Asim Masood asimmm196@gmail.com +923002626209 BACKGROUND Andrade defines doodling as the sketching of patterns and figures that are unrelated to a primary task
According to the working memory model, there are two main types of working memory: visual and auditory
In this study, the task of listening to a message would be an auditory
task, whereas doodling would be a visuo-spatial (visual) task
The idea is that doodling increases arousal and would enhance the memory and concentration, rather than divert attention, by reducing day dreaming PSYCHOLOGY BEING INVESTIGATED Working Memory Model: States that there are two types of memories a person uses – visual and auditory
Daydreaming: A state of consciousness where an individual appears to
be ‘lost in thoughts’
Focused Attention: When a person’s concentration is focused on one
primary task
Divided Attention: When a person’s concentration is divided between
two tasks such as listening to a song while focusing on the road while driving AIM To test if doodling aids concentration and memory in a boring task METHOD AND DESIGN Research Method Technique:
Lab experiment: conducted at controlled and artificial setting of
a lab
Independent Variable: Doodling group and control group
(operationalized by the sheets of paper provided to each group)
Dependent Variable: Concentration and memory
(operationalized by scores on monitoring and recall tasks)
All participants were part of a participant panel at the UK’s Medical Research Council unit for cognitive research Age range was 18 – 55 years The participants had volunteered for a previous study, and as soon as they completed that study, Andrade approached them to conduct her study which meant she took opportunity of the fact that they were readily available Sampling Technique: Opportunity Sampling APPARATUS A mock telephone call in which the speaker was inviting the listener to a party
There were names of eight people who were attending the party excluding the person listening to the mock call
There were names of three people who were not attending
There were also names of eight places in the U.K. that were mentioned
The mock call was rather dull and played at a comfortable volume at 227 words per minute for 2.5 minutes APPARATUS A sheet of A4 size paper with a 4.5cm margin for writing target information
This sheet of paper also had ten rows of alternating squares and circles for doodling
This was the sheet provided to the doodling group participants
The control group participants were given an A4 size sheet of lined
paper without any shapes PROCEDURE
The participants were randomly allocated equally to the control
condition and the doodling condition (20 in each) The participants were placed in a visually dull room and were told to listen to a mock telephone call and pretend that the speaker was inviting them to a party They were told the tape was rather dull and that they were not required to remember any of it The tape was played at a comfortable volume and played at 227 words per minute for a total of 2.5 minutes The participants were provided with an A4 size sheet of paper. Those in the doodling condition had alternating rows of 10 squares and 10 circles on their sheet with a 4.5 cm margin on the left
They were given a pencil and were told that the shapes were there for them to shade into if they got bored while listening to the mock telephone conversation
Those in the control group had an A4 size sheet of lined paper without any shapes The participants were told to listen to the mock call and pretend the speaker was inviting them to a party, and to write down the names of the people attending the party excluding themselves, and nothing else
This was the monitoring task and was calculated as: correct names written minus false alarms
This would be a score out of 8 as there were eight people attending the party
False alarms refer to writing down names of people who were not attending The names had to be written for them to be counted – terms such as sister or neighbour would be ignored
Plausible mishearings were counted as correct (e.g. writing Greg for
Craig)
After completing this task, the researchers debriefed the participants
and apologized to them for telling them they were not required to remember any of the information
They were then asked to complete the recall task
The recall task involved participants recalling the names of the people who were attending. This was called recall of monitored information. It was calculated as: correct names recalled minus false alarms
Along with this, they were also asked to recall the names of eight places that were mentioned in the tape which was not part of the monitoring task. This was called the recall of incidental information. It was calculated as correct places recalled minus false alarms
Plausible mishearings had to be the same as those in the monitoring task
This part of the procedure was counterbalanced which refers to participants performing two tasks (Task A and Task B for e.g.) in the order of AB and then BA, rather than following the same order of AB and then AB as this could lead to order effects
It was counterbalanced by having half the participants in each group
do the recall task for names first (monitored information) followed by the recall task for places (incidental information), and the other half doing the opposite – recall of places first, followed by recall of names CONTROLS All participants heard the same mock telephone call
It was played at a comfortable volume and at a speed of 227 words per
minute for 2.5 minutes
All doodling participants had the same sheet of paper with the same number of squares and circles with a 4.5 cm margin
All control group participants had the same A4 size sheet of lined paper without any shapes RESULTS On average, 36.3 shapes were doodled by the doodling group and the range was from 3 to 110
The monitoring performance score for the doodling group was a mean of 7.7 with 1 false alarm. The mean number of correct names written was 7.8
The monitoring performance score for the control group was a mean of 6.9 with 5 false alarms. The mean number of correct names written was 7.1
The recall task score for names (monitored information) for the doodling group was a mean of 5.1 and for the control group it was a mean of 4.0 RESULTS The recall task score for places (incidental information) for the doodling group was a mean of 2.4 and for the control group it was a mean of 1.8
3 participants in the doodling group and 4 from the control group had suspected a memory task when asked (when being debriefed) and they said they did not make an effort to try and remember the information – qualitative data CONCLUSION Doodling does aid concentration and memory in a boring task
