ANDRADE Flashcards
BACKGROUND
Daydreaming has been linked to moments of boredom in people, and that in such
situations, people may resort to doodling to help concentration.
It has also been assumed that doing concurrent tasks, such as doodling, impairs
concentration or distracts from a primary task.
However, the effects of boredom on processing have been overlooked.
2/15
The researchers also considered the role of arousal, noting that arousal levels need to be
maintained to be able to concentrate.
The study also took into account the fact that information processing can be difficult when
asked to do multiple things at once.
The researchers used a dual-task design to pinpoint cognitive resources.
PSYCH BEING INVESTIGATED
cognitive processes of
attention and memory and how doodling affects them.
Doodling
Doodling is the act of drawing pictures or patterns while thinking about something else or
when bored.
It is a form of aimless sketching. Doodling is typically spontaneous and automatic.
It is often done absent-mindedly, without much conscious effort.
Daydreaming
Daydreaming involves being lost in thought, often with a sense of detachment from one’s
material surroundings.
It is a state where attention is not focused on any particular external task.
Daydreaming is considered a distraction that diverts attention away from the primary task.
When someone is daydreaming they are usually not able to pay attention to a lecture or
other task.
Working memory
The working memory model proposes separate components for processing visual and
auditory information.
1/15
These components allow the brain to temporarily hold and manipulate information from
these different senses which suggests separate visual and auditory memory systems.
The study uses an auditory task (listening to a phone message) and a visual task
(doodling) to investigate how these systems interact.
Dual-task design
A dual-task design requires participants to engage in two tasks concurrently. The goal is
to observe how performing one task affects the performance of the other.
Dual-task designs are used to study divided attention, where mental effort is split
between two or more tasks.
Typically, there’s a primary task, which is the main task the participant is supposed to
focus on.
The secondary task is the concurrent task, which is done simultaneously with the
primary task.
In the Andrade study, the primary task was monitoring a telephone message, and the
concurrent task was doodling.
Arousal
Arousal is a state of being awake or reactive to stimuli. It can be seen as the level of
alertness or activation that an individual experiences.
The Andrade study questions whether doodling helps to maintain or reduce arousal
levels, thus improving focus.
It posits that doodling can help regulate arousal; it can help calm someone who is
agitated, and keep someone awake who is feeling sleepy
AIM
To investigated whether doodling aids concentration or memory.
To investigate if doodling affects the recall of places and names.
To test the effects of doodling on a boring or mundane task.
SAMPLE
The participants were recruited from a university and were between the ages of 18 and
55 years.
The sample was 40 participants who were members of the Medical Research Council of
the Applied Psychology Unit.
The study had a gender imbalance, with a higher number of female (35) participants than
male (5).
In each experimental condition, there were 20 participants.
18 females and 2 males were in the control group.
17 females and 3 males were in the doodling (experimental) group.
The participants were a volunteer sample and were recruited after completing another,
unrelated study at the same research facility.
One participant in the doodling group was replaced because they did not doodle.
PROCEDURE
Andrade conducted a well-controlled laboratory experiment to investigate how doodling
affects memory and attention.
3/15
The study used an independent measures design, meaning that participants were
randomly allocated to either the doodling group or the control group.
The study used a dual-task design in which participants were asked to perform a primary
task of monitoring a phone call while simultaneously either doodling or not doodling.
This was done to assess the impact of doodling on attention and memory.
Independent variable
The independent variable was the act of doodling, which had two levels: the doodling
condition where participants shaded in shapes, and the control condition where
participants did not doodle.
The IV was manipulated by providing different materials to the two groups: one group was
given paper with shapes to shade in, and the other group was given lined paper.
Doodling was operationally defined as shading in printed shapes on a response sheet.
This was done to ensure that the doodling task did not require too much attention and
was easily measurable.
Dependent variable
The dependent variable was the participants’ memory and attention performance,
measured through a monitoring task and a surprise recall test.
This was measured quantitatively by calculating the number of correct names and places
recalled, minus any false alarms.
Procedure
Participants were recruited just after they had completed another study, to ensure they
would be more inclined to be bored.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
Doodling Group: Participants were given an A4 sheet of paper with alternating
rows of 10 squares and circles, each about 1 cm in diameter. They were instructed
to shade in the shapes while listening to the message and were told this was to
relieve boredom, with no emphasis on neatness or speed. They were also given a
4.5 cm margin on the left side of the paper to write down the names.
Control Group: Participants were given a standard A4 sheet of lined paper and a
pencil. They were not given any doodling instructions.
4/15
Monitoring Task
Participants listened to a pre-recorded, monotonous telephone message for 2.5
minutes.
The message included names of eight people attending a party, three people (and one
cat) not attending, and eight place names.
