Results and discussion
The Stroop effect is a classic cognitive psychology experiment discovered and first studied by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935.It originated from the theory of automatic processes. It is clear that some processing activities become automatic as a result of prolonged practice e.g. Typing, driving, etc. Automatic processes therefore are fast, require no attention and are unavoidable. Stroop believed that there was some evidence that word identification may be a form of an automatic process. In the experiment participants had to name the colours in which the words were printed as rapidly as possible. It was shown that naming speed was slowed when the words were conflicting colour names. The 'Stroop Effect' suggested that the word meanings were extracted when the participants were not attempting to process it. The original 'Stroop Effect' was illustrated using colour. The effect is demonstration of interference, in which the brain experiences slowed processing time because it is trying to sort through conflicting information. Interference was observed by Stroop that was the focus of his study. Various studies were also developed; one of them was on interference by Klein’s research in 1964 and Keele’s research in 1972. INDIVIDUAL DATA
With reference to Table1: Colour alone naming times in seconds and interference increment times for colour-word units in the two conditions and Figure1: Comparison of the interference increment time in seconds in the two conditions. The colours alone time recorded for Participant 1 (Condition A) was 76 seconds and for scrambled colour word units was 88 seconds. Thus, the increment time was calculated as follows: for Condition A, interference Increment Time = Scrambled colour word units time minus Colours alone time, which was found as 12 seconds. Similarly, The colours alone time recorded for Participant 2 (Condition B) was 77 seconds and for incongruent colour word units was 149 seconds. Here the Increment time was calculated as Interference Increment Time = Incongruent colour word units time minus Colours alone time, which was found as 72 seconds. Hence, it was observed that the time taken by P2 was greater as compared to time taken by P1.The Interference Increment Time was greater for P2(72secs) as compared to the Interference Increment Time for P1(12secs). There was Interference because of the Parallel Distributed Processing Approach- there is interference when two pathways (reading the word and naming the color) are simultaneously activated. This interference causes conflict and a decision must be made, resulting in a weakened performance and the fact that we have more practice (experience) in reading words than in naming colors- reading words is an automatic process that is involuntary where as naming the color is less automatic. Thus, it was observed by E that the data was in expected direction as the interference time was greater for Condition B than Condition A. The E also recorded the time taken for colours alone by P1 and P2 which was 76 seconds and 77 seconds respectively and found that they were similar as it fulfills one of the controls of participants being matched which is necessary. Thus, the participants were matched. With reference to Table 2 and Figure 2: Comparison of the number of errors in the two conditions. The E observed that in colours alone, P1 and P2 had 5 and 4 errors respectively.P1 had 6 errors in scrambled colour word units whereas P2 had 17 errors in incongruent colour word units. Therefore E observed that condition B had greater errors than Condition A.As an ancillary observation, Comparing P1’s performance it was observed that colours alone had 5 errors, whereas scrambled colour word units had 6 errors. Similarly, comparing P2’s performance it was observed that colours alone had 4 errors, whereas incongruent colour word unit had 17 errors. So it was observed that P2 had greater number of errors than P1 in the two conditions....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document