A.

The Automatic Vigilance Experiment

TITLE: The Automatic Vigilance Experiment

INTRODUCTION
 What is automatic vigilance? Criteria of automatic vigilance
 What is Stroop effect and features of stroop task (McLeod, 1991) and Variations of
Stroop Task
 Briefly review studies on effect of semantic meaning on automatic vigilance
(Wentura and Rothurmund, 2000). Explain Automatic vigilance hypothesis through
stroop colour interference paradigm
 What are the reasons for interference in colour naming due to desirability value of
the information? Automatic vigilance and valence of the information: desirable
versus undesirable traits- attention grabbing power of negative social information
(Pratto and John, 1991)
 Summarize various research studies on automatic vigilance and desirability value of
information.
 Discuss, if any, other relevant research studies on effect of semantic meaning on
colour naming.
 What is the impact of Automatic vigilance on incidental learning and reasons for the
predictions?
 What are the predictions in the experiment and rationale for the hypotheses?

PROBLEM
To study the automatic vigilance towards social information (difference in colour naming
time and number of words recalled) as a function of the valence of the material (positive
versus negative)

HYPOTHESES
Alternative Hypotheses
1. Undesirable trait words produce more interference with colour naming than the
desirable trait words. Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable trait words
are more than that of desirable trait words.
2. The undesirable trait words are recalled more than the desirable trait words.
Null Hypotheses
1. Undesirable trait words do not produce more interference with colour naming more
than the desirable trait words. Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable
trait words is less than or equal to that of desirable trait words.
2. The undesirable trait words are recalled less than or equal to the desirable trait words.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF THE VARIABLES:

Independent Variable
Desirability value of the information-1 Independent Variable with 2 levels.
Presentation of (i) Undesirable trait words and (ii) Desirable trait words in the colours: Red,
Green, Blue, Pink, Orange and Brown.
Dependent Variables
1. Total time taken (in seconds) to name the colours of desirable and undesirable trait
words.
2. Total number of desirable and undesirable trait words recalled.
Note: The number of errors made while naming the colours can be noted down and
discussed in ancillary observations of the individual data
Control Variables
1. There were separate colour-word sheets for the two conditions, desirable and
undesirable trait words. Each sheet had 30 desirable/undesirable trait words and 06
neutral words repeated twice.
2. The two sheets were presented successively. Half of the Es in the class presented the
desirable trait words sheet first followed by the undesirable trait words sheet. The other
half of the Es used the reverse order of presentation.
3. The first and the last column of both the sheets had neutral words, to avoid primacy and
recency effects while recalling the desirable and undesirable trait words in the free recall
task.
4. No mention of the recall test was made during the initial colour naming task.
5. The order of the colours to be named in both the conditions was the same.
6. The order of the colours was random with the constraint that each colour occurred once
in each column and twice in each row.
7. The sheets of the stimulus words for the two conditions were comparable in the
arrangement and spacing of the colour-word units and in the number of letters
comprising each unit.
8. There was an unfilled interval of 30 seconds between the presentations of the two
successive cards.

