Technology And Its Effect On Human Behavior

In another study, five experiments were conducted to determine if coloring a single Stroop element reduced automaticity or slowed the processing of a color. The results demonstrated that indeed it slowed processing of congruent and neutral stimuli more than it slows processing of incongruent stimuli (Monahan, 2001).

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

The aim of this experiment is to study autonomic processes by replicating the previously carried out Stroop effect by using numbers. A number of 180 random participants aged in between 18-89 were recruited to participate in this experiment. Participants were presented with a stroop experiment task sheet which consists of three parts which was the control, congruent and incongruent conditions. Time was taken and recorded for each participant to say out the number of stars in the control condition and to say out the number of numbers in the congruent and incongruent conditions. Based on the results, participants took a considerably longer time to say the number of number in the incongruent condition than in the congruent condition.

The current experiment is being run to investigate whether the global superiority effect is affected by the type of symbol, using a divided attention task. In previous studies Navon (1977), cited in Ness et al. (2014), used global letters made up of local letters to test how we process visual information. However, Yovel’s (2001), cited in Ness et al. (2014), divided attention task had two parts. Firstly, to see whether participants would react more quickly to global than local letters; and secondly, that there would be no difference to global and local target letters if the local letters were larger. In the current experiment the stimuli were global shapes and letters made up of local shapes and letters. They were tested to see the impact on processing and response times. The key features of the design was a 2x2 repeated measures design, and the participants performed on all four conditions which were two (IV’S) each with two levels.

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).

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 Stroop task 8 college student participants from a cognitive lab course. Two participants were males and the remaining 6 participants were female. Using a computerized program Cedrus SuperLab 4.5 the participants were tested in the Stroop Task. The participants were asked to identify four colors, blue, green, red or yellow. In addition, participants were also asked to identify the names of the colors they saw by pressing a corresponding computer key with their middle and index fingers, D for red, F for blue, J for green, and K for yellow. Our experiment was conducted in two phases a practice phase and a testing phase.

The stroop effect is a strange phenomenon when your right and left side of your brain have a conflict about what the word says and what color the word is. I am going to make a project to examine everyone’s attempt and graph it. I am going to see if the difficulty is harder or easier compared to the age and gender of the challengers.

In the 1930’s, psychologists wanted to better understand how the brain processes presented information. To take it a step further, they wanted to see what happened when conflicting factors were presented and how the brain would process it. Would there be a delayed response? Would there be an error when giving the response? Psychologists were especially interested in how conflicting factors would inhibit the rate of impulse transmission in the nervous system (Eberle, 2012) and in 1935 John Ridley Stroop came up with an experiment to test the response rate of people when they were presented with conflicting factors.

In his historic study, Stroop found that reading names of colors interfered with individuals’ ability to name the ink color the word was printed in when the two differed (i.e., the word “BLUE” written in red ink) (1935). However, the basis of this phenomenon can be traced back to Cattell who found that naming colors and pictures took twice as long to accomplish than reading the word these colors or pictures represented (1886). He concluded that this was due to reading being an automatic process while identifying colors or pictures requires a conscious effort (Cattell, 1886). MacLeod (1991) reflects that it was Cattell’s work which strongly influenced future psychologist including Stroop.

The purpose of this study was to learn about how students process numbers and quantities. At the start of the experiment, the student researcher asked me to familiarize myself with the experimental set-up by doing a few trial runs. I was asked to press the spacebar every time something appeared on the screen. Then, for the actual experiment, I was instructed to stare at a fixation point while resting my chin on a chinrest. On either side of the fixation point was a small circle. I was told that a number may or may not appear on the screen, but if one does appear, I was told to just ignore it. Then, one of the dots may suddenly be filled in. If and ONLY if a circle is filled in, we were asked to immediately press the spacebar. If no circles were filled in, we were not supposed to press the spacebar. We had to repeat this

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.