Abstract
The following research paper discusses the Stroop Effect, one of the most frequently used tests in cognitive psychology. The literature review examines the different theoretical frameworks and approaches used to explain the observed effect, including the impact of age, difficulty, and personality factors on the effect. The study aims to investigate the Stroop Effect using a large participant pool of 1839 participants who completed the Stroop task.
The experiments were conducted using Cognition software, and participants were provided with an electronic informed consent form at the beginning of the experiment. The results showed that participants had significantly slower reaction times and lower accuracy under an incongruent condition than a congruent or neutral condition. These findings suggest that the Stroop Effect is a complex phenomenon affected by multiple factors and that future research should consider the individual characteristics of test subjects in addition to environmental circumstances.
Introduction
Cognitive psychology—a branch of psychology that focuses on examining the intellectual processes ingrained within attention, perception, memory, and problem-solving—endeavors to understand how humans obtain, process, store, and utilize information. It employs experimental approaches to scrutinize cognition through methods such as timing reactions, precision, and eye movements.
The Stroop Effect is one of cognitive psychology’s most frequently employed tests. This experiment looks at how automatic processing affects cognitive control. It tests explicitly people’s accuracy and response times while reading words written in colors other than their own. The participant’s job is to rapidly and precisely identify the color of the ink; for instance, if the word “green” is printed in blue ink.
The Stroop Effect has been studied across different groups, including children, adults, and individuals with neurological disorders. The Stroop Effect has also been used in various applications, such as cognitive assessment, clinical diagnosis, and cognitive training. It has significantly contributed to our understanding of attention, automatic processing, and cognitive control and has been studied extensively in different populations and contexts. Over the past few decades, the Stroop Effect has been the subject of a significant amount of research, with numerous studies examining various facets of the phenomena. Unfortunately, the majority of the previous research has concentrated on studies with smaller sample sizes, which restricts the capacity to generalize the findings.
The current objective of this paper is to investigate the Stroop Effect using a sizable participant pool as its subject population. This will provide a comprehensive investigation of the Stroop Effect across various participants. The study will analyze group data from 1839 participants who completed the Stroop test. Although different variables, such as age, personal qualities, and cognitive skills or disabilities, are not considered in this research, the main purpose was to investigate the extent to which the Stroop effect can be used to evaluate cognitive control and inhibitory processes. The hypothesis is that, based on the existing body of research, participants will demonstrate slower reaction times and a poorer level of accuracy when exposed to an incongruent condition in comparison to congruent and neutral circumstances.
Literature Review
With its initial description in a study conducted by Stroop (1935) in his paper titled “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions”, the Stroop Effect has been the subject of further research and has been repeated in a wide variety of settings. Stroop presented a series of experiments where he asked participants to read aloud the names of colors printed in different colored inks. He found that it took participants longer to name the colors when the ink color did not match the color name.
Stroop’s findings revolutionized the field of cognitive psychology and are still widely studied today. The Stroop effect is thought to occur because the brain processes language and color information in different areas, and when these areas conflict with each other, it creates interference that slows down processing speed. Several theoretical frameworks, such as automaticity, selective attention, and processing speed, have been utilized to explain the observed effect.
MacLeod (1991) gives a summary of the research that has been done on the Stroop effect from the time it was first discovered in the 1930s up until the time the research article was published. MacLeod (1991) addresses the several iterations of the Stroop task, the theoretical theories that have been given to explain the effect, and the data from a range of research conducted on the Stroop effect.
One illustration from the research article written by MacLeod (1991) is the application of an altered version of the Stroop task named the Emotional Stroop Task. In this version, color words are replaced with emotionally charged words such as “murder” and “love,” participants are asked to identify the color of the ink in which the word is printed while attempting to ignore the emotional content of the word. It has been found advantageous to investigate attentional biases towards emotional information in various populations using the Emotional Stroop Task. These populations include people who suffer from anxiety disorders or depression.
MacLeod (1991) also illustrates the issues and limitations of the Stroop task, such as the function of cognitive control, attention, and automaticity and the extent to which it mimics real-life circumstances. The author concludes the paper by suggesting some novel approaches that could be taken in future studies of the Stroop effect. These approaches include applying neuroimaging methods and investigating the interaction between cognitive and emotional processes.
Parris et al. (2019) investigated whether there was a correlation between age and the Stroop effect. The Stroop test was administered to a total of 120 healthy adults ranging in age from 20 to 80 years old as part of this research project. Participants’ ages ranged anywhere from 20 to 80 years old. The amplitude of the Stroop Effect was shown to increase with age, which was demonstrated by the data, indicating that older people had more incredible difficulty than younger adults in terms of blocking their instinctive processing. This was shown to be the case because older people had more trouble than younger adults.
