Can research participants comment authoritatively on the validity of their self-reports of mind wandering and task engagement?
Has this study been replicated?
The atlas records 1 replication of this study. Recorded outcomes: 1 failed. The earliest on record is from 2018.
Replications
- 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 (2015), Meier (2018). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Outcome recorded: failed.
Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, Cortes, and Smilek (2015) found that, through retrospective confidence reports, participants can distinguish the validity of their mind wandering reports during a sustained attention ("metronome response") task. In addition, some participants were better able to make this distinction than others. | With data from 291 participants, I found only weak evidence for a within-subject effect of confidence on thought-report validity in the first administration…
Read from abstract. View paper
Cite this record
Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Cheyne, J. A., Cortes, K., & Smilek, D. (2015). Can research participants comment authoritatively on the validity of their self-reports of mind wandering and task engagement? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000029
Other studies in the atlas
Failed replications · Successful replications · All browse pages