AUTOMATIC VIGILANCE EXPERIMENT

Introduction:
Automatic vigilance occurs when a negatively valanced target stimulus (e.g., an
image of a LION) is categorized faster and/or more accurately when it is preceded by
a threatening prime stimulus (e.g., the word DANGER) than a hedonically neutral
prime stimulus (e.g., the word MAMMAL). Researchers suggest that the presentation
of an evaluative or threatening prime may automatically activate biased perceptions of
emotionally-congruent targets. It is the in-reaction time between congruent and
incongruent stimuli. The effect has been used to create a psychological test
(the Stroop test) that is widely used in clinical practice and investigation. A basic task
that demonstrates this effect occurs when there is a mismatch between the name of a
colour (e.g., "blue", "green", or "red") and the colour it is printed on (i.e., the word
"red" printed in blue ink instead of red ink). When asked to name the colour of the
word it takes longer and is more prone to errors when the colour of the ink does not
match the name of the colour. The effect is named after John Ridley Stroop, who first
published the effect in English in 1935. The effect had previously been published in
Germany in 1929 by other authors. The original paper by Stroop has been one of the
most cited papers in the history of experimental psychology, leading to more than 700
Stroop-related articles in literature.

These results demonstrate a semantic effect on colour categorization. When

ambiguous colours were presented in the context of a word or iconic image,
categorization of the colours was biased in the direction of the typical colour of that
pictured or named object. That is, participants’ semantic knowledge of the typical
colour of common objects shifted their perception of ambiguous colours to be closer
to the typical colour for that object. The knowledge that chocolate is typically brown
shifted the perception of its colour to be browner. This result replicates previous
findings of semantic effects on colour perception and extends them by showing that
both iconic and lexical semantic contexts influence colour categorization. There are
three interpretations of the observed phenomena: (1) context effects are a decision-
level, feed-forward effect, (2) they are a result of top-down interaction effects, or (3)
they due to shared representation of colour between perceptual and conceptual
processing. Under the assumption of separate cognitive components, one dedicated to
colour perception and another dedicated to conceptual processing, the flow of
information distinguishes between strictly feed-forward and interactive views of
visual processing. In the feed-forward view, information flow is unidirectional from
perception to conceptual processing. In the present experiment participants
categorized ambiguous colours by choosing which of two-colour labels was a better
label for the stimulus colour. This label-based colour categorization task requires
access to semantic knowledge about the colours denoted by the labels. As a result, the
task can be re-cast as semantic categorization—similar to semantic categorization
experiments where participants categorize objects as “animals” or “plants”; in this
case participants chose between “yellow” and “pink” as semantic categories. Under
this view, one could argue that top-down feedback is not necessary to account for the
results since all of the critical processing took place at the semantic level. This
account is problematic with respect to recent results which show recalibration of
colour categories that could not be produced by decision level integration of colour
and conceptual knowledge. The interactive interpretation allows information to flow
between components bidirectionally, with conceptual processing directly influencing
perceptual processing; namely, by biasing the perception of colour toward the context
concept. The findings presented are consistent with a long history of evidence of top-
down effects in visual processing, as well as other domains. According to distributed
and perceptually-grounded theories of semantic representation are based on the
relevant perceptual representations. That is, the semantic representations of “yellow”
and “pink” are, in large part, the perceptual representations of yellow and pink
colours. The modules are not distinct entities, but rather intimately intertwined,
sharing state. This view represents an extension of the interactive view in which
bidirectional information flow blurs the distinction between components. Under the
distributed/grounded view, conceptual effects on colour perception are due to
integration of conceptual and perceptual representations, rather than top-down
feedback between distinct representational levels. Whether one takes the interactive or
integrated view, the present results add to the growing body of evidence that the
perceptual-semantic system does not consist of isolated modular components. If just
seeing the word chocolate or a simple icon representing it is enough to influence the
perception of an ambiguous colour, then the very notion of a strictly bottom-up colour
perception module that is independent of the perceiver’s knowledge and context is
undermined. If there are processing components, they are richly interactive.
Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to consider the perceptual semantic system
as an integrated whole with no truly independent components.

The predictions and hypothesis for the experiment are:

a. In the colour naming task, the participant will take more time to colour name the
undesirable words as compared to the desirable words.
b. In the recall task the participant will be able to recall more undesirable words than
desirable words.

