Abstract
In the Stroop task, incongruent color associates (e.g., LAKE) interfere more with color identification than neutral words do (e.g., SEAT). However, color associates have historically been related to colors in the response set. Response set membership is an important factor in Stroop interference, because color words in the response set interfere more than color words not in the response set. It has not been established whether response set membership plays a role in the ability of a colorassociate to interfere with color identification. This issue was addressed in two experiments (one using vocal responses and one using manual responses) by comparing the magnitude of interference caused by color associates related to colors in the response set with that of interference caused by color associates unrelated to colors in the response set. The results of both experiments show that color associates unrelated to colors in the response set interfered with color identification more than neutral words did. However, the amount of interference was less than that from color associates that were related to colors in the response set. In addition, this pattern was consistent across response modalities. These results are discussed with respect to various theoretical accounts of Stroop interference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Blais, C., & Besner, D. (in press). Reverse Stroop effect with untranslated responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Brown, M., &Besner, D. (2001). On a variant of Stroop’s paradigm: Which cognitions press your buttons?Memory & Cognition,29, 903–904.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., &McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect.Psychological Review,97, 332–361.
De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus—response and stimulus—stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect.Memory & Cognition,31, 353–359.
Durgin, F. H. (2003). Translation and competition among internal representations in a reverse Stroop effect.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 367–378.
Fox, L. A., Shor, R. E., &Steinman, R. J. (1971). Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity.Journal of Experimental Psychology,91, 59–65.
Glaser, W. R., &Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effect in Stroop-like word and picture processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 13–42.
Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming.American Journal of Psychology,77, 576–588.
Klopfer, D. S. (1996). Stroop interference and color-word similarity.Psychological Science,7, 150–157.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203.
Proctor, R. W. (1978). Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 413–419.
Psychology Software Tools (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task.Psychological Review,110, 88–125.
Scheibe, K., Shaver, P. R., &Carrier, S. C. (1967). Color association values and response interference on variants of the Stroop test.Acta Psychologica,26, 286–295.
Schmidt, J. R., &Cheesman, J. (2005). Dissociating stimulus—stimulus and response-response effects in the Stroop task.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 132–138.
Seymour, P. H. (1977). Conceptual encoding and locus of the Stroop effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 245–265.
Sharma, D., &McKenna, F. P. (1998). Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks.Memory & Cognition,26, 1033–1040.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Sugg, M. J., &McDonald, J. E. (1994). Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 647–675.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier estimation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.
Zhang, H., &Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus-response mapping and irrelevant stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 3–19.
Zhang, H., Zhang, J., &Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus—stimulus and stimulus—response compatibility.Cognitive Psychology,38, 386–432.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Graduate Scholarship to E.F.R. and Grant A0998 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to D.B.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Risko, E.F., Schmidt, J.R. & Besner, D. Filling a gap in the semantic gradient: Color associates and response set effects in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 310–315 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193849
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193849