Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task

2008, Memory Cognition

https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1484

Abstract

The Stroop color-naming task is well suited for evaluating flexibility in the control of cognitive processes and behavior. In the congruent condition of the task, stimulus word matches stimulus color (e.g., blue in blue ink) and participants may rely on well-learned reading processes to produce fast and accurate responding. In the incongruent condition, in contrast, accurate responding requires participants to use cognitive control mechanisms to dampen word reading and activate color-naming processes. The additional time that is taken to name the ink color in the incongruent relative to the congruent condition is referred to as Stroop interference. Although the task might seem relatively simple, the literature is replete with reports of robust Stroop interference effects (for a review, see . Close to 1,000 articles have been published on the topic, yet the control mechanism(s) used to dampen word reading and activate color-naming processes remain to be fully explicated.

References (29)

  1. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166-174.
  2. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135-138.
  3. Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684-700.
  4. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
  5. Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422-471.
  6. Musen, G., & Squire, L. R. (1993). Implicit learning of color-word associations using a Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 789-798.
  7. Mutter, S. A., Naylor, J. C., & Patterson, E. R. (2005). The effects of age and task context on Stroop task performance. Memory & Cog- nition, 33, 514-530.
  8. Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why propor- tion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 514-523.
  9. Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit con- trol. Consciousness & Cognition, 16, 421-435.
  10. Shor, R. E. (1975). An auditory analog of the Stroop test. Journal of General Psychology, 93, 281-288.
  11. Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop perfor- mance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with de- mentia of the Alzheimer's type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 461-479.
  12. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
  13. Toth, J. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (2003, November). Effects of age and list- wide versus item-specific proportion congruency in the Stroop task. Poster presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic So- ciety, Vancouver, BC.
  14. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727-735.
  15. Verhaeghen, P., & De Meersman, L. (1998). Aging and the Stroop effect: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Aging, 13, 120-126.
  16. West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response domi- nance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology & Aging, 13, 206-217.
  17. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item- specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A compu- tational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076-1086.
  18. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psy- chological Review, 108, 624-652.
  19. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Mi- yake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76-106). New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Brink, J. M., & McDowd, J. M. (1999). Aging and selective attention: An issue of complexity or multiple mechanisms? Journals of Geron- tology, 54B, P30-P33.
  21. Carter, C. S., Macdonald, A. M., Botvinick, M., Ross, L. L., Stenger, V. A., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (2000). Parsing executive processes: Strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 1944-1948.
  22. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the con- trol of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
  23. Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context- specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316-321.
  24. De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379-394.
  25. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
  26. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & McElree, B. D. (1999). The role of cognitive control: Early selection versus late correction. In S. Chai- ken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 383-400). New York: Guilford.
  27. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psy- chonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-644.
  28. Jacoby, L. L., McElree, B. [D.], & Trainham, T. N. (1999). Automatic influences as accessibility bias in memory and Stroop tasks: Toward a formal model. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and per- formance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 461-486). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  29. Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 219-234.