 2 replicated the findings from Experiment 1 and further revealed that the positive association between age and attentional consistency was explained by age-related differences in affect, motivation, personality, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptomology. Once these factors were accounted for, older age was associated with increased attentional inconsistency (less on-task focus). While future replication of this finding is needed, implications for education and theories of both mind-wandering and aging are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Figure B1

The association between attentional consistency (proportion of on-task thought) and mean task-specific motivation as a function of age group Note. Pink long-dashed line represents regression line for younger adults whereas solid purple line represents regression line for older adults.

Figure 1. Boxplots with jittered individual participant scores for all variables in Experiment 1

Note. TRI = task-related interference; TUT= task-unrelated thought (mind-wandering, external distraction, and mind-blanking). Dotted lines within each boxplot reflect the corresponding group’s mean. Data for mean recall accuracy and task-specific motivation are collapsed across conditions (no probe vs probe).

Figure 2. Proportion of words correctly recalled (mean recall accuracy) as a function of serial position (1–30) and condition (control vs probe)

Note. Shaded regions represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 3. Proportions of on-task thought, task-related interference (TRI), and task-unrelated thought (TUT) reported during the study phase as a function of age group

Note. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. The jittered points reflect individual participant scores for a given thought category. Pink squares represent younger adults whereas purple circles represent older adults.

Figure 4. Proportion of on-task thought (left) and task-unrelated thought (right) as a function of value

Note. Low value = points 1–3; mid value = points 4–7; high value = points 8–10. The jittered points reflect individual participant scores for a given value category. Task-unrelated thought refers to instances of mind-wandering, external distraction, and mind-blanking.

Figure 5. Recall accuracy as a function of point value, age group, and list in Experiment 1

Note. List was treated continuously (ranging from 1–4) in all analyses. We collapsed lists into blocks (each containing two lists) for visualization purposes only. Shaded regions represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 6. Proportions of on-task thought as a function of time-on-task (i.e., list) and age in Experiment 2

Note. Shaded regions represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 7. Effects of value and time-on-task (i.e., list) on proportions of on-task thought during study

Note. Point value was treated categorically (low = points 1–3; mid = points 4–7; high = points 8–10). Each individual list consisted of 1–2 observations per value category. Shaded regions represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 8. Mean recall accuracy as a function of point value, age group, and list in Experiment 2

Note. List was treated continuously (ranging from 1–6) in all analyses. We collapsed lists into blocks (block 1 = lists 1–2; block 2 = lists 3–4; block 3 = lists 5–6) for visualization purposes only. Shaded regions represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 9. Path model predicting proportion of on-task thought (attentional consistency)

Note. When not taking any mediators into account, the effect of age on attentional consistency (proportion of on-task thought) was $\beta =.18$, SE = .07, p = .009. Once all the variables were accounted for, the effect of age on attentional consistency became larger in magnitude and changed sign, $\beta =-.26$, SE = .08, p = .001, 95% CI [-.41, -.11]. Solid lines indicate significant paths at p < .05, dashed lines represent nonsignificant paths. Age is treated as a binary variable (younger adults = 0, older adults = 1). Proportion on-task = proportion of on-task thought reported during study; Motivation = mean task-specific motivation (average of pre- and post-task ratings); Negative affect = negative affect factor composite score; ADHD = mean rating across ASRS-v1.1 screener; Agreeable = agreeableness; Conscien = conscientiousness.