Andrade

(DOODLING)
Andrade, J (2010), What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24(1): 100–6
The study by Andrade explored the idea that doodling can
assist a person’s concentration and memory. This was
investigated in a laboratory experiment.
The psychology being investigated includes: attention;
memory.
 Introducing Jackie Andrade
Jackie Andrade is a Professor of Psychology at the University of
Plymouth, UK. She uses cognitive psychology to solve
real-world problems, including accidental waking up during
surgery and treating post-traumatic stress disorder. Her study of
doodling is a small part of her work on cravings, a kind of
daydreaming or mind-wandering about consuming a favourite
food or drug. Her research has shown people can achieve
lifestyle goals by using mental imagery to create ‘cravings’ for
healthy behaviours. Her best advice to psychology students of
all ages is to follow your interests!
 The Psychology Being Investigated
Jackie Andrade’s paper focuses on attention and memory. She proposes that doodling, a habit
often associated with loss of concentration, can actually enhance concentration when people are
bored, helping them to pay attention and remember information better.

Attention. Put simply, attention refers to ‘the concentration of mental effort on sensory or mental
events’ (Solso, 1995). Due to our limited cognitive capacity, attention is often selective, meaning
we direct our attention towards certain information and filter out or ignore other input.

Memory. Memory refers to the encoding, storage and retrieval of information, potentially leading
to long-term retention. Often we try hard to remember information that we are told and make an
effort to focus. We may even try a few strategies to help us remember things, for example,
repeating the items to ourselves. Information that we do not focus on but we can recall is called
incidental memory, meaning information that was remembered unintentionally, as is the case for
so much of the input that we process every day.
Concentration and doodling. A doodle is a drawing, sketch or pattern created to pass the time
rather than for any particular purpose. Sometimes people think a person who is doodling has lost
interest and is no longer paying attention, but Andrade’s study suggests that this may not be the case
at all! She explains that doodling can help us to concentrate better, but only on tasks that are not very
interesting.

When we are bored, we sometimes start to daydream; we stop concentrating on events in the outside
world and start focusing on our own thoughts. If we want to concentrate on information that is frankly
rather dull, it is important to employ strategies to stay focused.

Common sense suggests that dividing our limited cognitive capacity between two tasks (doodling and
listening) would lead to decreased task performance, but because these tasks require different ways
of thinking, many people find that they are able to do both things at the same time. Furthermore,
doodling may actually enhance concentration, by increasing arousal levels, inhibiting daydreaming
and ensuring we remain alert to external stimuli.
 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.
 Methodology
Andrade used a laboratory experiment to see if doodling helped people to concentrate and
remember information from a mock (pretend) telephone message.

Design and Variables

The study used an independent measures design as the researchers compared the
performance of two separate groups of participants: an experimental/doodling group of 17
females and 3 males and a control group of 18 females and 2 males. Random allocation was
used to control for participant variables – for example, differences in memory that might have
affected recall of the target information.

The independent variable was whether the participants were allowed to doodle while they
listened to the phone message or not. The participants in the doodling group were asked to
shade alternating rows of ten circles and ten squares (approximate size: 1 cm in diameter)
printed onto standard A4 paper.
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).
 Sample
Forty participants aged 18-55 from the MRC Applied Psychology Unit
participant panel were recruited for the study. They had all just finished another
experiment (about giving directions) and the researchers asked whether they
would mind staying for another five minutes to complete one more study. As the
participants were already part of a pre-existing and readily available group, they
were an opportunity sample.

They were recruited in this way as the researcher wanted the participants to be
‘ready to go home’ to increase their level of boredom during the task.

The MRC Applied Psychology Unit participants were members of the general
population who had volunteered to participate in research projects and all were
paid a small fee for their time.
 Procedure
The tape (audio recording). The researcher audio-recorded a 2.5-minute mock
telephone message about a birthday 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

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.

The experimental group were given the A4 response sheets with the shapes to shade and a
pencil. There was a 4.5 cm margin on the left side of the paper to record the target names. They
were told to shade the shapes as they listened to the tape but not to worry about neatness or
speed; it was ‘just something to help relieve the boredom’.

