Category: Stroop Effect

The studies evaluated in this paper all correspond to the Stroop effect, either by directly studying the effect or by determining the mechanism through which it occurs. The Stroop Effect is experienced when a written word differs from the color it is written in, and can be understood as a delay in reaching a correct response when presented with mismatching word and color combinations.

J. Ridely Stroop was the man who first introduced the Stroop effect, coined after his own name, to modern psychology. In his 1935 study “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions” Stroop studied interference’s effect on reaction times when asked to recite the words printed. He based his hypothesis off of prior works on interference and inhibition stating, that incongruence in the word-color pairing would result in an increased reaction time or an incorrect response. He conducted two versions of his experiment one with reading the word as the task and a second with naming the color of the print. For the first he utilized 70 (14 male, 56 female) undergraduate volunteers. This experiment consisted of four conditions, two lists with two forms, and participants were asked to read the lists as fast as they could without mistakes as the experimenter followed along on a list printed in black ink. Half read the lists in the order b1, d2, d1, b2 and the other half read them in the reverse order to account for practice or fatigue effect. The second part of the experiment utilized 100 volunteer undergrads with the task being to name the color not the word. Stroop found that word-color incongruence did not reliably increase the time when reading the words, but when naming colors the presence of words naming other colors increased the reaction times. He then concluded, “The associations that have been formed between word stimuli and the reading response are evidently more effective than those that have been formed between color stimuli and naming response.” (Stroop, 1935) Though there was no formal statement of whether Stroop’s hypothesis was supported based on the findings it is clear that his hypothesis was partially supported. There is not much room for improvement, Stroop accounted for practice and fatigue effects within his methods and had a decent representation of the population. If I had to improve in anyway it would be to include more males in the study.

Zajano and Gorman in their 1986 study, “Stroop Interference as a Function of Percentage of Congruent Items”, sought to validate the Stroop effect, while investigating the potential of additional contributors to response competition. They hypothesized: “if the interference effect can be accounted for wholly in terms of such response competition, the mixed list used in the present study should result in a direct linear function of response times in relation to percentage of congruent items”. (Zajano & Gorman, 1986) Their experiment consisted of a one-factor within-subjects design, with 33 (31 female, 2 male) undergraduate students who volunteered to undergo the study. The subjects were then administered 11 lists of varying color-word congruence levels, in a randomized order, followed by an additional 0% congruence list. The results showed that response competition caused the difference in reaction times, and with a 95% CI all points were significantly affected by this response competition. The authors concluded that due to the “curvilinear” nature of the data that the inhibition is consistent with that of selective attention caused through response inhibition. Their hypothesis was supported by their results. The only issue is this experiment has a lack of subjects; there are only 2 males with 31 females this is not a good representation of the population and therefore is unable to be generalized in a confident manner.

MacKinnon, Geiselman, and Woodward studied how effort affected Stroop interference in their 1985 study “Effects of Effort on Stroop Interference”. Their study utilized 64 (32 male, 32 female) subjects selected from a UCLA introductory psychology class. Each subject was given 4 lists: a practice with color neutral words, a control with plus (+) signs instead of words, and 2 Stroop lists. The subjects were then asked to name the color of the print while being timed by the experimenter. The order was counter balanced across the subjects. The experiment featured two conditions: low incentive, the subjects were prompted that the trial was just practice, and high incentive, the subjects were prompted that the trial was a competitive game. The authors hypothesized “that competition and the existence of a desired reward would lead to greater [subject] effort than a no-competition procedure. As a result of this task-specific effort manipulation, Stroop interference should be reduced if the interference can be brought under attentional control.” (MacKinnon, Geiselman, & Woodward, 1985) The results were that low incentive had no significant effect, and high incentive had the effect of lowering Stroop interference supporting the hypothesis. The authors concluded that Stroop interference could be reduced if effort is directed to do so. I don’t see any room for improvement here; the subjects were not told the true intentions of the study to avoid good/bad subject bias and there was a good example of the population.

Augustinova and Ferrand studied the automaticity of reading printed words in their 2014 study “Automaticity of Word Reading: Evidence from the semantic Stroop paradigm.” Their study did not contain any subjects because it was only a comprehensive evaluation of other works rather than an independent study. Because this was a compilation of several other previous studies there was no procedure or formal hypothesis to report. However, where this study lacked formal procedure it reconciled this deficit with comprehensive data. The following finding can represent the sum of this data: no matter how much effort is employed to inhibit it, the reading of a word is automatic. Augustinova and Ferrand concluded that the Stroop effect could be caused or if nothing else amplified by the automaticity of reading words when asked to name the color of the print if the word represents a different word. This study has no solid experimentation but yet makes a claim of causality; I would have like to see some original work done rather than rehashing several prior studies together.

The final study is “Time Course of Inhibition in Color-response and Word-response versions of the Stroop task.” completed Sugg and MsDonald in 1944. This experiment used 56 subjects, who were undergrads, required to participate in for a class at New Mexico State University. This study seeks to validate or refute the hypotheses of the previous works which this one is based, however it is never stated what these hypotheses are. The subjects were faced with a screen, upon pressing the start button the first stimulus appeared, and then after a set time the second stimulus and so forth. Each stimulus consisted of a word inside of a rectangle, and each trial changed the word and the color of the rectangle. Each subject completed a “Trial Block” of 60 trials, 20 for each condition, congruent, incongruent, and neutral. Their study found that there was a main effect of task (naming color or naming word) and congruence. The authors concluded that significant inhibition was only found in short SOA (time between stimuli appearing) conditions and decreased SOA increased inhibition. A formal hypothesis would improve this study immensely; however clearly stating the previous studies’ hypotheses which it was testing would be a good start.

