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.
Alansari and Baroun (2004) had participants state whether they were color blind, dyslexic, or if they had previously ever taken the Stroop test before, it was important that these interferences were factored out in order to obtain a conclusive observation in regards to all the participants involved in the experiment. MacLeod (1991) had suggested that those with disabilities tended to show high Stroop interference, also along with those with an attention deficit disorder since maintaining concentration throughout the experiment and test is an important factor in obtaining more accurate results without a significant outlier. Also different levels of interference where shown in children and adults, it was also observed that interference began at an early age, declined in the adult years since most have a peak of cognitive development and understanding in adult years, but once again increased interference around the age of 60 (MacLeod,
It was found that tasks involving colors cause more interference. These two studies were similar to the present experiment, as they both required participants to verbally name colors while inhibiting themselves from naming the typed color, as fast as possible.
At the beginning stages, reading takes some effort, and conscious attempts at sounding out the letters of each word. As people practice reading skills, they finally learn to read without trying. When a behavior or skill no longer requires direct effort to be completed, cognitive psychologists say it is automatized (CogLab). Automatization is fascinating because it is an important part of daily life. Most people perform a numerous of automatized behaviors quickly and effortlessly. People often think they can multi-task, but classic research by J. Ridley Stroop shows differently. Stroop (1935) demonstrated that if someone is reading information, and other conflicting information is added, the rate in which a person will read the information would slow down. Stroop presented his participant with 100 words, each word spelled out a color, but the ink of the word was different from what it spelled. His participants were asked to report the color of the ink the word represented. The interface of conflicting color stimuli upon the time for reading 100 words caused an increase 2.3 seconds over the normal time for reading the same words printed in black (Stroop, 1935). Stoop found that participants performed slower to read the color of ink when the ink was used to produce color names different from the color of the ink. For example, the participants were slower to identify red ink when it spelled the word blue. The reasoning for this experiment is to test the Strop effect. The experimental hypothesis is that the time of reading the incongruent list of digits will be longer than that of the congruent list of
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
Loosli, Rahm, Unterrainer, Weiller, and Kaller (2013) conducted a study investigating life span development of item-specific proactive interference in individual’s working memory. Postle, Brush, and Nick (2004) found that proactive interference is previous important information in working memory (as cited in Loosli et al., 2013). Baddeley (1997) found that working memory is the power to maintain information for a short period of time and manipulate the information (as cited in Loosli et al., 2013). There are two types of proactive interference; the first one being item-nonspecific proactive interference. This type is when someone remembers information while performing another task that is no longer relevant to the current task they are performing.
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.
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
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.
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).
If the reaction time between the stimulus and the response increases when the colour of the word and the word itself are not the same, then the reaction time would decrease when the word and the colour of the word are the same. The Stroop effect is an observable way to view the difficulties the brain has in identifying conflicting sensory information. The conflicting sensory data that people are given will affect the time of their responses and impact on their ability to read the information out correctly and fluently.
“The brain interprets scenes in the instants after they happen, inserting judgments, meaning, and context on the fly” (Carey, 2014, p. 5). Depending on the type of learner the student is, coupled with the environment [classroom] that they are in, each student will learn, or not, the same material differently. Each student has a different ability to recall information [or facts] at varying levels and also, under a variety of circumstances. Often, it is the distractions that the students are exposed to, that will affect their ability to retain and recall information.
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.
1. The authors decided to do a replication of a study performed by of Ramachandran & Hubbard (2001) and Hubbard (2005). From this study researchers looked at individuals who had synaesthetes and how they interpreted shapes, numbers and colors. Results from their study showed that individuals who had synaesthetes performed better by interpreting certain pictures by using more of the ‘pop-out’ effect rather than using the serial search effect. It also “assumed that color and shapes are processed independently, which does not hold true for people who have synathecia, giving that some amount of grapheme processing must be required for the color to be included”(Ramachandran & Hubbard 2001b, 2003b). Due to these findings researchers decided to “correct”