The Stroop Effect: How Your Brain Reactions To Conflicting Information

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 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 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 Stroop test consisted two major posters of word lists: Incongruent list and Neutral list. Each poster included 20 words in 2 columns of 10 words each. All letters were stenciled, capitalized and 1 ¾ inches high. Both incongruent and neutral words were listed on the 56 x 71 cm posters Stopwatch with 0.01-second accuracy was used to time to measure how long participants took to read both incongruent and neutral word lists, which is a dependent variable for this experiment.

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

A study was conducted by J.R. Stroop in order to test the effects of automaticity, specifically on reading. In one condition, Stroop presented his participants with 100 words, each of which spelled out a color, but the ink of the word was a different color than

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

This study looked at the Horse Race Model and whether it is the main reason for the presence of the Stroop effect. This study was conducted to test if the Horse Race Model is a valid reason for the Stroop effect as there has been some conflict in past research it seemed another study was needed.

But still the main focus of the study is on whether occurs and how strong the stroop effect is. The one-tail hypothesis of the study was that the effect will cause a significant delay (or disruption) in guessing the correct colour for the words. Null hypothesis was that there will be not a significant difference between colour-neutral and colour-relevant words.

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.

At the point when the composed word is incongruent with the text style shading e.g. green written in cocoa, the time it takes to distinguish the shading is expanded in respect to a benchmark condition i.e. a string of rehashed letters, e.g. or a non-shading related word, e.g. stage. The contrast between the incongruent and gauge condition is known as Stroop impedance. Conversely, when the shading and word are consistent e.g. chestnut written in cocoa the time it takes to distinguish the shading is diminished in respect to the pattern condition; a distinction alluded to as Stroop assistance. Stroop impedance is putatively a result of reaction rivalry, and Stroop help an outcome of reaction meeting, different instruments creating Stroop impacts are thought to influence execution. At the end of the day the two measurements of the Stroop boost can give proof toward a reaction, bringing about contending or joining