Through evaluating the aforementioned studies I learned a significant amount about the Stroop effect. The Stroop effect occurs when there is incongruence between the word meaning and the color of the print. However as expressed by Stroop’s 1935 experiment this effect is only significant when asked to report the color rather than the word meaning. Stroop further explains this mechanism by concluding that the associations between word stimuli and reading response is stronger than color stimuli and naming response. This is explained and validated by the automaticity of reading written words as expressed in Augustinova’s and Ferrand’s 2014 study, where they concluded that it is inevitable to read a word when it is present on paper.

Meanwhile Zajano and Gorman further supported Stroop by concluding that response competition was the only cause of the inhibition. These findings make sense and correlated with an experiment I had run myself. I believe Augustinova’s and Ferrand’s study could have been based more in directly observed experimentation rather than just restating and evaluating older studies, however due to the scope of data they present to support their conclusion I am satisfied with their findings. Overall the collective findings of these experiments make sense, because humans are incapable of being able to multitask at an efficient rate. And due to the automaticity of word reading when asked to discern the color of the font, there will be an inherent response competition.

I only have a few concerns with the studies and experiments that I found. The majority lying in the lack of original work or procedures, and lack of clearly stated hypotheses. While the methods and science were good, some of these studies cannot be called experiments because they do not seek to answer a single clearly stated scientific question. Aside from this fault that seems to frequent my chosen studies I do not have many concerns with the quality of these studies.

Considering the stroop effect, automaticity, and the different types of attention- their relationships can help researchers better understand the cognitive processes activated in order to correctly identify the desired stimulus. In recent years, researchers have dedicated time studying attention and the different types, focused and divided. Attention is defined by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as being the act or power of carefully thinking about, listening to, or watching someone or something (Attention). Focused attention is one’s ability to be presented with 2 or more stimuli at the same time and are able to correctly and in a timely manner, direct their attention to the desired stimulus. Being able to focus one’s attention is very important especially when taking an exam, reading, studying. Divided attention is the concentration of more than one thing at the same time, also referred to as multitasking. Someone who does not have the best control over their attention, one who is frequently divided, tend to have a harder time studying and reading than those who can focus their attention. One can test their ability to divide their attention by trying to pat their head and rub their stomach simultaneously.

One factor that plays an important role in attention is automatic processing or automaticity. Automaticity happens when an activity, or process, becomes automatic. A process becomes automatic after prolonged exposure to process. These automatic processes are what make it possible for one to divide their attention. In order for a process to become automatic it must be fast, not inhibitory to completing the process but enhances ones ability to complete; and lastly the process must be able to be unavailable to consciousness, implicit memory, in order to be full automated. Further, Shiffrin and Schneider’sAutomaticity Theory claimed that an automatic process requires little capacity, little attention and are very difficult to change. The text explained that one of the biggest problems with automatic processingsourced from the lack of flexibility once a process became automatic.

Automaticity can be measured by something known as the stroop effect, which explains why, over a lifetime, college students have automatized the process of reading. Therefore, when asked to identify the color names of the words, response times are shorter. Response times are shorter because reading the word is what our brains have train ourselves to do, implicitly, and triumphs and thus inhibits ones ability to report on the color of the word as accurately and quickly as reading the word. This is especially evident when the color of the word does not match the color name of the word. The processing of identifying the color of an object or word is not something a person does every day, whereas reading is something we do everywhere.

When you first wake up, you read the clock to tell the time. Then you might check your text messages, make coffee and implicitly read the name of the coffee on the can, cereal box, milk jug and so on.

So how do researchers and psychologist’s use the stroop effect to test for divided attention and automaticity? There are different versions of stroop effect experiments to test for the stroop effect. Almost all of the stroop designs are done so to test focused attention. This is evident by the participants being asked to ignore the meaning of the word to identify the color of it. At the same time, the stroop effect also tests the automaticity theory which theorized that, a college student participating in a stroop experiment, would have faster response times when asked to report the meaning of the word over the color.

The diagram above, process A is a visual explanation of how automatic processing happens. Process B shows what happens during a stroop experiment. This problem comes from the before mentioned, divided attention. The stroop effect tests divided attention by presenting the participant with a conflict to their implicit memory. When the color of the word does not match the word meaning, and the participant is asked to report on the color of the word, the splitting of the attention is what’d make for the response time to increase. However, because of the difficulty changing an automatic process, the stroop effect is designed to provoke semantic conflict (Cognition).

In line with these findings, an experiment was conducted to test for attention and automaticity. This experiment tested to see if irrelevant emotional facial expressions disrupted other processes such as color naming, facial recognition, and categorization of emotional words. This study tested for the automaticity of facial perceptionand the measure of the relationship between other relative goals and ability to divide and focus attention as well as the ability to be conscious of implicit processes. Their findings found that the involuntary, stimuli driven, processes still provoked a response with little if any attention of conscious mindfulness. Furthermore, this automatic response was further studied that the facial expression in response to the judge emotional stimuli was hardly inhibited. They claimed this to be related to the expertise built up over generations, of humans to be implicitly good at tasks such as those mentioned above. This supports the stroop effect because the stroop effect refers to a persons inhibited ability to report on the color of the word, something that is not automatic, against something that is, which is reading the word (Oxford).

The reason one would be interested in testing and measuring the stroop effect is to better understand their ability to focus and divide their attention. The purpose of the stroop experiment in a Montclair State University experimental psychology classis to perform a replication of the original stroop experiment in order for college students to fulfill part of their course requirements. It also is beneficial to measure automatized behaviors and cognitive psychologist usually utilize the ability to do so in order to gain information on a patient’s back end behavior. The stroop experiments are designed to provoke and measure automatic responses so the psychologist can better help their patient through events, even if the patient isn’t sharing all the information related to the situation. It is hypothesized that the stroop effect that people tend to be faster at identifying the font color when the word name and font color are the same and are slower when they are different.It is also hypothesized that reaction will be significantly slower for the Stroop- incongruent relative to the control-congruent condition.

