A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind

Author(s): Matthew A. Killingsworth and Daniel T. Gilbert

Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 330, No. 6006 (12 November 2010), p. 932
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931861
Accessed: 16-01-2017 04:46 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931861?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Science

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:46:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 tSSSm^^^^^^^^^^E^^^^K^m
including the least enjoyable. Although people's
A Wandering Mind Is an minds were more likely to wander to pleasant topics
(42.5% of samples) than to unpleasant topics

Unhappy Mind (26.5% of samples) or neutral topics (31% of sam-

ples), people were no happier when thinking about
Matthew A. Killingsworth* and Daniel T. Gilbert pleasant topics than about their current activity (b =
-0.52, not significant) and were considerably un-
other animals, human beings spend
more of 22 activities adapted from the daywhen
happier recon-
thinking about neutral topics (b =
a lot of time thinking about what -7.2, P < 0.001) or unpleasant topics (b = -23.9,
is not method (10, 11), and a mind-wandering
struction
question ("Are you thinking about
going on around them, contemplating P <something
0.001) than about their current activity (Fig. 1,
events that happened in the past, might
otherhappen bottom).
than what you're currently doing?") Although negative moods are known
answered
in the future, or will never happen at all. one
with Indeed, to cause mind
of four options: no; yes, something wandering (13), time-lag analyses
pleas-
"stimulus-independent thought" or ant; "mind
yes,wan- strongly suggested
something neutral; or yes, something un- that mind wandering in our
dering" appears to be the brain's default mode
pleasant. Our analyses revealed threesample
facts.was generally the cause, and not merely
of operation {1-3). Although this ability is a re-
First, the consequence,
people's minds wandered frequently, re- of unhappiness (12).
markable evolutionary achievementgardless
that allows Third, what people were thinking was a better
of what they were doing. Mind wandering
occurred
people to learn, reason, and plan, it may have inan 46.9% of the samples and in at
predictor of least
their happiness than was what they
emotional cost Many philosophical and 30%religious
of the samples taken during every activity
were doing. The nature of people's activities ex-
traditions teach that happiness is to except
be found by
making love. The frequency of mind
plained 4.6% wan-
of the within-person variance in hap-
dering
living in the moment, and practitioners in our real-world sample was piness
are trained considerably
and 3.2% of the between-person variance in
to resist mind wandering and "to be here now."
higher happiness,
than is typically seen in laboratory but mind wandering explained 10.8%
experi-
These traditions suggest that a wandering
ments. mind is
Surprisingly, the nature of people's activ-
of within-person variance in happiness and 17.7%
an unhappy mind. Are they right? ities had only a modest impact on whether theirvariance in happiness. The var-
of between-person
Laboratory experiments have revealed
minds a great
wandered and had almost no impact on the
iance explained by mind wandering was largely
pleasantness
deal about the cognitive and neural bases of mind of the topics to which independent
their minds of the variance explained by the na-
wandering (3-7), but little about itswandered (12).
emotional ture of activities, suggesting that the two were in-
consequences in everyday life. The most reliable
Second, multilevel regression revealed that peo- dependent influences on happiness.
ple were less
method for investigating real-world emotion is happy
ex- when their minds were wan- In conclusion, a human mind is a wandering
perience sampling, which involves contacting peo-
dering than when they were not [slope (b) = -8.79, mind, and a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.
ple as they engage in their everyday Pactivities
< 0.001], and and
this was true during all activities, The ability to think about what is not happening
asking them to report their thoughts, feelings, and is a cognitive achievement that comes at an emo-
actions at that moment Unfortunately, collecting tional cost
real-time reports from large numbers of people as
References and Notes
they go about their daily lives is so cumbersome 1. M. E. Raichle et al., Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 676
and expensive that experience sampling has rarely (2001).
been used to investigate the relationship between 2. K. Christoff, A. M. Gordon, J. Smallwood, R. Smith,
J. W. Schooler, Proc. Nati Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 8719
mind wandering and happiness and has always
(2009).
been limited to very small samples (8, 9). 3. R. L Buckner, J. R. Andrews-Han na, D. L Schacter,
We solved this problem by developing a Web Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1124, 1 (2008).
application for the iPhone (Apple Incorporated, 4. 1. Smallwood. 1. W. Schooler. PsvchoL Bull. 132. 946 (2006).
5. M. F. Mason et ai, Science 315, 393 (2007).
Cupertino, California), which we used to create
6. J. Smallwood, E. Beach, }. W. Schooler, T. C. Handy,
an unusually large database of real-time reports ;. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 458 (2008).
of thoughts, feelings, and actions of a broad range 7. R. L Buckner, D. C. Carroll, Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 49 (2007).
of people as they went about their daily activ- 8. J. C. McVay, M. J. Kane, T. R. Kwapil, Psychon. Bull. Rev.
16, 857 (2009).
ities. The application contacts participants through
9. M. J. Kane et al., Psychol. Sci. 18, 614 (2007).
their iPhones at random moments during their 10. D. Kahneman, A. B. Krueger, D. A. Schkade, N. Schwarz,
waking hours, presents them with questions, A. A. Stone, Science 306, 1776 (2004).
and records their answers to a database at www. 11. A. B. Krueger, D. A. Schkade, ;. Public Econ. 92, 1833 (2008).
12. Materials and methods are available as supporting
trackyourhappiness.org. The database currently material on Science Online.
contains nearly a quarter of a million samples 13. J. Smallwood, A. Fitzgerald, L. K. Miles, L H. Phillips,
from about 5000 people from 83 différent coun- Emotion 9, 271 (2009).
14. We thank V. Pitiyanuvath for engineering www.
tries who range in age from 18 to 88 and who
trackyourhappiness.org and R. Hackman, A. Jenkins,
collectively represent every one of 86 major oc-
W. Mendes, A. Oswald, and T. Wilson for helpful comments.
cupational categories.
Supporting Online Material
To find out how often people's minds wander,
Fig. 1. Mean happiness reported during each ac- www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6006/932/DCl
what topics they wander to, and how those wan- Materials and Methods
tivity (top) and while mind wandering to unpleas-
derings affect their happiness, we analyzed samples Table SI
ant topics, neutral topics, pleasant topics or not
References
from 2250 adults (58.8% male, 73.9% mindresiding
wanderingin (bottom). Dashed line indicates
the United States, mean age of 34 years) who were
mean of happiness across all samples. Bubble area 18 May 2010; accepted 29 September 2010
10.1126/science.ll92439
randomly assigned to answer a happiness question
indicates the frequency of occurrence. The largest
("How are you feeling right now?") answered
bubble ("not onminda wandering") corresponds to
continuous sliding scale from very bad (0)ofto
53.1% thevery
samples, and the smallest bubble Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
good (100), an activity question ("What are you
("praying/worshipping/meditating") corresponds to *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
0.1% of the
doing right now?") answered by endorsing samples.
one or mkilling@fas.harvard.edu

932 12 NOVEMBER 2010 VOL 330 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

This content downloaded from 137.132.123.69 on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:46:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms