Dissociating Stimulus-Stimulus and Response-Response Effects in the Stroop Task.

Schmidt, Joana; Cheesman, Jim

doi:10.1037/h0087468

Cited by 75 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding illuminates an inherent difference between contingency and Stroop effects. In the Stroop literature, both stimulus-stimulus effects (semantic association) and response-response effects (behavioural control) have been observed in the Stroop task (e.g., Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005, 2006Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, in press). In contrast, only behavioural control effects were observed for the contingency task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The semantic association and stimulus familiarity accounts both posit that the effect emerges as a result of stimulus interactions (i.e., the learning of associations and the learning of frequency of event pairs, respectively). To help discriminate between these accounts we used a manipulation conceptually similar to that used by De Houwer (2003) and Schmidt and Cheesman (2005) in the Stroop paradigm. Specifically, for each participant, two colours were assigned to a left response key (e.g., blue and green) and two other colours were assigned to a right response key (e.g., yellow and orange).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Schmidt

Crump

Cheesman

et al. 2007

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

168

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of four experiments provide evidence for controlled processing in the absence of awareness. Participants identified the colour of a neutral distracter word. Each of four words (e.g., MOVE) was presented in one of four colours 75% of the time (Experiments 1 and 4) or 50% of the time (Experiment 2 and 3). Colour identification was faster when the words appeared in the colour they were most often presented in relative to when they appeared in another colour, even for participants who were subjectively unaware of any contingencies between the words and colours. An analysis of sequence effects showed that participants who were unaware of the relation between distracter words and colours nonetheless controlled the impact of the word on performance depending on the nature of the previous trial. A block analysis of contingencyunaware participants revealed that contingencies were learned rapidly in the first block of trials.Experiment 3 showed that the contingency effect does not depend on level of awareness, thus ruling out explicit strategy accounts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that the contingency effect results from behavioural control and not from semantic association or stimulus familiarity. These results thus provide evidence for implicit control. Implicit Control 3Contingency Learning without Awareness: Evidence for Implicit Control Cognitive processes that are controlled are conventionally assumed to operate in a slow, effortful, and voluntary manner (Posner & Cohen, 1984;Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin & Schnieder, 1977). Thus, when researchers discuss the influence of "controlled" processes, it is typically assumed that such processes are explicit (i.e., conscious; cf., Besner & Stolz, 1999). As such, the term "implicit control" would seem to be nonsensical, because "implicit" (i.e., unconscious) seems to preclude the possibility of control. However, etymologically speaking this is not a necessary conclusion. The Oxford English Dictionary (2001) Evidence for cognitive control, which is assumed to be explicit and strategic in nature, has been drawn from the Stroop literature (Stroop, 1935). In the Stroop task, identification of the print colour of colour words is slower when the word and ink colour are incongruent (e.g., the word GREEN in orange; GREEN orange ) than when they are congruent (e.g., ORANGE orange ; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). Probably the most important demonstration of putatively controlled processes in the Stroop literature is the proportion congruent effect. The proportion congruent effect refers to the finding that the size of the Stroop effect is influenced by the proportion of congruent items in a block of trials (Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994;Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979). Specifically, the Stroop effect is much larger in a high proportion congruent block of trials than in a low proportion congruent block of trials. This effect is commonly attributed to Implicit Control 4 participants explicitly learning to predict the colour from the word. Specifically, because the word us...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Schmidt

Crump

Cheesman

et al. 2007

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

168

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the semantic Stroop effect (SSE; e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012, 2014Augustinova, Flaudias, & Ferrand, 2010;Augustinova, Silvert, Ferrand, Llorca, & Flaudias, 2015;Labuschagne & Besner, 2015;Manwell, Roberts, & Besner, 2004;Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, 2006;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005). The semantic manipulation consists of color-associated words (e.g., the word sky, associated with …”

Section: The Semantic Stroop Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous analyses of the standard Stroop effect (which typically uses color words that form part of the response set) have documented effects on mean reaction times in hundreds of experiments in the literature. Less well known is the fact that ex-Gaussian analyses reveal that such effects are seen in (a) the mean of the normal distribution (mu), as well as in (b) the standard deviation of the normal distribution (sigma) and (c) the tail (tau). No ex-Gaussian analysis exists in the literature with respect to the semantically based Stroop effect (which contrasts incongruent color-associated words with, e.g., neutral controls). In the present experiments, we investigated whether the semantically based Stroop effect is also seen in the three ex-Gaussian parameters. Replicating previous reports, color naming was slower when the color was carried by an irrelevant (but incongruent) colorassociated word (e.g., sky, tomato) than when the control items consisted of neutral words (e.g., keg, palace) in each of four experiments. An ex-Gaussian analysis revealed that this semantically based Stroop effect was restricted to the arithmetic mean and mu; no semantic Stroop effect was observed in tau. These data are consistent with the views (1) that there is a clear difference in the source of the semantic Stroop effect, as compared to the standard Stroop effect (evidenced by the presence vs. absence of an effect on tau), and (2) that interference associated with response competition on incongruent trials in tau is absent in the semantic Stroop effect.

show abstract

“…In a properly designed Stroop task, each word should be presented equally often in each colour (unfortunately, this is rarely the case; see Schmidt & Besner, 2008 for a discussion of why this is a problem). Instead, conflict paradigms such as the Stroop task are based on over-trained relations that are partially semantic in nature (e.g., De Houwer, 2003;Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, 2006;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005). Although some may argue that colour words have an inherent contingency built into them (i.e., because the word BLUE is semantically related to the colour blue and the blue response), it is doubtful that a semantic relationship is the same thing as a contingency, especially since Schmidt et al (2007, Experiment 4) demonstrated that the contingency effect is purely response based, not semantic.…”

Section: Relation To Past Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency learning and unlearning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process

Schmidt

Houwer

Besner

2010

Consciousness and Cognition

Self Cite

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies show that when words are correlated with the colours they are printed in (e.g., MOVE is presented 75% of the time in blue), colour identification is faster when the word is presented in its expected colour (MOVE in blue) than in an unexpected colour (MOVE in green).The present series of experiments explored the possible mechanisms involved in this colourword contingency learning effect. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the effect was already present after 18 learning trials. During subsequent unlearning, the effect extinguished equally rapidly, suggesting that only a handful of the most recently encountered trials are used to predict responses. Two reanalyses of data from Schmidt, Crump, Cheesman, and Besner (2007) ruled out an account of the effect in terms of stimulus repetitions. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that participants who carry a memory load do not show a contingency effect, supporting the hypothesis that limited-capacity resources are used to retrieve a small number of trial memories in order to prepare a response. Experiment 4 demonstrated that memory resources are required for both storage and retrieval processes.iv Acknowledgements

show abstract

Dissociating Stimulus-Stimulus and Response-Response Effects in the Stroop Task.

Cited by 75 publications

References 29 publications

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control

The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis

Contingency learning and unlearning in the blink of an eye: A resource dependent process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About