For each trial, participants were shown a word (RED, GREEN, or BLUE) that was printed in either red, green, or blue font color. Their task was to classify, as fast as they could, the font color, regardless of the word name.The independent variable in this experiment was whether the word name and font color were the same or different. The dependent variable was the response time between the appearance of the stimulus and your response. Only trials in which you made the correct classification were kept. If a trial was incorrect, it was repeated later in the experiment.Eighteen upper level undergraduate Psychology students from Montclair State University participated in the experiment as a part of course credit for their Experimental Psychology course. All participants spoke English fluently and the majority of the participants were female (15 females and 3 males).

The participants used an automated version of the Stroop task on the Cog Lab 2.0 CD-ROM run on Lenova desktops running Windows 7. Participants entered a climate controlled computer laboratory and performed the experimental program. The program ran at least 45 trials, 30 with incongruent conditions (font color is different from meaning of word) and 15 with the congruent condition (font color matches the meaning of the word) in random order. Start a trial by pressing the space bar. A fixation dot appeared in the middle of the window for the participant to stare at it. Shortly after a word red, green, blue, will appear on the screen, and the word will be printed in red, green, or blue. Your task is to classify the color of the font as quickly as possible, regardless of the actual word.After pressing a key to identify the font color, you will receive feedback on whether you were correct. If you were incorrect, the trial will be repeated later in the experiment. If you find you are making lots of mistakes, you should slow down or make certain you understood which key goes with which font color.Reaction time was recorded automatically and the program calculated the mean for the individual. All individual mean reaction time was analyzed for both conditions by using SPSS.

Although not large in terms of absolute time, the Stroop effect is very robust. A common explanation for the Stroop effect is that participants (especially college undergraduates) have automatized the process of reading. Thus, the color names of the words are always processed very quickly, regardless of the color of the font. On the other hand, identifying colors is not a task that participants have to report on very often, and, because it is not automatized, it is slower. The fast, and automatic, processing of the color name of the word interferes with the reporting of the font color.

This experiment was also limited to college-aged students. For example, they do not factor in people with cognitive impairments such as ADD or ADHD. In one article it explains that there is a statistically significant difference found inmean T scores for all clinical groups tested (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], reading disability, autism, and cognitive delay groups). The interference effect was also greater in all groups except ADHD. (Koch) This finding leaves the door for further discussion to understand how significant of a difference is there between a participant who has a cognitive impairment, such as ADHD verse someone who does not suffer from that.

There also have been hypothesis that men are better at stroop experiments then women. This study did not test the gender role in this experiment. In future experiments it would be important to at least measure the distinction between male and female. In one experiment results showed a significant different between women on their menstrual cycle verse when they’re not. Levels of estradiol and progesterone, effect a woman’s performance with stroop experiments. A direct quote from the articles says “That sex-related hormone modulation selectively affects cognitive functions depending on the type of task and low level secretion of estradiol appears to contribute to reducing the level of attention that relates to the prefrontal cortex.” (Hormones).

In conclusion, it is very evidence and support that in a majority of circumstances, participants in stroop experiments will experience the stroop effect. Processes that are done repeatedly, on a frequent basis become automatic processes.

The Stroop Colour and Word Test effect on its basis is one of the most well-known and long-lasting phenomena in all cognitive science and psychology. Having been first reported by John Ridley Stroop in 1935, the phenomena explains the degree of difficulty people have with naming colour of the ink rather than the word itself (Stroop, 1935). More specifically, it assesses the ability to inhibit cognitive interference, which occurs when the processing of a stimulus feature affects the simultaneous processing of another attribute of the same stimulus (Scarpini & Tagini, 2017). Since the early beginnings of experimental psychology, it was identified that clear words are faster to read compared to objects or their properties are to name. A study conducted in 1886, introduced the concept of automaticity to cognitive science which explained that word reading counts as an unconscious automatic process due to extensive practice (MacLeod, 1991). Under this concept, people cannot abide by with an instruction of not to read because reading in itself cannot be turned on and off. Hence why it is guaranteed that incompatible words will cause interferences when attempting to name their printed colours. In the following report, subjects are required to read three different tables of information as fast as possible. Two of them are represented as a congruent condition in which the participants are asked to read the names of colours in text printed in black ink and name different coloured blocks without text. Conversely, the last test, is the Stroop effect test, where coloured words are printed in an inconsistent colour tone. Thus, this is deemed as the incongruent condition as the participants are required to name the colour of the ink instead of reading the text. While this experiment is mostly used for the purposes of measuring the ability to inhibit cognitive interference, similar research also found its applications to measure other cognitive functions such as attention, speed of process and cognitive flexibility.

In the present report, two main hypotheses will be analysed testifying the three experiments. Hypothesis-one predicts the completion of the Word Task being significantly faster than the Coloured-block Test. The other hypothesis states that participants will take longer to complete the Stroop Task than the Coloured-block Task. The focus of the study is on the completion speed of each task and the various cognitive functions that influence it.

A select number of 138 (N = 138) university students enrolled in PY1102 subjects, with a gender split of 40 males and 98 females was qualified to participate in the research. The experiments were conducted during their allocated tutorial hours. The mean (M) value of the age of participants was calculated to be 24.19 years along with a standard deviation (SD) of 9.54 years.

A stimulus and a response card along with a stopwatch were used to conduct the experiment. The given stimulus and response card contained exactly the same instructions and consisted of three different tests that needed to be completed.

