Andrade CA. Flashcards
AIM
To investigate whether doodling improves our ability to pay attention to (or concentrate on) auditory info. (i.e a message heard but not seen).
To investigate whether doodling affects later recall of auditory info.
memory and attention.
Psychology being investigated-Dual Task Performance
Theory focuses on how people mange two tasks simultaneously. Study explores whether a simple secondary task (such as doodling) could improve performance of a primary task (such as listening to a monotonous message) by preventing mind from wondering.
Psychology being investigated-Cognitive Load Theory
This theory posits that working memory has limited capacity. Doodling could theoretically help by occupying only a small amount of cognitive load, hence preventing the mind from engaging in other more demanding distractions which could more significantly distract from primary task.
Psychology being investigated-Daydreaming and Wandering
Theories around daydreaming suggest that when a task is not fully engaging, the mind tends to wander, leading to decreased attention and memory performance. Study investigates whether doodling can anchor and reduce mind wandering during a boring task.
Psychology being investigated-Attentional Resource Theory
This theory suggests humans have a limited pool of cognitive resources for processing info. Doodling might act as a minimal attentional anchor, helping maintain a baseline level of engagement without significantly taxing these cognitive resources.
Background
-Previous research by Do & Schallert (2004) explored how certain activities might aid concentration, particularly in the context of performing primary tasks.
-Wilson & Korn (2007) focused on how secondary tasks could maintain arousal levels during primary task performance. This work suggests that engagement in a secondary task might prevent the decrease in arousal often associated with monotonous activities, thereby potentially enhancing performance on primary tasks.
Background Continued
According to Harris (2000), boredom is a very common experience, and Smallwood & schooler (2006) noted that daydreaming is a frequent response to boredom, even in controlled lab settings. This lone of research indicates that when individuals are not fully engaged in a task, their minds tend to wander, which can negatively affect their ask performance.
Participants and sampling
-40 pps aged 18-55 from the MRC Applied Psychology Unit Participant Panel were recruited for study.
-Pps were already part of pre-existing and readily available group, opportunity sample.
They were members of the general population who had volunteered to participate in research projects and were all paid a small fee for their time.
Materials
Telephone mock message recorder in a monotone voice and played at a comfortable volume. It included specific names and place almost irrelevant info.
Doodling group used a piece of A4 paper with printed shapes and a margin for writing down target info.
Task Instructions
Participants instructed to write down names of attendees, ignoring those that cannot.
In a doodling condition, told to shade shape without concern for neat or speed, as a way to alleviate boredom.
Data Collection and Analysis
After listening to the 2.5 min ape, response sheets collected-
IV
The independent Variable was whether pps were allowed to doodle whilst listening to message or not.
Pps in doodling group asked to shade alternating rows of ten circles and 10 squares (approx 1/1.5 in diameter) printed onto standard A4 paper.
Experimental design
Independent measures design- as researchers compared performance of 2 separate groups of pps, an experimental/doodling group of 17f, 3m, and control of 18f and 2ms.
Random Allocation used to control participant variables- e.g diffs in memory that might not have affected recall of target info. Order of recall (place and names) counterbalanced across pps.
False alarms
4—->3 humans and 1 cat.
Research Methodology
Lab experiment to see if doodling helped people to concentrate and remember info from a (mock-pretend) telephone message.
DV
1) Monitoring Accuracy: Number of correct names /8, recorded whilst listening to tape; the researcher then deducted false alarms (i.e wrong answers) from total number of correct names to give final monitoring performance score.
2) Memory for monitored Info:
number of correct names recalled /8 after false alrms were deducted.
3)Memory for incidental Info: Number of correct places recalled /8.
They were rewarded with a small…
Honorarium
Procedure
The researcher audio -recorded a 2.5 minute mock telephone message about a party. The message was read in a flat tone of voice at a speed 227 wpm .
The Message mentioned:
-8 people who were able to come to the party: Jane, William, Claire, Craig, Suzie, Jenny, Phil, and Tony.
-3 people and 1 cat who could not attend: Nigel, John, Nicky, and Ben and the cat (Andrade refers to these names as lures).
-8 places: London, Penzanze, Gloucester, Colchester, Harlow, Ely, Peterborough and Edinburgh.
-A lot of other irrelevant info.
Procedure-Listening to the recording
Each Participant completed the experiment on their own in a quiet, dull room. The standardized instructions said:
-They should pretend the speaker was their friend inviting them to a party.
-The tape is rather dull but that is okay because they don’t need to remember any of it.
-Write down the names of people who will (or prolly will) come to the party (excluding themselves) and ignore names of those who cannot go.
-Do not write anything else
The experimental group were given A4 response sheet with a 4.5cm margin on the paper to record target names. They were told to shade shapes as they listened to the tape, not worrying about neatness or speed- just something used to relieve the boredom. Those in the control group given a lined paper but with no shapes to shade. The tape played at a comfortable volume for everyone and the pps wrote down party goers names as they listened.
Procedure- The surprise Memory test
Next The researchers collected response sheets and chatted to participants for 1min. During this time they revealed the deception! There would be a surprise memory test! Half of each group asked to recall names first and then places , and the other half the other way around. Finally they were asked whether they had guessed that there would be a surprise memory test or not (these were excluded–)
Procedure-Analyzing the responses
The researchers included any names or places that they thought had been simply misheard as correct(e.g greg for craig). Incorrect names coded as false alarms, including extra names of non party goers added to message as lures. Jackie Andrade these lures to see whether ppl would write down names of all ppl mentioned or just goers. Words that were neither names or places marked as incorrect-e.g sister.
