Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Andrade (Doodling) [2010] :pencil2: warhusj_blog (Procedure: (Auditory…
Andrade (Doodling) [2010] :pencil2:
Aim:
Investigating whether doodling assists information processing
Background:
Working Memory Model
Divided attention inhibits performance on primary task...but is this the case for doodling?
Sample:
40 participants
Participant panel at the Medical Research Council unit for cognitive research
Procedure:
Auditory task of listening to a dull, mock phone call about a party
IV = Doodling or not doodling (control)
DV = Measures of recall
Counterbalanced
Operationalisation of DV
Standardisation
Lab experiment
Independent measures
Results:
Doodlers
Control
Comparison
Ethics:
:check:Debrief
:check: Confidentiality
:green_cross:Consent
:green_cross:Deception
:check: Withdrawal
:green_cross: Protection
Conclusions:
Doodling helps concentration on a primary task
Doodlers noticed more of target words i.e. effect on attention
Doodling improved memory directly by encouraging deeper information processing
Evaluation:
Strengths
High internal validity
High reliability
Sample
Data
Weaknesses
Validity
Sample
Data
Does doodling enable people to attend more effectively or enhance their memory?
Doodling prevents daydreaming from using important central executive resources
Doodling helps to maintain arousal
Members of the general population
18-55 years old
Paid a small sum for participation
20 in each group
Mainly females - 2 males in control group, 3 in doodling group
1 participant didn't doodle and was replaced
Half of participants recalled names then places
Half of participants recalled places then names
Monitoring task: Told beforehand that they would be tested on names of party-goers (8)
Recall & incidental task: Tested on the names of places mentioned (8)
Plausible mishearing counted as correct
Non-party-goers were false alarms
Other words ignored
2.5 minutes
Monotonous voice
227 words per minute
Standardised instructions from experimenter
Doodlers: Pencil & A4 sheet w/ alternating rows of 10 of squares + circles w/ large left margin for recording target info
Control: Lined paper
Comfortable volume
1 minute conversation
Apology for misleading participants
After apology, surprise recall test completed
Range of shaded shapes = 3-110
No participants doodled spontaneously
Names: correct = 5.3 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 5.1
Final score for monitoring = correct names - false alarms
Places: correct = 2.6 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 2.4
Places: correct = 2.1 false alarms = 0.3 memory score = 1.8
Names: correct = 4.3 false alarms = 0.4 memory score = 4.0
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
Recall for monitored and incidental was better for doodlers
Participants who suspected a test were excluded
OR
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)
Control of extraneous variables e.g. comfortable volume
Highly standardised e.g. monotony so all participants are as likely to be bored
High standardisation ensures accurate replication
Operationalisation e.g. doodling sheets to control individual differences of doodling or not
Participant variables for doodlers and amount of shape shaded varies and confounds results
Wide age range
Bias as all volunteers from a recruitment panel w/ possible interest in psychology
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
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