The experiment consisted of three separate tests that was conducted to measure consistency and the speed of which each task was completed in comparison with each other. All three experiments were used to also identify cognitive functions in terms of executive inhibition of prepotent responses and certain interferences that occurred. The first sequence of assessment was based on a word reading test. Participants were provided with a paper consisting of different colours in basic text format. The instructions were given that each participant had to read out the list of words aloud as quickly as possible, starting from left to right and top to bottom. A separate response sheet was used by the experimenter to manually score the amount of errors and the time it took upon completion.

Following the experimental paradigm provided, the second part of the experiment instructed the participants to identify and name coloured blocks without text in quick successions. The test followed similar steps to task one, but with an obvious change of stimulus provided. Again, a separate response sheet was used to track the progress and identify errors that occurred.

The last part of the experiment consisted of the classic colour-word Stroop task. The task was presented on the paper and showed successive words of red, blue, green and yellow in all the four different font colours on a white background. Each trial was presented as either congruent (e.g “red” written in its original colour) or incongruent (e.g “green” written in a different colour). Participants were tasked to identify and pronounce the colour of the ink and ignore the meaning of the present word. The results were scored accordingly to the previous two experiments and any errors that occurred was resolved during the process.

The descriptive values identified in the results showed that the Word task (M= 7.62, SD=1.61) was completed at a faster rate than the Colour-block task (M=9.12, SD=2.03) and the Stroop task (M=17.12, SD=5.47). The inferential comparison of the Word task v. Coloured-block task (t (df)= -9.39, p-value=0.000) and the Colour-block task vs Stroop task (t (df) = -19.34, p-value=0.000) presented a constant p-value regardless of any differences. The degrees of freedom (t(df)) value however, presented the indicator that the coloured-block test when in comparison with the word test achieves a figure far greater when it’s conversely in contrast with the Stroop task.

Upon completion of the experimental phase, the results along with previously reviewed studies came out in support of the given hypotheses. The parameters of speed and accuracy of the performance were both underlined through all three experimental designs, thus highlighting no methodological conflicts. In support of the first hypothesis, as predicted, the results of the Word Task were found indicating a lower time interval compared to the Coloured-block Task (p < 0.001). Hypothesis two was also supported as the results showed that the Coloured-block Task was completed substantially faster than the Stroop Task (p < 0.001). To predict the outcome of the hypotheses, inferential statistics were used to make inferences based on the relations found in the sample. Descriptive statistics was also used to validate and compare the results of the sample size through the calculations of the mean value along with standard deviation.

According to the studies with Italian normative data conducted by Amato and Caffarra, the results were identified to be influenced by attentional functioning and the general cognitive efficiency of the participant. In regard to the Stroop task, slowing to a response conflict was identified to be due to failure of selective attention or lack in cognitive efficacy. All participants had to process selectively a specific visual stimulus while blocking out the automatic processing of reading in order to solve the task in hand. This creates an interference which confuses the brain and creates a conflict, forcing a decision without much evaluation (MacLeod, 1991). Interference also occurs due to human memory, where previously learnt information stored as a memory or thought conflict with new information. Trying to identify and interpret this new stimulus becomes difficult due to the speed in which the brain recollects and process old information (MacLeod, 1991). Hence, the Stroop task was identified to be harder to complete compared to the other two. Conversely, the Word task is regarded to be the easiest, as the stimulus applied is not perplexing and it uses an automated process of general cognition to complete the task at a faster rate.

Certain recorded scoring techniques impede an exhaustive description on the performance of individuals and limit the validity of the practice (Amato et al., 2006). For instance, only the reading time was recorded appropriately, while accuracy was examined by the experimenter which in fact implies a possibility for human error. Participants could easily report an incorrect description of the correct answer and due to the incongruous condition and despite poor performance the experimenter could have easily mixed up the results as well. Such behaviour indicates a chance of failure to maintain consistency of the experiment, even if the participants properly completed the task. In light of the previous analysis, a different scoring method for all three tests is recommended that fills the two main requirements. Firstly, following the original methodology both accuracy and speed must be tested but independently of each other through a computer-generated process. This eliminates the chance of human error and validates the integrity of the study. Secondly, a global index must be generated in the near future, so different levels of performance can be generated through a comparison. Finally, further research on the topic of study should be mentioned and a review on the methodology of the experiments should be testified. This will help shape way for any future research about the cognitive basis of psychology.

Abstract

In most people, proficiency in language takes precedence over cognition of individual words and letters contained therein. Therefore, when an individual is presented with a random name, there can read it instantaneously without thinking. The brain can respond automatically to the name and the response time is considerably short. If the same person is presented with the word of one color but written in a different color, the reaction is the same. The brain recognizes the word first, and after that, as though as an afterthought, the font color of the word. Typically, if a person is presented with the name of color but written in contradicting font color, the first response is to spell out the word. However, if there is a requirement that the person focuses on the font color and not the meaning of the word, the response time increases significantly. Ridley Stroop interpreted this observation as an outcome of cognitive interference as the brain makes deliberate effort to distinguish the meaning of the word from its font color.

Introduction

Background

Stroop Effect is a neurophysiological test developed by Ridley Stroop in 1939 to assess the mind’s ability to inhibit cognitive interference in information processing. The effect manifests when the brain is faced with contradictory stimuli. The contradiction creates a delay in information processing, which can be demonstrated by timing the time between the perception of a stimulus and response (Scarpina and Tagini, 2017). Stroop Effect is used in both clinical and experimental studies to monitor the delay in reaction time. The test involves colors and words. The words are printed in different colors, some which correspond to the meaning of the word and others that are mismatched. Theoretically, the reaction time is faster when the color matches the meaning of the word and slower when the two are out of sync.