Result-Amount of Doodling
The experimental group shaded an average of 36.3 shapes (range 3-110). One person did not shade any shapes so they were replaced with another pp. No one in control group doodled in the line paper.
Results-monitoring accuracy-num of correct names recorded and num of false alarms
——- Mean num of names correctly written down whilst listening to tape:
-doodlers(exp group): 7.8
-Non doodlers (control): 7.1
——Num of people scoring full marks(8/8):
-doodlers:15/20
-non doodlers: 9/20
—–Num of false alarms:
-doodlers:1
-non doodlers: 5
Results-monitoring accuracy-monitoring performance scores
Researchers calculated final monitoring performance score by subtracting the num of false alarms from the num of correct names remembered (a wrong ans theoretically cancelled out a correct one) After the deduction, results where as follows:
Monitoring performance score mean (max=8)
-doodlers: 7.7
-non doodlers: 6.9
whilst differences themselves may not be that big, statistically they are.
Results-monitoring accuracy-Recall performance
RECALL SCORE (MINUS FALSE ALARMS)
Monitored Info(names), max score 8:
-Doodlers: 5.1(1.7)
-Non doodlers: 4.0(1.5)
Incidental Info (place names), max score= 8:
-Doodlers: 2.4(1.5)
-1.8(1.2)
Total Recall (monitored and incidental info), max score =16
-Doodlers: 7.5
-Non doodlers: 5.8
Results-Recall
The total recall score /16 was 29% higher in the doodling group compared to control one. Doodlers remembered both types of info (monitored and incidental) better than control group and remembered monitored info better than incidental. Average number of false alarms was low (0.3), and almost identical across doodlers and controls and monitored (names) and incidental (places) info.
Andrade was concerned about the number of people who indicated that they thought there might be a surprise memory test ( 3 in doodling group and 4 in control). She ran analysis again without their data. Doodling group still performed significantly better than controls on recall task.
Conclusions
Andrade Concluded that doodling can improve concentration when listening, even with a rather boring task. She also concluded that it can help us to remember info better , when when we are expecting not having to do so.
Ethical Issues
One weakness of Andrade’s study is that pps were deceived about the study’s true purpose. Before listening to the tape, they were told the tape was rather dull- which was okay, because there was no need of remembering it. Not true, as they were given a surprise memory test on incidental and monitored info. Although deception was necessary , it meant pps were unable to give full informed consent.
They were debriefed and apologized to.
Methodological issues-Reliability
A strength is the strongly standardized procedure-high replicability. All pps listened to same tape, completed study in same room, and interval between monitoring and recall task was always 1 min. This level of consistency in the procedure also meant that the study could be easily replicated to check for reliability and hence validity.
validity-experimental method and design
Strength was that order in which pps recalled monitored and incidental info was counterbalanced. This improved validity of findings by minimizing effects of order effects-increased memory for incidental and monitored info could be attributed to doodling and not order in which they had been tested.
Methodological issues-validity-operational defs
A weakness is the operational def of doodling. Andrade standardized the nature of the doodling by asking pps to shade 1cm shapes, but in real life doodling is a generally more creative and spontaneous activity. This is important because the conclusion that doodling aids concentration and recall may not be true for people who are allowed more freedom with regards to what and where they doodle.
also led to lower ecological validity due to doodling and lab environment.
-validity-confounding variables
A strength is that Andrade checked to see whether any of the participants had guessed the deception. 18%(3 doodlers vs 4 control) said they had guessed it, yet none of these participants claimed to have tried and remembered info. While Andrade was concerned, the re-analysis showed results to be the same. It helped improve overall validity and show impact of doodling on the brain, memory and attention.
validity-The use of lures
A strength was the use of lures in the recording. Pps who just listened without paying much attention might have been lured into thinking these names were those of attendees, which could’ve reduced the overall monitored performance task.
This improved validity, as it ensured Andrade was really measuring pps cc as they had to carefully listen, not just record all heard names.
Objectivity and Subjectivity
A weakness is to mark misheard words as correct, e.g Greg for Craig. This is a weakness as an assumption is being made that certain i,correct names are ‘mishearing’s’, meaning the coding of answers is rather subjective.
Generalizations and eco validity-generalizing beyond sample
A weakness is the overwhelming num of females in study in comparison to males. Females made up to 87.5% of sample- gynocentric. It means that it is not as generalizable and valid, as well as meaning study has to be replicated with a more balanced sample before applying the results to real life.
Generalizations and eco validity-generalizing to every day life
Weakness- conducted in a very controlled lab environment, which is unlikely to reflect the additional challenges of listening to a voice mail in a real world setting. Had the pps been in their natural environment, surrounded by the common people and noises and distractions, then it would have been more valid. This also suggests doodling may be more helpful in lab settings.
Individual and situational explanations
A strength is that study shows how memory and attention can be affected not just by participant variables, (i.e individual diffs), but also by situational factors. Many think of cognitive skills as fixed, measurable and relatively stable traits. (e.g he has really good memory or is easily distracted), but this study shows how other demands placed on us can limit our cognitive performance.
Applications to everyday life
Parents, teachers, and employers should be aware of making small adjustments to the situation can help improve performance.
Many teachers punish doodling students , yet this study helps raise awareness.
More info
Non parametric analysis used because scores were not normally distributed. 15 doodlers and 9 controls scored max of 8.
Biased sample
They could have asked whether pps daydreamt or not, whether they had adhd…influenced of a substance like drugs or medicine, ect.
