Stroop

Effect

TITLE: The Stroop Effect

INTRODUCTION
The ‘Stroop Effect’ was the result of the combined efforts of Jaensch (1929) and Stroop (1935). The
Ss were shown the words ‘red’, ‘green’, ‘yellow’, and ‘blue’ printed in the color inks but in incongruent
combination of colour-word unit (e.g. Word ‘red’ printed in the colour yellow, the word ‘yellow’ printed in
the colour blue and so on) and were asked to name the colors of the inks in which the words were written, as
quickly as possible, ignoring the word. This was not easy to do. Naming the colors in incongruent color
word units was harder than naming colors in simple strips uncomplicated by words. This phenomenon was
noticed by Jaensch (1929) and was first reported by Stroop (1935). Hence the phenomenon is known as
Jaensch-Stroop Effect.
The word interfering with the naming of the colour is a fair reflection of the S’s experience. The
volume of S’s voice goes up, reading falters, now and then words break abortively, and there are
embarrassed giggles. These and other signs of strain and effort are common. It is important that the
color names and the irrelevant colour-word involve identical motor responses.
The basic features of the task are:
# The critical response is a vocal linguistic one. It is not enough to see the colour, it must be named
aloud. # Two motor-linguistic responses are implicated in the word-colour unit one that involves in
vocalizing the colour name and second that is associated with reading the colour word.
# Only one of these two responses must prevail – calling out the colour name. The required response can be
obstructed by the arousal of a motor response that is incompatible with it. Since one can not say two words
at once, the greater the tendency to read the word, the harder it is to name the colour.
Research on colour, words, and interference half a century before Stroop
Cattell (1886) observed that objects and colours took longer to name aloud than the corresponding
words took to read aloud – e.g., saying ‘red’ to a patch of colour was slower than saying ‘red’ to the word
red. According to Cattell, in case of words and letters, the association between the idea and name has taken
place so often, that the process has become automatic. But in case of colours and pictures, we must choose
the name by a voluntary effort. Brown (1915) predicted that as colour naming was a less practiced skill, ink-
colour naming would benefit more from extended practice than would colour-word reading. Lund (1927)
found that children younger than reading age were faster on colour naming than on word reading, even with
careful assurance that they knew the stimulus words. Both colour naming and colour-word reading times
improved across grade 1 through grade 9, yet the difference between the skills remained unchanged.
Hollingworth (1923) suggested that word reading required only articulation, but colour naming demanded
both articulation and association. Brown (1915) and Ligon (1932) maintained that both tasks involved two
processes, but with a different association element for each test. Garrett and Lemmonn (1929) held that
colour naming was longer because of an interference factor, which they failed to specify. Perhaps they had
in mid what Peterson, Lanier and Walker (1925) suggested that many responses might be conditioned to a
single colour, but only one response was conditioned to a single word.
Different variations on Stroop procedure
The Stroop effect is observed with lists of stimuli, with single stimuli, and with many variations on the
response acquired. Similar data patterns are evident in numerous Stroop analogs such as
1. Picture-word interference task- naming the picture while trying to ignore the word
2. Directional Stroop Task - stating the direction in which the arrow is pointing suffers interference
from the incompatible word
3. Counting Stroop task- counting the number of digits suffers interference from the identity of the digits
4. Flanker task - identifying the center letter suffers interference from peripheral (flanker) letters
5. Hue variations: chromatic (red, green, blue shades) Vs achromatic color-word units (white, black,
grey) used. Interference was greater in chromatic than achromatic color word units.
6. Response modality: oral Vs manual: Keele (1972) argued that when Ps pressed buttons to indicate their
responses (rather than speaking them), only color words interfered; non-color words and scrambled
color
 Stroop
Effect
words did not differ from control. Keele’s use of manual responses known to decrease interference
overall.
7. Trial Sequence: Interference increases when to be ignored word on one trial turns out to be the to be
named color on next trial (e.g: green in red ink precedes blue in green ink). These are known as
sequential effects in Stroop task.
Variations of word context-Klien’s Study
Klein (1964) investigated the effect of verbal texts varying in their relationship to the colours. In the
