Children 5 to 8 years of age find it harder to name the color of a meaningful picture (e.g., of a table) than to name the color of an abstract form. Previous research suggests that this color-object interference effect is most likely due to competition between the task set of color-naming and the children's prepotent tendency to name the picture's identity. The present article examined whether color-object interference diminishes when cues are provided that have been shown to facilitate the segregation of the relevant (color) attribute and the irrelevant (form) attribute of the stimulus. Experiment 1 examined the effect of a spatial separation, and Experiment 2 the effect of a temporal separation between color and picture. Both manipulations resulted in the elimination of color-object interference, suggesting that children 5 to 8 years old were able to use these cues to overcome task competition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanichM. T. (2009) Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 89–94.
2.
BaylisG. C.DriverJ. (1992) Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 145–162.
3.
BradlynA. S.RollinsH. A. (1980) Incidental memory for the color-word association in the Stroop Color-Word Test. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 16, 269–272.
4.
De VriesK. L. M. (1986) Vertrouwdheid van woorden en woordherkenning [Familiarity of words and word recognition]. Nederlands Tijdschrifl voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden, 41, 295–304.
5.
DyerF. N. (1971) The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word. Psychonomic Science, 25, 229–231.
6.
DyerF. N.SeveranceL. J. (1973) Stroop interference with successive presentations of separate incongruent words and colors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 438–439.
7.
FlowersJ. H.StoupC. M. (1977) Selective attention between words, shapes, and colors in speeded classification and vocalization tasks. Memory & Cognition, 5, 299–307.
8.
GlaserM. O.GlaserW. R. (1982) Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875–894.
9.
GoldfarbL.HenikA. (2007) Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1170–1176.
10.
KahnemanD.HenikA. (1981) Perceptual organization and attention. In KubovyM.PomerantzJ. R. (Eds.), Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 181–212.
11.
KalanthroffE.GoldfarbL.HenikA. (2012) Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Online First Publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0027429.
12.
KuipersJ. R.La HeijW. (2009) The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 120–135.
13.
La HeijW. (1988) Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16, 400–410.
14.
La HeijW.BoelensH. (2011) Color-object interference: Further tests of an executive control account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 156–169.
15.
La HeijW.BoelensH.KuipersJ. R. (2010) Object interference in children's colour and position naming: Lexical interference or task-set competition?Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 568–588.
16.
La HeijW.KapteinN. A.KalffA. C.de LangeL. (1995) Reducing color-color interference by optimizing selection for action. Psychological Research, 57, 119–130.
17.
La HeijW.PlooijP.van der HeijdenA. H. C. (2001) A paradoxical exposure-duration effect in the Stroop task: Temporal segregation between stimulus attributes facilitates selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 622–632.
18.
LamersM. J. M.RoelofsA. (2007) Role of Gestalt grouping in selective attention: Evidence from the Stroop task. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1305–1314.
19.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
20.
MacLeodC. M. (1991) Half a century of research on the stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
21.
MeiranN. (1996) Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.
22.
MonsellS. (2003) Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
23.
MonsellS.TaylorT. J.MurphyK. (2001) Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete?Memory & Cognition, 29, 137–151.
24.
NavarreteE.CostaA. (2005) Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 359–377.
25.
NeumannO. (1986) How automatic is Stroop interference? (Rep. No. 109/1986) Bielefeld, Germany: Univer. of Bielefeld.
26.
PrevorM. B.DiamondA. (2005) Color-object interference in young children: A Stroop effect in children 3 ½–6 ½ years old. Cognitive Development, 20, 256–278.
SnodgrassJ. G.VanderwartM. (1980) A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
30.
StroopJ. R. (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
