Stroop Effect
EFFECTS OF PRACTICE ON STROOP CONGRUITY
John S. Monahan Central Michigan University, monah1js@mail.cmich.edu
Abstract
Automaticity, both reading and response, response competition, translation models, and the imbalance/uncertainty model of the Stroop effect were investigated. Two participants received four weeks of key press practice using standard Stroop stimuli. Tests of RT to standard Stroop, Single colored letter, and Stroop dilution stimuli were conducted before and after each week of practice using both key press and vocal responding. After the final practice they also were tested on reverse Stroop stimuli. The results support response competition and partially support response automaticity, Sugg and McDonald’s (1994) translation model, and the imbalance/uncertainty model and fail to support the mental set hypothesis of Besner, Stolz, and Boutilier (1997).
The Stroop effect is the interference of words with indicating the color in which the words are presented. Theories of the Stroop effect include automaticity theory, both reading and response automaticity, response competition, translation theory, imbalance/uncertainty, and mental set. Automaticity The most common theory of the Stroop effect, automaticity (Stirling, 1977), is based on the idea that through long practice reading becomes an automatic process and does not need controlled attention to occur. Automatic reading uses some attentional resources, and thus reduces the resources available to process and name stimulus color. Stirling (1977) also introduced the concept of response automaticity. He showed that changing the responses from color words to letters that were not part of the color words increased RT and reduced Stroop interference. With letter response practice, RT and Stroop interference with letter responses became more like those with color word responses. Response Competition Eriksen and Eriksen’s (1974) theory of response competition posits the notion that when a stimulus primes
John S. Monahan Central Michigan University, monah1js@mail.cmich.edu
Abstract
Automaticity, both reading and response, response competition, translation models, and the imbalance/uncertainty model of the Stroop effect were investigated. Two participants received four weeks of key press practice using standard Stroop stimuli. Tests of RT to standard Stroop, Single colored letter, and Stroop dilution stimuli were conducted before and after each week of practice using both key press and vocal responding. After the final practice they also were tested on reverse Stroop stimuli. The results support response competition and partially support response automaticity, Sugg and McDonald’s (1994) translation model, and the imbalance/uncertainty model and fail to support the mental set hypothesis of Besner, Stolz, and Boutilier (1997).
The Stroop effect is the interference of words with indicating the color in which the words are presented. Theories of the Stroop effect include automaticity theory, both reading and response automaticity, response competition, translation theory, imbalance/uncertainty, and mental set. Automaticity The most common theory of the Stroop effect, automaticity (Stirling, 1977), is based on the idea that through long practice reading becomes an automatic process and does not need controlled attention to occur. Automatic reading uses some attentional resources, and thus reduces the resources available to process and name stimulus color. Stirling (1977) also introduced the concept of response automaticity. He showed that changing the responses from color words to letters that were not part of the color words increased RT and reduced Stroop interference. With letter response practice, RT and Stroop interference with letter responses became more like those with color word responses. Response Competition Eriksen and Eriksen’s (1974) theory of response competition posits the notion that when a stimulus primes