Andrade (doodling)

Asim Masood
asimmm196@[Link]
+923002626209
BACKGROUND
 Andrade defines doodling as the sketching of patterns and figures that
are unrelated to a primary task

 According to the working memory model, there are two main types of
working memory: visual and auditory

 In this study, the task of listening to a message would be an auditory

task, whereas doodling would be a visuo-spatial (visual) task

 The idea is that doodling increases arousal and would enhance the
memory and concentration, rather than divert attention, by reducing
day dreaming
PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED
 Working Memory Model: States that there are two types of memories a
person uses – visual and auditory

 Daydreaming: A state of consciousness where an individual appears to

be ‘lost in thoughts’

 Focused Attention: When a person’s concentration is focused on one

primary task

 Divided Attention: When a person’s concentration is divided between

two tasks such as listening to a song while focusing on the road while
driving
 AIM
 To test if doodling aids concentration and memory in a boring task
 METHOD AND DESIGN
 Research Method Technique:

 Lab experiment: conducted at controlled and artificial setting of

a lab

 Independent Variable: Doodling group and control group

(operationalized by the sheets of paper provided to each
group)

 Dependent Variable: Concentration and memory

(operationalized by scores on monitoring and recall tasks)

 Experimental Design: Independent Measures Design

SAMPLE

 40 participants (35 female, 5 male)

 All participants were part of a participant panel at the UK’s Medical
Research Council unit for cognitive research
 Age range was 18 – 55 years
 The participants had volunteered for a previous study, and as soon as
they completed that study, Andrade approached them to conduct her
study which meant she took opportunity of the fact that they were
readily available
 Sampling Technique: Opportunity Sampling
APPARATUS
 A mock telephone call in which the speaker was inviting the listener to a
party

 There were names of eight people who were attending the party
excluding the person listening to the mock call

 There were names of three people who were not attending

 There were also names of eight places in the U.K. that were mentioned

 The mock call was rather dull and played at a comfortable volume at
227 words per minute for 2.5 minutes
APPARATUS
 A sheet of A4 size paper with a 4.5cm margin for writing target
information

 This sheet of paper also had ten rows of alternating squares and circles
for doodling

 This was the sheet provided to the doodling group participants

 The control group participants were given an A4 size sheet of lined

paper without any shapes
PROCEDURE

 The participants were randomly allocated equally to the control

condition and the doodling condition (20 in each)
 The participants were placed in a visually dull room and were told to
listen to a mock telephone call and pretend that the speaker was
inviting them to a party
 They were told the tape was rather dull and that they were not required
to remember any of it
 The tape was played at a comfortable volume and played at 227 words
per minute for a total of 2.5 minutes
 The participants were provided with an A4 size sheet of paper. Those in
the doodling condition had alternating rows of 10 squares and 10 circles
on their sheet with a 4.5 cm margin on the left

 They were given a pencil and were told that the shapes were there for
them to shade into if they got bored while listening to the mock
telephone conversation

 Those in the control group had an A4 size sheet of lined paper without
any shapes
 The participants were told to listen to the mock call and pretend the
speaker was inviting them to a party, and to write down the names of
the people attending the party excluding themselves, and nothing else

 This was the monitoring task and was calculated as: correct names
written minus false alarms

 This would be a score out of 8 as there were eight people attending the
party

 False alarms refer to writing down names of people who were not
attending
 The names had to be written for them to be counted – terms such as
sister or neighbour would be ignored

 Plausible mishearings were counted as correct (e.g. writing Greg for

Craig)

 After completing this task, the researchers debriefed the participants

and apologized to them for telling them they were not required to
remember any of the information

 They were then asked to complete the recall task

 The recall task involved participants recalling the names of the people
who were attending. This was called recall of monitored information. It
was calculated as: correct names recalled minus false alarms

 Along with this, they were also asked to recall the names of eight places
that were mentioned in the tape which was not part of the monitoring
task. This was called the recall of incidental information. It was
calculated as correct places recalled minus false alarms

 Plausible mishearings had to be the same as those in the monitoring task

 This part of the procedure was counterbalanced which refers to
participants performing two tasks (Task A and Task B for e.g.) in the order
of AB and then BA, rather than following the same order of AB and then
AB as this could lead to order effects

 It was counterbalanced by having half the participants in each group

do the recall task for names first (monitored information) followed by the
recall task for places (incidental information), and the other half doing
the opposite – recall of places first, followed by recall of names
 CONTROLS
 All participants heard the same mock telephone call

 It was played at a comfortable volume and at a speed of 227 words per

minute for 2.5 minutes

 All doodling participants had the same sheet of paper with the same
number of squares and circles with a 4.5 cm margin

 All control group participants had the same A4 size sheet of lined paper
without any shapes
RESULTS
 On average, 36.3 shapes were doodled by the doodling group and the range
was from 3 to 110

 The monitoring performance score for the doodling group was a mean of 7.7
with 1 false alarm. The mean number of correct names written was 7.8

 The monitoring performance score for the control group was a mean of 6.9
with 5 false alarms. The mean number of correct names written was 7.1

