The Stroop Effect for the Word-Naming Task - Research Paper Example

?Will the Stroop effect for the color-naming task be larger or smaller than the Stroop Effect for the word-naming task? by: [professor] [date of submission] Will the Stroop effect for the color-naming task be larger or smaller than the Stroop Effect for the word-naming task? Abstract The Stroop experiment is a widely used tool to study the psychological process that enables individuals to plan, coordinate, execute actions and accomplish tasks. The original Stroop task involves the color naming of a word stimuli that is printed in different colors. Over the years, however, the experiment has evolved and it is now used to discover how to enhance learning and retention. Using a 2x2 factorial study design, 38 participants were asked to complete two Stroop tasks – color-naming and word-naming – in 96 sessions. The main purpose for the study is to determine which of the two Stroop tasks register higher Stroop effect, which can impede learning. The results of the study corroborate early findings of various Stroop experiments – word-naming takes a shorter time to complete compared to the color-naming task. Moreover, this study discovered that the time required to name the ink color of an incongruent color word is relatively high compared to the time required to name the color of a congruent color world. Introduction As a student exposed to various types of media, paying attention can be difficult. Because people fail to pay attention, they fail to notice the small details. For example, a student may ask the teacher again when a paper is due when it is already written out on the board. Perhaps one common example of selective attention is an online quiz wherein words people were required to read a short passage where words only have the write first and last letter but the middle letters were all jumbled up. Here is on example: Yuor barin is trluly pehnmoeanl. It can raed pssaaegs lkie tihs eevn wehn selpled icnroretcly as lnog as the frist and lsat lertets of the wdors are in the rgiht oedrr. According to the results of these online quizzes, most people are able to read these seemingly jumbled up passages because the brain does not pay attention to the order of the letters. Instead, it tries to fill in the information based on its previous “knowledge”, hence allowing the individual to read the passage even when the letters are not in order (Tzelgov, Porat, & Henik, 1997). Selective attention is well studied in Stroop experiments. The original Stroop task involves the color naming of a word stimuli that is printed in different colors, for example BLUE. This incongruent item makes it difficult for a subject to give a response than when the color and the word coincide (congruent), such as in BLUE. The difference in the reading of time of congruent and incongruent is called the Stroop effect. The Stroop effect is a widely used tool to study cognitive control or the psychological process that enables individuals to plan, coordinate, execute actions and accomplish tasks. Instead of running a typical Stroop experiment, this study added a second factor, task, to determine if it can limit the Stroop effect. Research shows selection of action based on a requirement will help a person focus on an element of the experiment and ignore irrelevant information. According to Tracy Brown (1996), theories of reading have emphasized on the automaticity of word recognition, hence making it difficult for respondents to ignore word information. This research however, tries to determine whether this automaticity can be reduced if an individual is given a task to focus on, hence effectively reducing the Stroop effect. The main research question for this paper is: “Will the Stroop effect for the color-naming task be larger or smaller than the Stroop Effect for the word-naming task?” Our hypothesis is that when a person is given a task to perform, he or she focuses on this task hence limiting the Stroop effect, and enables the subject to improve response time. Methods Participants Participants for this experiment were 38 Brooklyn College students. These students participated in this study because it was a class requirement for an underground level experimental psychology class. Procedure The experiment uses a 2x2 factorial design in which two (2) independent variables, each with two separate levels with-in subjects were tested. The first factor is named as “congruency” and its two levels are congruent and incongruent. The second factor is referred to as “task”. Its two levels are color-naming and word-naming. Each participant will undergo two trial blocks. One (1) block of 48 trials will focus on word-naming and another one block of 48 trials will focus on color-naming. Every participant will then need to undergo 96 trials with half of the subjects will do the word naming first before the color naming while the other half will do the color naming first before the word naming. The order of each block is randomly determined by the computer for every participant in the experiment. The experiment was conducted on in-house computers running the METACARD software. All participants were required to complete the Stroop task. For every trial, the subject will see a stimulus and will be required to type out their responses as quickly as they can. Four words and four colors were used for the stimulus (red, green, blue, yellow. Each stimulus will present one word and one color simultaneously. The word is presented below or above the color while the color is presented in a rectangle. Congruent and incongruent items were shown randomly. Through this approach, the researcher can determine if there is difference in the response time between the congruent and incongruent items. The task factor is also introduced to determine whether it can make the Stroop effect smaller. Upon completing the Stroop experiment, the participants will be given a task: to name the color or to name the word. The computer will determine which of these two tasks the participant has to do first and then it will present the next block of experiments when the first on is completed. Hence, all participants will have the opportunity