The stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be

Five experiments demonstrate that context has a powerful effect on the ease with which people can name (Experiments 1–3) or categorize (Experiments 4–5) a stimulus while ignoring another stimulus, irrelevant or conflicting with the target. Selectivity of attention to the target dimension was gauged through Stroop and Garner effects. When the stimulus values along the target dimension and the to-beignored dimension were correlated over the experimental trials, large effects of Stroop and Garner influenced performance. However, when random allocation of values created zero dimensional correlation, the Stroop effects vanished. These results imply that when the nominally irrelevant dimension is in fact correlated with the relevant dimension, participants then attend to the irrelevant dimension and thus open themselves up to Stroop interference. Another variable of context, the relative salience of the constituent dimensions, also affected performance with the more discriminable dimension disrupting selective attention to the less discriminable dimension. The results demonstrate the importance of context in engendering the failure of selective attention and challenge traditional automaticity accounts of the Stroop effect.

[1]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Tracing the time course of picture--word processing. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  Y. Kareev,et al.  Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation , 1997 .

[4]  D. Besner,et al.  What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect? , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  American Psychological Association, Inc. A Horse Race of a Different Color: Stroop Interference Patterns With Transformed Words v , 2022 .

[6]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[7]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Presenting two incongruent color words on a single trial does not alter Stroop interference , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[8]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

[9]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[10]  W. Wagenaar,et al.  The perception of randomness , 1991 .

[11]  D. Algom,et al.  Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner's beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  G. Logan,et al.  When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task , 1979 .

[14]  D. Algom,et al.  A confluence of contexts: asymmetric versus global failures of selective attention to stroop dimensions. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  D. Algom,et al.  Reading words in Stroop-like tasks: The effect of the contingency between semantic and visual components. , 1997 .

[17]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the Myth of Automatic Semantic Activation in Reading , 1999 .

[18]  J. R. Pomerantz Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  D. Algom,et al.  Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. , 1999 .

[20]  James R. Pomerantz The structure of visual configurations: Stimulus versus subject contributions. , 1991 .

[21]  J. Stroop Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[22]  Derek Besner,et al.  The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  R. Melara,et al.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  The stroop task : the «Gold Standard» of attentional measures , 1992 .

[25]  L. Hasher,et al.  Automatic and effortful processes in memory. , 1979 .

[26]  R. Melara,et al.  Contextual influences on interactive processing: Effects of discriminability, quantity, and uncertainty , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Stroop-Type Interference: Congruity Effects in Color Naming With Typewritten Responses , 1998 .

[28]  D. Algom,et al.  The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[29]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[30]  D. Besner,et al.  Processing in the stroop task : Mental set as a determinant of performance , 1997 .

[31]  G. Logan Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  Yaakov Kareev,et al.  Positive bias in the perception of covariation. , 1995 .

[33]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – Visual Form Perception: An Overview* , 1986 .

[34]  Harry L. Chiesi,et al.  Picture-word differences in decision latency: An analysis of single and dual memory models , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[35]  W. R. Garner Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts , 1975 .

[36]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Attention and object perception. , 1989 .