Those in the control group were given a sheet of lined paper (with no shapes to shade). The
tape was played at the same ‘comfortable’ volume for everyone and the participants wrote down
the party-goers’ names as they listened.
The surprise memory test. Next, the researchers collected the response sheets and
chatted to the participants for one minute. During this time, they revealed the deception;
there would now be a surprise memory test!

The order of recall was counterbalanced across the participants.Half of each group were
asked to recall the names first and then the places, and the other half were told to recall the
places first and then the names. Finally, participants were asked whether they had guessed
that there would be a memory test at the end.

Analysing the responses. The researchers included any names or places that they
thought had simply been misheard as correct-for example, Greg for Craig. Incorrect names
were coded as false alarms, including extra names of non-party-goers added into the
message as ‘lures’.

Andrade included these lures to see whether people would write down all names mentioned
instead of just those going to the party. Words that were neither names nor places were
marked incorrect-for example, sister.
 Results
MONITORING ACCURACY

● Number of correct names recorded and number of false alarms. The

mean number was 7.8 for doodlers and 7.1 for non-doodlers.
● Monitoring performance scores.The researchers calculated a final
monitoring performance score by subtracting the number of false alarms
from the number of correct names remembered (a wrong answer
theoretically cancelled out a right answer). Monitoring performance was
significantly higher in the doodling group compared with the control group.
From a maximum of 8, the mean number was 7.7 for doodlers and 6.9 for
non-doodlers.
RECALL PERFORMANCE

● Monitored information (people's names), maximum score = 8. 5.1 for doodlers and 4.0 for
non-doodlers.
● Incidental information (place names), maximum score = 8. 2.4 for doodlers and 1.8 for
non-doodlers.
● Total recall (monitored and incidental information), maximum score = 16. 7.5 for doodlers
and 5.8 for non-doodlers.

The total recall score (out of 16) was 29 percent higher in the doodling group compared with the
control group. Doodlers remembered both types of information (monitored and incidental) better than
the control group and remembered monitored information better than incidental.

Andrade was concerned about the number of people who indicated that they thought there might be a
surprise memory test (three in the doodling group and four in the control group). She ran the analysis
again without their data. The doodling group still performed significantly better than the controls on the
recall task.
 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.
 Study Tip
The results of this study can be a little confusing. Monitoring accuracy
refers to the number of correct names written down while listening to the
tape. This is not the same as the monitoring performance score, which is
the correct answer score minus false alarms.

Once you have this clear in your mind, you have to remember that the
researchers were not just interested in the participants' ability to pay
attention (monitor and record the names while listening); they also
wanted to know whether doodling improved people's ability to recall both
the monitored information and the information that they heard but were
not told to pay attention to (the incidental information).
 Evaluation
Methodological Strengths Psychological Issues and Debates
1. High construct validity 1. Individual and situational
2. High reliability explanations

3. Data objectivity 2. Applications

Methodological Weaknesses

1. Limited generalisations
beyond sample

2. Limited generalisations to
everyday life

3. Ethical issues
 Validity
Experimental method and design. A strength of the design was that the order in
which the participants recalled the monitored information (names) and incidental
information (places) was counterbalanced.

Half the participants in each group recalled the names first then the places and the
other half recalled places first and then names. This improved the validity of the
findings by minimising the impact of order effects – increased memory for incidental
and monitored information could be attributed to the doodling and not the order in
which they had been tested.

Operational definitions. A weakness of this study was the operational definition of

doodling. Andrade standardised the nature of the doodling by asking participants to
shade 1 cm shapes, but in real life, doodling is generally a more creative and
spontaneous activity. This is important because the conclusion that doodling aids
concentration and recall may not be true for people who are allowed more freedom
with regards to what, where and when they doodle.
Confounding variables. A strength of the study is that Andrade checked to see whether
any of her participants had detected the deception. Eighteen percent (three of the doodlers
and four of the controls) said they had guessed there may be a memory test afterwards,
although none of these participants claimed to have tried to remember the information.

Andrade was concerned about the potential impact this might have had, so she re-analysed
the data without their scores and found the results to be the same. This was important
because it helped to improve the overall validity of her findings regarding the impact of
doodling on concentration and memory.

The use of lures. A strength of Andrade's telephone message was the use of the 'lures',
meaning the names of people who were not attending the party (e.g. Nigel, John and
Nicky). Participants who were not really listening to the content of the message and just
listening out for names might have been 'lured' into writing an incorrect answer, which would
have reduced their overall monitoring performance score.

