16 subjects performed a conventional chart-form and a card-sorting form of the Stroop color-word interference test. Interference scores on the two forms were positively and significantly correlated, while neither word reading nor color naming scores showed a significant correlation. It is suggested that the ‘Stroop effect’ has some, but limited, generality and that forms not requiring verbal response may be more useful than the traditional chart version in providing a general measure of interference proneness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DyerF. N.The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory and Cognition, 1973, 1, 106–120.
2.
FraisseP.Why is naming longer than reading?Acta Psychologica, 1969, 30, 96–103.
3.
HarrisonN. S., & BoeseE.The locus of semantic interference in the ‘Stroop’ color-naming task. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 408–412.
4.
JensenA. R.Scoring the Stroop test. Acta Psychologica, 1965, 24, 398–408.
5.
JensenA. R., & RohwerW. D.The Stroop color-word test: A review. Acta Psychologica, 1966, 25, 36–93.
6.
LigonE. M.A genetic study of color naming and word reading. American Journal of Psychology, 1932, 44, 103–122.
7.
LoganG. D.Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 523–553.
8.
LoweD. G.Strategies, context, and the mechanism of response inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 1979, 7, 382–389.
9.
MartinM.Reverse Stroop effect with concurrent tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981, 17, 8–9.
10.
ThackrayR. I.JonesK. N., & TouchstoneR. M.The color-word interference test and its relation to performance impairment under auditory distraction. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 28, 225–227.
