Effect of Wraped Words on the Stroop Effect

2430 words (10 pages) Essay in Psychology

23/09/19 Psychology Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

The Effect of Wraped Words on the Stroop Effect

Abstract

We aimed to examined whether wraped words can reduce the Stroop effect.  Everyone knows that once you learn to read, we do it very easily under different conditions but sometimes this simple process can be interrupted and the reading will does not seem so simple.  The Stroop effect occurs when we must say the ink colour of the word but not the name of the word (e.g. black might printed in red and we must say the ink colour rather of the word than the word).  Participants were asked to name the ink colour of the words on the list in a normal Stroop task and in an altered Stroop task, the time taken to finish every list were recorded.  The results shown that naming the ink colour on altered Stroop task reduce the Stroop effect. 

The Effect of Wraped Words on the Stroop Effect

  This experiment was designed to examine which The ‘Stroop task’ refers to a task where participants are given a list of coloured words and they are asked to name the ink colour for each of the word (Stroop, 1992).  The Stroop effect refers to the delayed reaction time when the colour of the word does not match the name of the word.  How quickly participants are able to name the ink colour is important to psychologists because it tells us something about attention in processing (MacLeod, 1991).  Stroop created a colour word task to investigate interference between conflicting processes and tested this using five words and matching ink colour (blue, red, green, purple and brown).  Stroop found that ‘ words evoked a single reading response, whereas colour evoked multiple responses, thereby making naming colour slower than reading words’ (MacLeod, 1991).  MacLeod (1991) discussed the effects of congruence on the task, he suggested that if the ink colour and the word are the same the speed of processing, naming its colour, will increase. On the other hand, if the ink colour differ from the word then the performance of naming colour is impaired. 

 Cattell (1886) suggests that word reading is an automatic response.  Reading the words is a simple and dominant process, when we see a word, we automatically read it but is not the same for naming colours. 

According to Besner, Stolz & Boutilier (1997), the incongruent word will always be processed at a semantic level and whether a word is wraped or not, will have no impact on the size of the Stroop effect. 

The aims of this experiment is to test this theory by measuring how long it takes participants to complete the congruent and incongruent conditions on normal and wraped Stroop tasks.  Based on previous evidence, when automaticity of reading words is interrupted, naming the colour of the word is more easier and the size of Stroop effect can be reduced or even eliminate.

The hypotheses for this experiment  is that there will be a much smaller Stroop effect in the wraped Stroop task compared to the normal Stroop task.  We expected the simple effect of congruency to be significant and the interaction to be significant.  Therefore, the time it takes for participants to complete the congruent and incongruent conditions of the wraped Stroop task will be a lot shorter than the normal Stroop task. 

Methods

Participants

In this experiment took part fifty participants, twenty-three males and twenty-seven females, with a similar age between eighteen and twenty-five.  Participants were selected using opportunity sample and they shared the same characteristics as all were students from University of Hull.  A condition for participants to took part in this experiment was that they are not color-bling, to avoid the validity of the collected data.  Prior the start of the experiment, they were shown different colours to make sure they are matching the requirements.  Participants were fully informed before experiment and debriefed afterwards, they had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any point.  Participants were split into two groups: a ‘standard’ group and ‘modified’ group.  This experiment involved observation of participants over eighteen years of age only. 

Materials

For this experiment a timer was used to record time taken for participants to complete the tasks.  Four lists of words were created in Microsoft Word (printed on paper) and were used eight different colours ( red, blue, purple, orange, black, yellow, pink and green), every list contain twenty-one coloured words.  The lists from ‘standard’ group, in the congruent list the words were written normal and the words match the ink colour but for incongruent list the words do not match the ink colour. The lists from ‘modified’ group, in the congruent list, the words were wraped  and the words match the ink colour, in the incongruent list words were wraped too, but the ink colour differ from the words. 

This are examples of stimuli for each condition, but four complete lists can be seen in the Appendix section. 

            

Design and Procedure

The design used for this experiment was a mixed 2×2 factorial design, the experiment have had two variables: one repeated-measures and one independent-measures.  In repeated-measures variable, participants were exposed to both conditions of this variable (congruent and incongruent).  To reduce the practice effects and counterbalance the order, half of the participants made the congruent then the incongruent condition and the other half of the participants made incongruent then the congruent condition.  However, participants in the ‘standard’ group, were different to participants in the ‘modified’ group, these were independent measures.  All participants were randomly allocated to each condition. 

There were two independent variables: whether the ink colour  and the word are congruent (the same) or incongruent (different) and whether the words are easily readable or wraped. The dependent variable was the time taken for participants to correctly name the ink colours of a colour word lists. 