The message was recorded on an audio cassette and played at 227 words per minute.
While listening, participants were instructed to write down the names of people who
would be attending the party.
The control group wrote these names on lined paper, while the doodling group wrote
them in the maegin on a sheet of paper with shapes to shade in.
Surprise Recall Task
After the telephone message, participants were given a surprise memory test. They were
not informed about this test beforehand
After a minute of conversation with the experimenter, they were asked to recall the names
of party-goers or places.
The order of the recall tasks were counterbalanced to reduce order effects.
Half of the participants in each group were asked to recall names first, then places, while
the other half were asked to recall places first, then names.
Participants were then debriefed and asked if they suspected that the study was a
memory test
Data Collection and Analysis
The number of shapes shaded by participants in the doodling group was counted.
This was done to ensure that they had followed the instructions to doodle and to measure
the extent of their doodling.
The range of the amount of doodling was recorded.
The number of correct names noted down, minus any false alarms (names of people
not attending) was used to assess monitoring performance and the recall task.
5/15
Plausible mishearings of names (e.g. “Greg” instead of “Craig”) were counted as
correct, provided that the same plausible mishearing was used consistently in the
monitoring and recall phases.
Data from participants who suspected a memory test were removed from the analysis to
check for demand characteristics.
RESULTS
Doodling Activity
Participants in the doodling group shaded an average of 36.3 shapes on their response
sheets, with a range from 3 to 110.
One participant in the doodling group did not doodle and was replaced.
Participants in the control group did not doodle.
Monitoring Task
The doodling group demonstrated significantly better monitoring performance compared
to the control group.
The doodling group correctly wrote down a mean of 7.8 names of party-goers, with
one false alarm, leading to a monitoring score of 7.71.
The control group correctly wrote down a mean of 7.1 names, with five false alarms,
resulting in a monitoring score of 6.91.
This difference was statistically significant, indicating that doodling helped
participants concentrate better on the primary task of monitoring the telephone
message.
Recall Task
The doodling group also showed superior recall performance compared to the control
group.
When recalling names, the doodling group had a mean score of 5.1, while the control
group had a mean score of 4.03.
For places, the doodling group had a mean score of 2.4, while the control group had a
mean score of 1.83.
6/15
When combining the recall of both names and places, the doodling group recalled a
mean of 7.5 pieces of information, which was 29% more than the control group’s mean of
5.81….
The recall of names was better than the recall of places for both groups16….
False Alarms
The control group had more false alarms during the recall task (a total of 5) compared to
the doodling group (a total of 1), suggesting that doodling may have helped to reduce
daydreaming, or mind wandering
CONCLUSION
People concentrate better and their memory is better when allowed to doodle as it
focuses their attention and stops them from getting distracted.
The study notes two possible explanations for why doodling improves recall: that
either doodling affects attention, or it improves memory by encouraging deeper
information processing.
However, without measuring daydreaming, it was difficult to distinguish between the
two explanations.
GRAVE
Strengths
1. Counterbalancing
Counterbalancing was used to control for order effects with regards to the dependent
variable.
Half the participants recalled names first and then places, while the other half recalled
places first and then names.
This ensured that the order of the memory recall task did not affect the results
2. Control for Demand Characteristics
The study incorporated a deception where participants were not informed that there
would be a memory test.
This was done to ensure that participants did not purposely try to memorize the
information.
7/15
Additionally, the researchers asked participants about any suspicion of a memory test.
When data from the suspicious participants were removed, the results remained
significant, suggesting that demand characteristics did not have a significant effect on the
results
3. The study collected quantitative data, so comparisons are easier.
The study primarily collected quantitative data, such as the number of shapes shaded by
the doodling group and the number of names and places recalled.
This numerical data allows for easy comparison between the experimental and control
conditions.
The use of means, standard deviations and statistical tests all contributed to a robust
analysis of the data.
4. The sample was already bored and fatigued, so it was a valid sample.
The study was designed to create a boring condition, which could cause daydreaming.
The researchers recruited participants after they had completed another study to make it
more likely they would be bored
Weaknesses
1. Limited Ecological Validity
The study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting.
The tasks involved listening to a monotonous telephone message and shading in shapes,
which are not typical of real-life situations where doodling occurs.
This artificiality makes it difficult to generalize the findings to everyday scenarios, such as
classrooms, workplaces, or other settings.
Real-world tasks are rarely purely auditory or visual, and people tend to draw shapes and
figures while doodling, rather than just shading in pre-printed shapes.
The study’s task of monitoring a phone message was also not a common task for people
to perform.
2. Sample Bias and Limited Generalizability
8/15
The participants were recruited from a medical research panel. This panel may have a
specific interests or motivations to be part of the study, so the sample was not very
diverse.
