Cognitive Approach PDF

# What Does Doodling Do? ## The Cognitive Approach - Information is processed through the same route in all humans: - input-process-output, in a similar way to how information is processed by a computer. - People have individual differences in their cognitive processing, such as attention, lan...

# What Does Doodling Do? ## The Cognitive Approach - Information is processed through the same route in all humans: - input-process-output, in a similar way to how information is processed by a computer. - People have individual differences in their cognitive processing, such as attention, language, thinking and memory. - These processes can also help to explain behaviour and emotion. ## Syllabus Content - **Andrade, J. (2010), What Does Doodling do?** - **Baron-Cohen, S, Wheelwright, S, Hill, J, Raste, Y and Plumb, I (2001), The 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' Test Revised Version: A Study with Normal Adults, and Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High-functioning Autism.** - **Pozzulo et al (2011), The Culprit in Target-Absent Lineups: Understanding young children's false positive responding.** ## Starting Discussion - Do you tend to doodle in class during lessons? - What are the benefits of doodling that you can think of? - What do you try to do when you know you have to concentrate on something? - List all the behaviours you show which you think help your pay attention more efficiently. ## Background - It is believed that concurrent cognitive tasks have a negative impact on the performance on those tasks. - In other words, if you do two things at once, there will be an internal competition for which things gets attention. - Research has shown that we perform less well when our attention is divided between tasks. - However, a research by Do and Schallert (2004) suggests doodling might aid concentration. - For example, by reducing daydreaming so that you stay focused. - This idea is based on the working memory model, which suggests that two different types of current or 'working' memory can be used at the same time, one is visuo-spatial and the other auditory. ## Andrade (2010) - 'What Does Doodling do?' ## Background - Wilson and Korn (2007) suggests that doodling may help maintain arousal. - For example, by giving something physical to do while you think. - It could raise arousal to keep you awake if you are sleepy or reduce arousal if you are agitated because you are bored. ## The Psychology Being Investigated - Prior to this study, it was not known whether the act of doodling impairs attention processes by taking away resources from the primary task or whether it actually adds concentration towards the primary task. - Could it be that doodling actually aids concentration? ## Aim - Andrade was interested to know whether doodling activity assisted information processing. - Perhaps by enabling people to attend more effectively or by enhancing their memory. - Doodling: the sketching of patterns and figures that are unrelated to the primary task. ## Research Method - A laboratory experiment. - The environment was not the normal place in which people would respond to telephone messages. - The situation was controlled. - The independent variable in this study is the control and experimental (doodling) group. - The dependent variable is: - Monoto monitoring task. - Recall task. ## Experimental Design - Independent measures design. - Participants were either in the doodling group or in the control group. - The order of these tests was counterbalanced. - Half of the participants were asked to recall the names of party-goers then the places mentioned. - The other half recalled the places first, then the names. ## Sample - 40 members of a participant panel at the Medical Research unit for cognitive research. - The panel was made up of members of the general population aged 18-55 years old. - Participants were paid a small sum for participation. - There were 20 participants in each group, mainly females, with 2 males in the control group and 3 in the doodling group. - One participant in the doodling condition did not doodle and was replaced. - The sampling technique was opportunity sampling. ## Procedure - All participants listened to a dull (mock) telephone call about a party. - During this task, they either doodled or did not doodle (the control group). - They were told beforehand they would be tested on the names of people who were attending the party (and not the ones who were not going to be there) - 'monitoring' task. - They also had an unexpected test, on the names of places mentioned - 'recall' task. ## Procedure - These two tasks were the measures of the dependent variable (DV) of recall. - To operationalise the DVs, plausible mishearing such