Testing of the Stroop Effect in Colour-Associated Words and Neutral Words

The Stroop experiment by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935 was performed in order to analyze the reaction time of participant’s stimuli and desired results while also obtaining a collective result of color interference and word reading(Stroop, 1935; Lee & Chan, 2000). In the experiment three forms of the test were given, the first consisting of color patches, the second had the color words printed in black and the other was an incongruent test beaming the color did not match the color word

Controlled Vs Automatic processes: A modified version of a Stroop experiment using colour-associated and colour neutral words.

However, evidence from a recent series of experiments conducted by MacLeod and Dunbar (1988) suggests that the processes involved in the Stroop task may have not been inadequate. In their experiment they taught participants to use color words as names for arbitrary shapes that actually appeared in a neutral color. After 288 trials where there was a 72 trials per stimulus, participants could perform this shape-naming task without difficulty. At this point, the effect that ink color had on shape naming was tested by presenting participants with conflicting and congruent stimuli for example, shapes colored to conflict or agree with their assigned names. Ink color produced large interference and facilitation effects. However, when the task was reversed, and subjects were asked to state the color of the ink in which the

The Stroop effect was tested on four different tasks. Nineteen Queens College students were recruited by flyer, and each were assigned to a word reading task, color reading task, color inhibition task, and word inhibition task. They were timed using a stopwatch function on a cell phone, to name the color, or word to the quickest of their ability. In the order from longest reaction time to shortest: inhibition color naming task, color naming task, inhibition word reading, and word reading. This study shows that people can read words more quickly than they can name colors, and that inhibiting an automatic response to color/word tasks will take longer to do than tasks that do not involve inhibition.

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

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).

In the Stroop task, participants are asked to name the colour of the ink that a colour word is written in, while ignoring the written the word (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The task is comprised of congruent words, where the ink colour and the written word match and incongruent words, where the ink colour and the written word do not match. The Stroop task has illustrated that participants respond slower and less accurately when the word is incongruent compared to when it is congruent (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The difference in the accuracy and speed of responses between the congruent and incongruent words is called the Stroop Effect (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). Research has suggested that this occurs

The Stroop (1935) effect is the inability to ignore a color word when the task is to report the ink color of that word (i.e., to say "green" to the word RED in green ink). The present study investigated whether object-based processing contributes to the Stroop effect. According to this view, observers are unable to ignore irrelevant features of an attended object (Kahneman & Henik, 1981). In three experiments, participants had to name the color of one of two superimposed rectangles and to ignore words that appeared in the relevant object, in the irrelevant object, or in the background. The words were congruent,

In 1935, John Ridley Stroop conducted an experiment at George Peabody College for teachers in the United States. Stroop used 70 college undergraduates as subject in his experiment, he compared times for reading names of colours and naming colours themselves. The aim was to determine if the colour of the word affected the ability to read it. In the experiment, there was three different conditions. In the first condition participants were asked to read words as quickly as possible whereas participants had to name the ink colour in which each word were printed as quickly as possible in second condition. In a third condition (the incongruent condition), participants had to name the ink colour in which each word was printed, but in this condition the words themselves were colour names. For example, the word ‘GREEN’ was presented in the colour orange and you were required to read this colour instead of the word itself. Stroop found that the participants were much slower at naming the ink colours when the stimuli were themselves colours as (third condition), indicating that a possible explanation for the Stroop effect is that people quickly and automatically process the meaning of the word.

The aim of this experiment was to test how the automatic processing of reading interferes with the controlled processing of naming a colour. The findings support the original previous research (Stroop, 1935) as a significant difference was found which indicates that when the controlled process of naming a colour is not interfered with then it can be recognized faster whereas when the automatic processes of reading words is involved then the time taken to name the colour is slower due to the interference.

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 study of interference in serial verbal reactions was coined by J.R Stroop and published as a journal of social psychology in 1935. The investigation focused on the interaction of stimuli and the effects on verbal reactions. The psychologists argued that interference of certain stimuli may affect the ease and convenience in performing verbal tasks. This simply means that interaction between certain counteracting stimuli may affect identification and interpretation of related and sequential verbal expected reactions. The most used concept in the experiment is the color stimuli. The authors exposed some students used as study subjects to certain color stimuli.it were evident that there were some difficulties in reading the colors, especially

At the point when the composed word is incongruent with the text style shading e.g. green written in cocoa, the time it takes to distinguish the shading is expanded in respect to a benchmark condition i.e. a string of rehashed letters, e.g. or a non-shading related word, e.g. stage. The contrast between the incongruent and gauge condition is known as Stroop impedance. Conversely, when the shading and word are consistent e.g. chestnut written in cocoa the time it takes to distinguish the shading is diminished in respect to the pattern condition; a distinction alluded to as Stroop assistance. Stroop impedance is putatively a result of reaction rivalry, and Stroop help an outcome of reaction meeting, different instruments creating Stroop impacts are thought to influence execution. At the end of the day the two measurements of the Stroop boost can give proof toward a reaction, bringing about contending or joining

Would practice effect Stroop interference and if so what would this tell us about the Stroop Effect (MacLeod, 1991)? This question was investigated by having participants learn names of Armenian letters and then read the small English and Armenian letters that were composed to form large English and Armenian letters respectively (McLeod, 1991). The results provided evidence that interference was the same for both English (practiced) and Armenian letters (McLeod, 1991). Why then does automatic reading make one susceptible to the Stroop Effect? A possible explanation is attention. During automatic processing, more attention goes to processing the information in dimension a than in dimension b. Processing and naming ink color requires more attention than reading, and so reading will cause interference because it requires less attention (McLeod,

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.