Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to extend the so-called semantic Stroop paradigm (Neely & Kahan, 2001) - which already successfully distinguishes between the contribution of the semantic vs. response conflict to Stroop interference - so that it can take account of and capture the separate contribution of task conflict. In line with this idea, the Stroop interference observed using the aforementioned paradigm with both short and long RSIs (500 vs. 2000ms) did indeed reflect the specific contribution of the task, semantic and response conflicts. However, the contribution of task conflict (as opposed to the semantic and response conflicts) failed to reach significance when the semantic Stroop paradigm was administered with manual (Experiment 1) as opposed to vocal responses (Experiment 2). These experiments further tested the extent to which the specific contribution of the different conflicts can be influenced by the increased cognitive control induced by a short (vs. long) RSI. The corresponding empirical evidence runs contrary to the assumption that the reduction of overall Stroop interference by a short (vs. long) RSI is due to the reduced contribution of the task (Parris, 2014) and/or semantic (De Jong, Berendsen, & Cools, 1999) conflicts. Indeed, in neither experiment was the contribution of these conflicts reduced by a short RSI. In both experiments, this manipulation only reduced the contribution of the response conflict to the overall Stroop interference (e.g., Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014b). Thus these different results clearly indicate that Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon involving both automatic and controlled processes. The somewhat obvious conclusion of this paper is that these processes are more successfully integrated within multi-stage accounts than within the historically favored single-stage response competition accounts that still dominate current psychological research and practice.

Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon: Evidence from distinct developmental trajectories of its components

“…These contributions and their specificity thus reinforce the idea that (7) each component of Stroop interference reflects a unique underlying process that is likely to correspond to goal maintenance (task conflict), automatization of word reading (semantic conflict) and response inhibition (response conflict), respectively. Taken together, these results consequently (8) provide unique developmental evidence in favor of an integrative multistage perspective placing the locus of Stroop interference at multiple levels in the processing stream (respectively task, semantic and response conflict; Augustinova, Silvert, et al, ; Parris et al, under review). Because of its integrative nature, this latter perspective allows the reconciling of different perspectives on processes thought to underlie (9) the magnitude of Stroop interference (see Section 1.3) and (10) the early developmental change in this magnitude (see Section 1.2)…”

“…To test this hypothesis, and as in Augustinova, Silvert, et al (), we supplemented the standard color‐incongruent words (e.g. BLUE green ) and color‐neutral words (e.g.…”

“…The subtractive logic of the extended semantic Stroop interference applied to the data from a vocal naming task (see Augustinova, Silvert, et al, ; Experiment 2). Significant differences in color‐naming response times are thought to result from the selective presence of different types of conflict across these four types of items…”

“…It is thus not surprising that the first multistage accounts assumed that colorincongruent words (e.g. BLUE green ) generate both stimulus (SC) and response conflicts (RC; hereafter SC-RC accounts, see Augustinova, Silvert, et al, 2018 for this terminology and review of these accounts). Subsequent studies consistently showed that both conflicts contribute to and are therefore confounded in the overall Stroop interference measure (Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014a;De Houwer, 2003;Manwell, Roberts, & Besner, 2004;Schmidt & Cheesman, 2005;Zhang & Kornblum, 1998; see also e.g.…”

“…The aforementioned popular idea that the magnitude of Stroop interference specifically indexes inhibitory abilities (see Sections 1.1 and 1.2) is rooted in single‐stage response competition accounts that have historically been favored in the Stroop literature (Augustinova, Silvert, Spatola, & Ferrand, ; Risko, Schmidt, & Besner, ). These kinds of single‐stage accounts share the aforementioned idea that word reading – routinized in skilled readers – provides the basis for a response (i.e.…”