METHOD:
Participants
Individual Data

Name (Optional) Age Class Emotional State

Participant 1

Group Data

College Students: N=20 participants

Apparatus and Materials

1. Two separate colour-word sheets, for the two conditions: desirable colour-word
units and undesirable colour-word units, each containing 72 colour-word units in
lower-case letters. (6 colour-word units in each column and 12 colour-word units in
each row).
2. Two scoring sheets for the colour naming task.
3. One demonstration card with 2 columns of 6 units each having the word ‘example’
written in all the different colours that will be used in the actual task.
4. A recall sheet for the recall test.
5. Stopwatch
6. Stationery
7. Screen
DESIGN
Repeated measures design with one independent variable having 2 levels. Each participant
was exposed to both the levels – desirable and undesirable trait words.
PROCEDURE
The E arranged the screen and the materials and called the P to the laboratory. S/he was
made to sit comfortably, rapport was built, and s/he was given the following instructions.
Instructions for the first task
"This is a simple experiment on naming colours.
You will be presented with two sheets, one after the other. Each sheet will have series of
colours in the context of words. Your task is to name aloud only the colour in which the
words have been written, as quickly and as accurately, as you can. Begin from the first
column, top most word and proceed vertically down the column. Move from one column to
the next without skipping any column. Do not use your finger to point out or do not nod
your head while you name the colours. E explained P all the above instructions one by one
with the help of demo sheet. E asked P to name the colours in the demo sheet twice
making sure all the instructions are understood and followed well by the P.
After ensuring that the P had understood the task, s/he was given the first sheet of 72
words. E said ‘Start’, started the stopwatch the moment P started naming the colours. If the
P engaged in nodding or pointing, E stopped the stopwatch, noted the time till then,
cautioned P not use those behaviors, and continued timing him or her. If P engaged in
reading the words instead of naming the ink colours for three consecutive times, E stopped
the stopwatch, noted the time till then, cautioned P not use those behaviors, and continued
timing him or her. The time taken to name the colours of the first sheet was carefully noted.
The errors, if any, were carefully noted. 30 seconds unfilled interval was given after the first
sheet was completed. Then the second sheet was given. The same procedure was ensured
while giving this sheet as in the first sheet.
Instructions for the second task
"In the second task, you have to write down on this sheet of paper (show the blank sheet to
the P), as many words as possible, that you remember having seen on both sheets
presented earlier. Please don't write the colours you named. The order of the words and
whether they are from the first or the second sheet is not important. You can write them as
you remember them. You have 10 minutes to recall and write the words. Please write the
words vertically, one below the other. Please begin. "
E gave the pencil and the recall Sheet and said 'start' and started the stopwatch
simultaneously. E noted the recall time taken by the P.

Post-task Questions
1. Have you heard anything about this experiment before?
2. Do you have any comments about this experiment?
3. What do you think was the purpose of this experiment?
4. Did you find anything unusual about this experiment?
5. Did you feel anxious at any point during the experiment? If so, explain.
6. Did you notice any difference in the words or how you named the colours on the 2
cards? If yes, please explain.
7. Did nature of the words make any difference to how fast you named their colours
and how well you remembered them? If yes, please explain how?
8. Did you find the words on any one card more distracting than the other? Did that
make it easier or more difficult to name the colours on any one card? If yes, please
explain how that affected your experience.
9. Did you anticipate that there would be another task following the colour-naming
task? If yes, how and what did you anticipate?
10. Did you experience any difficulty in recalling the words? If yes, specify.
11. Did you feel that some words were easier to remember or stood out among the
rest? If so, which were they and why do you think you remembered them better?

DEBRIEFING
The purpose of the experiment was to study whether colour-naming time was longer for
undesirable trait words as compared to desirable trait words and whether undesirable
trait words were remembered better than desirable trait words. The participant was
shown the two cards and the difference between them was explained.
The participant was told that the task of naming the colour shows that people are
sensitive to the emotion entailed in the stimulus word though this feature is completely
irrelevant to the task. One way that people evaluate stimuli is to immediately find out
whether a stimulus ‘good for me’ or ‘bad for me’ without much conscious thought. Then
our attention gets directed to the stimulus that is evaluated as negative or undesirable.
This shift in attention occurs even without the intention of the person. Negative words
divert attention away from the colour name due to a mechanism called ‘automatic
vigilance’ in which people monitor their environment for potential danger.
Thus in the present experiment, it was expected that undesirable trait words would
cause problems disengaging attention from the words and focusing on the colour
dimension. Therefore, participant would take longer to name the colours of the
undesirable trait words as compared to the desirable trait words. It was also expected
that some incidental learning (which occurs without the learner’s intention) of the words
would also occur. As undesirable information would hold attention for longer, recall
would be greater for the undesirable trait words as compared to the desirable trait
words. Results were explained to the participant with respect to time taken to name the
colours and number of words recalled in the two conditions.
This task has been used in clinical studies using words specific to the individual’s
concerns such as anxiety, phobia etc. e.g. depressed individuals would be slower in
naming depressive words as compared to neutral words. Past research indicates a
specific attention mechanism sensitive to positive and negative adjectives used to
characterize safe and risky social environments. There is an adaptive advantage for
organisms having the capacity to attend to undesirable stimulus quickly and with little
effort.
The application to daily life is how automatic processing plays a role in impression
formation, stereotypes and group processing. Automatic vigilance can lead to a negative
bias in judgment and memory. It explains how unfavorable information about individual
or stereotyped groups is often noticed and remembered better than favorable
information even without the perceiver intending to do so, thus making the person’s
impression of that individual or social group negatively biased. Therefore people’s
greater attention to negative information may protect them from immediate harm but
one should be mindful that it can also contribute to prejudice and conflict in social
interaction.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Individual data
1) A comparative analysis of the colour naming time (in seconds) and the number of
words recalled for the two conditions was presented in Table 1. (In case of Recall,
only the desirable and undesirable trait words were counted. Neutral words from
the first and last columns on both the cards were not to be counted.)
2) Bar graphs were drawn to depict the colour naming time and number of words
recalled in the two conditions (Figures 1 and 2 respectively).
Table 1: Comparison of Colour naming time in seconds and No. of words recalled for
Undesirable and Desirable Trait Words

