Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ANDRADE ET AL.
(doodling), RESULTS, ADDITIONS TO STUDY - Coggle Diagram
ANDRADE ET AL.
(doodling)
-
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
-
DEPENDEDNT VARIABLES
Mean correct recall, false alarms and memory scores.
-
SAMPLE
40 participants
-
Opportunity Sampling
Participants were recruited just after finishing an unrelated experiment for another researcher (on ways of giving directions to different locations), and were asked if they would mind spending another 5 minutes helping with research.
-
The intention was to enhance the boredom of the task by testing people who were already thinking about going home.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BACKGROUND
-
-
improve performance by aiding concentration by reducing mind wandering (Do & Schallert, 2004) or maintaining arousal via physiological factors (Wilson & Korn, 2007)
-
PROCEDRE
MOCK TELEPHONE
- The researcher recorded a mock telephone message using a cassette recorder.
- A fairly monotonous voice was used.
-
-
The script included names of 8 people who would be attending a party alongside the names of 3 people and 1 cat who would not attend. 8 place names were also mentioned.
-
-
DOODLING GROUP
- given a piece of A4 paper with alternating rows of 10 squares and circles, 1 cm in diameter
- a 4.5 cm margin on the left-hand side where they could write any target information.
-
were told that “it does not matter how neatly or quickly you do this - it is just something to help relieve the boredom.”
AFTER LISTENING
As soon as the recording finished, the researcher came in and collected the sheets
-
Half the participants were asked then recalled NAMES of people then PLACES
and the other half the places then names. (Counterbalancing).
- This conversation included a debriefing and an apology for misleading them about the memory test.
- The participants were asked if they suspected a memory test. (during debriefing)
CONCLUSIONS
Participants who performed a shape-shading task concentrated better on a mock telephone message than those who listened with no concurrent task.
It is not clear whether doodling led to better recall because doodlers happened to notice more of the target info or whether it actually aided memory recall by encouraging some deeper processing of the message.
-
RESULTS
-
-
Memory scores were entered into a 2 (doodling, control), 2 (names, places) mixed measures ANOVA which confirmed that the monitored names were recalled better than the incidental places.
Removing data from participants who had suspected a test were removed from the analysis, there was still a significant difference (p=0.01).
-
-
Recall performance
scored separately for names and places, using the definitions of correct responses and false alarms with addition that the mis-hearing had to same in the monitoring and recall phases
Plausible mis-hearings, such as ‘Greg’ for ‘Craig’, were scored as correct.
New names were scored as false alarms, including names mentioned on the tape as lures.
-
-
-
-
Counterbalancing was used to reduce order effects by switching the order of the recall and
monitor task.
-
-
