Doodling and Memory: Andrade's Study PDF

Andrade doodling ‘What Does Doodling Do?’ Key terms of Andrade study Attention Memory Doodling Concentration Backgrou nd The psychology being investigated Jackie Andrade’s paper studies attention and memory. Doodling can improve concentration, especially when bored. It helps...

Andrade doodling ‘What Does Doodling Do?’ Key terms of Andrade study Attention Memory Doodling Concentration Backgrou nd The psychology being investigated Jackie Andrade’s paper studies attention and memory. Doodling can improve concentration, especially when bored. It helps people pay attention and remember information better. Challenges the idea that doodling is a sign of loss of The psychology being investigated - Memory Memory: Involves encoding, storage, and retrieval of information, leading to potential long-term retention. Effortful memory: We focus and use strategies (e.g., repetition) to remember information. Incidental memory: Information remembered unintentionally. Happens with much of the everyday input we process. The psychology being investigated - Attention Attention: Concentrating mental effort on sensory or mental events (Solso, 1995). Limited cognitive capacity: Attention is selective. We focus on certain information and filter out the rest. Example: While chatting with a friend in class, you ignore other students' conversations to focus on your friend. The psychology being investigated – Concentration and Doodling What is a doodle? A drawing, sketch, or pattern made to pass time, often without a specific purpose. Misconceptions about doodling: People assume doodling means someone has lost interest or isn’t paying attention. Andrade’s study shows doodling can actually improve concentration, especially during boring tasks. Why doodling helps: Prevents daydreaming (focusing on internal thoughts instead of external events). Boosts concentration by 1) increasing arousal levels. 2) Keeping attention on external stimuli. Multitasking with doodling: Though it seems dividing attention between doodling and listening would reduce performance, the two tasks use different types of thinking. Many people can effectively do both at the same time. Doodling is a useful strategy for staying focused on uninteresting information.  Andrade in brief Study Overview: Participants: 40 people listened to a boring, pretend telephone message. Task: Half were asked to shade printed shapes (doodling group) while listening. All participants had to listen for specific information and write it down (called "monitoring" by Andrade). Key Findings: The doodling group: Recorded the names more accurately. Remembered 29% more information on a surprise memory test, including both monitored and incidental information. Conclusion: Doodling enhances performance on tasks by reducing boredom (an uncontrolled variable in cognitive experiments). Implications: Relevant for research, schools, and workplaces as a strategy to improve attention and memory during uninteresting tasks. Describin g Aims 1 To investigate whether doodling improves our ability to pay attention to (or concentrate on) auditory information (i.e. a message that is heard but not seen). 2 To investigate whether doodling affects later recall of auditory information. Research Methodology Andrade used a laboratory experiment to see if doodling helped people to concentrate and remember information from a mock (pretend) telephone message. Research Methodology - Design and variables Study Design: Type: Independent measures design. Groups Compared: Doodling group: 17 females and 3 males. Control group: 18 females and 2 males. Random Allocation: Used to control participant variables (e.g., memory differences that could affect results). Counterbalancing: The order of recall was counterbalanced across participants to reduce bias. Independent Variable: Whether participants were allowed to doodle while listening to the phone message or not. Doodling Task: Participants shaded alternating rows of ten circles and ten squares (approx. 1 cm in diameter) on standard A4 paper while listening. Research Methodology - Design and variables There were three main dependent variables: 1 Monitoring accuracy: the number of correct names (out of eight) recorded while listening to the tape; the researcher then deducted false alarms (i.e. wrong answers) from the total number of correct names to give the final monitoring performance score 2 Memory for monitored information: number of correct names. recalled (out of eight) after false alarms were deducted 3 Memory for incidental information: number of correct places recalled (out of eight) Research Methodology - Sample Participants: 40 participants (aged 18–55). 