experiment, six conditions were used. In each condition the verbal text consisted of items typed in the
colours red, green, yellow and blue. Following were the six conditions:
Condition A – nonsense syllables. E.g. bsb, evgic, bhdr
Condition B – rare English words. E.g. eft, helot,
abjure
Condition C – common English words. E.g. put, heart, take, friend
Condition D – colour-related meanings (words that were not themselves colour names but implicated
the colors in their meaning). E.g. lemon, grass, fire, sky
Condition E – colour-names distant (different words of the same response class). E.g. tan, purple,
grey, black
Condition F – colour-names close (standard Stroop condition – incongruent combinations of colour and
word)
It was found that in all conditions, reading time was significantly slower on conflict pages than on
colors alone. As the words became more meaningful and more closely related to colours, the interference
increments became increasingly lager. Clearly, different attributes of the words differentially affected the
colour-naming response. Not only colour words but also highly familiar words had an interfering effect, but
in a lesser degree. Even the arbitrary letter-combinations of the non-sense syllables created a significant
rise in interference over the naming of colour in asterisks. The impeding effect of the words upon the
relevant motor-response was governed by the relative meaningfulness of the words, and their relation,
through the linguistic motor-component, to the colour naming response.
The verbal text affects the ease of colour naming. When two motor responses are competing for one
response channel, it is possible that reading delay is produced by an effort to ‘hold back’ one of them. To
make the appropriate motor-response, S has to expend effort momentarily to restrain the near-threshold
irrelevant response. This effort may be reflected in the slowed reading time.
Effects of Response Release -Klien (1964) experiment
In the second experiment by Klein (1964) termed as “effects of response release”, the hypothesis was
- “ if colour naming delay is indeed produced by the necessity of holding back a competing response, it
should disappear when the Ss are allowed to say aloud both word and colour name.” To test the hypothesis,
the standard colour-word conflict page containing 100 colour-word units was used with two variations of
instructions. In condition I, Ss first read aloud the word and then named the colour of the colour-word
unit. Ss in condition II read aloud both the words in reverse order of Condition I – i.e., they first named the
colour and then read the word. If holding back the word contributes to interference, the interference in colour
naming should reduce only when the word is allowed to come out first I.e., in condition I. The interference
would still operate in condition II, when Ss were permitted to release the word, only after naming the colour.
It was found that the Double Response Word-then-Colour (condition I) was the easier task. The relative
frequencies of errors in the Standard and Double Response tasks also showed that colour naming was easier
in condition I (word-then-colour).
Congruency effects
If the wrong word can slow ink-naming performance, then intuitively, the right word ought to speed
performance. Sichel and Chandler (1969) used individual item procedure, and reported that color naming
was faster for congruent items than for incongruent items but both showed interference relative to control
words. It is reasonable to say that there was reduced interference rather than true facilitation for the
congruent condition. To summarize, congruence between the irrelevant word and the to-be named ink color
often produces facilitation. However, this facilitation is much less than the corresponding interference in the
incongruent condition and the choice of control condition may be crucial.
 Stroop
Effect
Additional researches
Keele (1972) argued that interference must occur after the memory retrieval stage. When subjects
pressed buttons to indicate their responses (rather than speaking them), only color words interfered; non
color words and scrambled color words did not differ from control words. The scrambled condition is
surprising; every stimulus began with the same letter as its corresponding word (rde, genre, ywole, and
belu), which ordinarily causes interference. Possibly, Keele’s use of manual responses, known to decrease
interference, overall, is responsible.
Redding and Gerjets (1977) demonstrated that incongruent words produced 177 ms of interference
when the response to ink color was oral and only 98 ms when the response to ink color was manual;
congruent words produced 23 ms of facilitation for oral responses and 67 ms for manual responses.
Curiously, there appeared to be less interference but more facilitation when the response was manual
compared with oral.
Reverse Stroop Effect
Normally a word interferes with naming a colour or picture, but when colour or pictures interferes
with reading of the word, it is known as Reverse Stroop Effect. A Reverse Stroop effect (i.e., interference
with word-reading caused by an incompatible, irrelevant ink colour) appears to be possible, but this effect is
not simply a consequence of the relative speeds of processing each dimension.
Stroop obtained support for the idea that words evoked a single reading response, whereas colours evoked
multiple responses, due to which colour naming is slower than reading words.
Stroop’s Account
According to Stroop (1935), the associations that have been formed between the word stimuli and
the reading response, are evidently more effective than those that have been formed between the colour
stimuli and naming response. Since these associations are products of training, and since the difference in
their strength corresponds roughly to the difference in training in reading words and naming colours, it
seems reasonable to conclude that the difference in speed in reading names of colours and in naming
colours may be satisfactorily accounted for by the difference in training in the two activities.
Theoretical Accounts of the Stroop Effect
Stroop’s general view corresponded closely to one of the two prevalent accounts of the Stroop effect –
the relative speed-of- processing view, and was compatible with the other one – the Automaticity view.
1. Relative Speed-of-Processing View
In its simplest form, this view agrees with the fact that words are read faster than colours are named.
This speed difference is seen as particularly critical when two potential responses (e.g., one from a word and
one from an ink colour) compete to be the response actually produced. The time cost of this competition is
“interference”. This general interpretation is referred to as response competition occurring at the end of a
horse race, because the two codes are seen as racing to control the final output.
According to Klein (1964), ‘Interference’ from the word consists essentially in the disposition to
SAY it. It is the COMPETITION from the word to say it. The word’s capacity to produce arousal of its
motor components is termed as attention-catching or ATTENSIVE power of the word [term borrowed from
Titchener]. The greater this power, the more interference the word exerts. So, it is necessary for the S to
seek additional stimulation from the region of relevant perceptual information [color] in order to produce
appropriate motor response [color-name]. Klein saw interference as resulting from the need to “restimulate”
with the ink colour, to overcome the strong tendency to produce the word, although the mechanism of
restimulation was not specified. This view was somehow consistent with Stroop’s, and it characterized
earlier attempt to explain the Stroop effect in terms of “habit strength” and related associationistic ideas of
learning. However, psychologists today think of the Stroop effect task as a hallmark measure of attention
and not learning. Thus, Treisman (1969) saw the problem as difficulty in deciding whether to attend to the
ink colours or to the word analyzers when they led to different potential responses. This view is known as
response competition.
According to Posner and Snyder (1975), the usual Stroop effect arises because of response
competition between vocal responses to the printed word and the ink colour. Secondly, the direction of
interference depends upon the time relations involved. Words are read faster than colours can be
named.
 Stroop
Effect
Thus, a colour naming response received stronger interference from the word, than the reverse. Thirdly,
words often facilitate the vocal output to colour with which they share a common name. These three results
suggest that colour naming and reading go on parallel and without interference until close to the output.
Again, the elements of relative speed and interference at the stage of response output are highlighted.
These are the two essential elements of the relative speed-of-processing account of Stroop effect. However,
direct manipulation of the speed-of-processing of a dimension through reorientation or practice, does not
produce results consistent with theoretical properties.
2. Automaticity View
The second prevalent explanation is the Automaticity account, which was rooted in Cattell’s (1986)
work over a century ago. Here the basic idea is that processing of one dimension requires much more
attention than does processing of other dimensions. Thus, naming the ink colour draws more heavily on
attentional resources than does reading the prevalent words. Moreover, reading the word is seen as
obligatory, whereas naming the ink colour is not. Presumably, this imbalance derives from our extensive
history of reading words as opposed to naming ink colours. Under this view, the asymmetry that is the
fundamental characteristic of the Stroop task must occur. Words are read very automatically, colours require
considerable attention to be named.
