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

Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek (2015) found that, through retrospective confidence reports, subjects can distinguish the validity of their mind wandering reports during a sustained attention (“metronome response”) task. In addition, some subjects 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 subjects may be better than others at monitoring their thoughts: working memory capacity, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and dispositional mindfulness. With data from 291 subjects, I found only weak evidence for a within-subjects effect of confidence on thought-report validity in the first administration of the metronome response task and weak to non-existent evidence for individual differences in thought monitoring. No evidence was found for individual differences in the ability to provide valid thought reports.