to do the two tasks. Each trial will start with the presentation of the fixation cross in the center of the screen. This cross is visible for 500 milliseconds. When the fixation cross disappears, a randomly chosen stimulus will appear. This stimulus will remain on the screen until a response is typed in. The next trial will appear 500 milliseconds after the last keyboard press. Reaction times were then recorded by the computer for statistical analysis. Results Table 1 below shows the descriptive statistics for this 2x2 factorial experiment. From the table, we can see that there 37subjects have entered their responses and one (1) is missing. The average response time for the color naming task of congruent items is 983.89 milliseconds while color naming of incongruent task is higher at 1178.97 milliseconds. This is consistent with published results of Stroop experiments wherein respondents find it more difficult to respond to incongruent items because the word information and color information compete for response. Meanwhile, the word-naming task recorded the same pattern of high response time for incongruent items. Standard deviation on the naming of incongruent items for both tasks were also higher compared to the naming of congruent items which is again, another support for the claim that it is easier for people to give response for congruent items compared to incongruent items. One will notice that word-naming for both congruent and incongruent items recorded relatively lower averages compared to the color-naming task. For example, word naming of congruent items is 786.83 or a mean difference of 197.06 from the result of the color-naming task of congruent items. A paired samples t-test was ran in order to determine if the difference in the means of the samples are different from zero. Paired samples t-test was ran for the following sample: (1) color-naming task for congruent items vs. color naming task for incongruent items, (2) word-naming task for congruent items vs. word naming task for incongruent items, (3) color-naming task for congruent items vs. word naming task for congruent items, (4) color-naming task for incongruent items vs. word-naming task for incongruent items. The result of this t-test can be found in table 2. Table 2: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper Pair 1 color.con - color.in -195.083 121.152 19.917 -235.477 -154.689 -9.795 36 .000 Pair 2 word.con - word.in -12.139 109.213 17.954 -48.552 24.274 -.676 36 .503 Pair 3 color.con - word.con 197.056 100.328 16.494 163.605 230.506 11.947 36 .000 Pair 4 color.in - word.in 380.000 205.262 33.745 311.562 448.438 11.261 36 .000 Results of the t-test shows that the difference in the means of pair 2 was not statistically significant, hence the differences in the response time for the word-naming is not due to the difference in congruency. This corroborates previous researches that shows that when a subject is required to read Stroop words, the ink color of the word does not impede the individual’s ability. Perhaps this can already be seen as a proof of the automaticity of reading words compared to colors. On the other hand, we can say that in the case of color-naming, congruency has a significant effect, perhaps because color processing and conflicts with the verbal codes associated with the printed word. Meanwhile, looking at the pairs 3 and 4, one can already see that there is a difference in the color-naming and word-naming tasks as the difference in the means of the two pairs are highly significant. This means that task definitely influences the Stroop effect. Discussion The Stroop effect predicts that the time required to name the ink color of an incongruent color word is relatively higher compared to the time required to name the color of a congruent color world. Moreover, word-naming of color words is easier because it does not impede reasoning (Mascolo & Hirtle, 1990). These findings are again replicated in the study we have just completed speaks of the universality of the Stroop effect. A study conducted by Michael Mascolo and Stephen Hirtle shows that there is a way to eliminate the Stroop effect. One way is by the introduction of tasks, which re-focuses the subject’s attention. Another method is by utilizing appropriate response input, for example, the use of color patches instead of labeled keys. These finding have significant effect on learning and education because it speaks of the methodologies used in class to instill lessons to students. The task scenario shows that if a student’s attention drifts in class, the he or she may miss out important details of the lecture. Hence, it is important for teachers to devise ways to capture the student’s attention, either through quizzes, readings, or other class activities. The automaticity of word processing presents another important point. First, words are part of a language, and language finds its meaning in culture. If the words in the Stroop trial were in foreign language, it is my belief that color processing will become so much easier. In a study by Joseph Tzelgov, Ziv Porat and Avishai Henik (1997) where they said, “the (automatic) relatedness effect is an example of intentional automatic processing, because reading of the prime word is part of the task’s requirements” (p.432). Without letters, it is almost impossible to “read” something – hence, the reason why color-naming is more difficult than word-naming. Yet, if the word (or letters) are in a different language, then the subject will also have difficult “reading” it. In a sense, the foreign word becomes an abstract concept, just like the colors. References Brown, T. L. (1996). Attentional selection and word processing in Stroop and word search tasks: The role of selection for action. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(2), 265-286. Mascolo, M. F., & Hirtle, S. C. (1990). Verbal coding and the elimination of Stroop interference in a matching task. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(2), 195-215. Tzelgov, J., Porat, Z., & Henik, A. (1997). Automaticity and consciousness: Is perceiving the word necessary for reading it? The American Journal of Psychology, 110(3), 429-448. Read More