Replication of the Stroop Effect

retort of the Stroop EffectAbdus AzadAbstractThis try is a replication of the Stroop effect, in which you argon supposed to identify garbles, where glossarys ar in change school texts. to a fault the build of the news show when in unalike glosss. There was iodine smacker and the instrumentalists were 20 (15 females, 5 males) Hunter College Psychology 250 students. The mount ranged from 19-32 with a mean age of 23.5. The Experimenter tested the actors in two effects and trio stipulations. In one effect they were to identify the intelligence activity, in three full terms appropriate (matching the color), in appropriate ( dissimilar color), and check into (neutral raw text). In an separate effect the students were tasked with identifying the color in three conditions, congruent (same color matched), incongruent (different text), and rig (neutral black text). We hypothesized in that location leave be an increase in the mean conviction when thespians are test ed in the incongruent conditions due to interference. Using a unidirectional repeated measures ANOVA the result of this field of view tack that there is a signifi sesst difference in incongruent condition when participants were tasked to get reciprocation the color F (1.554, 23.32) = 7.434, p= 0.0055. Using a second one-way ANOVA for naming haggle, the results showed no importee F (1.845, 27.68) = 0.1289, p= 0.8642.A Replication of The Stroop EffectWhen we focus our attention to do one task, this is c alled discriminating attention. This means to exclude any other stimuli which may cause distraction. while on the other hand dissever attention is when we have the faculty to divide our attention to a few tasks, some clippings while doing these tasks, it may become an self-locking process which makes dividing your attention between these two tasks over ofttimes easier. Automatic impact, is when you netnot bear your thought process, it can be thought as implicit thi nking, in other delivery thinking that may breathe unconsciously.Automatic processing may not always be helpful, you may have conflict with automatic and controlled processing. The Stroop Effect tested how these processes worked. James McKeen Cattell (1886) had in the first place conducted research and found that objects and colors when compared to their agree words, took extended to speak aloud. He knew there was an interference with automatic and controlled processing. Even though he had already made this connection, Ridley Stroop (1935) is to a greater extent recognized for work with color and words. Stroop in his experiment had used six colors and did three different experiments. The experiments consisted of participants reading lists of colors, on one list color was write in black, and on the other list was color create verbally in different colored inks. They were supposed to identify the color of the words and also fourth dimensiond. The other experiments that he did was similar involving shapes. The way Cattell and Stroops research differs is that Cattell had concluded there was an interference between automatic and controlled processing, while Stroops research was more(prenominal) ab knocked out(p) developing an understanding as to why this interference is occurring. In Stroops article Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions he had concluded that your mind can mechanically decide the semantic sum of a word, hence when the color matched the word the term it took to figure out the color was much quicker vs when the colors did not match the word. besides replications of the Stroop test were performed, J.D. Dunbar and C.M. McLeods (1990) replication like Stroop also consisted of a congruent condition (words with the same color as the text) and incongruent conditions (colors dont match the word text). They also added a control condition, the words were in a neutral color. Flowers, Warner, and Polansky (1979) did a variation of Dunbar and MacLeods Stroop test. They used rows arrives, the number was the same in each row and they asked the participants to determine how many number were in the rows. The findings by both Danbar, McLeod (1990) and Flowers, Warner, Polansky (1979) showed there was a noticeable whirl in time and errors made in the incongruent condition compared to the control and congruent conditions. With their replications, we can conclude that participants in the incongruent group confine more time identifying the color and made more errorsHaely (1994) spoke of barely research on automatic processing. An experiment was conducted on how we process words that we use frequently, words like of, the, etc. It showed that participants found it harder to focus on the individual letters of the words. She gave the participants some English text to read and asked them to clique every letter t that they saw. The findings showed that participants frequently missed letters that were in more common words, wor ds like the, then, etc. When it came to slight used words they were able to more easily identify it. These findings showed how we automatically process words. Words that are commonly used daily, when reading them, we settle a whole entity, instead of the individual components. This way our brain automatically reads words further supports Stroops findings.In our experiment we lead set about to do a modified replication of Stroops experiment to fit how our results cor serve to his. We will have two groups one will be to get The Color, and the other to Name The Word. Our null possible action is that there will be no significance mean difference in time recorded for participants in congruent and incongruent groups from the control group. The alternative guess for our experiment is that the time recorded for participants in the incongruent groups will be significantly more. From the many studies done on Stroop Interference, mostly all suggesting that the incongruent group will t ake more time to identify the color or word due to Stroop Interference, this is where our alternative hypothesis has come from.method acting actingParticipantsThe participants of this use up were all Hunter College students. There were 5 males and 15 females, ages from 19-32 (M=23.50, SD=3.80). 10 of the participants spoke English as a second language. The hours of sleep the participants had varied from 4 -7 hours (M=5.36, SD=1.02). Only one participant had reported vision problems. Ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not taken into consideration. All of the students who participated were from the Psychology 250, class that meets on Mondays Thursdays from 800 am to 1120 AM. The participants will all be compensated in the form of a letter grade from the professor.MaterialsThe examination was taken on a consisting of three conditions. Control (color of word written in black text), congruent (word was written in same color), and incongruent (color of word was different from text) , the time it took to answer was recorded by the computer. The results were displayed on the screen and were written on paper with a pen or pencil. The students transferred their results into a shared excel data table which was uploaded on Blackboard. The participants finish the test in a computer lab using computers. influenceThere was informed consent and the students were briefed on the experiment with no deception. The students were all presented with the same instructions. We conducted a within subjects design, to select the order of the participants a counterbalancing method was used to block possible season effects. all(prenominal) participant was depute a number from 1-6. Depending on your assigned number you would start with a different condition. 8 participants started with the Control, 6 participants started with the congruent, and the remaining 6 started with the incongruent condition. 3 participants were chosen at a time and went took the experiment on different co mputers in three different rooms. Once in the room the participant closed the door, and started with the assigned condition. There was two effects, in one the participant was required to Name The Word, and the other the participant was supposed to Name The Color. Each effect had three conditions. The control condition was black colored text displaying a color. The congruent condition had both had a text corresponding to the color. The incongruent condition had a text of a color displayed in a different color. Words would display and the user was required to piffle the answer as quickly as possible, after one condition was end upd they moved on to the next. After a participant was complete another participant shortly followed to the empty computer following the sequence preceding(prenominal)ly mentioned. We chose to exclude any extreme values from our data any person with values 2.0 SD from the meanResultsWhen the participants were required to Name The Word, in the control condit ion the mean take in and standard deviation was (M=1494.89, SD= 314.19), in the incongruent condition the mean tot up and standard deviation was (M=1545.93, SD=283.30, and in the congruent condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1483.74, SD= 264.03) assure radiation pattern 1. In the second effect when the participants were required to Name The Color, in the control condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1661.22, SD=248.22), in the incongruent condition the mean score and standard deviation-n was (M=17.63.41, SD=416.93), and in the congruent condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1400.78, SD=454.59) see Figure 2 . A one way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted twice in one case to test Name The Color and another to test Name The Word. It was found there was significance difference in mean time for Name The Color group F (1.554, 23.32) = 7.434, p= 0.0055, the post hoc analysis shows incongruent had a significant mean time slower at (p p= 0.8642. Our hypothesis was partially correct, our results show that when naming color there is a significant rest in the incongruent condition. While when naming the word there is no significance.DiscussionThe aim of this study was to do a modified replication of the Stroop effect. We hypothesized that participants would have an increase in interference with more complex tasks. In other words, the mean reaction time will be significantly higher between the incongruent conditions.The results proved our hypothesis partially correct, which was that participants would have an increase in mean time in the incongruent condition. In other words, the mean reaction time will be significantly higher in identification The Color and Naming The Word incongruent conditions. Our result found significance when participants saw words with different colors and they were required to name the color. There was no significance when they were required to name the word. The findings were somewhat in concordant with our hypothesis