Cognitive Approach
● The processes that work within the mind and how these affect our behavior
Andrade (doodling) (2010)
Aim
● To investigate whether doodling helps information processing by either improving
concentration or enhancing memory
Background
● Researchers found that when an individual’s attention is divided, they tend to
perform poorer; doodling has been found to enhance concentration, perhaps due
to the reduction of daydreaming
Method
● Lab experiment
○ Controlled, and the participants would be highly unlikely to experience a
phone call in such a situation
● Independent measures design
○ As participants were either in the control group or in the doodling group
Sample
● 40 members of a participant panel at the Medical Research Council unit for
cognitive research
● Aged 18-55
● 20 participants in each group
● Control group: 2 males 18 females
● Doodling group: 3 males 17 females
Independent variable
● If the participants were in the doodling or control condition
Dependent variable
● Amount of recall information (# of the name of people attending the party & # of
names of places mentioned)
,Procedure
● All participants listened to a (mock) telephone call about a party
● There were 8 attendants, 8 places, 3 who couldn’t attend, and a cat
● The speaker spoke in a monotonous voice at an average speed of 277 words per
minute, and the whole tape lasted 2.5 minutes
● They were told beforehand that they will be tested on the names of people who
are attending the party (monitoring task)
○ There was also an unexpected test on the names of places mentioned
(recall task)
● The order of these tests was counterbalanced
○ Half 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
● These two tasks were the measures of the dependent variable of recall
● To operationalize DV:
○ mishearings such as “Greg” for “Craig” were counted as correct
○ Other names on the tape but were not party-goers were scored as false
alarms
○ Other words relating to people such as “sister” was ignored
○ The final score for monitoring was the number of correct names minus
false alarms
● An A4 sheet was given to the participants in the doodling condition, with
alternating rows of squares and circles, 10 per row
○ There was also a side margin on the left for recording the target
information
● These participants were also given a pencil and asked to shade in the squares
and circles while listening to the tape
● The control group participants were given a sheet of lined paper to write their
answers on (which they could have used for doodling)
● Each participant listened to the tape at a comfortable volume and wrote down the
names as instructed
, ● After the tape, there was a 1-minute session of conversation
○ The experimenter apologized for misleading them about the memory test
● Then they did the surprise test of recalling names of places then people or vice
versa
Results
● No participants in the control condition doodled spontaneously
● Doodling group:
○ 7. attendants correct
○ 7.5 names and places
○ 0.3 false alarm
● Control group:
○ 7. attendants correct
○ 5.8 names and places
○ 0.4 false alarms (5 people made false alarm)
Conclusion
● Doodling helps concentrate on a primary task as the “doodling” participants
performed better than participants listening to the primary task with no concurrent
task
● The doodling group performed better on both monitored and incidental
information
○ Can be assumed that they either noticed more words because their
attention was enhanced, or their memory was improved since doodling
might have supported a deeper information processing
■ Difficult to assess which is more realistic because there was no
information collected
Strengths
● Laboratory experiment + independent measures design
○ It was possible to control extraneous variables RELIABLE
■ E.g. ensuring the participants were listening at a comfortable
volume & using a recorded telephone message so that there were
no differences in stress on the important words between conditions
● The processes that work within the mind and how these affect our behavior
Andrade (doodling) (2010)
Aim
● To investigate whether doodling helps information processing by either improving
concentration or enhancing memory
Background
● Researchers found that when an individual’s attention is divided, they tend to
perform poorer; doodling has been found to enhance concentration, perhaps due
to the reduction of daydreaming
Method
● Lab experiment
○ Controlled, and the participants would be highly unlikely to experience a
phone call in such a situation
● Independent measures design
○ As participants were either in the control group or in the doodling group
Sample
● 40 members of a participant panel at the Medical Research Council unit for
cognitive research
● Aged 18-55
● 20 participants in each group
● Control group: 2 males 18 females
● Doodling group: 3 males 17 females
Independent variable
● If the participants were in the doodling or control condition
Dependent variable
● Amount of recall information (# of the name of people attending the party & # of
names of places mentioned)
,Procedure
● All participants listened to a (mock) telephone call about a party
● There were 8 attendants, 8 places, 3 who couldn’t attend, and a cat
● The speaker spoke in a monotonous voice at an average speed of 277 words per
minute, and the whole tape lasted 2.5 minutes
● They were told beforehand that they will be tested on the names of people who
are attending the party (monitoring task)
○ There was also an unexpected test on the names of places mentioned
(recall task)
● The order of these tests was counterbalanced
○ Half 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
● These two tasks were the measures of the dependent variable of recall
● To operationalize DV:
○ mishearings such as “Greg” for “Craig” were counted as correct
○ Other names on the tape but were not party-goers were scored as false
alarms
○ Other words relating to people such as “sister” was ignored
○ The final score for monitoring was the number of correct names minus
false alarms
● An A4 sheet was given to the participants in the doodling condition, with
alternating rows of squares and circles, 10 per row
○ There was also a side margin on the left for recording the target
information
● These participants were also given a pencil and asked to shade in the squares
and circles while listening to the tape
● The control group participants were given a sheet of lined paper to write their
answers on (which they could have used for doodling)
● Each participant listened to the tape at a comfortable volume and wrote down the
names as instructed
, ● After the tape, there was a 1-minute session of conversation
○ The experimenter apologized for misleading them about the memory test
● Then they did the surprise test of recalling names of places then people or vice
versa
Results
● No participants in the control condition doodled spontaneously
● Doodling group:
○ 7. attendants correct
○ 7.5 names and places
○ 0.3 false alarm
● Control group:
○ 7. attendants correct
○ 5.8 names and places
○ 0.4 false alarms (5 people made false alarm)
Conclusion
● Doodling helps concentrate on a primary task as the “doodling” participants
performed better than participants listening to the primary task with no concurrent
task
● The doodling group performed better on both monitored and incidental
information
○ Can be assumed that they either noticed more words because their
attention was enhanced, or their memory was improved since doodling
might have supported a deeper information processing
■ Difficult to assess which is more realistic because there was no
information collected
Strengths
● Laboratory experiment + independent measures design
○ It was possible to control extraneous variables RELIABLE
■ E.g. ensuring the participants were listening at a comfortable
volume & using a recorded telephone message so that there were
no differences in stress on the important words between conditions
