Paper Example. Automaticity and Interference Stroop Effect

Stroop effect is a phenomenon used to reveal the brain's functioning in aspects of information processing (Grégoire et al. 2019). Evidence has been presented, showing that response time for identifying conventional printed descriptions of simple features is quicker than identifying the elements themselves. Most studies employ color naming and word reading processes to investigate troop interference; however, the variants are broad. The various modifications were developed to examine the overall effects of circumstances and situations and also to evaluate the theoretic questions that processes of word reading and color identification could not address (Grégoire et al. 2019). The aspects of automaticity and interference in the troop effect have acquired much attention in investigational literature. The investigations began in the 1890s and have been continued to present mainly by psychologists (Windes, 1968).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Experimentation was done to evaluate the response period for arithmetical coding, and specifying figures exhibited that the numeral identification group was quicker than the quantity identifying group. However, the variance was not statistically substantial (Windes, 1968). The difference in responses was the only significant effect. In the study, answer "one" was the quickest compared to answer "two" and reply "three" under a numerical naming process similar to results on the quantity identification process (Windes, 1968). Under the two methods, answer "three" was quicker than answering "two" despite a narrow range. In comparing the time required for numerical identifying task and quantity naming task, arithmetic identifying time was shorter than quantity identification time, and the response variance was significant. Stimuli set that joint both existing and figurative numbers of characteristics impact response time in a similar way as those combining real and representative color appearances (Windes, 1968). The outcomes demonstrated that identifying quantities of Arabic numerals takes a long time than identifying the numerical themselves (Windes, 1968). Longer time taken was attributed to conflicts of numerical quantity in the stimuli. The possible two conflicts leading to delay could be classified as pinpointing task conflict and answering conflict (Windes, 1968).

A study done by Hintzman et al. (1972) evaluated the correctness and mistakes in responses to various conditions. The classical Stroop method had the highest rates of errors. They found that selective attention is operational only after retrieval of the memory. Incase classic Stroop is condition is primarily due to interference with encoding ink color ability. The difference should be insignificance; either the color word matches the color or ink or does not match. The interruption should be witnesses in either of the cases (Hintzman et al. 1972). The research concluded that a well-matched color word boosts the act to name the colors by only comparing it with classic Stroop but also comparing it with neutral control. Similar results are expected if convert competition would be the determinants of the Stroop effect (Hintzman et al. 1972). However, one cannot be convinced enough that color words produce no interference. It was concluded that the interference presence has relatively small effects. Therefore, Stroop outcome is mainly an output but not an input phenomenon.

Stroop (1992) did research under different paradigms with different findings and conclusions. The first paradigm was reading one hundred names of colors painted with a different color and reading one hundred names of colors. All painted in black. It took more time to read the names of colors presented in written in various colors than reading the same names, all written in black. The second paradigm was for the effects of intrusive word stimuli upon identifying colors in sequence. The results indicated the strength of the interferences of the habits of calling words upon the naming activity of the colors (Stroop 1992). The third paradigm, was the effects of practice upon intervention, whereby the intrusion of different word stimuli decreased, and the group variability increased. Thus, training can either improve or reduce the unpredictability according to the material used.

A recent study by Grégoire et al. (2019) uses a different approach to Stroop effect evaluation by using the musical Stroop paradigm. The stimuli in the experiment contained a note picture placed at various spots of melodic staff. Results revealed an interactive pattern in reading and naming musical notes. Calling of the note as the interference process led to an increase of the Stroop effect while presenting word reading as the interference process reduced the effects (Grégoire et al. 2019). The strength of interference evolves with training.

The study intends to explore the automaticity and the interference in the Stroop effect. It contains four variables: neutral naming model, neutral counting model, incongruent counting of digits model, and corresponding counting of digits. Criteria of measuring are the congruency of the participant’s content and counting in consideration of time taken to respond in seconds. It involves four tasks of evaluating each of the variables. The hypothesis is automaticity and interference have no Stroop, and automaticity and interference have a Stroop effect. It is anticipated that neutral timing will take a shorter time overall counting. Also, unbiased counting is expected to have a shorter time than incongruent and congruent counting of digits. Windes (1968) conclude stimuli conflict because of delay hence shorter time in neutral counting and naming. Hintzman et al. (1972) added that interference of color painted resulted in a long time in reading the words.

References

Grégoire, L., Poulin-Charronnat, B., & Perruchet, P. (2019). Stroop interference depends also on the level of automaticity of the to-be-interfered process. Acta Psychologica, 197, 143-152.

Hintzman, D. L., Carre, F. A., Eskridge, V. L., Owens, A. M., Shaff, S. S., & Sparks, M. E. (1972). " Stroop" effect: input or output phenomenon? Journal of experimental psychology, 95(2), 458.

Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 15.

Windes, J. D. (1968). Reaction time for numerical coding and naming of numerals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2 Pt 1), 318-322.