(c) andrade Flashcards
psychology investigated
attention and memory
attention
the concentration of mental effort on a particular stimuli
memory
the encoding, storage and retrieval of information, potentially leading to long-term retention
divided attention
the ability to split mental efforts between two or more simultaneous tasks
daydreaming
a mildly altered state of consciousness in which we experience being ‘lost in our thoughts’ and detach from our environment
- daydreaming distracts attention from the task you are doing
incidental memory
information that you do not focus on but you can recall
doodle
a drawing, sketch, or pattern created to pass time, rather than for a specific purpose
aim
to investigate whether doodling improves concentration in a boring task or not
sample:
how many ppts
how they were recruited?
- 40 ppts (35F, 5M), UK based, 18-55 years old
- opportunity sample - from a ppt panel (MRC applied psychology unit) and out of another study they had just finished
- PAID!!!
participant panel
group of ppl who are willing to be involved in studies
procedure
- tested individually in a visually dull and quiet room
- listened to a monotonous voice message, 2.5 minutes long. 227 words per minute, comfortable listening volume
- ppt were told to write down the names of the partygoers
experimental design?
independent measures, randomly allocated into 2 groups (doodling, non doodling)
- experimental (doodling) 17F, 3M
- control (non doodle) 18F, 2M
why did they choose to use an auditory listening task?
it would not compete for the same cognitive resources as doodling
instructions given to ppts
- all ppts told the same thing
- write the names of partygoers in the margin
- for ppts in the experimental condition: to doodle to ‘relieve boredom’
- instructions designed to encourage ppts from trying to remember information
- told them the info is dull to stop them searching for interesting information
- avoid/reduces demand characteristics
target words?
no. of monitored info?
no. of incidental info?
the names of ppl attending
monitored info: name of partygoers (8)
incidental info: name of places (8)
what happened in the surprise memory test?
- half of the ppts were asked to recall partygoers names, then place names
- other half were asked to recall place names, then partygoers
recall order was counterbalanced
how did they operationalise the DVs?
- plausible mishearings were marked as correct. eg, greg instead of craig
- (marked as) false alarms = names mentioned but not attending the party and any new names
- responses such as ‘sister’ were ignored as it is not a name
IV and DV,
type of experiment,
experimental measures,
data collection method
- IV: doodling is not doodling
- DV: 1. monitoring accuracy,
2. memory for monitored info = no. of names,
3. memory for incidental info = no. of correct places - lab experiment
- independent measures
- self report
debrief
participants were asked if they had suspected a memory test
- 3 in doodling condition did
- 4 in non doodling condition did
results
doodling condition:
- 7.7 names accurately
- significantly higher
(one ppt did not doodle and was replaced)
control condition:
- 6.9 names
- significantly lower
(no spontaneous doodling)
29% better recall in doodling compared to controlled.
how did they calculate the results/total memory score?
memory score for monitored info:
no. of correct names (out of 8) recalled - false alarms
memory score for incidental info:
no. of correct places (out of 8) recalled - false alarms
conclusions
- preforming a shape-shading task (intended to represent naturalistic doodling) improved concentration when listening to a boring, mock telephone message.
- led to better recall of information even when this task is a surprise (memory test)
evaluation strengths
- high level of control
–> lab setting, allows for better control of the IV (doodling/non) and potential uncontrolled variables - high reliability, replicability, and standardisation
–> eg, same volume/speed of msg for both IV levels, same boredom level (as recruited from a prior study on directions) - independent measures design
–> different ppts in both IV levels, reduces order effects
evaluation weakenesses
- low ecological validity
–> doodling task of shading lacks mundane realism - unrepresentative sample
–> opportunity sample, mostly females, all living in the UK. less generalisable to men, people in other cultures - independent measures design
–> used different ppts in both levels of the IV. ppt variables may be responsible for difference in results, lacks validity
ethical issues
BAD
- ppts are decieved about the memory test. cannot give fully informed consent
—> GOOD: (though, necessary to avoid demand characteristics)
- ppts could have been distressed about the memory test
GOOD
- researcher apologised to ppts about misleading them and debriefed them at the end of the experiment
- unlikely to cause serious psychological harm (maybe distress)
applications to daily life
could be useful to students revising for exams/in lectures.
- if you are reading or listening to anyt, doodling at the same time could increase concentration by reducing daydreaming
nature-nurture
N/A. study does not attempt to explain how attention is manifested in an individual
individual-situational
individual: people do not doodle in the same way as each other, huge range
situational: lack of attention due to being in a boring situation. doodling helps in specific situations