because other previous studies also showed that when the word conflicts with the ink color, people are slower to respond and they are faster if the word agrees with the ink color, (Cohen, Dunbar, McClelland, 1990). So, previous studies agree with our results.Our findings were uniform with the first and second experiment, which was done by Stroop (1935). Our results agree with Stroops study because in both studies tested participants in different conditions and the conditions were counterbalanced to avoid order affects. Stroop had found a delay in his second experiment when the color was supposed to be named with different words, and no significant delay in the first experiment. Our replication yielded similar results.In both studies, participants had a task of naming words of colors which were written in a different color (incongruent) and then also naming neutral words (control). Since previous research had already explained that when a word compl ements its ink color, it leads to the processing of naming the word and the color together and if the color and the word are different it takes a longer time of reaction or response, (Cohen, Dunbar, McClelland, 1990), we can conclude that both studies would have similar findings.Our result was also consistent with the second study done by Algom, Eidels, and Townsend et al. (2009) which found that when a participant is given the task of naming color words that are printed in color, they report the ink color faster if that color word is the name of the color rather than the name of a different color.By doing this study we were able to see that when faced with two tasks at the same time our brain responds to the immediate visible one. So, when we see the word blue written in the color green, we automatically are triggered to name the word, which is blue because that is affect in our brain first. However, if we are told to say the name of the color that the word is written in, like blu e written in green, it takes a longer time because now the brain has to overcome the first step in automatically just recognizing the word, we have to voluntarily pay attention to the word and its incongruent color to name just the color of the word, which takes a longer time, as explained by Cattell (1886), Posner and Snyder (1975), Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) in their studies.Some limitations of this study was that the sample size was too small (N=20) so it was not representative of the large population. There is a biased sample, the age group of the participants is fairly narrow. So the results obtained would not be acceptable to full generalize the whole population. With a big sample, the results may have varied. Also, the experiment was done too early in the morning when people are usually tired, sleepy, moody or hungry. So, their moods can have a great effect in how much time they take when testing in the three different conditions. And since, condition 3 took more attent ion and concentration, certain moods or hunger could have touch on their concentration.Future studies should examine look at Stroop test in regards to color and shape.in color-object naming instead of just color-word naming to see if our brain full treatment the same way for both tasks. The sample size should be much larger and there should be more variability. Also, gender should be divided equally because in our study, there were 9 females and only 3 males. Also, coming(prenominal) studies should do the Stroop task with other different age groups and compare how one age groups mean reaction time is different from that of a younger or older age group.ReferencesCattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind,11, 63-65.85). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.Cohen, J., Dunbar, K., and McClelland, J. (1990). On the Control of AutomaticProcesses A duplicate Distributed Processing Account of the Stroop Effect.Psychological Review, 97 (3) 332-361. Retrieved from www.psych.s tanford.edu/jlm/papers/CohenDunbarMcC90.pdf.Eidels, A., Townsend, J., Algom, D. (2009). Comparing apprehension of stroop stimuli infocused versus divided attention paradigms Evidence for dramatic processing differences Cognition, doi10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.008.Flowers, J.H., Warner, J.L., Polansky, M.L. (1979). retort and encoding factors in ignoring irrelevant information.Memory Cognition, 7,86-94Healy, A. (1994). Letter detection A windowpane to unitization and other cognitive processes in reading text. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 3, 333-334Shiffrin, R. M., Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic humaninformation processing II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending,and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental Psychology, 12, 643-662.Figure1. -. The control condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1494.89, SD= 314.19), in the incongruent condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1545.93, SD=283.30, and in the congruent condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1483.74, SD= 264.03). The bar represent SD from the meanFigure 2.- The control condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1661.22, SD=248.22), in the incongruent condition the mean score and standard deviation-n was (M=17.63.41, SD=416.93), and in the congruent condition the mean score and standard deviation was (M=1400.78, SD=454.59). The ** represents a p