Andrade Flashcards
AIM
investigate the link between doodling and information processing: does it assist information processing by enabling people to attend more effectively/by enhancing their memory?
DESIGN
independent measures
METHOD
lab experiment
IV
whether participants were doodling or not
DV
no. of names and places from the recording that participants recalled correctly
SAMPLE
40 members of a participant panel at the Medical Research Council unit for cognitive research
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
voluntary; paid a small sum for participation
SAMPLE: demographics
mainly consisted of females, aged 18-55 years
DOODLING CONDITION
instructions given
participants asked to shade in printed shapes, not asked to doodle freely
DOODLING CONDITION
why were the participants not asked to doodle freely?
to prevent them from feeling self-conscious or suspecting that the content of their doodles was the real focus of the study; this would make doodles lack spontaneity characteristic of naturalistic doodling.
DOODLING CONDITION
why were the participants asked not to worry about the speed or neatness of their shading in the shapes given?
the researchers hoped that the simplicity of the task would encourage a degree of absent-mindedness akin to that seen in naturalistic doodling.
PROCEDURE
task given
all participants monitored a telephone message and then attempted to recall monitored and incidental information.
PROCEDURE
details of the telephone message
2.5 mins, recorded onto audio cassette tape in a fairly monotone voice at an av. speaking rate of 227 words/min.
PROCEDURE
names in the script
8 people who would attend + 3 who couldn’t + 1 cat
8 places
DOODLING CONDITION
materials given
pencil + an A4 sized sheet with 10 shapes of approx. 1 cm diameter per row, with a 4.5 cm wide margin on the left for writing the target information
CONTROL CONDITION
materials given
lined sheet of paper + pencil
MONITORING TASK
test on people who would & would not attend the party
RECALL TASK
names of places mentioned
LOCATION
a quiet and visually dull room
PROCEDURE
what were the participants told?
to write the names of people who would definitely or probably be coming to the party and ignore the rest.
POST-EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE
the experimenter apologised for misleading the participants about the test. the participants gave a test on places + names, counterbalanced. they were then debriefed and asked if they had suspected a memory test.
RESULTS
mean no. of shapes shaded
36.9 (range: 3-110)
RESULTS: CONTROL GROUP
mean no. of correct names
7.1
RESULTS: CONTROL GROUP
no. of people who made a false alarm (names)
5
RESULTS: CONTROL GROUP
mean recall for places & names
5.8
RESULTS: DOODLING GROUP
mean no. of correct names
7.8
RESULTS: DOODLING GROUP
no. of people who made a false alarm (names)
01
RESULTS: DOODLING GROUP
mean recall for places and names
7.5 (29% more)
RESULTS
mean recall: no. of false alarms (places)
0.3 for both doodling and control
CONCLUSION
doodling helps concentration on a primary task (doodlers performed better than control group)
CONCLUSION
possible explanations for doodlers scoring better on both monitored and incidental information (2)
- the doodlers noticed more of the target words (doodling affected attention)
- doodling affected memory directly, eg. by encouraging better information encoding.
CONCLUSION
why is it not possible to reach a definite conclusion?
because there was no measure on daydreaming, which could have impacted attention.
IMPROVEMENT
how could daydreaming be measured?
- by using a self-report: participants asked about daydreaming after main experiment was over.
- having a simultaneous brain scan and observing whether doodling reduced activation of the cortex (associated w daydreaming)
APPLICATIONS TO EVERYDAY LIFE
shows that doodling aids concentration; workers in call centers could be encouraged to doodle while listening to calls by providing them with similar sheets; attitudes towards students doodling in class could be improved.
INDIVIDUAL VS. SITUATIONAL
how is the individual explanation supported?
doodling behavior differed between participants (range of shapes doodled was from 3 to 110); suggests there might be individual causes between doodling behavior.
INDIVIDUAL VS. SITUATIONAL
how is the situational explanation supported?
doodling affected recall, which means it has a situational effect on information processing.
Andrade deliberately ensured that participants would be bored so they would be more likely to doodle = implies that there might be situational causes for doodling itself
STRENGTHS - 6
- valid: high control on extraneous variables
- reliable: standardised
- valid: doodling operationalised
- sample varied in age; representative
- debriefing done.
- counterbalancing done to reduce participant variables
WEAKNESSES - 5
- risk of demand characteristics: 5 ppl suspected a test
- sample from the same panel; biased in terms of interests = lowered validity
- participants did not give fully informed consent (not told about incidental test on places
- participants deceived abt tests they were to give = could have caused psychological distress
- independent variables: participant variables such as better/worse memory could have distorted results.