as 'Greg' for 'Craig, were counted as correct. - Other names that were on the tape but were not party-goers (e.g. John) were scored as false alarms. - Other words relating to people, such as 'sister, were ignored. - The final score for monitoring was the number of correct names minus false alarms. ## Mock Telephone Message - The mock telephone message lasted 2.5 minutes. - It was recorded in a monotonous voice at an average speed of 227 words per minute. - It had eight names of people attending a party, and the names of three people and one cat who could not attend. - Eight place names were mentioned, as well as irrelevant details. ## Standardised Instructions - 'I am going to play a tape. I want you to pretend that the speaker is a friend who has telephoned you to invite you to a party. The tape is rather dull but that's okay because I don't want you to remember any of it. Just write down the names of people who will definitely or probably be coming to the party (excluding yourself). Ignore the names of those who can't come. Do not write anything else'. ## Procedure - An A4 sheet was given to the participants in the doodling condition, with alternating rows of squares and circles, ten per row. - There was also a wide margin on the left for recording the target information. - Participants were also given a pencil and asked to shade in the squares and circles while listening to the tape. - They were told 'It doesn't matter how neatly or how quickly you do this - it is just something to help relieve the boredom'. - The control participants were given a sheet of lined paper to write their answers on. - They could also have used for doodling. ## Procedure - Each participant listened to the tape at a comfortable volume and wrote down the names as instructed. - The experimenter collected the response sheets, then talked to the participants for one minute, including an apology for misleading them about the memory test. - They then completed the surprise test of recalling names of places then people or vice versa. ## Results - One participant did not doodle and was replaced. - Three doodlers and four controls suspected a memory test. - None said they actively tried to remember information. - Fifteen doodlers and nine controls scored the maximum of eight in the monitoring task. ## Results - In the doodling condition, the mean number of shaded shapes on the printed sheet was 36.3, with a range of 3-110. - No participants in the control condition doodles spontaneously. - Participants in the control group correctly recalled a mean of 7.1 (SD 1.1) of the eight party-goers' names and five people made a false alarm. - Participants in the doodling group correctly recalled a mean of 7.8 (SD 0.4) party-goers' names and one person made a false alarm. | Group | Correct | False alarms | Memory score | Correct | False alarms | Memory score | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Control** | Names (monitored information) | 4.3 (1.3) | 0.4 (10.5) | 4.0 (1.5) | Places (incidental information) | 2.1 (0,9) | 0.3 (0.6) | 1.8 (1.2) | | **Doodling** | Names (monitored information) | 5.3 (1.4) | 0.3 (0.4) | 5.1 (1.7) | Places (incidental information) | 2.6 (1.4) | 0.3 (0,4) | 2.4 (1.5) | | **Mean recall for doodling and non-doodling groups** |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ## Results - Overall, the doodling participants recalled a mean of 7.5 names and places, 29% more than the mean of 5.8 for the control group. - The monitored names were recalled better than the incidental places. - Monitoring performance in the doodling condition has a mean of 7.7 and was significantly more higher than in the control group (mean=6.9). - Recall for both monitored and incidental information was better for doodlers than controls, even when the participants who suspected a test were excluded. - This is to eliminate effects due to demand characteristics. ## Explanations - There are two possible explanations for doodler's performance: - The doodlers noticed more of the target words, an effect on attention - Doodling improved memory directly. - For example, by encouraging deeper information processing. - However, without any measure of daydreaming, it is difficult to distinguish between these two explanations - It can be done using simultaneous brain scan to indicate whether doodling reduced activation of the cortex, which is associated to daydreaming. ## Conclusions - Doodling helps concentration on a primary task as the doodling participants performed better than participants just listening to the primary task with no concurrent task. # The Core Study - The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Revised Version: A Study with Normal Adults, and Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High-functioning