Three theories have been developed to explain this phenomenon-selective attention, speed of processing, and automaticity. Selective attention theory proposes that color identification requires comparatively more attention than reading a word (Wright, 2016). Therefore, when an individual is faced with a task involving reading a name that is printed in a different color, the brain’s response is slow. The speed of processing theory, on the other hand, suggests that the human mind can read at a faster rate than it can name a color. Naber et al. (2016) argue that cognitive processing limitation dictates the number and variety of objects that an individual can process at a time. Subsequently, a stimulus can attract either more or less processing poser based on its strength. According to Forrin and MacLeod (2017), the observed delay in the response indicates more processing power is required to complete the task. The automaticity theory suggests that while reading is an automatic response, color identification is not. Therefore, faced with a situation where the brain is required to complete both tasks, cognitive interference sets in, causing the delay in response.

Purpose

The purpose of this experiment is to determine whether there are any differences in response time when words and colors are congruent, and when they are incongruent.

Hypothesis

Null hypothesis

There is no difference in response time between congruent and incongruent words

Alternative hypothesis

The response time for congruent words is marginally faster than that for incongruent words

Data

Table 1: Stroop Effect Lab Data

Condition

Congruent

Average Speed

Incongruent

Average Speed

Incongruent

Minus Congruent

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Take 1

726

813

87

Take 2

715

764

49

Take 3

696

756

60

Take 4

737

755

18

Take 5

650

714

64

Mean

704.8

760.4

55.6

Fig 1: Graph of time taken to complete a Stroop test

Interpretation of data

From the test data, the average speed for congruent word decreases with the number of tests, except in test number 4. The average speed for the incongruent word also decreases with the number of tests. However, the speed for incongruent words is generally higher, indicating a slower response rate. Overall, the results nullify the null hypothesis, and it is hereby rejected and upholds the alternative hypothesis. There is a statistically significant difference in the average response time between congruent and incongruent words.

Discussion

Expectation versus results

Stroop postulates that when the words and colors are congruent, the response time is faster, whereas where there color and name are incongruent, the response is delayed. If I exhibited the Stroop effect, I would expect the average response time for the congruent words to be marginally higher compared to that of incongruent words. My results affirm this expectation.

Effect of conditions

In my experience, anxiety and external interference had a negative impact on the test results. Tests taken with a clear, calm mind and devoid of any external disruption were more subjective and accurate. Besides, tests taken in this state of mind also resulted in correct answers for all the prompts. On the other hand, the tests that I took either while anxious or in the presence of external disruption were less subjective, and the answers for numerous prompts were incorrect. Test four results do not align with the general trend exhibited by the other four runs because both the external environment and my state of mind during this trial run were not conducive. During this trial run, I was anxious about what the results would indicate and whether I would exhibit the Stroop effect or not. Besides, I was interrupted severally in the course of the test, which resulted in some wrong answers and higher response time across both categories.

Effect of speed

From the selective attention theory standpoint, incongruent words and colors require more attention resources than congruent words. The rationale is that while the mind can automatically identify words that match the colors, cognitive interference arises where there is a mismatch between the meaning of the word and the color. In this case, the brain has to pause and differentiate the meaning of the word and the font color before inducing a response. In my experience, speed compromises the accuracy of the responses, which makes sense from the perspective of the selective attention theory. Trying to increase the response time resulted in numerous wrong answers, whereas in instances where speed was not a concern, the answers were almost always correct.

Why the Stroop Effect occurs

As highlighted herein, three theories attempt to expound on why the Stroop Effect occurs. One of these theories is the speed of processing. The brain is wired to recognize words faster than color. Subsequently, when one sees a name, the processing speed of the word and its interpretation is faster than the time it takes to recognize the font color. As a result, the first response is to read the word, which results in a wrong answer if the word and color are mismatched. The slow processing speed is manifested by a notable increase in the response time. However, where the word and color match, the response time is instant not because the brain recognizes both the word and the color simultaneously, but because there is no cognitive interference. Since the first response is to read the name, the fact that both color and word match is a secondary response, which, in this case, does not interrupt the brain’s reaction.

References

1. Damen, T., Strick, M., Taris, T., & Aarts, H. (2018). When conflict influences liking: The case of the Stroop task. PLOS ONE, 13(7), 1-23.
2. Forrin, N., & MacLeod, C. (2017). Relative speed of processing determines color–word contingency learning. Memory & Cognition, 45(7), 1206-1222.
3. Naber, M., Vedder, A., Brown, S., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2016). Speed and Lateral Inhibition of Stimulus Processing Contribute to Individual Differences in Stroop-Task Performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(822), 1-13.
4. Scarpina, F., & Tagini, S. (2017). The Stroop Color and Word Test. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-13.
5. Wright, B. (2016). What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood? British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 583-607.

Apparatus

Standardized instructions were read to participants prior to the experiment, ensuring the instructions were understood. In addition to word lists (see Appendix A), which were required to carry out the experiment and provide participants with stimuli. The sets of cards (reading and writing conditions) each had 80 words (8 rows of 10), letter strings or X’s printed on one side (font style and size Arial black 14). Cards used in the control conditions (testing reading and naming accuracy) either had coloured words in black ink or rows of X’s printed in coloured ink. Whereas the experimental conditions (six) included coloured words (red, green, blue and orange) printed in the same ink, opposing colour words, colour-related words of high frequency, non-colour or neutral related words of high frequency, low frequency neutral words and letter strings. It is important to note the words were printed in a ‘pseudo-random order’, whereby a line had no more than two same words, reducing the likelihood of participants remembering the stimuli. Lastly, a stopwatch was required to measure the time taken to read the set of 80 words on the card.