Nicosia et al. (2021) investigated the effect of the task’s difficulty on the Stroop effect. The study included 60 healthy people who completed the Stroop test at two degrees of difficulty. The results demonstrated that the magnitude of the Stroop Effect was larger at the more difficult level, demonstrating that task difficulty controlled the impact.
Nicosia et al. (2021) conducted a Stroop task experiment investigating the effects of emotional valence on the Stroop effect. Participants were presented with emotional words – positive, negative, or neutral – printed in different colored inks and asked to identify the ink color of the word as fast as possible. The researchers found that participants were slower to respond and less accurate in determining the ink color of negative emotional words than positive or neutral words, indicating that the emotional valence of the words influenced the Stroop effect.
The article “Modulation of Conflicts in the Stroop Effect” by Shichel and Tzelgov (2018) investigates the modulation of the Stroop effect in a series of experiments. The researchers focused their attention on how the Stroop effect is affected by the intensity of the conflict and the order of the trials. According to the findings, the Stroop effect was shown to be affected by the intensity of the conflict, and this impact was shown to be dependent on the order in which the trials were performed.
To be more specific, the Stroop effect was attenuated when the trial that came before it contained a high-conflict condition, but it was unaffected in any way by high-conflict conditions. On the other hand, the Stroop effect was found to be amplified for high-conflict conditions when the trial that came before it involved a low-conflict condition. These findings provide credence to the hypothesis that the Stroop effect is modulated, at least in part, by the intensity of the conflict as well as the setting in which it is presented.
Methods
Participants
As the sole participant in this study, I completed the Stroop task using Experiments in Cognition software. An electronic informed consent form was presented to me at the start of the experiment, which I consented to by clicking on a button. I was given three options: full participation to complete the paper requirements, limited participation to learn more about the experiment, or exit. I finished the full participation in the experiment once. Still, I was encouraged to participate in any of the other experiments any number of times by indicating limited participation, which I did.
Materials
The Stroop task was used to measure participants’ reaction time and accuracy when reading words that are incongruent with the color in which they have been printed. The task comprised three conditions: a neutral condition, where the word and the color were the same; an interference condition, where the word and the color were different and incongruent; and a facilitation condition, where the word and the color were different but congruent.
Procedure
At the beginning of the trial, an electronic informed consent form was provided to each of the participants, including myself. After giving their permission to take part in the study, the participants used the Experiments in Cognition software to do the Stroop task. The software presented the three circumstances of the task in a randomized order.
Each participant experimented once under full participation, but they were encouraged to engage in any of the other trials any number of times by indicating partial involvement. The data were gathered in an automated fashion by the software and then transferred to a protected server in order to be analyzed. To provide a complete overview of the group data, the data were examined using descriptive statistics and software designed specifically for statistical analysis. The descriptive data made it possible to conduct an in-depth examination of the participants’ reaction times and accuracy in each condition, which led to the discovery of important information about the Stroop Effect.
Results
Group Results
The group data that was gathered from 1839 individuals revealed that the neutral condition had a mean reaction time of 746.31 milliseconds, with a standard variation of 218.21 milliseconds, and a total of 117596 trials that were finished. A total of 112189 trials were finished, and the mean reaction time for the interference condition was 810.48 milliseconds. At this stage, the standard deviation was 237.61 milliseconds. The average reaction time for the condition of facilitation was 682.04 milliseconds, with a standard deviation of 205.08 milliseconds and a total of 120599 tests carried out.
The participants in each condition had their reaction times and accuracy measured, and descriptive statistics were generated to summarize the findings. The findings revealed that the interference condition had the most influence on the participants’ reaction times, as evidenced by the mean reaction time being the slowest in the neutral condition and the quickest in the facilitation condition. On the other hand, the facilitation condition had the fastest mean reaction time, which is evidence that facilitation had a beneficial influence on the participants’ reaction times.
Table 1 – Summary of Group Data for the Stroop Experiment.
According to Table 1, the average reaction time under the neutral condition was 746.31 milliseconds. The standard deviation was calculated as 218.21 milliseconds. On the other hand, the average reaction time when applied to the interference state was 810.48 ms, with a standard deviation of 237.61 ms. Under the facilitation state, the mean time of reaction was 682.04 milliseconds, and the size of the standard deviation was 205.08 milliseconds.
In addition, the number of tests that persons in each condition managed to finish was recorded. The participants completed a total of 117596 trials while in the neutral condition, 112189 trials were completed while in the interference condition, and 120599 trials were completed while in the facilitation condition.
