Andrade (Doodling) [2010] ✏ warhusj_blog

Aim:

Does doodling enable people to attend more effectively or enhance their memory? andrade

Investigating whether doodling assists information processing

Background:

Working Memory Model Working Memory2

Divided attention inhibits performance on primary task...but is this the case for doodling?

Doodling prevents daydreaming from using important central executive resources

Doodling helps to maintain arousal

doodle doodle___strawberry_shortcut_by_piccandle-d6q5js5 images

Sample:

Procedure:

Results: WhatsApp Image 2018-11-19 at 12.34.08

40 participants

Participant panel at the Medical Research Council unit for cognitive research

Members of the general population sample-of-people

18-55 years old

Paid a small sum for participation 13501541911789678376money.svg.med

20 in each group

Mainly females - 2 males in control group, 3 in doodling group

1 participant didn't doodle and was replaced

Auditory task of listening to a dull, mock phone call about a party xbrightstar-learning-auditory2.png,qx18281.pagespeed.ic.F4RRfKHqkG

IV = Doodling or not doodling (control)

DV = Measures of recall

Counterbalanced How-Flawed-Recalled-Memory-Bias-Pollute-Market-Research-What-Can-Be-Done-About-It-5

Half of participants recalled names then places

Half of participants recalled places then names

  1. Monitoring task: Told beforehand that they would be tested on names of party-goers (8) 28B6041100000578-3083204-Grand_Master_of_Memory_and_Memrise_app_found_Ed_Cooke_told_MailO-a-6_1431692183750
  1. Recall & incidental task: Tested on the names of places mentioned (8) images

Plausible mishearing counted as correct

Non-party-goers were false alarms

Other words ignored

Operationalisation of DV

2.5 minutes

Monotonous voice

227 words per minute

Standardisation

Standardised instructions from experimenter

Doodlers: Pencil & A4 sheet w/ alternating rows of 10 of squares + circles w/ large left margin for recording target info decorative-lined-paper-decorative-lined-paper-templates-decorative-lined-paper-printable

Control: Lined paper

Comfortable volume

Ethics: Code of Ethics

1 minute conversation

✅Debrief

Apology for misleading participants

After apology, surprise recall test completed

Doodlers

✅ Confidentiality

❎Consent

❎Deception

✅ Withdrawal

❎ Protection

Range of shaded shapes = 3-110

Control

No participants doodled spontaneously

Names: correct = 5.3 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 5.1 28B6041100000578-3083204-Grand_Master_of_Memory_and_Memrise_app_found_Ed_Cooke_told_MailO-a-6_1431692183750

Final score for monitoring = correct names - false alarms

Places: correct = 2.6 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 2.4 images

Places: correct = 2.1 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 1.8 images

Names: correct = 4.3 false alarms = 0.4 memory score = 4.0 28B6041100000578-3083204-Grand_Master_of_Memory_and_Memrise_app_found_Ed_Cooke_told_MailO-a-6_1431692183750

Mean names = 7.1 (SD1.1)

5 people made a false alarm

Mean names = 7.8 (SD 0.4)

1 person made a false alarm

Doodlers recalled 29% more names and places than control group

Mean number of shaded shapes = 36.3

Comparison

Recall for monitored and incidental was better for doodlers

Participants who suspected a test were excluded

Conclusions: blogger-image-994347594

Doodling helps concentration on a primary task

Doodlers noticed more of target words i.e. effect on attention

OR

Doodling improved memory directly by encouraging deeper information processing

Difficult to distinguish because of no measure of daydreaming which blocks attention

Attention could have been measured w/ retrospective self-report about daydreaming OR Simultaneous brain scan observing activation of cortex (for daydreaming)

Evaluation:

Strengths

Weaknesses

Lab experiment

Independent measures

High internal validity

Control of extraneous variables e.g. comfortable volume research-design-11-638

Highly standardised e.g. monotony so all participants are as likely to be bored

High reliability

High standardisation ensures accurate replication

Operationalisation e.g. doodling sheets to control individual differences of doodling or not

Validity

Participant variables for doodlers and amount of shape shaded varies and confounds results doodling02_original

Sample

Wide age range

Sample

Bias as all volunteers from a recruitment panel w/ possible interest in psychology

Data

Risk of demand characterises for those who suspected a memory test

Risk of demand characteristics had no effect since participants didn't actively try to remember

Data

Objective, analysable quantitative data

No qualitative data like self-report to explore incidents of daydreaming (but not content to ensure privacy) and whether the cause of difference was attention or memory

Not fully informed because of recall and incidental task

Reaction of distress to incidental recall task

But not a substitute for good ethical procedures

No personal info shared

Not informed about incidental recall test

Never discouraged from withdrawing