Autism. - Baron-Cohen S., Wheelwright S., Hill J., Rastey. & Plumb I. (2001) ## What Do These People Have in Common? - Hans Christian Anderson - Lewis Carroll - Jeffrey Dahmer - Charles Darwin - Albert Einstein - Adolf Hitler - Thomas Jefferson - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Isaac Newton - Michaelangelo - They all show symptoms of autism. ## What is Autism (ASD)? - Autism (Wide-) Spectrum Disorder - Signs/symptoms such as: - Obsession - Repetitive behaviour - Lack of social skills - "Out of sync", atypical or offensive language - Difficulties with non-verbal communication - Speaks in few words only - Tells keywords only. ## Baron-Cohen - Simon Baron-Cohen is the leading expert in autism research. - (1985) Sally-Anne test: autistic children have delayed development of a theory of mind (TOM). - (1997) "Eyes task" for adults. ## Psychology being investigated. ## Theory of Mind - Theory of Mind = Empathy - Understanding that other people have thoughts and feelings - Doesn't develop normally in autistic children - Lack of 'Mind reading' - Important finding: - Intelligence (IQ) > social understanding - Unable to interpret pertain situation ## Differentiating Terms - **Empathy**: To express empathy shows a deeper level of understanding by entering into the other person's experience, understanding what happens to the other person. - **Sympathy**: To express sympathy is to make it known that you are aware of another's distress and that you have compassion for them - showing you are aware. ## Types of Empathy - **Cognitive empathy**: the ability to recognize what others are feelings (i.e. "Theory of Mind"). - **Affective empathy**: the ability to feel what others are feeling and perhaps take action) (i.e. to help others). ## The Sally-Anne Test - A first-order false belief task - 90% 'normal' 4 years-old children pass this task - 80% autistic children with a mental age of 5 fail. ## Autistic Adults - **Behavioural strategies**: - Make eye contact - Learn appropriate social responses. - e.g. arm around crying child, tone of voice. - In 1986, Psychology had no test for autism in adults. - Conclusion: adults 'improved'? - There's no widely recognition for autism in adult - Baron Cohen then developed the Eyes task (1997). ## Baron-Cohen et al (2001) - [Adapted from abstract] "The 1997 Eyes Task succeeded in discriminating adults with Asperger's Syndrome (AS) and high functioning Autism (HFA) from controls but suffered from psychometric problems'. - It succeeded in terms of classifying those with AS and HFA but has limited response option, cultural bias, gender bias etc. - The 2001 task rectifies these problems. ## Eyes Task (1997) ## What is Asperger's Syndrome (AS)? - Impairment in mutual social interaction. - Restricted & obsessively repetitive patterns of behaviour. - Differs from ASDs - a relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development: - I.e. speech and understanding of language is intact. ## What is High-functioning Autism (HFA)? - Baron Cohen names this as a distinct category. - Although individuals with Asperger's tend to perform better cognitively than those with autism, the extent of the overlap between Asperger's and high-functioning autism is unclear. - Differences are not clear but both are still in different categories. - However, for the purposes of this study he treats AS and HFA participants as one group. ## 1997 Results | Participants | Score/25 | SD | |---|---|---| | Normal | 25 | 18.8 | 2.5 | | Male Normal | 25 | 21.8 | 1.8 | | Female Tourette's | 8M2F | 20.4 | 2.6 | | AS/HFA | 13 M 3 F | 16.3 | 2.9 | | Significant differences |---|---|---| | Male Vs Female | | | | AS/HFA vs. normals | | | | AS/HFA vs. Tourette's | | | ## Psychometric Problems (1-3) 1. **There was a forced choice between only two response choices.** - Subjects had to score between 17 and 25 for difference to be significant. - This range is too narrow. - Individual differences cannot be seen clearly. - It is difficult to compare scores between individuals. (The number of options was too narrow.) 2. **Parents of individuals with AS/HFA have the same score as their children in the Eye Tests even though they did not have AS/HFA.** 3. **Ceiling effect**: - Scores within a "normal" range appears close to the ceiling of the test. - I.e. higher scores. - This may bias results. - This is very dangerous as this shows that the last Eyes Test is not an accurate indication to detect impairments in social intelligence. ## Solution for Problems 1-3? - **Make test more difficult**: - Increase the number of items. - 25 to 36 - Increase the number of response options. - 2 to 4 - These steps would result in a range of 13-36 in which to reveal significant differences. - More powerful than the previous 17-25 range. ## Problems & Solutions for 4 & 5 4. **1997 test used basic and complex emotions.