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.