15 females and 5 males. Recruited from the MRC Applied Psychology Unit participant panel. Sampling Method: Opportunity sample: Participants were already part of a pre-existing group. All participants had just finished another experiment (about giving directions). Researchers wanted participants to be "ready to go home" to increase boredom levels during the task. Participants' background: Members of the general population who had volunteered for research. All participants received a small fee for their time. Procedure - The tape (audio recording) 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 of 227 words per minute. The message mentioned: eight people who were able to come to the party: Jane, William, Claire, Craig, Suzie, Jenny, Phil and Tony three people and one cat who could not come to the party: Nigel, John, Nicky and Ben the cat (Andrade refers to these names as ‘lures’) eight places: London, Penzance, Gloucester, Colchester, Harlow, Ely, Peterborough and Edinburgh a lot of other irrelevant information. Procedure – Listening to the recording Each participant completed the experiment on their own in a quiet, dull room. The standardised instructions said: They should pretend the speaker was a friend inviting them to a party. The tape is rather dull but that is okay because they do not need to remember any of it. Write down the names of the people who will (or probably will) come to the party (excluding themselves) and ignore the names of anyone who cannot come. Do not write down anything else. Procedure – Listening to the recording… Experimental Group: Given A4 response sheets with shapes to shade and a pencil. Instructions: Shade the shapes while listening to the tape. Not to worry about neatness or speed; it was "just something to help relieve the boredom." Paper detail: 4.5 cm margin to record the target names. Control Group: Given lined paper with no shapes to shade. Task for both groups: Listen to the tape at the same "comfortable" volume for everyone. Write down the names of the party-goers as they listened. Procedure – The surprise memory test After the task: Researchers collected the response sheets and chatted with participants for one minute. Revealing the purpose: Participants were told about the surprise memory test at this point. Memory test instructions: Half of each group were asked to recall: The names first, then the places. The places first, then the names. Post-task question: Participants were asked whether they had guessed that there would be a memory test at the end. Procedure – Analysing the responses Response coding: Misheard names: Included as correct if it was likely a simple mistake (e.g., Greg instead of Craig). False alarms: Incorrect names coded as wrong, including extra names or non-party-goers added as "lures". Purpose of lures: To test whether participants would write down all names mentioned, even if they were not party-goers. Incorrect responses: Words that were neither names nor places (e.g., "sister") were marked as incorrect.  Results – 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 participant. No one in the control group doodled on their lined paper. Results – Monitoring accuracy Results – Recall performance Conclusions Andrade concluded that doodling can improve concentration when listening, even when the task is rather boring. She also concluded that it can help us to remember information better, even when we are not expecting to have to do so. Evaluatio n Ethical issues Weakness: Deception used in the study. Participants were told: "The tape is rather dull but that’s okay because I don’t want you to remember any of it." This was untrue as participants were later given a surprise recall test. Why deception was necessary: It helped ensure participants wouldn’t focus too much on the recording, which could affect the results. Ethical concern: Deception meant participants couldn’t give fully informed consent before participating. Methodological issues - Reliability Strength: Highly standardised procedure. All participants: Listened to the same audio-recorded message with identical pace and tone. Completed the study in the same quiet, dull room. Had an interval of one minute between the monitoring and recall tasks. Benefit of standardisation: The study can be easily replicated to check if doodling truly improves concentration on boring tasks. Methodological issues - Validity - Experimental method and design Strength of the design: Counterbalancing of recall order. How it worked: Half of the participants in each group recalled: Names first, then places. Places first, then names. Benefit of counterbalancing: Minimized order effects (e.g., memory differences caused by the sequence of recall). Impact on validity: Increased memory for both monitored (names) and incidental (places) information could be attributed to doodling, not the order of testing.  Methodological issues - Validity - Operational definitions Weakness: Operational definition of doodling. What was done in the study: Participants were asked to shade 1 cm shapes in a standardised way. Issue: This type of doodling is less creative and spontaneous compared to how people doodle in real life. Impact on conclusion: The finding that doodling improves concentration and recall may not apply to more free-form, real-life doodling, where the style, timing, and method are less controlled. Methodological issues - Validity - Confounding variables Strength: Andrade checked for detection of deception. Findings: 18% of participants (three doodlers and four controls) suspected a memory test might follow. None of these participants admitted to actively trying to remember the information. Addressed concern: Andrade re-analysed the data without the responses of these participants. Result: The findings remained the same, confirming that the suspicion of deception did not impact the results. Importance: This process improved the overall validity of the findings about doodling's effect on concentration and memory.  