** - Basic are too obvious: happy, sad, angry, afraid, disgusted. - Complex emotions involve attribution of belief or intention. - e.g. arrogant, apologetic, ashamed. - **Solution**: 2001 test used ONLY complex emotions. 5. **Target word (answer) and foil (options) were semantic opposites.** - It was too easy. - **Solution**: 3 foils have similar emotional valence. - e.g. target word - serious - Foils - ashamed, alarmed and bewildered. ## The Old Emotions from 1997 Test - **Flurting** - **Happy** - **Arrogant** - **Guilt** ## Problems & Solutions for 6, 7 & 8 6. **Some items linked to gaze direction of the face, e.g. "noticing", "ignoring".** - **Solution**: These items were eliminated in the 2001 test. 7. **More female faces than male faces.** - **Solution**: Equal (18 female, 18 male) 8. **Comprehension problems?** - **Solution**: Provided a glossary ( although....in fact no participant checked more than 2 words ) ## Assertive - Confident, dominant, sure of oneself. ## Baffled - Confused, puzzled, dumbfounded. ## Bewildered - Utterly confused, puzzled, dazed. ## Cautious - Careful, wary. ## Comforting - Consoling, compassionate. ## Concerned - Worried, troubled. ## Confident - Self-assured, believing in oneself. ## Confused - Puzzled, perplexed. ## Contemplative - Reflective, thoughtful, considering. ## Creating the Apparatus ## Reading the Mind in the Eyes 2001 - **Preparing the eyes test**: - Target words and foils were generated and piloted on groups of 8 judges (normal) - 'Piloted' means trialed. - For an item to be included in the test, it had to fulfill the following criteria: - At least 5 out of 8 judges must agree that the target word was the most suitable description for each stimulus (eyes). - No more than 2 judges chose any foil words. ## Control Question - Gender recognition - subjects in the AS/HFA group were asked to identify the gender of the eyes. - Reason: to control for anticipated impairments. - (impairments in gender recognition only for AS/HFA). ## Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) - The AQ measures the extent to which an adult of normal intelligence has traits related to the autistic spectrum. - Scores range from 0-50. - The higher the score the more autistic a person is. - Serves as a useful indicator of autistic tendencies. ## Aims - To see if the new 'revised' eyes test works to assess social impairment. - To see if AQ score has an inverse correlation with the Eyes Test score. - To test if females have better Theory of Mind than males. ## Participant - 15 AS/HFA, all male. - They were recruited via adverts in the U.K National Autistic Society magazine. - They had all been diagnosed in specialist centres. - 239 'normal' from Exeter town and Cambridge University. - 14 'normals' IQ-matched to AS/HFA's. ## Participants (Age Data and Iq) | Group | No. (all male) | Age | Mean IQ | |---|---|---|---| | Group 1 AS/HFA | 15 | 29.7 | 115 | | Group 2 Normal Adults (122Ps) | 88 | 46.5 | | | Group 3 Normal Adult Students (not representative of general population) | 103 | 20.8 | Cambridge Students, so assumed to be high | | Group 4 Random selection - public | 14 | 28.0 | 116 | | IQ matched controls and age (out of 122Ps - Group 2) | | | | ## Method - Quasi experiment, why? - IV cannot be manipulated as it occurs naturally, which is Autism, Asperger & Normal. - IV: Individual differences. - Four groups - DV: - Scores on Eyes test - AQ (Autism Spectrum Quotient) - **Design**: - Independent (subjects subjected to 1 = Autistic) - Match pair (IQ) Group 1 & 4. - Eye Test - All group - AQ test = 1,3,4. - Gender recognition only Group 1. ## Procedure - Participants individually tested in a quiet room in Cambridge or Exeter. - Participants in all four groups tested with the revised Eye test. - Subjects in Group 1 also asked to judge the gender of each person in each photo. ## Hypotheses 1. AS/HFA < normals (Eyes Test), but unimpaired on gender control question. 2. AS/HFA > Normals (AQ) 3. In normal groups 2 &3, female > male (Eyes Test) 4. In normal group 3, male > female (AQ) 5. In the AS/HFA group, - Scores on AQ - Eyes test i.e inversely correlated ## Results | Group | Eyes Test | AQ | |---|---|---| | Group 1 AS/HFA All (15M) | 21.9 | 34.4 | | Group 2 All (122) 55 male 67 Female | 26.2 26.0 26.4 | | | Group 3 All (103) 53 Male 50 Female | 28.0 27.3 28.6 | 18.3 19.5 16.6 | | Group 4 All (14) | 30.9 | 18.9 | | Hypothesis | Supported? | |---|---| | 1. AS/HFA < normals (Eyes test) | Yes | | 2. AS/HFA > normals (AQ) | Yes | | 3. Female normals > male normals (Eyes Test) | Yes (somewhat) - slight differences only. | | 4. Male normals > Female normals (AQ) | Yes | | 5. AQ Eyes test? | Yes | ## Gender Recognition - All subjects with AS/HFA scored 33 out of 36 on the gender recognition control task. ## Discussion/Conclusions - Modifications worked! - 2001 Eyes Task is more sensitive - It detects individual differences better - AQ & eyes test inversely correlated. - But IQ & eyes test NOT correlated - Therefore, autistic people are not unintelligent. - There are different kinds of intelligence - Social difficulties are not correlated to IQ. # Pozzulo et al (2011) - The Culprit in Target-Absent Lineups: Understanding Young Children's False Positive Responding ## Keywords - Culprit - Suspect - Line-up - Target absent line up - Target present line up - Target - Foils - False memory - False positive response. - Correct rejection - Eyewitness testimony ## Background - Memory is not always factual. - It can be distorted by other information both during encoding and after the event. - There have been many experiments within memory research that have demonstrated that memories can be distorted by information following an event. - This has even resulted in people believing that an impossible event has taken place. ## Memory - Information Processing - **Encoding**: Transforming Information into a form that can be stored in memory. - **Storing**: Maintaining the encoded Information in memory. - **Retrieving**: Re-accessing information from the past which has been encoded and stored. ## What is a False Memory? - A fabricated or distorted recollection of an event that did not actually happen. - Also known as pseudo-memory. - False memory is where people remember events that never actually happened. - False Memory Syndrome (FMS) describes a condition in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by memories that are factually incorrect but that they strongly believe. ## Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable? - Is our memory reliable? - What can affect our ability to remember? - **Eyewitness testimony**: Evidence provided by an individual who has seen (or heard) a crime being committed. - This information is used by the legal system. - **Line up**: A source of evidence used by the legal system. - A witness is shown a line of people or an array of photographs of faces and is asked to attempt to identify the perpetrator of the crime (although they may not be present) - **False positive response**: Giving an affirmative (positive) but incorrect answer to a question. - For e.g., mistakenly picking out a person in a line-up when the real culprit is not there. - A positive answer that is incorrect. ## Background - Many different types of crimes are committed every day. - Sometimes eyewitnesses identify the wrong suspect. - Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 89% of the more than 375 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. ## Background - Research has shown that under some conditions, child and adult eyewitnesses differ with their identification accuracy. - (Pozzulo and Warren 2003; Pozzulo and Lindsay 1998). - Children and adults produce comparable correct identification rates when shown a target present lineup. - However, children are more likely to pick out an innocent person than adults when a culprit is absent from the lineup. - This is called false positive response. ## Why Are Children More Likely To Make Errors In Identifying Targets In A Line Up? - Children may be more likely to make incorrect decisions in a line-up due to different social factors such as: - If a child is asked to select which people in the line-up is the culprit, they may think they NEED to choose one of the people. - They may think 'If I am given a selection I must make a choice'. - A child is likely to view the adult who asks them as an authority figure, especially if it's a police officer. - Children may feel more pressured to make a choice than adults, don't want to get into trouble if they don't choose anybody. ## Aim - The study aims to explore the role of social and cognitive factors in children's identification of target faces in line-ups. - (Thinking processes when identifying target) - Specifically, the aimed to investigate whether children: - Are less able to recognize human faces than adults - Make more false positive identification than adults when faced with: - Target absent line-ups vs target present line-ups - Human faces and cartoon characters ## Hypothesis - Children and adults predicted to have a similar rate of correct identification for cartoon faces at approximately 100% accuracy. - Children would produce a lower correct identification rate for human faces compared to adults. - Children were predicted to have a lower correct rejection rate for both the cartoon faces and the human faces compared to adults. ## Research Method - Lab experiment. - Participants