This improved the validity of the findings as it ensured Andrade was really measuring
participants' concentration as they had to listen carefully to what was said about each
person, and not just record all the names that they heard.
Objectivity and Subjectivity

A weakness of the study was the decision to mark misheard words

as correct. For example, in the monitoring task, if a participant
wrote Greg instead of Craig, this was recorded as correct, and
then later in the recall task if they wrote Greg again, this was also
marked as correct.

This is a weakness as an assumption is being made that certain

incorrect names are 'mishearings' and not false alarms, meaning
the coding of answers is rather subjective.
 Reliability
A strength of Andrade's study is the highly standardised procedure,
which means the study can be easily replicated. All participants
listened to the same audio-recorded message, meaning the pace and
tone were identical; they all completed the study in the same quiet, dull
room; and the interval between the monitoring and recall tasks was
always one minute. This level of consistency in the procedure means
the study can be easily replicated to see whether doodling really does
improve concentration on a boring task.
Data Objectivity
 Generalising beyond the Sample
A weakness of this study is the overwhelming number of females in the
study compared to males. Females made up 87.5 percent of the
sample, meaning it can be described as 'gynocentric'. This is important
as it means that generalising the findings to males must be treated
with caution, until the study has been replicated with a more balanced
sample.
 Generalising to Everyday Life
A weakness of this laboratory experiment is that the task was conducted in a
highly controlled setting, which is unlikely to reflect the additional challenges
of listening to a voicemail in a real-world setting. For example, the study took
place in a quiet, under-stimulating room and the participants were asked to
pretend that the speaker on the tape was a friend of theirs.

Had the participants been in their own homes surrounded by other family
members, pets, noisy neighbours and traffic sounds, doodling alone may not
have been sufficient to help them concentrate on the message. This
suggests doodling may be more effective in the laboratory and that the
findings may lack ecological validity.
 Ethical Issues
One weakness of Andrade's study is that the participants were
deceived about the true purpose of the study. Before listening to the
tape, they were told, 'The tape is rather dull but that's okay because I
don't want you to remember any of it.' This was not true as after the
monitoring task participants were given a surprise test of recall for not
only the monitored information (the party-goers' names) but also the
incidental information (the place names). Although deception was
important (otherwise the participants would have concentrated more
while listening to the recording), it meant that participants were
unable to give their fully informed consent.
 Individual and Situational Explanations
A strength of this study is that it shows how attention and memory
can be affected not just by participant variables (i.e. individual
differences between people) but also by situational factors. Many
people think of cognitive skills as fixed, measurable and relatively
stable traits (e.g. 'He has a really good memory' or 'I am easily
distracted'), but this study shows how other demands placed on us
le.g. not being allowed to doodle) can limit our cognitive
performance.

This is important and suggests that parents, teachers and employers

should be aware that making small adjustments to the situation can
help people to improve their performance.
 Applications to Everyday Life
Supporting students. Leading on from the point above, a further strength of this
study is that it could be used as evidence to support recommendations for teachers.
Andrade's study demonstrates that a second task such as doodling can improve
concentration, allowing us to remember more of what we have heard. This is an
important finding as many teachers punish their students for doodling in class, but this
study suggests that raising awareness of the benefits of doodling may be an important
addition to teacher training. Therefore, doodling can be employed as a technique to
improve students’ concentration in class.

It can especially be used for neurodivergent children/ adults who find it difficult to
concentrate on tasks, e.g. people with ADHD. It may also be a useful technique for the
elderly.

Doodling can be applied in professional settings as a means to help employees

concentrate on boring auditory tasks, e.g. at call centres for customer care.
Andrade's sample only included adults. Do you think doodling might have a different impact
on children's concentration and recall? How could you investigate this?

In 2017, Boggs et al. conducted a partial replication of Andrade's doodling study aiming to
extend her findings by looking at multiple different types of doodling. They argue that their
findings have greater ecological validity as they included a freestyle doodling group, whose
members were not constrained to shade shapes but could doodle as they pleased.

The student participants (n = 93) listened to a fictional conversation about an earthquake

and completed a fill-in-the-gaps quiz to test their recall of the details. In addition to a
structured doodling group and control group, there were two extra groups: the
free-doodlers and a note-taking group. Interestingly, the free-doodlers had less accurate
recall than the structured doodlers and the notetakers.