 The recall task score for names (monitored information) for the doodling group
was a mean of 5.1 and for the control group it was a mean of 4.0
RESULTS
 The recall task score for places (incidental information) for the doodling
group was a mean of 2.4 and for the control group it was a mean of 1.8

 3 participants in the doodling group and 4 from the control group had
suspected a memory task when asked (when being debriefed) and
they said they did not make an effort to try and remember the
information – qualitative data
CONCLUSION
 Doodling does aid concentration and memory in a boring task

 This was seen through the higher scores by the doodling group participants in
both the monitoring task as well as the recall task for both monitored and
incidental information, compared to the control group participants

 Doodling enhances concentration due to arousal which may reduce the

effect of daydreaming, but we cannot be entirely certain about this as the
effects of daydreaming were not measured (perhaps this could have been
done through a brain scan to see if daydreaming leads to a reduction in
arousal in the cortex – supporting the notion than daydreaming leads to a
reduction in concentration)
NATURE VS NURTURE DEBATE

 Nature – an individual’s ability to concentrate and remember

information could depend on biological factors that may have led to
some people being able to recall more details than others

 Nurture – the way participants doodled and how they shaded the
shapes that allowed them to concentrate could have been influenced
by learning, as people may have adopted certain styles of doodling
INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL DEBATE

 The study supports the situational explanation as it was the situation the
participant was in of either doodling or not doodling that enhanced
their memory and concentration, which is why those in the doodling
group had a higher score in the two tasks compared to the control
group

 The individual explanation can also be supported as the way different

participants doodled, and the number of shapes they doodled was
different, and this could have affected their ability to concentrate and
remember information more so than others
APPLICATION TO EVERYDAY LIFE

 The findings of the study are useful to students who can doodle during
lectures they may find boring or mundane to help them concentrate
and recall better

 Employees in offices during meetings, where they are required to note

down important or target information, can doodle, so as to allow them
to concentrate better on key information during the meeting
EVALUATION
RELIABILITY

 Strength: The study has high levels of controls, for example, all
participants heard the same mock telephone call played at 227 words
per minute, for 2.5 minutes, and were provided the same sheets in each
respective condition. This makes the procedure highly standardized and
easy to replicate in order to test for reliability
VALIDITY
 Strength: The participants had already taken part in another study which
would have enhanced their boredom, allowing the researchers to
examine the effects of doodling on boredome

 Strength: The recall task was counterbalanced in order to avoid order

effects as half the participants recalled the names first then the places,
and the other half did the opposite

 Strength: The mock telephone call was on a mundane topic, so as to

not favour any particular interest some of the participants may have,
which would have allowed them to concentrate and recall more than
others
VALIDITY

 Weakness: The study used an independent measures design which

means that there were different participants in each level of the IV, and
as because they were randomly allocated to the two conditions, it is
possible that some participants may have better memory or
concentration than others, which would act as a participant variable
which could lower validity
GENERALISABILITY
 Weakness: The sample was not very large, of just 40 participants who
were majority females (35), all part of the same psychology panel in the
UK, suggesting they may have some similarities, and as a result, the
findings cannot be applied to a larger population, or even to males or
people of other cultures who are not being represented, as males may
have poorer or better cognitive abilities than females, and as a result,
may have displayed contrasting results to what we see in the study
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
 Weakness: The study was conducted in the artificial and highly
controlled setting of a lab. Furthermore, the task of listening to a mock
telephone call and having to recall information from it is not something
people experience in their everyday lives, and hence, the study lacks
mundane realism
ETHICS
 Strength:
 Informed Consent: The participants provided informed consent and were
paid a certain amount for participation
 Debriefing: Participants were debriefed after the monitoring task
 Confidentiality: Participants had their identities and personal information
kept confidential
 Weakness:
 Deception: The participants told they were not required to remember
anything, and as a result, were deceived about the memory task
 Protection from harm: Participants had already taken part in another study
and may have been tired and bored, and having to make them take part
in another study involving a boring task could have potentially caused them
psychological harm
DATA
 Strength: The study collected quantitative data which is objective and
numerical and allows for comparisons to be made, for example, the
scores in the monitoring and recall tasks were compared for the
doodling and control group participants
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
 Strength: The study used an independent measures design which would
suggest that there would be no order effects as each participant takes
part in the task on only one occasion as they are only exposed to one
level of the IV, hence increasing validity

 Weakness: As it is an independent measures design, there are chances

of individual differences, for instance, randomly allocating participants
to the doodling or control group may have led to some participants with
better cognitive ability (memory or concentration) being allocated to
the doodling group, which could have been the reason for their better
performance in the tasks compared to the control group, hence
potentially reducing validity. This could have been countered by
assessing pre-existing memory or concentration levels through some task
SAMPLING METHOD
 Strength: The study used an opportunity sample which means the
participants were readily available at the lab, making it more
convenient to obtain a sample in a relatively short time period and
convenient manner. Furthermore, the fact that they had just completed
another study meant they may have been tired and bored already,
which would be beneficial to our study

 Weakness: The fact that the sample was readily available may have
meant it is not represented as they were majority females, all part of a
psychology panel, which could lower the generalisability as a large
sample of males may have shown different results, and the researcher
could not control these specific features of the readily available
participants