Reversing the Emotional Stroop Effect Reveals That It Is Not What It Seems: The Role of Fast and Slow Components.

Abstract

The relative contributions of slow and fast (online) components in a modified emotional Stroop task were evaluated. The slow component, neglected in previous research, was shown to lead to the prediction of a reversed emotional intrusion effect using pseudorandomly mixed negative and neutral stimuli. This prediction was supported in Experiments 1 and 2. In Experiments 3 and 4, a new paradigm was developed that allowed a more direct observation of the nature of disruptive effects from negative stimuli. The results provided a clear demonstration of the presence of the slow component. The fast component, which has generally been assumed to be the source of the interference, was shown, in fact, to have little or no role in the disruption.

Avoiding the approach trap: A response bias theory of the emotional Stroop effect.

“…In the classic Stroop task, the same item appears in congruent and incongruent combinations, a singularly potent control that excludes stimulus-based responding or biases. In the ESE, by contrast, different lists of words are compared, with responding determined by the respective values of valence (see Algom et al, 2004;Algom, Zakay, Monar, & Chajut, 2009;Larsen, Mercer, Balota, 2006;and McKenna & Sharma, 2004, for a discussion of these and further differences between the ESE and the Stroop effect). The ESE is essentially a threat-or emotionrelated phenomenon, not an attention phenomenon (beyond the initial failure of selectivity to the ink color).…”

“…The constraints on behavior imposed in the laboratory (one can react to the negative stimulus only by pressing a key or naming a color) engender a temporary disruption of the response. This freezing, if for a fraction of a second, is known as the ESE (Algom, Chajut, & Lev, 2004;Fox et al, 2001;McKenna & Sharma, 2004;see also, De Houwer, 2003;Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001). Such a freezing in the face of threat is a quite natural reaction under the circumstances.…”

“…than are neutral stimuli. According to another view (Fox et al, 2001;McKenna & Sharma, 2004), emotion stimuli hold attention longer than do neutral stimuli (e.g., it is difficult to disengage attention from threat). Our current discussion does not speak to this issue.…”

What’s Easier Not to Think About? (On the Nature of Stroop Interference)

“…Считается, что «быстрый» (его еще называют online) эффект означает, что интерференция происходит непосредственно на той пробе, в которой ис-пользуется струп-стимул, в то время как «медленный» эффект предполага-ет, что интерференция от предъявленного струп-стимула обнаруживается во времени реакции на последующих пробах. Исследования Ф. МакКенны и Д. Шармы [McKenna, Sharma 2004] демонстрируют этот «медленный» эффект. Они предъявляли испытуемым набор слов в псевдослучайной последовательности таким образом, чтобы за целевым словом следовало шесть нейтральных слов.…”

Setting the alarm: Word emotional attributes require consolidation to be operational.

“…It is also obtained from threat-related words (e.g., death) in nonpathological individuals, suggesting a predisposition to react to threat by a reallocation of attention (for a review, see Cisler & Koster, 2010). It can surface not only as a capture of attention on the current trial (a fast component; e.g., Pratto & John, 1991), but also-and sometimes more prominently-as a difficulty in disengaging attention from the word's emotional content accessed on the previous trial (a slow component; e.g., McKenna & Sharma, 2004; see also Bertels & Kolinsky, 2015). This affective interference has been referred to as the 'emotional Stroop', due to its similarity, in appearance at least, with the classic Stroop effect (cf.…”