Methodological issues - Validity - The use of lures Strength: Use of 'lures' in the telephone message. What are lures?: Names of people not attending the party (e.g., Nigel, John, Nicky). Why they were used: To test whether participants were really paying attention or just recording names without focusing on the context. Effect on results: If participants were not fully focused, they might have written down these lures as incorrect answers, lowering their overall performance score. Importance for validity: The presence of lures ensured that participants had to listen carefully to the content of the message, improving the validity of the findings by measuring true concentration. Methodological issues Objectivity and subjectivity Weakness: Misheard words being marked as correct. Example: In the monitoring task, if a participant wrote Greg instead of Craig, it was marked as correct. If the same name (Greg) was written again during the recall task, it was also recorded as correct. Key Issue: Assumes that incorrect responses are mishearings and not false alarms. Impact: This makes the coding process subjective, as the distinction between mishearings and errors depends on the researcher's interpretation. Methodological issues – Generalisations and ecological validity – Generalising beyond the sample Weakness: Overwhelming number of females in the study. Statistical fact: Females made up 87.5% of the sample. Issue: The sample is gynocentric (biased towards females). Impact on findings: This limits the ability to generalise the results to males. Conclusion: Findings should be treated with caution until the study is replicated with a more balanced gender sample. Methodological issues – Generalisations and ecological validity – Generalising to everyday life Weakness: Highly controlled laboratory setting. Reason: The study was conducted in a quiet, under-stimulating room. Participants were asked to pretend the speaker on the tape was a friend. Real-world comparison: In everyday life, distractions like family members, pets, traffic, or noise could make doodling less effective at maintaining concentration. Key issue: This suggests that doodling may only be effective in controlled lab settings, not in real- world environments. Impact: This reduces ecological validity (the extent to which findings can be applied to real-life situations).  Issues and Debates - Individual and situational explanations Strength of the study: Shows the impact of situational factors on attention and memory. Explanation: Many believe cognitive skills (like memory and attention) are fixed traits. Andrade’s study demonstrates that situational demands (e.g., not doodling during a task) can affect cognitive performance. Key insight: Small situational adjustments, like allowing or encouraging doodling, can improve performance by reducing boredom or distraction. Impact and importance: Suggests that parents, teachers, and employers could apply this knowledge to enhance cognitive performance by modifying environments. Issues and Debates - Applications to everyday life – Supporting students Further strength of the study: Supports recommendations for teaching strategies Explanation: Andrade’s study shows that engaging in a secondary task like doodling can improve concentration. Improved concentration allows individuals to retain more information from auditory tasks (e.g., listening to a lesson). Key insight: Many teachers discourage or punish students for doodling in class. The findings suggest that raising awareness of the cognitive benefits of doodling could be valuable. Impact and importance: Adding this understanding to teacher training programs could help teachers support students' cognitive performance by allowing structured doodling as a strategy to maintain focus. Reflections Limitations of Andrade’s Findings Small sample size: Limited ability to analyze individual differences across participants. Multitasking benefits (e.g., doodling improving memory) may vary from person to person. Nature of the task: Participants were asked to shade simple shapes, which is a straightforward, low-cognitive- demand task. Spontaneous doodling (e.g., free drawing or imagery) likely requires more cognitive resources. This could potentially have the opposite effect on concentration and memory. Key point: Doodling isn’t a uniform activity—its effects depend on how individuals approach it and the type of doodling task involved. Conclusion: Findings should not be overstated because doodling affects individuals differently depending on context, task type, and cognitive demand.