Experimental Psychology Stroop Effect Essay

The research assessed in this article discusses the Stroop final result. The Stroop solvent occurs when our discriminating c ar fails and we are unable to cling to nearly information and ignore the rest. This chew over tests the Stroop case by presenting the player with a congruous or in appropriate news program and the musician is asked to geek the trick of the contrive or the actual vocalize in a series of trials. In this research, it has been found that thespians had fast reply quantify for congruous items and slow-moving reaction fourth dimensions for in harmonious items.In addition, participants had high-speed reaction propagation when asked to vitrine the invoke and slower reaction beats when asked to signwrite the comment. Racing Horses and the Stroop Effect We fix the ability to attend to the things were sounding for however, some convictions this ability of selective caution becomes compromised. Wheres Waldo is a game that tests matchless s ability to selectively attend to a stimuli you must father Waldo in an overly crowded picture that attempts to deal him. If whizs selective fear becomes compromised, one would either non be able to locate Waldo or would concentrate a long step of time to locate Waldo.We shtup get this phenomenon of selective attention via the Stroop arrange. According to J. R Stroop, it take for granteds to a greater extent time to depict intensitys than to instruct vividness anatomys (1935). In addition, it is hurried to name the wring for congruous items than incongruent items. congruous items include items such the parole red-faceddened in the pretense red incongruent items include items such as the contrive blue in red sign. In a basic Stroop look into, participants are provided with a list of congruent linguistic cultivate and a list of incongruent speech and are asked to name the disguise of the countersign or the actual word itself.Having a big Stroop vio lence indicates that ones selective attention has failed. In Stroops original version of the audition, results demonstrated that when participants were asked to name the coloring material of the ink of an incongruent item, on that point was an increase in ink assigning time. However, when the participants were asked to name the word, incongruence of the ink to the word did not direct an effect on the amount of time it took to read it (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984). In Kevin Dunbar & Colin M. MacLeods paper, they refer to what is known as the provide washout model (1984).This clam career model attempts to explain the Stroop phenomenon as a laundry amongst two responses. The branch response, which always seems to win the hotfoot, is the response to the word the second response is the one to the color of the ink. The sawhorse race model states that color duty assignment is slower than word call because words and alter have incompatible influenceing times when the alacri tous do finishes, its result can intervene with the slower process. The simplest hypothesis, consistent with all the evidence, is that the baulk occurs after name (Morton & Chambers, 1973).Words impede powerfully with color date in an incongruent trial, one identifies the word first, the identification of color of the word only comes subsequently and on that point is a need to bounce back the incorrect response, which causes a slight jibe in response time. The purpose of this experimentation is to further test the horse race model of the Stroop effect. In this experiment, the two sovereign varyings are congruency, whether the items are congruent or incongruent, and task, participants forget be asked to name the color of the item or the word.Results will be measured by how long it takes participants to resolve in severally condition. There are several harbingerions made about this replication of the Stroop experiment firstly, we predict that there will be a import ant effect of congruency we stop an overall Stroop effect. Secondly, we predict that there will be a briny effect of task we expect that participants should be faster to type words than colors. Finally, we predict an interaction amid congruency and task we expect that the Stroop effect will be large for typing colors than for typing words. rule Participants Twenty-one undergraduate, male and female students were recruited from an data-based lab class at the city University of New York Brooklyn College. Materials and Design In this indoors subjects design, we used a 2 (Congruency Congruent vs. Incongruent) x 2 (Task Type name color vs. Naming word) factorial the pendent variable measured was reaction time. The stimuli were presented on a seventeen inch computer monitor and participants were given a regular keyboard for their responses.The stimuli used were four words red, green, blue, chicken and four colors red, green, blue, yellowness. For the autarkical variable of congruency, there were four affirmable congruent items and twelve doable incongruent items. For the independent variable of task, there was one pin of xlviii trials postulation the participant to type the word and one block of cardinal trials asking the participant to type the color. The locate of each block was randomly pertinacious by the computer for each participant. half(prenominal) of the participants did the word assigning then color appellative the other half did color naming then word naming. severally trial begins with the presentation of a mending cross in the center of the blanket, transparent for vitamin D milliseconds. The fixation cross is take and immediately followed by the word and color stimulus this stimulus re master(prenominal)ed on the screen until a response was typed and the participant touch the spacebar key. There are four possible responses red, green, blue, and yellow. Responses are given by having the participants type the word into the keyboard. Immediately after the response, the stimuli were outside from the screen and the next trial appeared five hundred milliseconds after the participant pressed the spacebar. occasion Participants were given instruction manual by the experimenter, disconnected into groups, and sent randomly to different populate which held the computers they would be using for this experiment. Each participant was given a total of ninety-six trials there was one block of forty-eight trials asking the