In a list version of the Stroop task, Thomas (1977) observed that Stroop interference was smaller when the irrelevant word was repeated through parts of the list. MacLeod (1991) formulated the sustained-suppression hypothesis for this effect. It is assumed that the automatic response activation on the basis of the irrelevant word is selectively suppressed. In this paper this hypothesis is further investigated. In a serial Stroop task with short response–stimulus interval (RSI) we demonstrate that the Stroop effect disappears when the irrelevant word is repeated, whereas the Stroop effect is evident when the word changes. With a long RSI, there is no influence of the sequence of the irrelevant word. The same pattern of results is observed in a flanker task. The results are discussed in terms of the activation-suppression model (Ridderinkhof, 2002) and the sustained-suppression hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BandGPHRidderinkhofKRvan der MolenMW (2003). Speed–accuracy modulation in case of conflict: The roles of activation and inhibition.Psychological Research67, 266–279.
2.
BurleBPossamaïCAVidalFBonnetMHasbroucqT (2002). Executive control in the Simon effect: An electromyographic and distributional analysis.Psychological Research66, 324–336.
3.
ColesMGHGrattonGBashoreTREriksenCWDonchinE (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance11, 529–533.
4.
Dalrymple-AlfordECBudayrB (1966). Examination of some aspects of the Stroop color–word test.Perceptual and Motor Skills23, 1211–1214.
5.
De JongRBerendsenECoolsR (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations.Acta Psychologica101, 379–394.
6.
De JongRLiangCCLauberE (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 731–750.
7.
DunbarKMacLeodCM (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance10, 622–639.
8.
EimerM (1997). The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of automatic response activation. In S–R compatibility situations. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.) Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibilitypp. 51–73Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
9.
EimerMSchlagheckenF (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 1737–1747.
10.
EriksenBAEriksenCW (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception and Psychophysics16, 143–149.
11.
GlaserMOGlaserWR (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 875–894.
12.
HommelB (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research55, 208–222.
13.
KornblumSHasbroucqTOsmanA (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy.Psychological Review97, 253–270.
14.
MacLeodCM (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin109, 163–203.
15.
MacLeodCMDunbarK (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition14, 126–135.
16.
Morein-ZamirSHenikASpitzer-DavidsonI (2002). The importance of irrelevant-dimension variability in the Stroop flanker task.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9, 119–125.
17.
MortonJ (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review76, 165–178.
18.
MortonJChambersSM (1973). Selective attention to words and colours.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology25, 387–397.
19.
NeillWT (1977). Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3, 444–450.
20.
NicolettiRUmiltàC (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes.Psychological Research56, 144–150.
NotebaertWSoetensEMelisA (2001). Sequential analysis of a Simon task: Evidence for an attention-shift account.Psychological Research65, 170–184.
23.
RidderinkhofKR (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks.Psychological Research66, 312–323.
24.
RidderinkhofKRvan der MolenMW (1995). A psychophysiological analysis of developmental differences in the ability to resist interference.Child Development66, 1040–1054.
25.
SchneiderWEschmanAZuccolottoA (2002b). E-Prime reference guidePittsburgh, PA:Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
26.
SchneiderWEschmanAZuccolottoA (2002a). E-Prime user's guidePittsburgh, PA:Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
27.
SimonJR (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.) Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspectivepp. 31–86Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
28.
StofferTH (1991). Attentional focusing and spatial stimulus–response compatibility.Psychological Research53, 127–135.
29.
StroopJR (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology18, 643–662.
30.
ThomasJK (1977). Stroop interference with word or hue pre-exposure.Dissertation Abstracts International38, 1450.
31.
WhiteBW (1969). Interference in identifying attributes and attribute names.Perception and Psychophysics6, 166–168.