Design

A mixed design was used, consisting of one within-subjects factor (control conditions comparing reading and naming) and one between-subjects factor (colour-relatedness). In the experimental condition (independent groups), separate groups of participants were tested in each condition, resulting in each individual taking part in a single trial. Whereas for the control conditions, a direct comparison between reading and colour naming was made, so each participant took part in both. There was no random assignment of participants to each experimental condition. Yet the order that words were printed had been in a randomized order, reducing any possible differences. The independent variables were the type of task (reading or naming the colour) and condition (Classic Stroop, other colour, colour related, high frequency neutral, low frequency neutral and letter strings). The dependent variable was the time taken to respond to the stimuli, comparing the experimental and control conditions.

Procedure

Prior to the study, all participants gave their informed consent to taking part in the experiment. The control conditions consisted of two stages: measuring reading and colour naming response time and then ranking time taken to name the colour, so to match the experimental groups and allocate participants to each condition (ensuring each takes part in one experimental condition). The participants were placed into groups of three and conducted the task in a separate cubicle, whereby each participant took turns to read the stimuli aloud while another recorded time. Before the stopwatch was pressed, the cards were hidden faced-down until the task commenced. Throughout the trial, the other participants were told not to look at the test cards, so to reduce participant biases.

In the control conditions, the participants were separately tested in the first condition (reading) and after, the second (colour naming). This consisted of participants reading out loud the words written on the card as soon as it was turned over, aiming to complete the task as quickly and as accurately as possible. When completed, the participant reported they were ‘finished’ and the stopwatch was paused. Whereas in the second condition (colour naming), the participants were instructed to name aloud the ink colour of the ‘X’s. Participants were also encouraged to correct any errors throughout the task. After both control conditions, participants each individually wrote their time (in seconds) for condition B in large text and the class organized the order of times by forming a single line across the room. Each participant was then assigned to one of the six experimental conditions, so to organize colour-naming times into different conditions (reduces possible confounding variables). For example, the six fastest naming participants had been allocated to different conditions, ensuring variety in each and the experimental condition was carried out.

In the experimental condition, each participant was asked to name aloud the ink colour of each word or letter string when the card was turned over. It was clearly indicated that participants should only name the ink colour and ignore the word written. As before, students were encouraged to correct any errors and indicate when they had finished. This procedure was repeated for each participant. It is important to note that participants were told not to purposefully distort their vision (such as by squinting), or cover up or point to parts of words, since this could reduce the internal validity of the experiment.

Results

The results (raw data in Appendix B) were collected in order to assess whether the Stroop effect had an influenced on response time. It was found that participants responded quicker when reading (M=30.8 1 (d.p.)) than colour naming ink words (M=47.1 (1.d.p.)). Although, a higher degree of variation was observed in colour naming time (SD=8.0 (1 d.p.)) than for reading time (SD=4.4 (1 d.p.)),

Therefore, the hypothesis that there is a difference between identifying the colour and reading word time can be accepted as less time was taken to read the colour of the stimuli. The mean score for each condition was calculated by observing the difference between the times taken to name the experimental condition minus the time of the control condition (colour-naming increment). A related samples t-test (one-tailed) between reading and colour naming time was run. Reading time (M=30.8, SD=4.4) was found to be significantly faster than colour naming time (M=47.1, SD=8.0), t(37)= 16.2, p< .001, one-tailed.

As for the experimental condition, participants took the longest to respond to other colour words (mean of 15.3 (1 d.p.)), while the low frequency neutral words had the shortest response time (mean of 1.6 (1 d.p.)).

Reading time Colour naming time

Mean 30.8 (1 d.p.) 47.1 (1 d.p.)

SD 4.4 (1 d.p.) 8.0 (1 d.p.)

Table 1: A representation of the mean and standard deviation time (seconds) for the control conditions (comparing reading and colour naming words)

Figure 1: A graphical display (bar chart) to demonstrate the mean response time (seconds) for the control conditions (comparing reading and colour naming words).

Classic Stroop Other colour Colour-related High-frequency neutral Low frequency neutral Letter strings

Mean 13.4 15.3 12.0 5.2 1.6 2.0

SD 8.6 16.0 13.4 1.7 2.6 3.9

Table 2: A representation of the means and standard deviation time (seconds) for each of the six experimental conditions

Figure 2: A graphical display (bar chart) to demonstrate the mean time (seconds) taken to respond for each of the six experimental conditions

Discussion

A comparison was made between reading and colour naming time to investigate whether the Stroop effect was present when identifying colour. It was found that reading coloured ink words took less time (seconds) than naming the written colour. In addition to the experimental conditions which observed a slower response rate to words that implied or were related to a certain colour. Therefore, the results display support for the hypothesis that states there is a ‘gradient interference effect’ when naming colours, as the less colour-related the stimuli were, the faster the response. This could be explained through a sense of competition between the semantic processes in which both required attention, thus increasing time taken to name the colour. Although these findings provide support for previous research into the Stroop effect, the validity of the experiment has been questioned.

The results can be interpreted as the result of interference of colour stimuli on the written names of the colours (when two different words are presented in conjunction). The graded interference effect (between colour-naming and word reading) is understood as a result of words stored in the semantic network of memory, and thus, a specific word may ‘activate’ another such as ‘sky’ may hint at ‘blue’. Though meaningless words may have similar letters to a colour, which could similarly elicit a response, such as ‘blir’ provoking ‘blue’. Therefore, the order in which stimuli are presented may be as equally important as the word itself.