observed video clips in a controlled setting before identifying the target person from the video in different types of lineup. - What type of experiment is this? - Three IVs: - Age - Young children or adults - Nature of target faces -familiar cartoon characters or unfamiliar human faces. - Type of line-up - target present or target absent ## Experimental Design - The design of this experiment is *mixed*. - 1. Independent measures design - The comparison on age, young children vs adult. (#1 I.V) - 2. Repeated measures design: - The identification of cartoon vs human faces. - The identifying from target-present vs target-absent line-ups. (#2 & 3 I.V) ## Participants - There are two groups of participants in the study: Adults and children. - What are the features of these participants? - Type of sampling? - **Young children**: 59 in total; 21 female & 38 males, range between 4-7yrs old. - Taken from 3 private schools. - Adult: voluntary sampling - Child: opportunity sampling. (Name of family) ## Materials Used: Demographic and Cartoon Watching Form - Each participant was provided with a response form for demographics and to assess level of familiarity with the target cartoons used in this study. - For Child participants, this form is provided to the parent/guardian. - Eight questions were asked: - Participant's age - Gender - Primary language - Ethnicity - Number of children in the household and their ages - Amount of time spent watching cartoons per week - How much time spent watching the two target cartoons used in this study (i.e. Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go) ## Materials Used: Human Face Targets - One female and one male Caucasian University student (each 22-years-old) were used as targets. - Each human target was filmed completing an everyday task for a six-second video clip; a female brushing her hair in the bathroom and a male putting on his coat and exiting his home. - Each video provided a 2-to3-second close-up of the individual's face. - The target videos were filmed in colour. ## Materials: Human Face Foils - Each human target was photographed in a different outfit than what was worn during the video clip. - The foils were selected from a pool of 90 female faces and 90 male faces. - The foil photographs were selected based on similar appearance to the intended target. - Similarity was measured in terms of general facial structure, hair length and colour. ## Materials: Human Face Foils - Three raters selected the 4 foils for each target. - Targets and foils were closely cropped such that their face, neck and the tops of their shoulders were photographed (similar to the cartoon foils). - Target-present lineups contained the target and three foils. - Target-absent lineups contained four foils. - All photos were in black and white. ## Materials: Cartoon Targets - One female and one male cartoon character were used as the targets. - Six-second clips of each of the following were used: - Dora the Explorer talking to the audience. - Go Diego Go putting on a pair of gloves for safety. - Each video provided a 2-to 3-second close-up of the target character's face and involved no other characters. - The video clips were in colour. - The sound on the videos was muted as there was no sound with the human facevideos. ## Materials: Cartoon Foils - The foils were selected from a vast number of readily available cartoon images on the internet. - The foil photographs were selected based on similar appearance to the intended target. - Similarity was measured in terms of general facial structure, hair length and colour. - Three rates judged approximately 10 photographs for each target. ## Materials: Cartoon Foils - The four cartoons receiving the highest similarity ratings (most similar to least similar) were selected. - Most cartoon characters were displayed in similar clothes across different videos. - Cartoons depicted in the photo arrays were displayed closely cropped to the target's face (from the top of the shoulders) to reduce the appearance of any clothing worn. ## Materials: Cartoon Foils - To compensate for the strong and often vibrant colours unique to the cartoon images, all the photographs were displayed in black and white. - Also, black and white images reduced the possibility that the bright and vibrant colours would be the focus of recognition rather than the identity of the target. - Target-present lineups contained the target and three foils. - Target-absent lineups contained four foils. ## Procedure for Children - The parents or guardians of the children attending were supplied with a written consent form, as well as a demographics sheet. - The demographic sheet was to be completed by the parent or guardian to ensure children were familiar with the target