Problem:

To study the automatic vigilance towards social information (difference in colour

naming time and number of words recalled) as a function of the valence of the
material (positive versus negative)

Hypothesis:

Alternative Hypotheses:
 1. Undesirable trait words produce more interference with colour naming than the
desirable trait words. Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable trait words
are more than that of desirable trait words.
2. The undesirable trait words are recalled more than the desirable trait words.

Null Hypotheses:
1. Undesirable trait words do not produce more interference with colour naming more
than the desirable trait words. Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable trait
words is less than or equal to that of desirable trait words.
2. The undesirable trait words are recalled less than or equal to the desirable trait
words less than or equal to that of desirable trait words.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF THE VARIABLES:

Independent Variable Desirability value of the information – 1 Independent Variable

with 2 levels.
Presentation of (i) Undesirable trait words and (ii) Desirable trait words in the
colours: Red, Green, Blue, Pink, Orange and Brown.

Dependent Variables:
1. Total time taken (in seconds) to name the colours of desirable and undesirable trait
words.
2. Total number of desirable and undesirable trait words recalled. Note: The number
of errors made while naming the colours can be noted down and discussed in ancillary
observations of the individual data

Control Variables:

1. There were separate colour-word sheets for the two conditions, desirable and
undesirable trait words. Each sheet had 30 desirable/undesirable trait words and 06
neutral words repeated twice.
2. The two sheets were presented successively. Half of the Es in the class presented
the desirable trait words sheet first followed by the undesirable trait words sheet. The
other half of the Es used the reverse order of presentation.
3. The first and the last column of both the sheets had neutral words, to avoid primacy
and recency effects while recalling the desirable and undesirable trait words in the
free recall task.
4. No mention of the recall test was made during the initial colour naming task.
5. The order of the colours to be named in both the conditions was the same.
6. The order of the colours was random with the constraint that each colour occurred
once in each column and twice in each row.
7. The sheets of the stimulus words for the two conditions were comparable in the
arrangement and spacing of the colour-word units and in the number of letters
comprising each unit.
8. There was an unfilled interval of 30 seconds between the presentations of the two
successive.
METHOD:

Participants:

Individual Data:

Name Age Class Emotional

(Optional) State
Participant 1 Abha Wankhede 22 Graduate Stable

Apparatus and Materials:

1. Two separate colour-word sheets, for the two conditions: desirable colour-word
units and undesirable colour-word units, each containing 72 colour-word units in
lower-case letters. (6 colour-word units in each column and 12 colour-word units in
each row).
2. Two scoring sheets for the colour naming task.
3. One demonstration card with 2 columns of 6 units each having the word ‘example’
written in all the different colours that will be used in the actual task.
4. A recall sheet for the recall test.
5. Stopwatch
6. Stationery
7. Screen

Design:

Repeated measures design with one independent variable having 2 levels. Each
participant was exposed to both the levels – desirable and undesirable trait words.

Procedure:

The E arranged the screen and the materials and called the P to the laboratory. S/he
was made to sit comfortably, rapport was built, and s/he was given the following
instructions.

Instructions for the first task

"This is a simple experiment on naming colours. You will be presented with two
sheets, one after the other. Each sheet will have series of colours in the context of
words. Your task is to name aloud only the colour in which the words have been
written, as quickly and as accurately, as you can. Begin from the first column, top
most word and proceed vertically down the column. Move from one column to the
next without skipping any column. Do not use your finger to point out or do not nod
your head while you name the colours. E explained P all the above instructions one by
one with the help of demo sheet. E asked P to name the colours in the demo sheet
twice making sure all the instructions are understood and followed well by the P
After ensuring that the P had understood the task, s/he was given the first sheet of 72
words. E said ‘Start’, started the stopwatch the moment P started naming the colours.
If the P engaged in nodding or pointing, E stopped the stopwatch, noted the time till
then, cautioned P not use those behaviours, and continued timing him or her. If P
engaged in reading the words instead of naming the ink colours for three consecutive
times, E stopped the stopwatch, noted the time till then, cautioned P not use those
behaviours, and continued timing him or her. The time taken to name the colours of
the first sheet was carefully noted. The errors, if any, were carefully noted. 30 seconds
unfilled interval was given after the first sheet was completed. Then the second sheet
was given. The same procedure was ensured while giving this sheet as in the first
sheet.