Think back to Andrade's explanation of why doodling should increase performance. Can
you explain why free- doodling had the opposite effect?
 Practice Questions
1. Outline what was meant by a false alarm in this study, with reference to one example. [2]
2. Describe the response sheets that were given to the experimental and control groups in this study. [4]
3. Identify the type of information that was most likely to be forgotten. Explain your answer with reference to
the data. [2]
4. Describe two ways in which the study by Andrade is replicable. [4]
5. Explain one reason why Andrade used a control group. [2]
6. Andrade counted the number of correct names and places remembered in a surprise test of memory.
What measure of spread was used to analyse this data? [1]
7. Suggest one real-world application of this study. [2]
8. Outline one methodological problem that could arise if children were used as participants in this study. [2]
9. Explain what is meant by replicability using this study as an example. [2]
10. Andrade collected quantitative data. Give two strengths of this type of data. [4]
11. Explain one advantage and one disadvantage of using deception in psychological research. Use at least
one example from Andrade's study in your answer. [5]
12. Evaluate the study by Andrade in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your
evaluation points must be about laboratory-based research. [10]
SUBMITTED BY: ALI HAMMAD

Evaluate the study by Andrade in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation
points must be about laboratory-based research. [10]

One of the major strengths of Andrade's laboratory experiment is its high construct validity. Construct validity refers to
the extent to which a study accurately measures and represents what it intends to study. In the experiment, having a
control group (those who did not doodle) alongside the experimental group (those who did doodle) allows for a clear
comparison of the effects of doodling on concentration and memory. The independent measures design, where
different participants are used in each condition, reduces the risk of order effects or practice effects influencing the
results. Additionally, random allocation of participants to each condition helps minimize selection bias and distribute
participant variables evenly across groups. Despite these strengths, a potential limitation arises from participant
variables, such as individuals' natural memory abilities, which might independently affect the dependent variables
(DVs). The use of a control group, independent measure design, and random allocation significantly strengthens the
construct validity of Andrade's study, ensuring that the results are more likely attributable to the manipulated variable
(doodling) than other factors.