Participants were tested in a quiet room away from any distractions, they were asked to read and sign the information sheet and consent form (see the Appendix).  There were two groups: a ‘standard’ group who completed the normal Stroop task and a ‘modified’ group who completed the same task but in the congruent and incongruent condition (wraped Strop task), the words were wraped.  In the ‘standard’ group all participants seated at a table and were presented a piece of paper including a colour word list, they were asked to identify the ink colour of the word by saying it loud, ignoring the word itself.  Participants had had correctly identify the ink colour of the word to be able to move onto the next word and finish the list.  Before the participants started, they were told that they should try and identify the ink colour of the word as quickly and as accurately is possible.  Participants after finished first list had one minute break before participating in the second condition, in which the same procedure was carried out. In the ‘modified’ group the instructions were the same like on ‘standard’ group.  The amount of time was taken (in seconds) for the participants to correctly name the ink colour of the whole list of words, was recorded by the experimenter and analyzed. 

Results

The mean and standard deviation for all congruency conditions are shown in Table 1. When participants were tested, four of them did not pay full attention to the tasks, so their score was not accurate, the outliers were dropped out.  All assumptions were met to continue with a mixed factorial ANOVA. 

A 2×2 mixed-model ANOVA showed a significant main effect of congruency levels F(1,44) = 173.67, p < .001, ηp2 = .798, such there was a significant reduction of time scored from participants on Wraped Stroop task.  There was no significant main effect of type of Stroop task F ( 1,44) = .003 , p = .954 , ηp2 = .001.

There was a significant interaction between  type of Stroop task and congruency, F(1,44) = 31.097, p < .001, ηp2 = .414 (see the Appendix).  Paired sample t-test and independent sample t-test were used to identify the source of the interaction. 

Simple effects of type Stroop task shown that participants in the congruent conditions had a significantly increase in time scored on tasks, t (44) = – 3.508, p< .001.  On the other hand, participants in the incongruent conditions had significantly decrease in time scored on tasks, t (44) = 3.458, p < .001.  Simple effects of congruency shown that participants on normal Stroop task had a significantly difference in time scores between congruent and incongruent conditions, t (22) = – 12.461, p < .001. However, participants on wraped Stroop task had a significantly difference in time scores between congruent and incongruent conditions but a lesser amount, t (22) = – 5.772, p < .001. 

These results showed that the hypotheses is supported as the results founded was significantly.

Discussion

The aims of this experiment was to observe a reduction on the Stroop effect.  The results indicate that there were significant results differences on the time taken by participants to completed the congruent and incongruent conditions of the wraped Stroop task and the normal Stroop task.  This results support our hypotheses  and when automaticity of reading words is interrupted, naming the colour of the word is made easier. 

In the normal Stroop task, there is an increase of approximately five seconds in the time taken to naming the colour of the word in the incongruent condition, this results was supported by (MacLeod, 1991).  The time taken to naming the colour of the word in the incongruent condition, in the wraped Stroop task, increase with approximately two seconds because the automatic response of reading word was interrupted.  This result is supported by (Cattel, 1886), reading is an automatic process.

 In conclusion the Stroop effect can be reduced by interrupting the automaticity of reading word, even if we want to control this we ca not because is an automatic process. 

Next time we would use a larger number of participants and create a much complex lists of stimuli and this can lead to a better results, even a significant main effect of the type Stroop task. 


References

  • Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic bulletin & review4(2), 221-225.
  • Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind11(41), 63-65
  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). John Ridley Stroop: Creator of a landmark cognitive task. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne32(3), 521.
  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin109(2), 163.
  • Manwell, L. A., Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2004). Single letter coloring and spatial cuing eliminates a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11(3), 458-462.
  • Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (1), 15.


Appendix A

      Standard  Stroop task – congruent condition

Appendix B

      Standard Stroop task – incongruent condition

Appendix C

      Altered Stroop task – congruent condition

Appendix D

      Altered Stroop task – incongruent condition

Appendix E

 

Appendix F

 

Appendix G

 Figure 1.  Mean time score in the Normal Stroop Task and Wraped Stroop Task.    Errors bars indicate standard deviation.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of time score for participants in the Normal Stroop task and Wraped Stroop task

Time score

Type of Stroop task

       Normal Stroop task

       Wraped Stroop task

Congruent

Incongruent

Congruent

Incongruent

M

10.61

15.89

12.20

14.34

SD

1.61

1.77

1.45

1.21

Appendix H

Appendix F

Appendix I

Appendix J


 

 Appendix K

Appendix L

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please: