Subjects matched the position (high or low) of a first stimulus with either the position or the meaning of a word (HI or LO) presented after an interstimulus interval (ISI). The form of the first stimulus (X or O) varied randomly within trial blocks and specified the relevant feature (meaning or position) of the second stimulus to the subject. When the relevant feature was meaning, Stroop interference from the second stimulus position was observed. This interference decreased as ISI increased. At the longest ISI, it was eliminated completely. A number of explanations for these effects are discussed and then tested in two further matching experiments. In a fourth experiment a similar decrease in interference was observed. These reductions in interference with increase in ISI appear to represent the development of attentional focusing on the relevant feature of the second stimulus. Stroop interference may occur in experiments where the relevant attribute is constant because of a difficulty associated with repeated focusing on the same attribute.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkH. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning.Psychological Review76, 387–404.
2.
ClarkH. H.BrownellH. H. (1975). Judging up and down.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance1, 339–352.
3.
CohenG.MartinM. (1975). Hemispheric differences in an auditory Stroop test.Perception and Psychophysics17, 79–83.
4.
ConradR. (1972). Speech and reading.KavanaghJ. K.MattingleyI. G.Language by ear and by eye.London: The M.I.T. Press.
5.
DanielJ. (1969). Performance in an interference test and some changes in the vegetative functions.Studia Psychologia11, 267–271.
6.
DyerF. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive and response processes.Memory and Cognition1, 106–120.
7.
FlowersJ. H.StoupC. M. (1977). Selective attention between words, shapes and colors in speeded classification and vocalization tasks.Memory and Cognition5, 299–307.
8.
FrancoliniC. M.EgethM. E. (1979). Perceptual selectivity is task dependent: The pop-out effect poops out.Perception and Psychophysics25, 99–110.
9.
FrancoliniC. M.EgethH. E. (1980). On the non-automaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing.Perception and Psychophysics27, 331–342.
10.
GlaserW. R.DoltM. O. (1977). A functional model to localize the conflict underlying the Stroop phenomenon.Psychological Research39, 287–310.
11.
HarveyN. (1980). Non-informative effects of stimuli functioning as cues.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology32, 413–425.
12.
HarveyN. (1983). Dual coding under conditions of second stimulus modality uncertainty in successive matching tasks.Perception and Psychophysics34, 180–184.
13.
KahnemanD.HenikA. (1981). Perceptual organisation and attention.KuborgM.PomerantzJ. R.Perceptual organization.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
LoganG. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.Cognitive Psychology12, 523–553.
15.
MarcelT.ForrinB. (1974). Naming latency and the repetition of stimulus categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology103, 450–460.
16.
MeyerD. E.SchvaneveldtR. W.RuddyM. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word recognition.Memory and Cognition2, 309–321.
17.
MortonJ. (1969). Categories of interference: verbal mediation and conflict in card sorting.British Journal of Psychology60, 329–346.
18.
MortonJ.ChambersS. M. (1973). Selective attention to words and colours.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology25, 387–397.
19.
NormanD. A.BobrowD. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes.Cognitive Psychology7, 44–64.
20.
PosnerM. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mindHillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control.SolsoR. L.Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
PosnerN. I.SnyderC. R. R.DavidsonB. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General109, 160–174.
23.
ReisbergD.BaronJ.KemberD. G. (1980). Overcoming Stroop interference: The effects of practice on distractor potency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance6, 140–150.
24.
RubinsteinH.LewisS. S.RubinsteinM. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior10, 645–657.
25.
SeymourP. H. K. (1974). Stroop interference with response, comparison, and encoding stages in a sentence-picture comparison task.Memory and Cognition2, 19–26.
26.
StirlingN.ColtheartM. (1977). Stroop interference in a letter naming task.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society10, 31–34.
27.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology18, 643–662.
28.
TreismanA. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention.Psychological Review76, 282–299.
29.
TreismanA. M.FearnleyS. (1969). The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words.Nature222, 437–439.
30.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognition Psychology12, 97–136.
31.
WarrenR. E.LaskerM. D. (1974). Interference in a typeface variant of the Stroop test.Perception and Psychophysics15, 128–130.
32.
WinerB. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental designNew York: McGraw Hill.