Another strength of Andrade's study is that it has “High reliability”, which means that the study is standardized and the
findings could be verified by other researchers. Standardization in research refers to the process of keeping all
variables and conditions consistent across all participants in a study. In Andrade's study on the effects of doodling on
concentration, all participants listened to the same audio-recorded message, ensuring that the pace and tone of
information delivery were uniform. Furthermore, the environment was controlled; each participant was in the same
quiet, dull room, minimizing external distractions. The highly standardized procedure in Andrade's study is a significant
strength, as it enhances the replicability of the research. Replicability allows for the verification of results and
conclusions.
One of the weaknesses of the study conducted by Andrade is that it has “low ethics”, Upholding
ethical guidelines ensures that the rights and dignity of the participants are maintained. In
Andrade's study, participants were misled about the study's true purpose, leading to a
significant weakness in giving fully informed consent. The deception was used to prevent
demand characteristics, where participants guess the study's purpose and alter their behavior,
but it conflicted with the ethical guidelines of informed consent.
Another weakness of Andrade’s laboratory experiment is the lack of ecological validity, which
"lowers the Generalization to everyday life". Ecological validity refers to the extent to which
study findings can be generalized to real-world, everyday situations. In this case, the highly
controlled setting of the experiment may not accurately represent the challenges individuals
face when listening to voicemail in their typical environments. In reality, everyday listening
scenarios involve a multitude of distractions, such as family members, pets, noisy neighbors,
and traffic sounds. The absence of these elements in the laboratory setting questions the
applicability of the findings to real-world situations.
Suggestion for adding a point: counterpoint for ethics — debriefing
SUBMITTED BY: ARJUMAND UMAR
Evaluate the study by Andrade in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your
evaluation points must be about laboratory-based research. [10]
The study by Andrade aimed to investigate whether doodling while listening improves attention/
concentration and to investigate whether doodling while listening improves recall was conducted in a
laboratory. The research method of the experiment resulted in it having a strength of high reliability. The
procedure was highly standardized and specific and consistent steps were taken which can be replicated
easily to test for reliability. For example, all participants listened to the same tape for 2.5 minutes, they all
completed the study in the same quiet, dull room; and the interval between the monitoring and recall tasks
was always one minute, and they were given standardized instructions as well as specific sheets of A4
paper. This was either printed with rows of shapes to shade for the experimental group or lined sheets with
no shapes to shade for the control group. These consistent steps can be replicated to check findings,
proving the study's high reliability.
Another strength of the study was construct validity. It was ensured that it was the IV (doodling) affecting the
DVs (concentration & recall) meaning that there was a good control of variables. Andrade checked whether
any participants had detected the deception. A total of 18 percent said that they had. The data was
re-analyzed without their scores, and the results were the same. However, there might be participant
variables that could affect the construct validity of the study. For example, some participants could have a
naturally good memory which would affect the Dv of the study. However, there were greater applications
that did result in construct validity being considered as a strength.
However, a weakness of the study was that the task was conducted in a highly controlled setting,
which is unlikely to reflect the additional challenges of listening to a voicemail in a real-world setting.
For example, the study took place in a quiet, under-stimulating room and the participants were
asked to pretend that the speaker on the tape was a friend of theirs. Had the participants been in
their own homes surrounded by other family members, pets, noisy neighbors, and traffic sounds,
doodling alone may not have been sufficient to help them concentrate on the message. This
suggests doodling may be more effective in the laboratory and that the findings may lack ecological
validity.
Breach of ethical guidelines is another weakness of the study. The participants were deceived about
the true purpose of the study. Before listening to the tape, they were told, 'The tape is rather dull but
that's okay because I don't want you to remember any of it.' This was not true as after the monitoring
task participants were given a surprise test of recall for not only the monitored information (the
party-goers' names) but also the incidental information (the place names) so informed consent could
not be given. Although deception was important, it meant that participants were unable to give their
fully informed consent.
Suggestions for adding points:
● There are limited generalisations beyond the sample — use the particular phrase.
● The were debriefed at the end of the study, they were apologised to and told the complete
truth —make the counterpoint wherever possible.
SUBMITTED BY: ALINA IJAZ
Evaluate the study by Andrade in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your
evaluation points must be about laboratory-based research. [10]
A strength of the study by Andrade, based on the fact that it was a laboratory based research was high
construct validity. This means it was ensured that it is the independent variable (doodling) affecting the
dependent variable (concentration and recall) and not something else since the researcher had a very good
control on the extraneous variables. For instance, one of the ways this was achieved was by using a control
group in the independent measures design where it provided a baseline and clear comparisons from the
doodling group. Another evidence is that a quiet room was used and it was made sure that the participants
found the task boring since they were coming after doing another study hoping to go home right after.
Additionally, random allocation was used to bypass any effects of participant variables which could
potentially still affect the dependent variable though, for e.g: if participants in doodling group had a naturally
good memory by chance. Overall, it is a strength of this study since with great construct validity there are
much greater applications.
Another strength of the study is high reliability, since it was a standardized procedure with specific and
consistent steps taken along the way. An example of that is all participants listened to the same 2.5 minutes
long call recording of 227 words about a birthday party invitation which was used as an invitation including
the same names of people and places. Moreover, the interval between the monitoring and recall tasks was
always one minute. This is a point of strength since the procedure can be replicated to check the study’s
findings.
However, the study also inhabits weaknesses such as limited generalisations beyond the sample, meaning
that the sample did not have many diverse qualities. It had more females (35) than males (5), with females
making up 87.5% of the sample. This is a weakness of the study as there is a need for caution in applying
the results to a broader population, specifically to males.
Added points:
•opportunity sampling used
•however initially participants were part of a volunteer pool so they might exhibit certain specific traits,
therefore they don’t have the diverse traits such as in the target population meaning extending results from
the sample on the target population won’t be fully accurate
•the sample was filled with adults which limits the generalization since the way the brain works in adults and
children is different and memory is being tested here
Another weakness of the study are ethical issues which were deception meaning participants were
deceived about the true purpose of the study. For instance, before the participants listened to the tape, they
were told the tape is rather dull but they don’t have to remember any of it. This was not true as after the
monitoring task participants were given a surprise test of recall for not only the monitored information but
also the incidental information. This was a weakness as there was a lack of informed consent from the
participants making the study’s findings ethically questionable.
Added points:
counter points - minimizing harm, confidentiality kept and most importantly debriefing done