This description is based on the theories of La Berge and Samends (1974), Posner and Snyder
(1975) and many others. All of these investigations show Automaticity as a gradient that develops with
learning. Thus, word reading was very automatic; the colour naming was much less automatic. Most
automatic processing could then interfere with less automatic processing, but not vice versa. The Stroop
Effect is an interesting case especially because the two dimensions differ so much in how automatically
they are processed.
3. Perceptual Encoding
Most of the explanations of Stroop Effect have considered the phenomenon in terms of response
competition. Such views are often referred to as ‘late selection’ accounts, in that the conflict occurs late in
processing, at the response stage, as opposed to ‘early selection’ where the conflict occurs at the encoding
stage. The best known version of early selection was put forward by Hock and Egeth (1970) – the perceptual
encoding account. Its basic idea is that perceptual encoding of the ink colour information is slowed by
incompatible information from a colour word opposed to a neutral control. The researchers, on the basis of
evidence from a short-term memory scanning task, suggested that colour related words are recognized
earlier and thereby more likely to distract from encoding ink colour. However, Dalrymole Alford and
Azkoul (1972) and Dyer (1973) questioned their interpretation, arguing that Hock and Egeth (1970) failed to
distinguish between identification and colour naming, and that their conclusions rested on accepting the null
hypothesis. Dyer argued it as relying on questionable assumptions about the rate of processing word versus
colour information. The perceptual encoding account has not been very prominent since then.
4. Parallel Distributed Processing Model
Cohen et al (1990) have used the framework of McClelland’s PDP approach to build a model of
Stroop effect. It incorporates many of the virtues of Automaticity and relative speed-of-processing, but few
of its liabilities. At the core of this model is the idea that processing occurs in the system through activation
moving along pathways of different strength. Consequently, relative speed-of-processing predictions need
not always hold; it is strength, not speed that is basic. Nor is strong Automaticity appropriate, a gradient of
Automaticity makes sense wherein degree of Automaticity is a function of the strength of each pathway.
Processing is performed in a system of interconnected modules. Within each module is continuously
opening elementary processing units responsible for accepting inputs from other units and providing output.
Knowledge is presented as a pattern of activation over units, which can change with time in a continuous,
non-linear manner. Processing occurs by the spread of activation along connections that are both, within
modules and between modules – i.e. information flows in one direction – bottom up – from input to output.
One of the nice features of this model is its incorporation of the clear role of attention. Attention tunes, or
modulates the operations of processing units in a pathway. However, attention accomplishes this tuning
simply as another source of information would, it has no privileged status. According to the model, there
are two pathways – one for ink colour information and one for word information – that share a response
 Stroop
Effect
mechanism. Each pathway has a set of input units, each of which connects to every intermediate unit.
In turn, each intermediate unit connects to all output units. Processing begins with the input units and feeds
upwards to the response units, one of which will eventually accrue sufficient activation to exceed threshold
and produce a response. The only other element is the task specific attentional units attached to the task
appropriate intermediate units and capable of timing attention by gating information flow. The model works
by accruing evidence further forward through the system, and the level of activation of a unit is a weighted
sum of the inputs reaching it. Learning occurs by changing connection strength based on minimizing
mismatch between the desired response and the actual response produced. Successive cycles allow these
strength adjustments to occur. In this way, the network can be trained to produce particular responses under
particular sets of circumstances.
A response occurs when a particular unit’s threshold is exceeded. A unit’s response strength is the
ratio of its activation. Attention, also a pattern of activation within some set of units, picks the pathway that
determines the response based on task instructions. Ordinarily, intermediate units rest near ‘zero’ activation
but relevant attentional connections (stemming from task demands) push these units towards a higher resting
state, where they are more responsive to inputs. It is through this kind of priming that attention tunes
pathways.