Colour naming time in No. of words recalled

seconds
Undesirable Trait Words
Desirable Trait Words
Difference =

Group data
1) A comparative analysis of the Colour naming time for Undesirable and Desirable
Trait Words of 20 participants was presented in Table 2 and the calculation of t value
(Paired t test) was shown below the table.
2) A comparative analysis of the Recall scores for Undesirable and Desirable Trait
Words of 20 participants was presented in Table 3 and the calculation of t value
(Paired t test) was shown below the table.
3) Bar graphs were drawn to depict the Mean colour naming time and Mean recall
score of 20 participants in the two conditions (Figures 3 and 4 respectively).
Table 2
Comparative analysis of the Colour naming time for Undesirable and Desirable Trait
Words of 20 participants and the calculation of t value

Undesirable trait words Desirable trait words

Ps Colour naming time Colour naming time Difference Difference²
1
2
-
20

Table 3
Comparative analysis of the Recall scores for Undesirable and Desirable Trait Words of 20
participants and the calculation of t value

Undesirable trait words Desirable trait words

Ps Recall scores Recall scores Difference Difference²
1
2
-
 20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Individual data
Discuss the total time taken to name colours in context of desirable and undesirable trait
words. Is the trend as expected? Provide theory basis to support the results. If contrary
trend observed, discuss the confounding factors operated during the conduct.
Comment on the number of undesirable and desirable traits words recalled. Is the trend in
expected direction? Then discuss relevant theory or research. If contrary findings are
observed, discuss methodological issues or confounding factors relevant explaling the trend.
Discuss whether the trends in the individual data were consistent with the Null Hypothesis
or not?
As ancillary observation, discuss the number of errors made and type of errors made. Does
it indicate any influence of IV? What does it show about the attitude of the P while doing the
task? Was there any speed accuracy trade off observed?
Any factors operating during the conduct affecting the results? Discuss whether controls
were in place or not? Did the attitude and emotional state of participant influence the
results in any way?
Incorporate PTQs to explain the trends observed.
Provide relevant theory and research to augment the results obtained.
Group data
Is the mean time taken to name the colours in context of undesirable trait words higher
than the mean time taken to name the colours in the context of desirable trait words?
Is the mean number of undesirable trait words recalled more than the mean number of
desirable trait words recalled?
Which inferential statistical technique would you use to analyse the group data and why?
Provide reasons.
Are the results statistically significant? Report t values with degree of freedom and
statistical significance. Report the results as per APA format.
Is the alternative hypothesis validated by the group data or not based on the inferential
statistics?
Provide relevant theoretical or research basis. If the group data is not as expected, provide
confounding factors or explain methodological issues of the experiment.
Evaluate the experiment on the basis of internal validity, external validity, experimental
realism, and mundane realism.
Could there be any modifications? Any new lines of inquiry? Recent research? Suggestions
for improvement?
Provide appropriate conclusion as per APA format.
CONCLUSION
The main trends in the Individual Data were/were not consistent with the relevant past
research and theories for total time taken to name the colours of undesirable and desirable
trait words alone/ number of undesirable and desirable trait words recalled alone/ for total
time taken and words recalled both.
The hypothesis that 1) ‘Total time taken to name the colours of undesirable trait words are
more than that of desirable trait words’, was/was not validated by the Group Data, on the
basis of the obtained t value and its significance; 2) ‘The undesirable trait words are recalled
more than the desirable trait words’, was/was not validated by the Group Data, on the basis
of the obtained t value and its significance.
REFERENCES
Ben-Haim, Moshe Shay & Williams, Paul & Howard, Zachary & Mama, Yaniv & Eidels, Ami &
Algom, Daniel. (2016). The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under
Exposure to Emotional Content. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2016. 10.3791/53720.
Chajut, Eran & Mama, Yaniv & Levy, Leora & Algom, Daniel. (2010). Avoiding the Approach
Trap: A Response Bias Theory of the Emotional Stroop Effect. Journal of experimental
psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. 36. 1567-72. 10.1037/a0020710.
Pratto, Felicia & John, Oliver. (1991). Automatic Vigilance: The Attention-Grabbing Power of
Negative Social Information. Journal of personality and social psychology. 61. 380-91.
10.1037//0022-3514.61.3.380.
Price, Shelley & Beech, Anthony & Mitchell, Ian & Humphreys, Glyn. (2011). The promises
and perils of the emotional Stroop task: A general review and considerations for use with
forensic samples. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2011. 1–16.
10.1080/13552600.2010.545149.
Wentura, Dirk & Rothermund, Klaus & Bak, Peter. (2000). Automatic Vigilance: The
Attention-Grabbing Power of Approach and Avoidance-Related Social Information. Journal
of personality and social psychology. 78. 1024-37. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1024.
Williams JM, Mathews A, MacLeod C. The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology.
Psychological Bulletin. 1996;120(1):3‐24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3
Yiend, Jenny. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing
of emotional information. Cognition & Emotion. 24. 3-47. 10.1080/02699930903205698.

