The relationship between mind wandering and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Mind wandering (MW), a shift of attention away from external tasks toward internally generated thoughts, has been frequently associated with costs in reading comprehension (RC), although with some contrasting results and many reported potential intervening factors. The aim of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between MW and RC, considering the role of participants’ and text’s characteristics, as well as methodological issues in the measurement of the two constructs. From a set of 25 selected full texts (73 correlation coefficients), pooled correlation (r = −0.21) revealed a negative significant relationship. Using trait-based questionnaires to assess MW compared with online probes resulted in an average significant change of 0.30 in the correlation between MW and RC, leading to a null correlation. A significant effect of age was also found, with more negative correlations with increasing age. None of the other moderating variables considered (i.e., language, text type, text length, RC assessment, text difficulty, text interest, and working memory) resulted in a significant effect. From the present meta-analysis, we might suggest that MW and RC are partially overlapping and vary, within a swing effect, in relation to a set of shared factors, such as working memory, interest, and text length. There might also be side-specific factors that drive the movement of primarily one side of the swing, and future research should further consider the role of individual differences in RC. Implications for research and educational settings are discussed.

When there is noise on Sherlock Holmes: mind wandering increases with perceptual processing difficulty during reading and listening

“…In previous studies, mind wandering has repeatedly been found to increase the risk of comprehension failure during reading (e.g., Feng et al, 2013;Steindorf & Rummel, 2020) with recent meta-analyses supporting the stability of this effect specifically for the reading domain (Bonifacci et al, 2022) and more broadly within an educational setting (Wong et al, 2022). As, in the current work, mind wandering increased with perception difficulty, it was thus not surprising that the participants in both noise conditions performed worse on the comprehension test than the participants in the no-noise conditions.…”

A Wandering Mind is Not Always a Creative Mind: How Thought Dynamics Explain the Relationship between Mind Wandering and Creativity

“…The vast majority of mind wandering research has been focused on its negative effect on performance across tasks. For instance, mind wandering negatively affects complex cognitive processes such as reading comprehension (e.g., Bonifacci, Viroli, Vassura, Colombini, & Desideri, 2022; Faber, Bixler, & D'Mello, 2018; Faber, Mills, Kopp, & D'Mello, 2017; Kahmann, Ozuer, Zedelius, & Bijleveld, 2022), memory for auditory and visual information (e.g., films, lectures, and scenes; Krasich et al., 2018; Krasich, Huffman, Faber, & Brockmole, 2020; Faber, Radvansky, & D'Mello, 2018; Faber, Krasich, Bixler, Brockmole, & D'Mello, 2020; Wong, Smith, McGrath, Flynn, & Mills, 2022), driving performance (e.g., Yanko & Spalek, 2014), and performance on vigilance tasks (e.g., Krimsky, Forster, Llabre, & Jha, 2017). However, in the context of creativity, at least anecdotally, mind wandering is often thought to have a positive effect: brilliant ideas appear to spontaneously come to mind when people let their minds wander.…”

Using The Generative Learning Model for Developing Reading Comprehension Skills of Literary Texts and Reducing Mind Wandering among English Majors at Faculty of Education

“…Recently, Bonifacci, Viroli,Vassura, Colombini, & Desideri, (2023) aimed in their meta-analysis research to assess the connection between MW and RC while taking into account the characteristics of the participants and the text as well as methodological concerns in the measurement of the two variables. The correlation between MW and RC had an average significant change of 0.30 when trait-based questionnaires were used instead of online probes to evaluate MW, resulting in a null association.…”