Previous literature into the Stroop effect also found significant results, which increases support for the hypothesis that reading words is simpler than naming the colour. Evidence and existing theoretical perspectives have been reviewed (MacLeod, 1991) and perhaps there is a lack of statistical significance, whereby the difference between the conditions may be too small. Nevertheless, research has considered variables that could influence the Stroop effect, such as the content of the stimuli (appearance of words). A significant study conducted by Henderson (1973) consisted of participants who were told to find a specific letter (upper case) in a jumble of letters and found that if the stimuli had more of the same letter, but lowercase, then the task was reported as more challenging. Similarly, naming global letters may be just as relevant, such as if letters appeared in the same shape as the letter, then participants responded more effortlessly at a quicker rate (Navon, 1977). Though it may alternatively be the quantity of stimuli, such as the more the amount of same numbers presented, the greater the difficulty to respond (Morton, 1969).

Although this study found similar results to Klein’s experiment (1964), with no significant outliers, the differences in experiments should be noted. For example, Klein used 90 participants (15 within each condition), whereas this study consisted of 38 undergraduate students from a single university. Therefore, despite finding support for the existence of the Stroop effect, there are limitations that could reduce support for the results. The evident low population validity therefore makes the findings difficult to generalize to the wider population. Additionally, the population of students could imply previous effects of practice or training at the task, which may have been encountered before. As a result, this could influence the response time to the colour stimuli when conflicted with the written form. Though on the other hand, possible factors such as sex differences in naming colours were not noted, so perhaps the known cognitive and structural brain variances between the genders could have been a confounding variable.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the stimuli conditions did not accurately represent what was intended, such as the ‘neutral’ condition, whereby words such as heart may imply a certain colour (red). This reduces the internal validity of the study, as there was not clear measurement of non colour-related words. Alternatively, there is a lack of consideration for individual differences, whereby certain non-related colour words may be associated with previous experiences, possibly associated with colour. Another factor that may have influenced the participant’s response is word length. In this case, words that had three or six letters were not separated, which could influence the reading time and thus, be the cause of result differences. Similarly, the environmental setting in which the experiment was conducted reflects low ecological validity, since the task and surrounding is quite atypical for everyday life. Though possible noise was overlooked, which could distract the participant during performance and reduce the reliability of the findings. Despite these limitations, the design was appropriate to the aim, especially since participants took part in separate trials (experimental condition), preventing influence of prior experience. Additionally, as in Klein’s experiment (1964), participants were matched in reading speed of colours and sorted into groups, which reduces possible outliers from individual differences in reading times.

In terms of future research, factors such as possible interferences in attention should be explored, as the results may have been influenced by how motivated the participants were to respond. Perhaps brain-imaging technology would enable researchers to accurately measure the psychological processes behind responding to words associated with colour or whether brain areas related to attention were activated. For a holistic perspective, the Stroop effect should be investigated in relation to spatial tasks, such as the location of a word (top, side or bottom) rather than focusing on the stimuli itself. Alternatively, the verbal qualities of the task may be significant, especially in exploring how the pitch in which words are responded in could contribute to the Stroop effect (Hamers & Lambert, 1972). It was found that if ‘High’ pitched words were said in a high tone, the task was facilitated, rather than reading words in the opposite tone. Therefore, further research should take into account any extraneous or confounding variables that could influence colour naming, rather than by the graded interference effect. Overall, while taking into consideration the strengths and limitations of this research, it can be concluded that the Stoop effect is valid as the evidence presented establishes that reading was faster than naming the colour.

Rationale

My pilot study is going to be based on the Stroop effect. This test is to test is to see how well it works on kids and to see their reaction time. The Stroop effect was discovered by John Ridley Stroop in 1935. John Stroop found out that when a name of a colour is written in a different ink colour people take time to guess what colour is it. In other words, the Stroop effect is the delay in reaction time between congruent and incongruent stimuli. This experiment has been used to create tests mainly used in clinical practice and investigation.

Introduction

In my study, I have seen that the Stroop effect has been used in many different ways and that the development of more advanced technology has also helped to make the experiment more accurate and faster compared to old studies. Reading is an automatic process compared to recognising colour which is a controlled process.

I have asked a school to allow me to conduct a study on kids to see their reaction time on the congruent and incongruent stimuli. I have asked the school to pick out 10 random students from ages 7 to 10. It will be 5 boys and 5 girls. These students will read the words and the teachers will time their responses. They will also read the colour (not the word). I will also gain consent from their parents because I can’t do it without their consent. I will conduct 1 to 1 sessions with each student with parent and teacher to tell them what is going on and what they need to do in depth.

My hypothesis prediction is that it will take longer to realise the colour of the word.

Method

Experiment will be using 10 students aged 7-10. They will all be in the same group for both congruent and incongruent sessions. They will have a break session between congruent and incongruent sessions. The method I will be using is reaction time response. So I will see how long it takes for the students to respond to the colour of the word than the name for example: having the word green but in blue ink. I will also have stopwatches assigned to each parentteacher to monitor and see how long it takes for the students to react.

Design

All participants will be the same and will go through the same procedure. They will both read the words (red, green, blue, etc) and the colour (not the word) and their responses will be timed. The independent variable were the colour of the words and the dependant was the response time( in seconds) and the control variables will be the size and the font of the colour in the background.

Participants

10 students randomly recruited from a primary school and have different age ranges. 2 students age 7 (1 male and 1 female) 3 students age 8 (2 females and 1 male) 1 students age 9 (1 male and 1 female) 3 students age 10 (2 male and 1 female)

Resources

To meet my objective to start my study the resources were:

• • 10 participants aged 7-10, 5 males and 5 females
• • Materials: paper, pc computer, printer
• • Stopwatch
• • A room to carry out the study.

