Stroop Test in Psychology - Essay Example

? Stroop Test in Psychology A study was conducted to determine the mean reaction times of 11 participants of which comprised of 10 females and 1 male. Their average age in terms of years was 20.1 with a standard deviation of 1.3. They were 4 sheets to be read but the Stroop test was only available in sheet number 3. The main hypothesis of this study was that there was a significant difference in the mean reaction times across the other sheets with regard to sheet 3. The outcome of the study supported the hypothesis. The study had a limitation of biasness with regard to gender/sex. Future studies should incorporate random samples and larger representative of the population. Keywords: Stroop test, mean reaction time, significant difference, psychology, congruence, stimuli. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 1. Hypothesis 2: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 2. Hypothesis 2: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 4. Hypothesis 4: there is no significant difference in the mean reaction times between sheets 1, 2 and 4. Psychology can be defined as the process by which an individual is able to overcome physical and, most importantly, mental aspects of oneself to be able to function normally. In this review, attention will be focused on aspects in psychological field with regard to statistical analysis in psychology. There are a series of experiments and tests that are conducted to test ones’ ability and the extent of the disorder, for the clinical researchers to ensure a psychologically unfit individual is well. There are three specific tests that are considered in the treatment and the diagnosis for psychology. These tests include the original Stroop test, the bilingual Stroop test and the emotional Stroop test. These three tests are used by psychologists with an objective of devising appropriate prognosis concerning the problem affecting an individual (Strauss, Sherman & Spreen, 2006).  The original Stroop test named after John Ridley Stroop essentially seeks to assess reaction times. This investigation as a research methodology in the field of psychology has an aspect referred to as the Stroop effect. Basically, the Stroop effect involves the extension of reaction time in solving a test. In this perspective, a single element of the test stimuli is congruent with the solution to the activity. Additionally, a second aspect of the test stimuli is invoked and is normally unambiguous with the solution to the task (Strauss, Sherman & Spreen, 2006).  This original Stroop test can be exemplified in various illustrations. For this study, the counting of digits where an aspect is congruent to the solution while the second element is unambiguous to the solution is a good depiction. This test has been employed by psychologists to determine personality differences among a cohort of individuals. It has gained usage in various fields and has proven to be a reliable quantitative and qualitative analysis tool (Gray, 2006).  The bilingual Stroop test as the name suggests involves linguistics or semantics. A depiction of such a test is when respondents are asked to name colours of words in one language while the words are the names of the colours written in another different language (Bhatia, Ritchie & Blackwell Reference Online, 2006).  The emotional Stroop test is used to process information about emotions. It is used as an information-processing approach to assess the information of individuals. An example is that of rape-related victims in which individuals who show longer times reading or solving tests that contain rape-related contents. This is because emotional aspects come into play hence produce a negative effect to the respondents affected by rape trauma (Sternberg & Mio, 2009).  The study was experimental and involved actual administering of sheets to each participant. The study involved 11 participants who represented a sample size and comprised 10 females and 1 male on basis of gender/sex. The samples were independent in the sense that they were random and constituted of both male and females. The independent variable was reaction time (sheets 1, 2 and 4) each participant took while counting the digits/symbols. Independence of this variable was exemplified by the various sheets given to ach participant. For instance in sheet 1, the condition of the reaction time was on the basis of a single digit appearing in 32 rows. In sheet 2, the reaction time was recorded after the counting of the symbols hence the condition attained. Sheet 3 had a much complex control mechanism due to the appearance of one or more similar digits in the 32 rows. Hence it acted as the Stroop test. However, the incongruence in stimulus within the participants depicted the longer reaction times. Sheet 4 acted like a control with reference to sheet 3. The dependent variable was the Stroop test in sheet 3. The mean reaction time in this particular test was compared to the other three mean reaction times from sheets 1, 2 and 4. Hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 1. Hypothesis 2: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 2. Hypothesis 2: there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time for sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time for sheet 4. Hypothesis 4: there is no significant difference in the mean reaction times between sheets 1, 2 and 4. Methods The sample size comprised 11 participants (N) comprising of 10 females and 1 male as the gender/sex aspect. The average age of the participants was 20.1 years and the standard deviation was 1.3, slightly indicating a small variance or deviation from the mean age. In the study, four sheets were administered to the each of the 11 participants. Within the sheets, various statistical variables were depicted below each sheet. These variables important in the analysis included age, sex and most importantly the time taken by each participant for the task. There were a total number of four different sheets labeled sheet 1, sheet 2, sheet 3 and sheet 4. Sheets 1 had digits presented in a single row but the total number of rows was 32 and was between digits 1 to digit 4.each participant was required to read aloud the number in each row. Sheet 2 was depicted with symbols (+) in rows in which the participant was to count aloud the number of symbols in each row. Again the total number of rows in this sheet was 32. Sheet 3 is the one that contained the Stroop test and was represented by digits ranging from 1 to 4 in 32 rows. The participants were to count aloud the number of digits in each row considering that each row had one or more digits that were similar. Lastly participants were given sheet 4 which had digits in each row. The digits ranged between 1 to 4 and were spread out in the 32 rows of the sheet. Participants were count aloud the number of digits in each row. In all their counting, the time taken (reaction time) by each participant was being monitored and recorded at the end of each sheet count. Therefore, practically, the study required stop watches or timers, participants themselves as well as the administered materials which were the sheets 1 to 4. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the mean reaction times in each experimental sheet. This also included standard deviations from the mean reaction times. Single or one-tailed student t-tests were done with confidence levels of 99.5% (alpha, ? =0.05) Results Mean reaction times and standard deviations for each sheet can be seen in Table 1. Table 1 Mean reaction times and standard deviations for sheets Sheet M SD N 1 10.2 2.1 11 2 12.1 2.8 11 3 14.5 3.7 11 4 11.3 3.1 11 One-tailed t-tests were conducted with an alpha of .05. In accordance with Hypothesis 1, the mean reaction time for Sheet 3 was significantly longer than the mean reaction time for Sheet 1 [t (10) = 3.26, p = .03]. In accordance with Hypothesis 2, the mean reaction time for Sheet 3 was significantly longer than the mean reaction time for Sheet 2 [t (10) = 3.22, p = .04]. In accordance with Hypothesis 3, the mean reaction time for Sheet 3 was significantly longer than the mean reaction time for Sheet 4 [t (10) = 3.31, p = .04]. In accordance with Hypothesis 4, the mean reaction times for Sheets, 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different from each other [all ps > .05]. Discussion The study/experiment was carried out to determine the mean reaction times of 11 participants with regard to a Stroop test. The experiments involved oral /verbal counting of digits in various sheets and recording of the reaction time of each participant for each sheet. Essentially, only one sheet, sheet 3 is the one that contained the Stroop test. The hypotheses formulated in the experiment were justified as depicted by the results. Hypothesis 1 which stated that there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time of sheet 3 compared to sheet 1 was verifiable. Sheet 1 was like a neutral experiment whereby, digits were represented in a single row and easily identifiable by the participants. Consequently, the participants recorded lower mean reaction times with minimal standard deviation from the mean time. Sheet 3 which contained the Stroop test recorded higher or longer reaction times with significant standard deviation from the mean reaction time. The above hypothesis is justified because, just like in an original Stroop test, the sheet 3 elicited incongruent stimuli to the participants hence difficulty in counting as facts as they could. The digits in the rows interfered with the visual and preset mindsets or judgments of the participants. This can also be attributed to the ambiguous manner in the arrangement of the digits although they depict uniformity (Sternberg, & Mio, 2009). Hypothesis 2 which stated that there was significant difference in the mean reaction time between sheet 3 and mean reaction time of sheet 2 was also justifiable. The one-tailed student t-test depicted this assumption and verified it. Sheet 2 can be likened to a control as well as an incongruent experiment. This is because, in contrast to all the other sheets, it is the only sheet that had symbols (+). The representation of the information in terms of symbols while incorporating some counting bears significance in the reaction time. Although the difference in the mean reaction times of sheet 2 and sheet 3 is slight, the same analogy is applicable to sheet 3. Having the Stroop test, it still remains a challenge for the participants to count the number of digits without visual distortion of the digits (Gray, 2006).  The third assumption/hypothesis which stated that there is a significant difference in the mean reaction time between sheet 3 compared to the mean reaction time of sheet 4 is also verifiable. Sheet 4 experiment acts like a control experiment to sheet 3. This is because, in sheet 4, there is uniformity in the number of digits being counted and their visual representation as opposed to sheet 3. Again, sheet 3 shows incoungruency or ambiguity because of the differences in the two aspects. It elicits contradicting stimuli to the participants (Mitrushina, 2005). Finally, the fourth hypothesis is also justified. The assumption stated that there is no significant difference in the reaction times between the mean reaction times of sheets 1, 2 and 4. Sheet 1 elicits a neutral stimuli hence no effect to the outcome as depicted by the analysis. Sheet 2 likewise elicits somehow an incongruent stimulus although it is easily recognizable. This experiment is also justified by its outcome on the mean reaction time as well as the standard deviation. Sheet 4 can be likened to sheet 1 which shows a neutral experiment with regard to sheet 3 and at the same time elicits a congruent stimulus (Sternberg, & Mio, 2009). In this study, one limitation was that of the sample size. The number of participants (N=11) was equally small hence it may have not been a representative of the whole population. As such, reproducibility may not be easily achieved on the basis of this representation. Another limitation was the biasness with regard to gender disparity. The study recruited more females compared to males. This may not be useful in large scale analyses that seek to close the gender divide (Gray, 2006).  Future studies should focus on acquiring large sample sizes that take into consideration the entire population not overlooking at gender or any other variable biasness. The Stroop test can be modified to inculcate the other variants such as bilingual; Stroop test or the emotional Stroop test. However, such studies can be more specific and to certain target groups within populations. Moreover, they can incorporate assessment of differences in sexes, age differences and personality differences (Strauss, Sherman & Spreen, 2006).  Bibliography Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Mio, J. S. (2009). Cognitive psychology. Oxford: Cengage Learning/Wadsworth. Gray, P. (2006). Psychology. New York: Worth. Bhatia, T. K., Ritchie, W. C., & Blackwell Reference Online (Online service). (2006). The handbook of bilingualism. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Pub. Mitrushina, M. (2005). Handbook of Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peck, R., Olsen, C., & Devore, J. (2011). Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis. Oxford: Cengage Learning. Read More