cartoons. - With consent and completed demographic forms, three female experimenters and one female facilitator arrived at each school. - The researchers were introduced to the students as a group from the university doing a project on TV shows and computer games. ## Procedure for Adults - Upon entering the laboratory, each participant was given a short introduction to the study and provided with a consent form that explained they would be participating in a study about memory. - Following the signing of the consent, the participants were told they would be watching some short video clips. - The participants also were asked to pay attention because following the video they would be asked some questions and shown some pictures. - After the first video, the participants were provided with a sheet asking a free recall question, "What did the cartoon character/person look like?" ## Procedure for Adults - This question was followed up with "Do you remember anything else about the cartoon character/person". - The participant then wrote down all they could remember about what they say on the video. - Once completed, the experimenter displayed the corresponding lineup (via PowerPoint) on a laptop to the participant. - The experimenter asked the participant to identify the cartoon or person they saw in the video if he or she was present by indicating their selection on a matching sheet. ## Controls - Craft activity before the study was done to ensure participants were comfortable and able to participate in the study. - Telling a fake aim such as the study is about memory to reduce demand characteristics. - Videos are muted so that participants only focus on the visual appearances rather than be distracted by the audios of the videos. ## Procedure for Children - During the introduction and invitation to participate, the researchers made it clear to the children that they could change their minds at any time and not get into trouble. - In order to create a level of comfort with the children, the researchers worked with the children to make some crafts prior to engaging the children in the experimental task. - Experimenters tested children individually. - Children were monitored for fatigue, anxiety or stress. ## Procedure for Children - Each child was told that they would be watching some videos of people doing different things. - The child was told to pay attention because, following the video, they would be asked some questions and shown some pictures. - Once the child was comfortable, the experimenter played the first video ( human or cartoon). - After viewing the video clip, the experimenter asked the child one free call question about what they remembered about the video ( i.e. "What did the cartoon character/person look like?" ## Procedure for Children - Following the child's response, the experimenter asked, a non-specific probing question twice (i.e. "Do you remember anything else?"). - If the child offered no response to the initial question, the experimenter, again, asked "Do you remember anything from the video?". - After recording the information provide by the child, the experimenter displayed the corresponding line up ( in PowerPoint) on a laptop to the child. ## Procedure for Children - The experimenter asked the child to identify the cartoon or person they saw in the video by pointing. - The experimenter instructed the child that the person they say may or may not be there and demonstrated that, if the correct person was not there, they should point to the silhouetted box. - The experimenter recorded the child's response. - Following the identification, the procedure was repeated for the additional three videos, each time reminding the children that the cartoon/person they are looking for may not be in the lineup. - After completing the study task, the children were thanked and given a small token (i.e. crayons and colouring book). - the facilitator was responsible for entertaining the children while they waited to complete the experimental task. ## Results - Data were divided into target-present versus target-absent lineups given the identification decision differs for each. ### Target present lineups: |Target|Foil|False Chosen|% Rejection|Target|Foil|False Chosen|% Rejection| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |Dora|**|0|100|DORA|**|0|100| |DIEGO|**|3|89|DIEGO|**|0|11| |FEMALE|**|38|46|FEMALE|**|0|54| |MALE|**|34|85|MALE|**|15|0| ### Key results from the data on target-present lineups: - Children correctly identified 23% of the human faces. - Children correctly identified 99% of the cartoon faces. - Children were significantly more accurate with a higher correct identification rate for cartoon faces. - Adults correctly identified 66% of the human faces. - Adults correctly identified