Stroop Effect Lab Report

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).

The first participant was determined. On the timer’s command, the flipper pulled a Squiggle Card so that it was facing

The Stroop (1935) effect is the inability to ignore a color word when the task is to report the ink color of that word (i.e., to say "green" to the word RED in green ink). The present study investigated whether object-based processing contributes to the Stroop effect. According to this view, observers are unable to ignore irrelevant features of an attended object (Kahneman & Henik, 1981). In three experiments, participants had to name the color of one of two superimposed rectangles and to ignore words that appeared in the relevant object, in the irrelevant object, or in the background. The words were congruent,

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

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 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

Study examined the Stroop effect in words which are not colours, but represent related object connected to certain colours and whether that would yield similar or the same effect as the classic Stroop study. Previous studies such as Stroop's (1935) found out a clash between controlled and automatic processing, which resulted in delayed answering. This experiment was conducted for 20 participants of both sexes and various age categories. They were given two lists consisting each of 30 coloured words. One half of these words were colour-neutral and other colour-relevant. As was expected, the colour-neutral were processed much faster. It is therefore

In the third and final part of his experiment, Stroop (1935) examined how practice could impact reaction times. Over a two week period, participants practiced various tasks which used colored words, names of colors and colored blocks. It was found that practice decreased reaction time when naming ink color when it conflicted with the name of the color (i.e., answering “RED” for BLUE) and that such interference could disappear if newly established (Stroop, 1935). The second discovery during this part of the experiment was that reaction times for reading the name of the color and naming the ink color were almost equal at the end of the practice period (Stroop, 1935). Even though this resulted in a significant increase in reaction time for reading the name of the color (i.e., saying “BLUE” for BLUE), Stroop concluded that this equaling of reaction times signified that the interference between the automated process of reading and the conscious process of naming the ink color could disappear with practice (1935).

In Stroop's experiment, the stimulus presented contains two kinds of information (word meaning and the color of writing it), and the processing of these two kinds of information is different. When these two pieces of information are input at the same time, it is difficult to do the processing on only one of the pieces of information and not on the other. Because of the ease with which words are processed, people tend to report meaning. However, this experiment does not allow this reaction. Therefore, the two processing processes are prone to competition, resulting in a difference in the speed of the reaction, resulting in confusion and confusion of the meaning of the word in its writing. For example, Many low-level human behaviors are automatic, in that a passport serves to elicit the behavior in the absence of conscious awareness or

In the experiment written about here was to look at the effect on time it would have if they assigned a colour to two words, one word being compatible and one being conflicting to the colour. The participants consisted of thirty-six undergraduate students from Erindale Collage, who either volunteered or completed their course requirements. The words used were blue, green, red, and gold; and those words were made up from the colours blue, red, green, and gold. In the first round 20% of the colours were compatible with the words and 80% of the colours were incompatible with the words and in the second round 20% of the colours we incompatible with the words and 80% of the colours were compatible with the

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.