Instructions for the second task

"In the second task, you have to write down on this sheet of paper (show the blank
sheet to the P), as many words as possible, that you remember having seen on both
sheets presented earlier. Please don't write the colours you named. The order of the
words and whether they are from the first or the second sheet is not important. You
can write them as you remember them. You have 10 minutes to recall and write the
words. Please write the words vertically, one below the other. Please begin. " E gave
the pencil and the recall Sheet and said 'start' and started the stopwatch
simultaneously. E noted the recall time taken by the P.

Post Task Questions:

1. Have you heard anything about this experiment before?

A- I have not really heard anything about this experiment.

2. Do you have any comments about this experiment?

A- I found the experiment to be very interesting.

3. What do you think was the purpose of this experiment?

A- I think maybe to know how much I can recall and how I respond to the words.

4. Did you find anything unusual about this experiment?

A- No nothing unusual.

5. Did you feel anxious at any point during the experiment? If so, explain.
A- I felt anxious when I was not able to recall much words.

6. Did you notice any difference in the words or how you named the colours on the 2
cards? If yes, please explain.
A- I did notice that some words were positive whereas some were negative.

7. Did nature of the words make any difference to how fast you named their colours
and how well you remembered them? If yes, please explain how?
 A- Yes, I think I could remember those words which were negative.

8. Did you find the words on any one card more distracting than the other? Did that
make it easier or more difficult to name the colours on any one card? If yes, please
explain how that affected your experience.
A- Yes, since I could remember more negative words than positive ones.
9. Did you anticipate that there would be another task following the colour-naming
task? If yes, how and what did you anticipate?
A- Yes, I did anticipate that some other tasks will be there as well.

10. Did you experience any difficulty in recalling the words? If yes, specify.
A- Yes, after recalling a few words I was having difficulty in remembering more
words.

11. Did you feel that some words were easier to remember or stood out among the
rest? If so, which were they and why do you think you remembered them better?
A- I think I could remember negative words more such as depressed I think I
remembered them better because they were able to catch more attention.

Debriefing:

The purpose of the experiment was to study whether colour-naming time was longer
for undesirable trait words as compared to desirable trait words and whether
undesirable trait words were remembered better than desirable trait words. The
participant was shown the two cards and the difference between them was explained.
The participant was told that the task of naming the colour shows that people are
sensitive to the emotion entailed in the stimulus word though this feature is
completely irrelevant to the task. One way that people evaluate stimuli is to
immediately find out whether a stimulus ‘good for me’ or ‘bad for me’ without much
conscious thought. Then our attention gets directed to the stimulus that is evaluated as
negative or undesirable. This shift in attention occurs even without the intention of the
person. Negative words divert attention away from the colour name due to a
mechanism called ‘automatic vigilance’ in which people monitor their environment
for potential danger.
Thus, in the present experiment, it was expected that undesirable trait words would
cause problems disengaging attention from the words and focusing on the colour
dimension. Therefore, participant would take longer to name the colours of the
undesirable trait words as compared to the desirable trait words. It was also expected
that some incidental learning (which occurs without the learner’s intention) of the
words would also occur. As undesirable information would hold attention for longer,
recall would be greater for the undesirable trait words as compared to the desirable
trait words. Results were explained to the participant with respect to time taken to
name the colours and number of words recalled in the two conditions. This task has
been used in clinical studies using words specific to the individual’s concerns such as
anxiety, phobia etc. e.g., depressed individuals would be slower in naming depressive
words as compared to neutral words. Past research indicates a specific attention
 mechanism sensitive to positive and negative adjectives used to characterize safe and
risky social environments. There is an adaptive advantage for organisms having the
capacity to attend to undesirable stimulus quickly and with little effort. The
application to daily life is how automatic processing plays a role in impression
formation, stereotypes and group processing. Automatic vigilance can lead to a
negative bias in judgment and memory. It explains how unfavourable information
about individual or stereotyped groups is often noticed and remembered better than
favourable information even without the perceiver intending to do so, thus making the
person’s impression of that individual or social group 19 negatively biased. Therefore,
people’s greater attention to negative information may protect them from immediate
harm but one should be mindful that it can also contribute to prejudice and conflict in
social interaction