5. Parallel Models- accruing evidence towards a decision

Logan (1980) cast his model of Stroop Effect as a decision process gathering evidence. Evidence
accumulates over time until a response threshold is reached; evidence from each dimension is processed at a
rate governed by its weight. Two weights determine each dimension’s contribution to the decision: a stable,
automatic weight and a flexible, strategic attentional weight. Total evidence at threshold is the sum of all
evidence from all dimensions. If the evidence from other dimensions is consistent with the desired
dimension, this reduces the threshold and hence reduces processing time for desired dimension. However, if
irrelevant dimensions provide evidence conflicting with the desired dimension, response speed will be
slowed. The extent of intrusion of another dimension will be a function of its weights; those with larger
weights will have a greater impact on the composite decision process.
Individual differences in Stroop Effect
1. Sex differences
The most obvious difference between individuals is sex. So, much effort has been directed to
exploring sex differences. The Stroop task has not escaped – there are now over a dozen studies of how men
and women differ in degree of interference. Even Stroop (1932) noted that girls named colours faster than
 Stroop
Effect
did boys, although there was no difference in word processing speed. On the whole, research has failed to
find much difference in Stroop interference between men and women at any age, though women at any age,
though women may be somewhat faster, especially in naming colours. This relates to general response
speed, not to the derived measure of interference. There are no sex differences in Stroop interference at any
age.
2. Age differences
Interference begins early in the school years, rising to its highest level around grades 2 to 3 as
reading skill develops. With continued development of reading, interference declines through the adult
years until approximately age 60, at which point it begins to increase again. Virtually everyone who can
read shows a robust Stroop effect from an early age.
3. Hemispheric differences
A number of investigations have examined laterality in the Stroop task, using Dyer’s (1973) study
as a springboard. Studies have shown that the left hemisphere generally shows more interference than the
right.
4. Language differences
If Stroop interference stems from an irresistible urge to read the word, what would happen if one
was naming ink colour in one language but the words were in another language? Interference between
the two languages of a bilingual, although not as great as that within either one of the languages, is very
robust – between-language interference typically is about 75% of within-language interference.
Furthermore, a dominant language has more potential for interfering than does a non-dominant one.
There may also be differences in the production of orthographic and idiographic languages.
Reasons for predictions in the experiment
According to Posner and Snyder (1975), Stroop Effect arises because of response competition
between vocal response to the printed word and the ink color. Words are read faster than colors can be
named. Automaticity account holds that naming colors draws heavily on attentional resources than does
reading prevalent words. Reading words is seen as obligatory whereas naming ink colors is not. Words are
read very automatically. Color requires considerable attention to be named.

PROBLEM
To study the interference through total colour naming time and number of color naming errors
produced by varying the context in which the colours are embedded, that is, word’s semantic structure- its
meaning and relatedness to the color-naming response.

HYPOTHESES
Alternative Hypotheses
1. Alternative Directional: Incongruent colour word units produce more interference with colour
naming than scrambled color word units. That is, Total color naming Time and Total Number of
color naming errors are larger for incongruent colour-word units than for scrambled color words.
2. Alternative Non -Directional: There is a difference in total color naming time and total Number of
color naming errors for incongruent colour-word units and for scrambled color units.
Null hypotheses
3. Null Directional: Incongruent colour word units do not produce interference with colour naming
than scrambled color word units. That is, Total color naming Time and Total Number of color
naming errors are more for Scrambled colour-word units than for Incongruent color word units.
4.Null Non- Directional: There is no difference in Total color naming Time and Total Number of
color naming errors for incongruent colour-word units and scrambled color word units.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES

Independent Variable
Presentation of (i) Scrambled color word units (based on the target color names – uelb in pink
color), and (ii) Incongruent colour word units (color words in different font color – blue in pink)
in the
 Stroop
Effect
colours red, blue, green, yellow, pink, gray, orange, brown, purple, black.
Dependent Variables
1. Total Color Naming Time (in seconds) - that is, Colour naming time in Scrambled and
Incongruent Color word condition
2. Total Number of errors corrected or left uncorrected by the Participants in the course of naming
in the two conditions. Errors included misnamed colours (mn), omission or skipping a unit/column
(o), going back to the previous unit (b), abortive error (a), reversal of dimension (rd)
Control Variables
1. Color word units in the scrambled and incongruent color word sheets were randomly arranged
with the constraint that each unit occurred once in each row or column. That is, no one color
appeared twice in any row or column.
2. The scrambled and incongruent color word sheets were comparable in the arrangement and
spacing of the color patches and color words.
3. The order of the colors to be named in the scrambled and incongruent color word
conditions was the same.
4. All the color word units were typed in lowercase.
5. The E did not point to the color word units while naming the colors at the time of giving
instructions and during demonstration. E also ensured that the participants also did not resort to
pointing, nodding, squinting or tapping while naming the colors.
6. Half the experimenters showed scrambled color word condition first followed by incongruent
color word condition. The other half experimenters showed incongruent color word sheet followed
by scrambled cord word sheet. As this was a repeated measures design,‘ABBA’ type of
counterbalancing of conditions was done to prevent the development of any practice or fatigue
effect.