This was seen through the higher scores by the doodling group participants in both the monitoring task as well as the recall task for both monitored and incidental information, compared to the control group participants
Doodling enhances concentration due to arousal which may reduce the
effect of daydreaming, but we cannot be entirely certain about this as the effects of daydreaming were not measured (perhaps this could have been done through a brain scan to see if daydreaming leads to a reduction in arousal in the cortex – supporting the notion than daydreaming leads to a reduction in concentration) NATURE VS NURTURE DEBATE
Nature – an individual’s ability to concentrate and remember
information could depend on biological factors that may have led to some people being able to recall more details than others
Nurture – the way participants doodled and how they shaded the shapes that allowed them to concentrate could have been influenced by learning, as people may have adopted certain styles of doodling INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL DEBATE
The study supports the situational explanation as it was the situation the participant was in of either doodling or not doodling that enhanced their memory and concentration, which is why those in the doodling group had a higher score in the two tasks compared to the control group
The individual explanation can also be supported as the way different
participants doodled, and the number of shapes they doodled was different, and this could have affected their ability to concentrate and remember information more so than others APPLICATION TO EVERYDAY LIFE
The findings of the study are useful to students who can doodle during lectures they may find boring or mundane to help them concentrate and recall better
Employees in offices during meetings, where they are required to note
down important or target information, can doodle, so as to allow them to concentrate better on key information during the meeting EVALUATION RELIABILITY
Strength: The study has high levels of controls, for example, all participants heard the same mock telephone call played at 227 words per minute, for 2.5 minutes, and were provided the same sheets in each respective condition. This makes the procedure highly standardized and easy to replicate in order to test for reliability VALIDITY Strength: The participants had already taken part in another study which would have enhanced their boredom, allowing the researchers to examine the effects of doodling on boredome
Strength: The recall task was counterbalanced in order to avoid order
effects as half the participants recalled the names first then the places, and the other half did the opposite
Strength: The mock telephone call was on a mundane topic, so as to
not favour any particular interest some of the participants may have, which would have allowed them to concentrate and recall more than others VALIDITY
Weakness: The study used an independent measures design which
means that there were different participants in each level of the IV, and as because they were randomly allocated to the two conditions, it is possible that some participants may have better memory or concentration than others, which would act as a participant variable which could lower validity GENERALISABILITY Weakness: The sample was not very large, of just 40 participants who were majority females (35), all part of the same psychology panel in the UK, suggesting they may have some similarities, and as a result, the findings cannot be applied to a larger population, or even to males or people of other cultures who are not being represented, as males may have poorer or better cognitive abilities than females, and as a result, may have displayed contrasting results to what we see in the study ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY Weakness: The study was conducted in the artificial and highly controlled setting of a lab. Furthermore, the task of listening to a mock telephone call and having to recall information from it is not something people experience in their everyday lives, and hence, the study lacks mundane realism ETHICS Strength: Informed Consent: The participants provided informed consent and were paid a certain amount for participation Debriefing: Participants were debriefed after the monitoring task Confidentiality: Participants had their identities and personal information kept confidential Weakness: Deception: The participants told they were not required to remember anything, and as a result, were deceived about the memory task Protection from harm: Participants had already taken part in another study and may have been tired and bored, and having to make them take part in another study involving a boring task could have potentially caused them psychological harm DATA Strength: The study collected quantitative data which is objective and numerical and allows for comparisons to be made, for example, the scores in the monitoring and recall tasks were compared for the doodling and control group participants EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Strength: The study used an independent measures design which would suggest that there would be no order effects as each participant takes part in the task on only one occasion as they are only exposed to one level of the IV, hence increasing validity
Weakness: As it is an independent measures design, there are chances
of individual differences, for instance, randomly allocating participants to the doodling or control group may have led to some participants with better cognitive ability (memory or concentration) being allocated to the doodling group, which could have been the reason for their better performance in the tasks compared to the control group, hence potentially reducing validity. This could have been countered by assessing pre-existing memory or concentration levels through some task SAMPLING METHOD Strength: The study used an opportunity sample which means the participants were readily available at the lab, making it more convenient to obtain a sample in a relatively short time period and convenient manner. Furthermore, the fact that they had just completed another study meant they may have been tired and bored already, which would be beneficial to our study
Weakness: The fact that the sample was readily available may have meant it is not represented as they were majority females, all part of a psychology panel, which could lower the generalisability as a large sample of males may have shown different results, and the researcher could not control these specific features of the readily available participants