Analysis of Data:
Individual data:
1) A comparative analysis of the colour naming time (in seconds) and the number of
words recalled for the two conditions was presented in Table 1. (In case of Recall, only the
desirable and undesirable trait words were counted. Neutral words from the first and last
columns on both the cards were not to be counted.)
2) Bar graphs were drawn to depict the colour naming time and number of words
recalled in the two conditions (Figures 1 and 2 respectively)

Table 1: Comparison of Colour naming time in seconds and No. of words

recalled for Undesirable and Desirable Trait Words

Colour naming time in No. of words recalled

seconds
Undesirable Trait Words 02:30 mins 8
Desirable Trait Words 02:13 mins 5
Difference 17 secs 3

Graph:
 Colour Naming Time
160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Undesirable Words Desirable Words

Recall Words
9

0
Undesirable Words Desirable Words

Series 1 Series 2

Word Lists:

Neutral Undesirable Desirable New Words

Normal Violent Fair Bad
Rough Kind Good
Selfish Honest Desirable
Brutal Happy Beautiful
 Mean Carefree Fabulous
Dull Sweet
Wicked Danger
Depressed Real
Harmless
Love
Alone
Clumsy
Dangerous
Tolerant
Fantastic

Group Data:

1) A comparative analysis of the Colour naming time for Undesirable and Desirable
Trait Words of 20 participants was presented in Table 2 and the calculation of t value
(Paired t test) was shown below the table.
2) A comparative analysis of the Recall scores for Undesirable and Desirable Trait
Words of 20 participants was presented in Table 3 and the calculation of t value
(Paired t test) was shown below the table.
3) Bar graphs were drawn to depict the Mean colour naming time and Mean recall
score of 20 participants in the two conditions (Figures 3 and 4 respectively).
Table 2: Comparative analysis of the Colour naming time for Undesirable and
Desirable Trait Words of 20 participants and the calculation of t value

Colour Naming Time:

N = 24, df = 23 P = 0.05, SS= 7483.277

S2= SS/df = 7483.277/ 23

= 325.359

S= √S2 = √325.359 = 18.037

SM = S/√N = 18.037 / √24= 3.681

t= Md – 0 / SM
= 6.355-0/ 3.681
= 1.726

Critical t= 1.714

The calculated t is greater than the critical t. Therefore, the participant will take more
time to color name the undesirable traits words.
 Color Naming Time
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Undesirable Words Desirable Words

Trait Words Column1 Series 3

Recall Words:
Participant Undesirable Words Desirable Words Difference D-Md D- Md Sq. D2
1 2 1 1 1.083 1.17 1
2 2 5 -3 -2.91 8.5 9
3 3 1 2 2.08 4.34 4
4 0 3 -3 -2.91 8.5 9
5 3 2 1 1.08 1.17 1
6 0 0 0 0.08 0.006 0
7 8 5 3 3.08 9.5 9
8 2 2 0 0.08 0.006 0
9 0 1 -1 -0.91 0.84 1
10 9 3 6 6.08 37.006 36
11 2 1 1 1.08 1.17 1
12 6 0 6 6.08 37.006 36
13 1 2 -1 -0.91 0.84 1
14 1 1 0 0.08 0.006 0
15 3 1 2 2.08 4.34 4
16 3 2 1 1.08 1.17 1
17 5 4 1 1.08 1.17 1
18 1 1 0 0.08 0.006 0
19 3 1 2 2.08 4.34 4
20 0 2 -2 -1.91 3.67 4
21 1 4 -3 -2.91 8.5 9
22 0 10 -10 -9.91 98.34 100
23 0 3 -3 -2.91 8.5 9
24 1 3 2 -1.91 3.67 4
SUM 56 58 -2 SS= 243.8333
Mean -0.08333

N= 24, df = 23

S2 = SS/df = 243.83/ 23 = 10.601

S= √S2 = √10.601 = 3.255

Sm= S/√N = 3.255/√24 = 3.255/4.89

= 0.6658

t= Md- 0 / Sm
= --0.83/ 0.66
= - 0.125

Critical t= 1.714

The calculated value of t is lesser than the critical t. Hence at p value 0.05 t is not
significant.
 Recall Words
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Undesirable Words Desirable Words

Series 1 Series 2

Result and Discussion:

Individual Data:

The participant took 150 secs to color name the undesirable words, whereas in case of
desirable words the participant took 133 secs. Alternative hypothesis is being
accepted in the experiment since the participant took longer time to color name the
undesirable words which was the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, the results are in
line with the alternative hypothesis.

