Andrade (Doodling)

To understand why doodling could possibly help, you need the cognitive science of attention — the part textbooks usually skip.

Attention has limited capacity. We can only process so much at once. During an interesting task, attention is fully used. During a boring task (like a monotone phone message), the task uses very little capacity — leaving a lot of 'spare' processing power.

The problem: mind-wandering (daydreaming). That spare capacity tends to get filled with daydreaming — the mind drifts to unrelated thoughts. Daydreaming pulls attention away from the task, so you miss information and remember less.

Andrade's idea — doodling as a 'goldilocks' task. A small, undemanding secondary task like doodling uses up just enough of the spare capacity to stop the mind wandering, but not so much that it interferes with the main task. So doodling could protect attention rather than distract from it. (A related idea is that doodling maintains a low level of arousal, keeping you alert.)

Why this matters for the result. If doodling reduces daydreaming, doodlers should pay more attention to the message and therefore encode and recall more — which is exactly what Andrade found. Knowing this mechanism lets you explain the study, not just describe it.

Psychology being investigated: attention and memory.

Background. People often assume doodling is a sign of not concentrating — that it distracts. But it might be the opposite: a small secondary task could keep the mind from wandering during something boring. Andrade set out to test this experimentally.

Aim. To investigate whether doodling improves or reduces concentration on a primary task (monitoring a boring message) and memory for its content — in other words, does doodling help or hinder cognitive performance during a dull task?

Sample: 40 participants (35 female, 5 male), aged 18–55, from the MRC Applied Psychology Unit participant panel. They had just finished a different experiment and agreed to do 'one more'. Randomly allocated to the doodling group (n = 20) or the control group (n = 20) — an independent-measures design.

Procedure:

1. All participants listened to the same pre-recorded, monotone 2.5-minute telephone message about a party. It contained the names of 8 people coming to the party (plus some who couldn't come), 8 place names, and lots of irrelevant detail. Participants were told the message would be dull and to write down only the names of people who would attend (the monitoring task).
2. The doodling group were also given a sheet with printed shapes (squares and circles) to shade in while listening, and told not to worry about neatness or speed. The control group simply listened (with a plain sheet).
3. After the message, sheets were collected and there was a surprise recall test (participants were not warned). They were asked to recall the 8 party-goers' names (the monitored/target information) and the 8 place names (incidental/unexpected information).

Controls: the same recording for everyone, standardised instructions, the surprise test (so no one could prepare).

Monitoring task (names noted while listening): doodlers performed slightly better, recording on average about 7.8 of the correct names versus about 7.1 for controls — doodlers missed fewer and made fewer mistakes.

Surprise recall test (memory): doodlers recalled clearly more overall — on average about 7.5 pieces of information versus about 5.8 for controls. That is roughly 29% more.

Key point: there was no evidence that doodling harmed performance on either task. If anything, it improved both monitoring (attention) and recall (memory).

• Doodling improves concentration on a primary task and aids memory for its content.
• The most likely explanation is that doodling reduces daydreaming/mind-wandering — it uses up a little spare cognitive capacity that would otherwise drift to unrelated thoughts, keeping attention on the task.
• Doodling may also help by maintaining arousal, so the doodler stays alert during a dull task.
• Practical message: in boring situations (lectures, meetings, phone calls) a little doodling may help you stay focused and remember more.

Strengths

• High control / standardisation (same recording, same instructions, lab setting) → the study is replicable and the data reliable, and cause-and-effect can be inferred (doodling → better recall).
• Surprise recall test reduces demand characteristics — participants could not rehearse, so the memory measure is more valid.
• Quantitative data (numbers recalled) allow clear comparison between groups.

Weaknesses

• Small, biased sample — 40 people, mostly female (35:5), so findings may not generalise to men or other groups.
• The doodling was controlled, not natural — participants shaded printed shapes rather than doodling freely, so results may not generalise to real, spontaneous doodling.
• Artificial task / lower ecological validity — listening to a deliberately dull recorded message in a lab is not quite like a real lecture or conversation (though monotonous messages do occur in real life).

Issues & debates

• Application to everyday life: doodling could help concentration in lectures, meetings and phone calls.
• Individual vs situational: the effect is situational (the doodling condition changed performance), though individuals differ in baseline attention.