The present review summarizes empirical findings and theoretical views related to the Stroop color-word test. Lyperimental findings were emphasized in contrast to the results of correlational studies, and the bulk of the material was produced since the 1966 review of Jensen and Rohwer. One purpose of the review was to illustrate use of the Stroop paradigm as a too! for the stud)' of other psychological processes. The incompleteness, and in some cases the mappropnateness, of existing explanatisons of the Stroop phenomenon also were discussed. nt]mis|The author is grateful to E. C. Dalrymple-Alford. George S. Harker, and Anne Treisman for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Latencies for same and different judgments resulting from comparisons between words and colors were determined with one of the pair of stimuli being both a word and a color. The irrelevant aspect of this dual stimulus bore each of five possible relationships to the stimuli that were relevant to the match. These five conditions plus two control conditions produced large differences in latencies for making comparisons. Same responses were generally faster than different responses. Correspondence between the irrelevant stimulus and the combined relevant stimulus facilitated same responses but showed no facilitation of different responses. These findings indicate that basic differences exist between same and different decision processes. In some conditions, irrelevant words delayed matches between words and colors more than irrelevant colors delayed such matches. This suggests that central comparisons between the pair of stimuli were in a form more closely related to words than to colors. Treisman and Fearnley (1969) showed that judgments of the equivalence and nonequivalence of two stimuli took more time when each stimulus was characterized by a different stimulus attribute than when the two stimuli were characterized by the same attribute. Colors and color names were compared in a card-sorting task. An example of one of the cards for "crossattribute" matching was the word blue printed in black above a series of green Xs. Since the word and color do not correspond, this particular card would be sorted into the different pile. An example of "withinattribute" matching for the attribute of color was a color name in blue printed over a series of green Xs. An example of within-attribute matching for color names was the word red printed twice, one above the other, with the upper word in colored ink. The last two examples would be sorted different and same, respectively. A condition with simpler stimuli for withinattribute matching (both stimuli Xs for color matches and both words in black for 1 The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Laurence J. Severance who helped develop procedures and collected the data. word matches) was not included in the Treisman and Fearnley study; but the fast times for within-attribute matching with their complex stimuli relative to crossattribute matching with the simple stimuli described above indicated that little or no interference to within-attribute matching resulted from the competing value on the other attribute.In addition to the shorter time for within-attribute matching relative to crossattribute matching, Treisman and Fearnley (1969) found that cross-attribute matching was considerably delayed when the upper stimulus involved in the comparison was both a word and a color, i.e., a color name printed in colored ink. The additional delay, produced by the irrelevant aspect of these combination stimuli, occurred about equally in the condition where a color was compared to a word (CW matching) and the condition where a word was compared to a color (WC matching). The difference ...