The participant could recall 8 undesirable words, 5 desirable words and 1 neutral
word. The alternative hypothesis has been accepted since the participant recalled
more undesirable words. Therefore, the results are in line with the alternative
hypothesis.

The trends of the findings are not in line with the null hypothesis. And therefore, null
hypothesis is being rejected.
Participant made a few errors as well. In the color naming task participant spelled out
the word “mean “instead of naming the color.
In the recall task the participant also provided 15 new words which were not
originally in the list, stating that the new words which were written down were closer
to the words already in the list.

All the control variables were in place, no disturbance was observed in the control
variables. The participant had a positive attitude and was emotionally stable during
the experiment. It did impact in production of new words which were desirable in
nature due to participant`s attitude.
According to the theory and researches on Automatic Vigilance the results are totally
in line with the research. Research states that an individual tends to focus on the
undesirable words and hence takes more time in color naming of words with
undesirable nature. In the recall condition an individual tends to recall more
undesirable words since they focus more on negative elements. All this was observed
in the conduction of the experiment.

Group Data:

The mean time taken to color name the traits for undesirable trait words for 24
participants was 89.6 secs and for desirable traits words was 83.25 secs. The time for
undesirable traits words is higher than desirable trait words in color naming task.
The mean words recalled for undesirable trait words was 2.33 and desirable trait
words was 2.41. The mean value for recall of undesirable traits words is lower than
the desirable trait words.

Statistical Hypothesis Testing technique was used to analyze the group data. This
technique was used since it allows us to draw conclusions about an entire population
based on a representative sample. 
The results are not statistically significant with the p value as 0.05. In the experiment
we get the value of t= - 0.125 with df= 23. It is not significant since the t value is
lesser than critical t value 1.714.

The alternative hypothesis has not been validated with the group data since the
mean for recall task of desirable words is higher than the undesirable words. The
group data is not expected as possible since in the case of few participants the
participant could recall more desirable words than the undesirable words. This
impacted the mean of the desirable words resulting in higher mean than undesirable
words.

On the basis of experimental realism, we can state that the experiment does provide
same results in participants real settings. They are impactful to the participants since
they tend to give more attention to the negative aspect words (i.e., undesirable traits
words.). In mundane realism as well the materials and procedures remaining same in
the real life the participants will provide the same results as provided in the
experiment. The participants will focus on negative stimulus (e.g., lion) more than
positive stimulus (e.g., dog)
 Conclusion:

The main trends in the Individual Data were consistent with the relevant past research
and theories for total time taken to name the colours of undesirable (150 secs) and
desirable trait words (133 secs) alone/ number of undesirable (8 words) and desirable
trait words (5 words) recalled alone/ for total time taken (17 secs) and words recalled
both (3 words)

The hypothesis that:

1) ‘Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable trait words (89.66 secs) are
more than that of desirable trait words (83.25 secs) was validated by the Group Data,
on the basis of the obtained t value (1.726) and its significance ( significant since
critical t = 1.714)

2) ‘The undesirable trait words (56, 2.33) are recalled more than the desirable trait
words’ (58, 2.41), was not validated by the Group Data, on the basis of the obtained t
value (1.125) and its significance (not significant, critical t= 1.714)

References:

1. Automatic Vigilance: The Attention-Grabbing Power of Negative Social Information

Oliver John & Felicia Pratto, October 1991. PubMed

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21213504_Automatic_Vigilance_The_Attention-
Grabbing_Power_of_Negative_Social_Information

2. Understanding Internal and External Validity ,How These Concepts Are Applied in
Research , Arlin Clinic, July 31 ,2021
https://www.verywellmind.com/internal-and-external-validity-4584479

3. The Stroop Effect, by Charlotte Ruhl, published Dec 01, 2020

https://www.simplypsychology.org/stroop-effect.html

4. Emotion and cognition: The case of automatic vigilance, Randy J. Larsen

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2004/11/larsen

5. Experimental Realism in Social Psychological Research, September 2000, M.

Hammerl

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289016541_Experimental_Realism_in_Soci
al_Psychological_Research