Stroop Effect

Brief Outline of the Introduction

Define Interference Describe Stroop (as a task to measure interference) Exp 1-little interference Exp 2-lots of interference Interference is funny Relative Speed of processing as an explanation for the interference seen in the Stroop effect (more details here) Point out predicts fast read will interfere with slow colornaming, but the exact word does not matter Study where type of word does matter Final Paragraph

Stroops First Experiment Task: Read Words

Control Red Blue Green Brown Purple

Incongruent Red Blue Green Brown Purple

Stroops Second Experiment Task: Name Colors

Control

Incongruent Red Blue Green Brown Purple

Variants on the Stroop Effect

Words above, below, left or right of a dot Name typefaces bold, italics, underline Sorting Tasks Picture naming tasks Stroop Effect of words that differ from color words in one letter only Pitch reporting

Explanations for the Stroop Effect Physiologically

Explanations for the Stroop Effect Automaticity Theory All skills are learned to some degree of automaticity. More automatic skills require less attentional resources. The processing of the color dimension requires much more attention than does processing of the reading dimension.

Explanations for the Stroop Effect Perceptual Encoding Theory

Interference during encoding. The perceptual encoding of the ink color is slowed by incompatible information from the incongruent color word.

Explanations for the Stroop Effect Relative Speed of Processing Theory

Interference during response selection. The two dimensions of the stimulus are processed in parallel. There is a limited capacity response channel into which only one of the two potential responses can be admitted, priority is determined by speed. Each possible response comes through at a different speed. The two responses compete to be the response actually produced. The two codes for the two responses are seen as racing to control the final output. The time cost of this competition is interference.

Is the Stroop Effect caused by Interference?

The presence of the words interferes with the naming of the colors (or pictures or shapes). However, the Stroop effect doesnt work in reverse Words strongly related semantically to color (such as blood or sky) cause more interference than unrelated words. Words high in emotional content produce more interference.

Our Experiment Research Question

The relative speed of processing theory beautifully predicts the interference of (very fast) reading on our ability to perform a less well-learned (slower) skill. However, the theory does not predict that any one word is more interfering than another. We will test whether, contrary to the relative speed of processing theory, the semantic relatedness of the interfering words matters.

Our Experiment Hypotheses

The relative speed of processing theory falls short of adequately explaining the interference in a Stroop-like task. Changing the cognitive meaning of the interfering word will change the amount of interference the word will create. Words belonging to the same semantic category as the task to be named will create more interference than words belonging to an unrelated semantic category.

Control Square Circle Diamond

Triangle Rectangle

Our Experiment Possible Stimuli

Incongruent Semantically Related Square with circle Triangle with diamond Circle with rectangle Rectangle with square Diamond with triangle

Incongruent Semantically Unrelated Square with flower Triangle with 7 letter word Circle with 9 letter word Rectangle with 6 letter word Diamond with 8 letter word

If the relative speed of processing explains the Stroop effect, what do the stimuli mean?
Control = Time needed to name shapes; a pure measure of shape naming skills. ISR - Control = The interference that the presence of semantically related words has on shape naming skills; a reflection of Stroops second experiment. ISU - Control = The interference that the presence of semantically unrelated words has on shape naming skills; perhaps a true measure of the interference described by the relative speed of processing theory. ISR - ISU = Extent to which interference from semantically related words is stronger than interference from semantically unrelated words; if this number is anything other than zero, it is the amount to which the relative speed of processing theory falls short of predicting interference.

Our Experiment Predictions Control vs. ISR (Basic Stroop Effect) Control will be faster than ISR Control will have fewer errors than ISR Control vs. ISU Control will be faster than ISU Control will have fewer errors than ISU ISR vs. ISU (Degree to which RSP falls short) ISR will take longer than ISU ISR will have more errors than ISU

Our Experiment Internal Validity Issues

Must present all three lists to the same people because high amounts of individual variability necessitate that people act as controls for themselves. After naming shapes for a while, people will get better at the task. Therefore, we can not present the lists in the same order every time. If we only look at six responses from each condition, then a single bad response could drastically increase average time.
How many total trials should be used for an entire experiment? We need multiples of 15

Our Experiment Internal Validity Issues If all lists present the shapes in the same order, people will remember the order. If we always present control in one order, then always present pictures in a second, then there could be something about one of the orderings that may be more memorable than another. Perhaps we should include practice trials that do not count.

Our Experiment Internal Validity Issues

What about the stimuli? Should items in words list and pictures list be the same? Should we worry about the frequency of the words? The word circle is common, the word flower is not really common. Should all words contain the same number of letters? circle = 6, flower = 6 Random presentation of stimuli? Make a really big list and randomly present from it? Create blocks? Maybe Part 1 and Part 2 of experiment so we can use a repeated measures factor to experimentally account for picture naming learning.