The extra processing time required by incompatible S-R arrays has been explained in two ways: an increased number of processing stages or response competition from the compatible response. The additive factor method was employed, combining an S-R compatibility factor with a known response competition factor (a spatial Stroop task). The relationship between these two factors was shown to be an additive one, indicating that the two variables have their loci in (at least) two separate stages. This outcome is seen as persuasive evidence that longer reaction times for incompatible responses result from extra processing stages, rather than from response competition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BroadbentD. E.Perception and communication.New York: Pergamon Press, 1958.
2.
DerksP. L.CalderE. S.Information processing and verbal labels: The Stroop color-word test. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, 1969.
3.
EgethH. E.BleckerD. L.KamletA. S.Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 355–356.
4.
FittsP. M.DeiningerR. L.S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 483–492.
5.
FittsP. M.SeegerC. M.S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 199–210.
6.
ForinB.MorinR. E.Effects of context on RT to optimally coded signals. Acta Psychologica, 1967, 27, 188–190.
7.
FoxL. A.ShorR. E.SteinmanR. J.Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 91, 59–65.
8.
HintzmanD. L.CarreF. A.EskridgeV. L.OwensA. M.ShaffS. S.SparksM. E.“Stroop” effect: Input or output phenomenon?Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 95, 458–459.
9.
KeeleS. W.Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 93, 245–248.