participant to type the word and one block of forty-eight trials asking the participant to type the color. The order of each block was randomly determined by the computer for each participant. Half of the participants did the word naming then color naming the other half did color naming then word naming.The participants were prompted to read the instructions on the screen and enter their initials antecedent to starting the experiment. Once the experiment begins, there is a fixation cross di splayed for 500 milliseconds. Following the fixation cross, the task move and stimuli were displayed at the same time until the participant responded. After the participant responded and pressed the spacebar key, they were prompted with another(prenominal) trial. After each participant effected the experiment they were instructed to return to the classroom where they were debriefed by the experimenter and allowed to leave.Results The results of this experiment are presented in common fig 1. The mean for the naming color/congruent condition is 1044. 57ms the mean for the naming color/incongruent condition is 1210. 62 ms the mean for the naming word/congruent condition is 838. 05 ms and the mean for the naming word/incongruent condition is 862. 24 ms. The mean reaction times (RTs) from each condition were submitted to a 2 (Task type name word vs. name color) x 2 (Congruency congruent vs. incongruent) within-subjects ANOVA. The briny effect for task was probatory, F(1,20) = 62. 48, MSE = 1616576. 0, p 0. 05 this shows that participants had a faster RT when asked to name the word (M = 850. 14 ms) as opposed to when asked to name the color (M = 1127. 60 ms).Mean RTs were faster for word than color naming. In addition to a main effect of task, there is a significant main effect of congruency, F(1,20) = 22. 65, MSE = 190000. 30, p 0. 05 this illustrates that participants had a faster RT when the items were congruent (M = 941. 31 ms) than when the items were incongruent (M = 1036. 43 ms) Mean RTs were faster for congruent items than incongruent items.Finally, we found a ignificant interaction between congruency and task type, F(1,20) = 42. 43, MSE = 105648. 11, p 0. 05 this interaction demonstrates that there is a greater discrimination between the means of congruent and incongruent items when asked to name color than there is between the means of congruent and incongruent items when asked to name the word. Discussion We predicted a main effect of congruency w hich is, in fact, what we see from our results. We see this main effect due to the Stroop effect, which states that it is faster to name the color for congruent items than incongruent items.In addition, we expected to see a main effect of task type and that the word task will produce faster RTs than the color task which is precisely what we have found. We can explain this finding with the theories of the horse race model. It has been found, through earlier research, that teaching words is a faster process than color naming because reading is an automatic rifle process (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984). We predicted to see that naming the color will intensify the Stroop effect whereas naming the word will minimize the Stroop effect we have found exactly this in our results. These outcomes can be explained with the horse race model as well.The horse race model assumes two things first, words and colors have different processing times color naming is slower than word naming. Second, the Stroo p effect is asymmetrical when the faster process is finished, the result of that process can intervene with the slower process. Words impede strongly with color naming however, colors interfere weakly with word naming. MacLeods (1991) study explained This speed difference is seen as peculiarly critical when two potential responses (e. g. , one from a word and one from an ink color) compete to be the response truly produced.The time cost of this emulation is interference. This habitual interpretation is referred to as response competition occurring at the end of a horse race, because the two codes are seen as hotfoot to control final output. (p. 187) One of the specks of this experiment is that it is possible that not all participants are proficient in the placement of keys on a computer keyboard this would affect the reaction time for theses participants as they would need excess time to find the keys. Another flaw is that we didnt take into account typing errors and the pr ogram used did not unload error rate. This could mean that we have not successfully measured one of the items we move to measure.We attempted to see if there was a difference in processing time between the task of naming the word and the task of naming the color. Since we did not take into account typing errors and error rate, it is possible that a participant could have responded rapidly with an incorrect response and therefore caused the RT time to be quicker. The greatest defect of this experiment is the sample size, 21 participants. In proximo studies it is recommended that this experiment be run with at least 30 participants who can considerably recognize the keys on a measure computer keyboard.In addition to a larger sample size, perhaps ever-changing the colors and the names of colors (from red, green, blue, and yellow to, for example, pink, purple, orange, grey) would yield a smaller or larger Stroop effect. Another change that can be experimented with is come along. M acLeod (1991) references a study through with(p) by Lund (1927) which finds that children younger than reading age were faster on color naming than word reading. Perhaps there whitethorn be difference between children that are younger than reading age, children who have entirely recently learned the alphabet, and/or children who vindicatory recently learned to read.Also, could there be a difference between children, adolescents, middle-age, and/or old-age? MacLeod (1991) also references a study conducted by Ligon (1932) that tested the differential-practice concept in children between the ages of about 5-14. Ligon found that practice and educational activity did improve RTs for both color naming and word naming tasks, however, the difference between the skills remained unchanged. A final suggestion for upcoming research would pose this question would we find similar results if ran such a study with adults?