The Stroop Effect and the interference of autonomic processing with cognitive control are illuminated by these descriptive data, which can be found here. Participants experienced interference when reading words printed in a color that was incongruent with the color of the printed words, as evidenced by the significantly longer mean response time for the interference condition compared to the considerably shorter mean reaction time for the neutral condition. The interference condition was substantially more difficult. Participants experienced facilitation when reading words consistent with the color in which they were printed, as demonstrated by the significantly shorter mean reaction time for the facilitation condition compared to the neutral condition. In contrast, the mean reaction time for the neutral condition was substantially longer.
Personal Results
The personal results of the Stroop Effect experiment are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 – Personal result for the Stroop Experiment.
The personal results of this study revealed the average response time under the congruent condition was 881 milliseconds (ms), while the average response time under the incongruent condition was 966 ms. The difference in the mean reaction time between the incongruent and congruent circumstances was found to be 85 milliseconds, which is known as the Stroop effect.
Discussion
Group Results
The predictions stated in the introduction are considered in the interpretation of the findings presented in the discussion portion of this experiment’s outcomes. The results of the research are in agreement with the hypotheses presented at the beginning of the paper. The findings indicate that interference occurred when autonomic processing interfered with cognitive control since it took the participants considerably longer to read incongruent words than congruent ones. It can be deduced that the mean reaction time for the interference condition was noticeably longer than the mean reaction time for the neutral condition because the difference was statistically significant.
This finding suggests that the participants encountered interference when reading words whose color did not correspond to the color in which they were printed. This discovery is in line with the conclusions drawn from a prior study, which showed that interference occurs when automatic processing interferes with cognitive control, resulting in a lag in reaction time. This result is compatible with other findings.
In addition, the mean reaction time for the facilitation condition was significantly lower than the mean reaction time for the neutral condition, indicating that participants experienced facilitation when reading words congruent with the color in which they were printed. This was demonstrated by the fact that the mean reaction time for the neutral condition was significantly higher than the mean reaction time for the facilitation condition. This result lends credence to the hypothesis presented at the beginning of the article, which stated that facilitation would occur when autonomic processing was consistent with cognitive control, resulting in reduced reaction times.
The findings of this experiment, taken as a whole, offer compelling support for the Stroop Effect, which illustrates how automatic processing can interfere with one’s ability to exercise cognitive control. According to the results, participants suffer interference and have shorter reaction times when autonomic processing interacts with cognitive control. This interference leads to slower response times.
Conversely, participants feel facilitation and quicker reaction times when autonomic processing is compatible with cognitive control. This correlation has been shown to improve performance. The insights that were gathered for this study may assist researchers and clinicians in better understanding the influence of automatic processing on cognitive control, and they can also guide the development of therapies that are intended to enhance cognitive performance.
Personal Results
The individual results of the Stroop Effect experiment are displayed in Table 2. These results revealed that the mean reaction time for the congruent condition was 881 milliseconds (ms), while the incongruent condition’s was 966 ms. When the word and the ink color do not match, participants take longer to respond than in previous studies where a significant Stroop effect was discovered. These results are consistent with those findings. The variation in the average response time between the incongruent and congruent conditions was calculated to be 85 milliseconds, commonly referred to as the Stroop phenomenon. Based on this distinction, it appears that the interference produced when reading a word’s color name rather than its actual ink color can significantly slow down response times.
As a participant in the study, I found the Stroop Effect experiment to be a bit difficult to complete. It was challenging to overcome the automatic response of reading the word rather than determining the color of the ink. Although I was familiar with the Stroop Effect before taking part in the experiment, going through the experiment on my own has given me a profound appreciation for the intricacy of the mental processes involved.
Limitations
One limitation is that it only included one person, and thus, the findings may not be generalizable to a broader group. Moreover, the personal findings shown in Table 2 only reflect the performance of one individual and, thus, may not truly represent the population’s performance. Another possible limitation of this study is that it does not take into consideration the condition of each participant during the experiment. Before I started doing the Stroop task, I had been feeling fatigued, which might have influenced the results noticeably. Future studies could use a more sophisticated approach – taking into account other factors that might influence the Stroop experiment results – to provide more robust findings.
References
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203. Web.
Nicosia, J., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Balota, D. A. (2021). Re-examining age differences in the Stroop effect: The importance of the trees in the forest (plot). Psychology and Aging, 36(2), 214–231. Web.
Parris, B. A., Sharma, D., Weekes, B. S. H., Momenian, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2019). Response Modality and the Stroop Task. Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 361–367. Web.
Shichel, I., & Tzelgov, J. (2018). Modulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect. Acta Psychologica, 189, 93–102. Web.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. Web.