PARTICIPANTS
Individual Data: 1 Participant
Group Data
College Students, n= 56 in each of the Incongruent and Scrambled conditions

APPARATUS AND MATERIALS

1. Two separate demonstration cards with 10 units of the scrambled and incongruent color words
to ensure that the Participants understood the task and used the correct names while naming the
colours.
2. Scrambled and Incongruent Color word sheets
3. Two copies of the Scoring Sheets (one for scrambled and another for incongruent color word
conditions) to record total time and any kind of color naming errors.
4. Stopwatch
5. Screen

DESIGN
A Repeated Measures Design with two levels of the Independent Variable. The
same Participant was exposed to Scrambled and Incongruent color word conditions.

PROCEDURE
The E arranged the screen and the materials and called the Participant to the laboratory. P
was made to sit comfortably, rapport was established, and s/he was given the following
instructions: Instructions for Incongruent Color word Condition:
"This is a simple experiment on color naming. You will be presented with a series of colours in the
context of words. Your task is to name aloud only the colour in which the words have been typed, as
quickly and as accurately as possible. Please ignore the words.
 Stroop
Effect
Begin from the first unit and proceed vertically down the column.
Be careful to move from one column to the next, without skipping any column. Do
not use your finger to point out and do not squint or nod your foot or hand.
Do not name the colours in a singsong manner, that is, in monotonously rising and falling of the
voice. Let’s do a demo.
(E first explained the task to be done using the demo sheet and then demonstrated the Do’s and
Don’ts of the task. E then named the colours and ensured that s/he did not point to the colour word
units or squint or nod or tap foot or hand or use a sing-song manner to name the colours. The E
asked the Participant to name the units twice and gave additional practice if necessary, to ensure
comprehension of the task).
Have you understood? Any questions? Are you ready to begin?"
After making sure that the participants had understood the task, they were given the
Incongruent colour word sheet with 100 colour-word units and the E started the stopwatch as soon as
s/he had given the start signal. If the Participant resorted to any device as a way of reducing the
intrusion of the irrelevant word (like pointing, squinting, nodding, tapping hand or foot, naming in a
sing-song manner), E stopped, noted the time till then, cautioned the Participant against the use of
such a device and then continued timing him/her. The time taken to name the colours and errors if
any were carefully noted down. The types of errors included -Misnamed colours (mn) Omission (o),
Going back to the previous unit (b), Abortive error (a), Reversal of dimension (rd) -reading the word
instead of naming the colour in incongruent color word condition
If the Participant midway started reading the word (incongruent) instead of naming the colour
in which the word was written (reversal of dimension) for 5 successive units, the 5 errors were
recorded, the stopwatch stopped, and the time taken till then (time'x') and the unit where the
Participant was stopped was noted. The Participant was reminded that s/he had to name the colour in
which the word was written and not read the word. S/he was asked to continue from the next unit, the
time taken from then onwards (time y') was recorded and the times 'x' and 'y' added to know the time
taken for the task. After the task was over, the E filled in the data in Table 1, and framed and asked
relevant post-task questions based on Participant-1 's specific responses, and errors during the task.
The same procedure and instructions were used for Scrambled color word condition
“In this part of the experiment, you will be presented with a series of colors in the context of letters.
Your task is to name ONLY the colors in which letters have been typed, aloud, as quickly and as
accurately as possible. Please ignore the letters” (Show a demo sheet and point out what is to be
done) As we did with the first task, similarly here too… Begin from the first unit and proceed
vertically down the column. Be careful to move from one column to the next, without skipping any
column. Do not use your finger to point out and do not squint or nod your foot or hand.
Do not name the colours in a singsong manner, that is, in monotonously rising and falling of the
voice. Let’s do a demo.
(E first explained the task to be done using the demo sheet and then demonstrated the Do’s
and Don’ts of the task. E then named the colours and ensured that s/he did not point to the colour
word units or squint or nod or tap foot or hand or use a sing-song manner to name the colours.
The E asked the Participant to name the units twice and gave additional practice if necessary, to
ensure comprehension of the task). Have you understood? Any questions? Are you ready to begin?"
S/he was given the scrambled color word sheet with 100 units. The time taken to name the
colours and errors (if any) were carefully noted down for both tasks.

