ADVANCED STROOP
EFFECT
Torin Franz & Evan Frick
Hanover College
Introduction
 Stroop (1935)
 Asked participants to report the ink color of 100
words
 The spelled color did not match the actual color
 Asked participants to report the ink color of 100
sets of squares
 Took the participants on average a total of 47
seconds longer to identify color of the words
 Even when told not to pay attention to the word
itself, participants could not ignore what was being
spelled
Introduction
 The way that participants are instructed to
respond has an effect on their accuracy
 When speed is stressed, accuracy rates go down
 When accuracy is stressed, accuracy is
comparatively better (Chen & Johnson, 1991)
 Automatization-when a task does not require
conscious effort to be completed
 Sometimes participants do not even realize they
are completing the task
 Being asked to quickly report the color of the word
is difficult due to the fact that the color name
interferes in the process (Francis, Neath, &
VanHorn, 2008)
Automaticity Examples
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was
rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid,
aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't
mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny
irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the
rhgit pclae.
Research Question
How correct does the spelling of the
words need to be in order to see
the effects of automaticity?
Hypothesis
We expect to find that the more
jumbled the words the quicker the
reaction time, because it will be
harder to identify words that are
more jumbled.
Method
 Participants
 Obtained 22 participants through a sign-up sheet
 College age students of all levels
 No one reported color deficiency
Method
 Equipment
 Gateway Computer, model E4300
 Monitor resolution of 1024 by 786 pixels
 Internet Explorer 8
 Stroop Experiment on CogLab website (Krantz,
n.d.)
 Written in Java
 Spread sheet to record data
 Written in Java
Method
 Stimuli
 4 different stimuli
 XXXX
 Incongruent words
 Middle Random Congruent words
 All Random Incongruent
 25 words in each condition
 Shown in the center of the screen
 Font size 16
 3 different colors possibilities for font color and
word spelling
 Green, Orange, Purple
Method
 Procedure
 One word displayed at a time
 Participants responded to the color of the word
 Could respond by striking corresponding key or
clicking button at bottom of the screen
 There were 25 trials for the 4 conditions
 After each condition, participants recorded their
average reaction time and accuracy on a separate
sheet of paper
Results
1200
X: 814.89 msec
Incon: 1062.61 msec
Rand: 846.26 msec
Reaction Time (msec)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
X
Incon
Rand
Condition
Reaction times differed significantly between conditions
(F (3, 19)=10.48, p <.001, such that the X condition was
the fastest (M =814.89), random was the middle
(M=846.26), and incongruent was the slowest
(M=1062.61).
Accuracy Findings
 There was a significant difference of accuracy
between conditions (F(3, 19)=4.06, p=.02),
such that random was the most accurate
(M=.995), X was the middle (M=.98), and
Incongruent was the least accurate (M=.97).
 Supports our hypothesis because the fast
conditions have the best accuracy
 There is no speed-accuracy tradeoff
 Note: One participants data was taken outaccuracy of .16
 Told the researchers that she did the condition
wrong and that is why the accuracy was so low
Discussion
 Our hypothesis was supported by our data
 The most jumbled condition (random), had the
second fastest reaction time, only behind the X’s
(control)
 Automatization is less effective when a word
is jumbled beyond immediate recognition of
an intended word
Practical Applications and Limitations
 Practical applications
 Teachers need to be aware:
 as students get older reading is automatized-they
can read without thinking
 Younger students are so focused on the step-by-step
process because reading is not automatized-it is
harder to take in the information
 Limitations
 Used the wrong condition : Middle Congruent
 Computers did not work-froze
 Did not ask about gender (Van der Elst, Van
Boxtel, Van Breukelen, & Jolles, 2006)
 Hanover may not be representative of the entire
population because of the educational level
References
Chen, J., & Johnson, M.K. (1991). The Stroop congruency effect is more
observable under a speed strategy than an accuracy strategy.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73(1), 67-76. doi:10.2466/PMS.73.4.67-76
Francis, G., Neath, I., & VanHorn, D. (2008). CogLab 2.0. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Krantz, J. (n.d.). Cognition Laboratory Experiments. Serial Position
Effect. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from
http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition.html
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
doi:10.1037/h0054651
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M., Van Breukelen, G. & Jolles, J. (2006).
The Stroop Color-Word Test: Influence of Age, Sex, and Education;
and Normative Data for a Large Sample Across the Adult Age Range.
Assessment, 13(1), 62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427