The sample was not representative of the general population, There were only 5 males
across the two groups, so the findings about concentration and memory may only apply
to females.
The age range of 18-55, while broad, might not represent all age groups, further limiting
generalizability.
The small sample size of 40 participants also makes it difficult to generalize the findings
to a larger population
3. Lack of Measurement of Daydreaming
The study did not directly assess if daydreaming occurred.
This omission makes it difficult to determine whether the improved performance was due
to reduced daydreaming, increased attention, or deeper processing.
It would have been helpful to have self-reports of daydreaming or other ways to measure
this construct.
4. Participant Variables
Individual differences in the way people doodle and how much they doodle could affect
the results.
The range of shapes shaded varied greatly (3-110), which shows that some people
doodled much more than others.
This variation could be a confounding variable because the study did not measure or
control this.
Some people may have also naturally had better memories than others, affecting the
results
APP TO EVERYDAY LIFE
Application to everyday life: Improved Learning and Engagement
The study’s findings suggest that doodling can be integrated into learning strategies to
keep students engaged during passive learning activities, such as listening to lectures or
watching educational videos.
Educators might encourage doodling as a way to maintain focus, particularly for students
who struggle with attention.
Application to everyday life: Reducing Negative Thinking
Doodling may also reduce negative thinking, by occupying the mental resources that
would otherwise be spent in negative thoughts.
Application to everyday life: ADHD Management
Doodling may be a practical, non-pharmacological strategy to help manage symptoms of
ADHD, as it could provide enough stimulus to prevent distractions and improve focus on
a primary task.
Links to the Cognitive Approach
The cognitive approach is about the way we process information and how our
memory works.
Cognitive psychology examines how our memory works.
The study explored the way we process information, which is input, process, and
output.
The study tested whether doodling affects memory recall.
11/15
People were able to process information from a telephone message without
focusing on it.
Participants could recall more names when they were doodling, so they could
selectively attend.
The study examined the role of split attention in recall.
Differences between people can be attributed to individual patterns of cognition.
The doodling group performed better on the monitoring task, showing that
differences between the groups can be explained by cognitions or thinking
processes, and that they were dual processing information.
Doodling allowed access to optimal levels of cognitive processing and reduced
NATURE VS NURTURE
INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL
Individual differences
The study may support the individual side of the debate because everyone doodled in
different ways, perhaps based on their personality type.
There was a wide variety in the amount of doodles (e.g., someone doodled 100 items).
People who are labelled as extraverts may require to do more than one thing at once to
help stimulate themselves and concentrate better.
Different personalities will doodle in different ways.
Situational explanations
The study may support the situational side of the debate because Andrade made sure
everyone was bored so the situation caused them to doodle and concentrate more when
doodling.
The task itself may have brought about an improvement in concentration as doodling
helped them focus more and the doodling group recalled more correct names than the
control.
The situation of a boring or monotonous telephone message made the participants
doodle, and some of these participants may be used to doodling in boring situation
ETHICS
Deception:
Participants were not fully informed about the true purpose of the study.
9/15
They were told they were participating in a study about monitoring a phone message, but
were not informed that there would be a surprise memory test at the end.
This withholding of information is a form of deception, as the participants were not
aware of all aspects of the study.
Justification for deception
The deception was considered necessary for the validity of the study.
The researchers had to deceive participants to prevent them from deliberately trying to
memorize information, which would have affected the results.
The researchers did try to maintain ethical standards by debriefing and explaining the
deception, and also by apologizing for misleading them.
Informed Consent:
Because of the deception, participants did not give fully informed consent.
Participants were not given all the information about the study, including the surprise
memory test, before agreeing to participate.
This lack of full disclosure violates the ethical principle of informed consent, which
requires participants to be aware of the nature of the study, including its purpose,
procedures, and any potential risks or benefits before participating.
Psychological Distress:
The study involved a benign task that posed no psychological or physical risk to the
participants.
The doodling and monitoring tasks were not stressful or harmful, minimizing potential
negative impacts on the participants.
Because the task was benign, there was no real risk of harm for the participants.
The surprise memory test may have caused some psychological distress to
participants.
Some participants might have felt uncomfortable or anxious about being asked to recall
information they did not know they would be tested on.
They might have felt they would be judged on their memory performance.
10/15
Debriefing:
To mitigate the ethical concerns about deception, the researchers conducted a
debriefing session at the end of the study.
During the debriefing, the participants were informed of the true aim of the study, and the
reasons for the deception.
The researchers apologized to the participants for misleading them about the surprise
memory test.
Debriefing is a measure to control for the unethical procedure of deception