DEBRIEFING
The purpose of the experiment was to study the difference in time taken to name colors and
the number of errors made in color naming in scrambled or incongruent color word sheets. Both
sheets were shown to the Participant and the difference was pointed out.
Past research on color naming showed that when a colour-word (for example red) is written
in a different colour (for example blue), colours take longer to name and one is likely to make
more
 Stroop
Effect
errors because the brain simultaneously receives two different types of information- one about the
word and second about the colour in which the word is written. Whereas, when colors have to be
named in the context of letters (eulb in pink) this does not happen so its faster and more accurate in
the scrambled color word condition.
The word interferes with the naming of the colour because reading is more direct and
automatic (occurs immediately without any conscious effort), while naming colours requires more
attention and effort, one has to bring to mind the correct colour name. So, the word which is read
faster interferes with the naming of the colour in which the word is written, causing an increase in
time taken to name the colour and the errors made in incongruent color word condition. Whereas, in
scrambled color word condition, reading does not interfere with color naming as the letters dont
make sense.
While calling out colors repeatedly, occasionally a wrong color name may come out also as
many colors are already active in the mind and readily available.
The interference from incongruent colour words is greater than the interference from the
scrambled color words because the incongruent color word is a meaningful unit whereas scrambled
color word unit looks meaningless to the P. If the P realizes that it is a jumbled up color word only
then the scrambled color word also starts interfering with color naming causing P to make many
errors and P ends up taking more time even in scrambled condition.
Small children would not show much difference in color naming time for scrambled or
incongruent color words because they have not yet learned to read but only know the names of
colours so the color words would not have any meaning for them.
The record sheet(s) and Tables 1 were shown and the time taken and errors made were
pointed Out. Explain if the trends are not as expected (color naming ability, attentional ability, WM
ability, speed accuracy trade off etc..)
Participants were told that this Stroop task, named after its creator John Ridley Stroop, is the
most widely used demonstration of measuring one’s span of attention or working memory or
problems with paying attention.
Studies based on the Stroop task have shown colour naming time to be related to people's
fears and anxieties. Color naming is slower for fear or threat related words. For example, naming
ink colors of threat/fear related words like injection, murder, snake, lizard (P would say blue,
green, red, purple) will be slower compared to color naming for non-threat-related words such as
watch, lift, soil (blue, red, green)
All the questions of the P were answered, and s/he was requested not to tell others about the
experiment explaining why it was important; that having been informed, other Participants might
behave in a way that might seriously bias the results of other experimenters. The Participant was
thanked for participating and escorted to the door/lift.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Individual data
1) The colour naming time (in seconds) and number of errors for the two tasks was recorded in
Table 1.
2) Bar graphs were drawn to depict the color naming Time and errors in the two tasks (Figure
1). Group data
1) The colour naming times in seconds and color naming errors made by Ps for scrambled and
incongruent colour words were recorded in Table 2 and Means and Standard Deviations were
calculated. A t test (for repeated measures design) was done to find out if the mean color naming
time and mean color naming errors were significantly different in scrambled and incongruent color
word conditions. Calculation of t test was also done behind the group data table.
2) A bar graph was drawn to depict the Mean Color naming Time and Mean Number of Errors
in the 2 tasks (Figure 2).
 Stroop
Effect

CONCLUSION
The main trends in the Individual Data for color naming time were consistent with the
Alternative Directional hypothesis. The main trends in the Individual Data for color naming errors
were consistent with the Alternative Directional hypothesis.
The Alternative hypothesis for color naming time and errors was validated by the Group
Data on the basis of obtained statistical significance of the t values.

REFERENCES
Galotti, K.M. (1999). Cognitive Psychology in and out of the Lab. (2 ed.). Thomson Learning India.

Galotti, K.M. (2004). Cognitive Psychology in and out of the Lab. (3 ed.). Thomson Learning India.

Gruber, S. A., Rogowska, J., Holcomb P., Soraci,S., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2002). Stroop
performance in normal control subjects: An fMRI study. Neuroimage,16, 349-360

Klein, G.S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with colour
naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576-588.

MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

Raz, A., Kirsch, I., Pollard J., Nitkin-Kaner, Y. (2006). Suggestion reduces the Stroop effect.
Psychological Science, 17 (2), 91-95.

Zhang, T., Gong, N., Jia, R., Li, H., & Ni, X. (2021). Stroop effect in smartphone addiction among
college students. Medicine, 100(30).