APPENDICES
Scoring Sheets
Undesirable trait words

Ro Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Red modern Pink cruel Brow violent Green unforgiving

n

2 Green unknown Blue biased Red boastful Brow brutal

n

3 Brow harmless Green listless Blue dismissive Orang conniving

n e

4 Pink careful Red incapable Orang rough Blue mean

e

5 Orang undemanding Brow quarrelsome Green selfish Pink jealous

e n
 6 Blue realistic Orang bossy Pink merciless Red aggressive
e

Ro Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8

w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Orang wicked Blue vicious Red bossy Pink brutal

e

2 Pink depressed Orang sluggish Green merciless Blue isolated

e

3 Red isolated Pink apathetic Brown aggressive Green immature

4 Green lonely Brown immature Pink stingy Red incapable

5 Blue ruthless Red dull Orang intolerant Brown selfish

e

6 Brown stingy Green intolerant Blue violent Orang apathetic

e

Ro Column 9 Column 10 Column 11 Column 12

w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Brow mean Green wicked Orang lonely Blue realistic

n e

2 Red biased Brow dismissive Pink sluggish Orang modern

n e

3 Blue conniving Orang vicious Red ruthless Pink harmless

e

4 Orang dull Blue unforgiving Green depressed Brow unknown

e n

5 Green jealous Pink boastful Blue cruel Red undemanding

6 Pink quarrelsome Red listless Brow rough Green careful

n

Desirable trait words

Ro Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Red normal Pink witty Brown cordial Green sympathetic

2 Green choosey Blue honest Red creative Brown humble

3 Brown reserved Green carefree Blue persistent Orang sensitive

e

4 Pink curious Red inventive Orang smart Blue fair

e

5 Orang complicated Brown considerate Green content Pink sincere

e

6 Blue systematic Orang happy Pink confident Red hospitable

e

Ro Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8

w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Orang clever Blue helpful Red happy Pink humble

e

2 Pink organized Orang flexible Green confident Blue generous

e

3 Red generous Pink brilliant Brown hospitable Green skillful

4 Green active Brown skillful Pink loving Red inventive

5 Blue friendly Red kind Orang optimistic Brown content

e

6 Brown loving Green optimistic Blue cordial Orang brilliant

e

Ro Column 9 Column 10 Column 11 Column 12

w
C W C W C W C W
No.

1 Brown fair Green clever Orang active Blue systematic

 e

2 Red honest Brown persistent Pink flexible Orang normal

e

3 Blue sensitive Orang helpful Red friendly Pink reserved

e

4 Orang kind Blue sympathetic Green organized Brown choosey

e

5 Green sincere Pink creative Blue witty Red complicated

6 Pink considerate Red carefree Brown smart Green curious

Word lists

No. Neutral words Undesirable trait words Desirable trait words

1 modern cruel witty
2 unknown biased honest
3 harmless listless carefree
4 careful incapable inventive
5 undemanding quarrelsome considerate
6 realistic bossy happy
7 normal violent cordial
8 choosey boastful creative
9 reserved dismissive persistent
10 curious rough smart
11 complicated selfish content
12 systematic merciless confident
13 unforgiving sympathetic
14 brutal humble
15 conniving sensitive
16 mean fair
17 jealous sincere
18 aggressive hospitable
19 wicked clever
20 depressed organized
21 isolated generous
22 lonely active
23 ruthless friendly
24 stingy loving
25 vicious helpful
26 sluggish flexible
27 apathetic brilliant
28 immature skillful
29 dull kind
30 intolerant optimistic