Psychology (9990) | Andrade (doodling)

Welcome to Andrade (Doodling): The Cognitive Power of Distraction!

Hi there! In this chapter, we're diving into the fascinating world of concentration and memory, looking specifically at whether those little sketches you draw while bored actually help your brain work better. This core study, by Jackie Andrade, falls squarely under the Cognitive Approach, which focuses on how we process information (like attention and memory).

Don't worry if the idea of studying doodling seems simple; this experiment provides crucial evidence about how our internal mental processes can be enhanced by surprisingly simple external activities!

Quick Review: The Cognitive Approach

The Cognitive Approach assumes that:

• The brain works like a computer: Input → Process → Output.
  
• Psychology is about studying internal mental processes (like perception, attention, thinking, and memory).
  
• Andrade's study explores how processing information (a tedious telephone message) is affected by a simultaneous mental process (doodling).

Andrade (2010): What Does Doodling Do?

The Psychology Being Investigated: Attention and Memory

The key cognitive concepts investigated here are attention and memory.

Attention: When you listen to a long, boring phone call, your mind often wanders. This is called daydreaming. Daydreaming often leads to us not processing the main information accurately.

Andrade was testing the idea that doodling might prevent your attention from drifting away entirely. It keeps you "just busy enough" to stay focused on the main task. Think of it like a cognitive filter; doodling occupies the mental capacity that would otherwise be used for distracting thoughts.

Memory: If attention is improved, it is hypothesised that the subsequent memory of the information (like the names and places mentioned in the message) will also be better.

Aim(s) of the Study

The main aim of the study was to explore whether doodling assists in concentration during a dull task and, consequently, improves memory recall.

Methodology and Procedure (The How)

Research Method and Design

The study used a Laboratory Experiment.

Experimental Design: Independent Measures Design. This means participants were only in one condition (either the doodling group or the control group).

Independent Variable (IV): Whether the participant doodled or not.

• Condition 1: Doodling Group (given paper to shade and doodle on).
  
• Condition 2: Control Group (no doodling allowed, just listening).

Dependent Variables (DVs): The amount of information recalled, measured in two ways:

1. Names of People (Primary/Target Information).
   
2. Names of Places (Monitoring/Incidental Information, measured later).

Participants and Sampling

Sample Size: 40 participants (20 in the doodling group and 20 in the control group).
Demographics: Members of the Medical Research Council unit for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, aged 18–55 (mostly women).
Sampling Technique: Likely Opportunity Sampling or Volunteer Sampling, as they were recruited from a specific panel.

Procedure: Step-by-Step Explanation

All participants listened to a dull, monotone, 2.5-minute long mock telephone message about a party.

1. Preparation: Participants were told they would be tested on the names of people coming to the party (this was the target information, which they were told to attend to).
   
2. The Task:
   • Control Group: Participants were given lined paper and a pencil and told to sit quietly.
     
   • Doodling Group: Participants were given a sheet of A4 paper with 10 squares and circles printed on it (alternating rows). They were told to shade in the shapes while listening to the message. This standardised what 'doodling' meant and ensured they were doing a uniform, light cognitive task.
     
3. The Message: The tape included 8 names of party-goers (target information) and 8 names of places (incidental information). The speech rate was 227 words per minute.
   
4. Distractor Task: After the message, participants completed a 1-minute distractor task (a quick test on how much they liked the call). This was done to ensure memory was tested, not just immediate recall.
   
5. Recall Test 1 (Target): Participants were asked to recall the names of the people who were coming to the party.
   
6. Recall Test 2 (Incidental): They were then unexpectedly asked to recall the names of the places mentioned in the message. (This tests incidental memory, as they hadn't been told to remember the places).

Results and Findings

The main finding was a clear difference between the two groups.

The Quantitative Data (Numerical Findings):

• Doodling Group: Recalled an average of 7.5 names and places (out of a possible 16).
  
• Control Group: Recalled an average of 5.8 names and places (out of a possible 16).
  

This meant the doodling group recalled 29% more information than the control group.

Analysis of Errors: Mishearing names (e.g., 'Greg' instead of 'Craig') were classed as errors. Doodlers were slightly better at avoiding these errors too.

Did you know? Doodling mostly impacts the 'incidental' memory (the things you weren't trying to remember). Since the doodlers performed significantly better on both recall tasks (names and places), it suggests that the simple act of shading kept them alert enough to process all the incoming verbal information better.

Conclusion

Andrade concluded that doodling helps concentration on a primary task, which in turn leads to improved memory and recall. This suggests that the activity of doodling, as a form of "light processing," may prevent the brain from switching to full daydreaming mode, allowing the person to stay focused on the message.

Evaluation of Andrade (Doodling)

Strengths of the Study

High Internal Validity (Control)

Because this was a laboratory experiment, Andrade was able to implement strict controls.

• All participants listened to the same standardised tape at the same volume and speed.
  
• The doodling task was standardised (shading in circles and squares), ensuring the activity level was consistent across the doodling group.
  
• The use of a distractor task before recall ensured the measure was genuine memory, not just short-term memory rehearsal.
  

Why this matters: These controls reduce the influence of extraneous variables (things other than doodling that could affect recall), making us more confident that the IV (doodling) caused the change in the DV (memory).

Use of Quantitative Data

The data collected (the number of names and places recalled) was quantitative. This makes the results objective and easy to compare statistically. Since there is little subjective interpretation needed, the findings are seen as very reliable.

Weaknesses of the Study

Low Ecological Validity

The task was very artificial (listening to a dull, pre-recorded message about a party list in a quiet lab setting). This is not how people normally listen to phone calls or meetings in real life.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Students often say "doodling itself lacks ecological validity." Remember, doodling happens naturally, but the *way* Andrade studied it (the controlled environment and specific task) makes the procedure lack ecological validity.

Potential for Demand Characteristics

As it was a lab experiment, participants may have guessed the aim (e.g., "They told me to doodle, so maybe they think it helps my memory?"). If participants consciously tried harder in the doodling group, this would affect the validity of the results.

Sample Issues

The sample consisted of 40 people from a specific research unit, mostly women. This small, unrepresentative sample means the results may suffer from low generalisability to the wider population (e.g., men, teenagers, or people in other countries).

Issues and Debates

Application to Everyday Life (High Usefulness)

This study has excellent application to everyday life. The findings suggest that if you are forced to listen to dull but important information (like a lecture, meeting, or training session), performing a simple, light cognitive task like doodling can significantly improve your ability to monitor and recall key details.

Example: Teachers or supervisors could encourage staff or students to doodle during tasks that require sustained, passive attention to boost performance, rather than banning it as a distraction.

Individual versus Situational Explanations

This study offers a strong situational explanation for concentration and memory.

• Situational: The improved memory was caused by the situation (the presence of the doodling task) rather than a trait of the individual. The task structure (doodling vs. control) was the determining factor in recall scores.
  
• Individual: However, the study doesn't tell us *how* the specific style or extent of a person's natural doodling might affect results. If a person finds shading squares too difficult, it might actually detract from their attention, suggesting some individual differences in optimum cognitive load.