Cognitive Psychology: The Stroop Effect

The Stroop effect is demonstrated by the reaction time to determine a color when the color is printed in a different color’s name. Participants respond slower or make more errors when the meaning of the word is incongruent with the color of the word. Despite knowing the meaning of the word, participants showed incapability of ignoring the stimulus attribute. This reflects a clear instance of semantic interference and an unfathomed failure of selective attention (Stroop, 1935).

An interesting challenge arises when a task such as color naming is identified as both controlled and automatic, by varying the other task involved. Color naming is identified as a controlled process when the other task is word reading, but as an automatic process when the other task is shape naming. Cohen, Dunbar and McClelland (1990) proposed an alternative explanation of the Stroop effect, which does not distinguish between automatic and controlled processing. Instead, they proposed that automaticity is a range, and that Stroop interference depends on the relative degree of learning the particular tasks, not on processing speed.

The Stroop effect was tested on four different tasks. Nineteen Queens College students were recruited by flyer, and each were assigned to a word reading task, color reading task, color inhibition task, and word inhibition task. They were timed using a stopwatch function on a cell phone, to name the color, or word to the quickest of their ability. In the order from longest reaction time to shortest: inhibition color naming task, color naming task, inhibition word reading, and word reading. This study shows that people can read words more quickly than they can name colors, and that inhibiting an automatic response to color/word tasks will take longer to do than tasks that do not involve inhibition.

The Stroop experiment by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935 was performed in order to analyze the reaction time of participant’s stimuli and desired results while also obtaining a collective result of color interference and word reading(Stroop, 1935; Lee & Chan, 2000). In the experiment three forms of the test were given, the first consisting of color patches, the second had the color words printed in black and the other was an incongruent test beaming the color did not match the color word

However, evidence from a recent series of experiments conducted by MacLeod and Dunbar (1988) suggests that the processes involved in the Stroop task may have not been inadequate. In their experiment they taught participants to use color words as names for arbitrary shapes that actually appeared in a neutral color. After 288 trials where there was a 72 trials per stimulus, participants could perform this shape-naming task without difficulty. At this point, the effect that ink color had on shape naming was tested by presenting participants with conflicting and congruent stimuli for example, shapes colored to conflict or agree with their assigned names. Ink color produced large interference and facilitation effects. However, when the task was reversed, and subjects were asked to state the color of the ink in which the

The experiment used the same red and green stimuli in each trial instead of other opponent colors such as black and white or blue and yellow. The small sample size studied could have also lead to random variation in the results.

This experiment investigated the Stroop effect comparing response times between naming colour ink printed in colour-associated words and colour neutral words. Previous research of two-process theories which support Stroop's studies [cited in Edgar:2007] found that automatic processes can interfere with controlled processes. To test this interference further, colour-associated words were employed. Results of this experiment show a statistically significant difference in condition response times, with naming the colour ink printed in colour-associated words taking longer than those in colour

My experiment was performed as a replication of a previous experiment by Stroop (1935). J. R. Stroop (1935) conducted this experiment as a means to study interference by using task-irrelevant stimuli. Task-irrelevant stimuli are stimuli that are unrelated to the current task (Goldstein, 2011). Interference is the competition of responses (Goldstein, 2011). The effect that was found was later named the Stroop Effect (Goldstein, 2011).

The results of the information processing lab support the text in a number of ways. As the number of choices increased, the total response time also increased, verifying Hick’s Law. This then indicates that as the trials became more complex, information processing time was influenced. However, the subjects were able to bypass the complexity of the task when they were able to preview the color or

In Stroop’s (1935) interference article, it was discovered that there is more interference in color naming then color reading. The experiment described in the article tested whether there was more interference from words or from colors (Stroop 1935). Two tests were administered each with a separate control. The RCNd test determined how fast one could read color names where the color was different from the color name while the NCWd test determined how fast one could name colors where the color was different from the word on the page. The mean time for 100 responses increased from 63.3 seconds on the RCNd test to 110.3 seconds on the NCWd test or an

In the Stroop (1935) experiment he has proved that the effect is going to be one of the two slower or faster. In the non-conflict, some of the participants had to read two sets of words: set one with word written in their contradicting word so this has made it to be conflicting. Stroop (1935) came out to find that there are different association of words and the colors. Stroop (1935) wanted to see if they had any differences in the reaction time when the association was conducted. He noticed that the participants took longer read the conflicting word rather than the actual name word. The non-conflict was much easier and faster to do.

In the Stroop task, participants are asked to name the colour of the ink that a colour word is written in, while ignoring the written the word (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The task is comprised of congruent words, where the ink colour and the written word match and incongruent words, where the ink colour and the written word do not match. The Stroop task has illustrated that participants respond slower and less accurately when the word is incongruent compared to when it is congruent (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The difference in the accuracy and speed of responses between the congruent and incongruent words is called the Stroop Effect (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). Research has suggested that this occurs

Many tests, surveys, games, etc. use a stimulation where the person involved has to read a word, a color, but the text is written in a color that is not the color written. Someone would have to name the color the text is written in, opposed to reading the word, or identify when the color of the text and the word match. For example, if the following was displayed on the screen: green, a person would have to say “red” because that is what the text is written in, or identify that the color and the word do not match. Everyone associates the name of a color with that color. But for people with grapheme-color synesthesia, it word association goes beyond this.

In 1935, John Ridley Stroop conducted an experiment at George Peabody College for teachers in the United States. Stroop used 70 college undergraduates as subject in his experiment, he compared times for reading names of colours and naming colours themselves. The aim was to determine if the colour of the word affected the ability to read it. In the experiment, there was three different conditions. In the first condition participants were asked to read words as quickly as possible whereas participants had to name the ink colour in which each word were printed as quickly as possible in second condition. In a third condition (the incongruent condition), participants had to name the ink colour in which each word was printed, but in this condition the words themselves were colour names. For example, the word ‘GREEN’ was presented in the colour orange and you were required to read this colour instead of the word itself. Stroop found that the participants were much slower at naming the ink colours when the stimuli were themselves colours as (third condition), indicating that a possible explanation for the Stroop effect is that people quickly and automatically process the meaning of the word.

We are replicating J.R. Stroop’s original experiment The Stroop Effect (Stroop, 1935). The aim of the study was to understand how automatic processing interferes with attempts to attend to sensory information. The independent variable of our experiment was the three conditions, the congruent words, the incongruent words, and the colored squares, and the dependent variable was the time that it took participants to state the ink color of the list of words in each condition. We used repeated measures for the experiment in order to avoid influence of extraneous variables. The participants were 16-17 years of age from Garland High School. The participants will be timed on how long it takes them to say the color of the squares and the color of the words. The research was conducted in the Math Studies class. The participants were aged 16-17 and were students at Garland High School. The results showed that participants took the most time with the incongruent words.