A reversal of the Stroop interference effect, through scanning:

Uleman, James S.; Reeves, Jeanine

doi:10.3758/bf03212651

Cited by 33 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This process is proposed to account for semantic facilitation effects in priming studies (see, e.g., Carr, McCauley, Sperber, & Parmelee, 1982;Hines, Czerwinski, Sawyer, & Dwyer, 1986). Third, the assumption that the semantic interference effect is localized at the decision level does not seem in accordance with the disappearance of Stroop and picture-word interference effects in such non-narning tasks as scanning for a predefined color (Flowers & Dutch, 1976;Uleman & Reeves, 1971), sorting Stroop stimuli into bins according to ink color (Virzi & Egeth, 1985), indicating ink color by means of buttonpress responses (McClain, 1983), matching the ink color of two Stroop stimuli (Egeth, Blecker, & Kamlet, 1969), indicating the absolute position of an incongruent position word by means of a buttonpress response (Palef, 1978;Palef & Olson, 1975;Virzi & Egeth, 1985), and classifying geometric shapes or colors in the presence of incongruent names (Flowers & Stoup, 1977).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The semantic interference effect observed in Stroop tasks and picture-word interference tasks might be due to the previous confounding of semantic similarity with task relevance (in the Stroop task) and with perceptual similarity (in the picture-word interference task). A picture-word variant ofthe Stroop task was devised in which the factors of task relevance and perceptual similarity were controlled. The distractor conditions allowed for the examination of four types of context effects. The results show that the overall Stroop-like interference effect can be decomposed into interference effects due to (1) a semantic relation between distractor and target, (2) the semantic relevance of the distractor word in the task at hand, (3) the presence of the distractor word in the response set, and (4) the mere presence of a word. Implications of these findings for the locus or loci of Stroop and picture-word interference effects are discussed. It is concluded that distractor words in Stroop-like naming tasks interfere mainly in the process of name retrieval.In the Stroop task, subjects are required to name colors that are part of, or accompanied by, a printed word (see, e.g., Glaser & Glaser, 1982;Stroop, 1935); in the picture-word interference task, subjects are required to name pictures that are accompanied by a printed word (see, e.g., Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975;Underwood, 1976). In the Stroop task (see, e.g., Fox, Shor, & Steinman, 1971;Klein, 1964), and in the picture-word interference task (see, e.g., Glaser & Diingelhoff, 1984;Guttentag & Haith, 1978;Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977), a distractor word that is semantically related to the target seems to induce more interference than a distractor word that is unrelated to the target. This semantic interference effect stands in marked contrast to the semantic facilitation effect observed in tasks in which subjects are required to read a target word that is preceded by, or presented simultaneously with, a prime word (e.g., Dallas & Merikle, 1976; La Heij, Van der Heijden, & Schreuder, 1985;Warren, 1977).A conclusion that could be drawn from these results is that a semantic relation between a distractor word (or prime word) and a target will hamper performance in tasks in which nonverbal targets have to be named (as in the Stroop task and the picture-word interference task) but will facilitate perfonnance in tasks in which verbal targets have to be read (as in the word-reading variant of the semantic priming task). Before accepting such a conclusion, it would seem worthwhile to determine whether the discrepancy can be attributed to other characteristics of the various tasks.Further inspection of the Stroop task and the pictureword interference task reveals that in both of these tasks the semantic relatedness factor is confounded with another Requests for reprints should be sent to W. La Heij, Department of Psychology, Unit of Experimental Psychology, University of Leiden, Hooigracht 15,2312 KM Leiden, The Netherlands. factor that might be responsible for the int...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the pointing task employed here may succeed because it avoids any dependence on explicit categorization. Scanning tasks (Uleman & Reeves, 1971) have shown suggestive reversal results, but these have departed substantially from any structural similarity to the traditional Stroop.…”

Section: Word-matching Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reverse Stroop effect

Durgin

2000

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In classic Stroop interference, manual or oral identification of sensory colors presented as incongruent color words is delayed relative to simple color naming. In the experiment reported here, this effect was shown to all but disappear when the response was simply to point to a matching patch of color. Conversely,strong reverse Stroop interference occurred with the pointing task. That is, when the sensory color of a color word was incongruent with that word, responses to color words were delayed by an average of 69 msec relative to a word presented in gray, Thus, incongruently colored words interfere strongly with pointing to a color patch named by the words, but little interference from incongruent color words is found when the goal is to match the color of the word. These results suggest that Stroop effects arise from response compatibility of irrelevant information rather than automatic processing or habit strength. 121The Stroop effect is one of the easiest and most powerful effects to demonstrate in a classroom, but not the easiest to explain. Nearly every introductory psychology book provides a demonstration ofthe phenomenon: that it is difficult to name the ink color in which different color words are printed. But what is the proper explanation? Perhaps the weakest hypothesis concerning Stroop interference is that "words are processed faster than are colors." It is true that reading words is faster than naming colors, but this seems to be a matter ofresponse compatibility, rather then perceptual speed.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the directionality of this interference seems to be reversed when the task is one of manual search instead of oral naming. Locating the positions of printed color words is slowed by incongruent ink colors to a greater extent than incongruent words slow the locating of color patches (Uleman & Reeves, 1971).…”

Section: The Role Of the Response In Selective Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%