Procedure

I printed out 50 papers (10 for each student). I gained permission from the school. Recruited 10 participants randomly from different classrooms at 09:00. I explained the experiment and got consent from the participants before starting at 09:30. All students were asked to read the colour of the letters printed on the sheets and were asked to read the colour of the words on the sheets. Their reaction times were taken and measured by a stopwatch. They had a 10 minute break between the congruent and incongruent parts. Experiment ended at 10:15. Results were later calculated.

Results

Table 1-Results from the font colours which correspond to the word to see the reaction time.

Table 2- results from the font colours not corresponding the word to see the reaction time.

Mean from table 1

6.45 6.82 6.55 5.76 6.09 7.23 5.45 6.92 5.83 6.09 =63.19 (divide by 10)

MEAN = 6.319 seconds

Mean from table 2

16.82 18.23 17.88 15.79 19.13 17.47 14.90 18.13 16.65 18.11 =173.11 (divide by 10)

MEAN = 17.311 seconds.

Median from table 1

6.45 6.82 6.55 5.76 6.09 7.23 5.45 6.92 5.83 6.09

MEDIAN = 6.66 seconds

Median from table 2

16.82 18.23 17.88 15.79 19.13 17.47 14.90 18.13 16.65 18.11

MEDIAN = 18.3 seconds

Conclusion

The data collected above shows a huge significance identifying that having coloured words impacts and interferes with the user processing the words and it impacts the reaction time. The students were significantly faster with the congruent stimuli compared to the incongruent stimuli which resulted in a much longer reaction time. This therefore supported my hypothesis that it actually takes longer to recognise the word in different ink.

To improve my Stroop effect study, I could conduct it on a larger scale and have people from different ages from lower and higher education like colleges and universities which could help improve results and make the study more reliable and can help support future research.

Discussion

Having conducted this pilot study and have seen what recourses and participants I have used. I would be much better to have a larger scale study to try out the experiment because as I said it will help improve my results and make it more reliable for example having more people from older ages like from colleges and universities. This study is very easy to design and use and to improve I could use different materials like having more technological materials to improve the efficiency of my results but this might be costly because its new technology. I’m glad that my hypothesis came out the way I wanted because it’s what I had expected it to be. The pilot study was successful and has also increased my knowledge about the Stroop effect and the research process and skills and has also shown room for improvement for a large scale study.

This study is focused on the Stroop effect , this was formed by John Ridley Stroop, where they asked participants a list of colours in the same colour ink and a list of colours in different colour ink. The hypothesis for the study is ‘That it takes more effort to recall colours than of words’. The main study that link to this study is by James McKeen Cattell in 1886, who after doing the experiment, suggested that word reading is automatic and is already in the brain, due to practice in life. For the method, I asked a number of participants if they would like to volunteer in my experiment. For the design method used in the experiment, the researcher method was that the researcher used was a field experiment

Literature Review

Literature review- The Stroop effect is all about information processing and how people recall this information. This was created by John Ridley Stroop who in 1929 gave participants words on a sheet of paper. Stoop did know that the automatic processing, would happen during the experiment, because of the research from the past. One of the first researchers to research the theory behind this is James McKeen Cattell in 1886, who suggested that word reading is automatic and is already in the brain, due to practice in life. The researcher used two sources to get information one was a blog and one was a written report, the researcher believes that the written report is more reliable because it includes lots of references to back up information, whereas the blog doesn’t however it is written by someone with a PHD, not in psychology though. One way for the implications for policy and practice of the research is if someone is color-blind because they can’t recall the specific different colors, therefore it would be unreliable and will affect the outcome of the results.

Aims and hypothesis ‘That it takes more effort to recall colours than of words.

IV and DV (Independent and Dependant variable): The IV of the Stroop effect is how the experiment will be affected if the colour and the text shown was different or similar. The DV of the Stroop effect is the time taken between the stimulus and the response.

The methodology

Participants:

• In my experiment the researcher used six participants of a range of different ages and genders.
• My target population came from one area (The northwest) and had different ages from 16-43 year olds.
• For my Experiment, The researcher used the opportunity for the sampling method because the researcher had asked people at a random time who were not busy to take part if they wanted to.

Design:

• For my study, the research method, the researcher used was a field experiment because it was carried out at home ( a real-life environment) rather than in a laboratory.
• For the experimental design, the researcher used repeated measures because it makes sure the results the experimenter obtained is accurate and reliable. The researcher got data over a couple of days and repeated the experiment with the same variables.
• Variables in research, in the researcher used, is referred to as IV (the cause) and DV (the effect). The IV manipulates the DV that is measured.
• The extraneous variable is where the experimenter will manipulate the IV with a real-life experiment, as they can’t control every variable. One possible extraneous that could have an effect the researcher’s results, is participants. The participants could have different factors that would potentially have affected and impacted the results, this could be anything from age to intelligence to gender. The researcher attempted to control this, for example with intelligence, The researcher sure to use a range of different people, these all had different ranges of intelligence, this made sure that there might be one of two anomalies but the overall results wouldn’t change, therefore, didn
• t impact the result. Another extraneous variable that was a big risk, concerning affecting the results was the environmental variables, for example, Covid-19 could affect their behavior, because it was done online, therefore could have affected the results, The researcher controlled this by making sure that it ran smoothly and that the instructions the participant was given was standardized. Another example is where people live, they might have had different experiences, with education for example. Therefore, this could have affected the results, The researcher controlled this by making sure that the participants all came from one area, this made the results fair and accurate. Controlling extraneous variables was hard to control due to being online because of COVID-19.
• A final extraneous variable is the experiment variable is given instructions that are different every time, the experimenter controlled this by using standardized instructions, to make sure nothing affects the experiment and the researcher won’t tell the participants more than they need to know.

Materials

The researcher used many materials when carrying out the research, The researcher used a stopwatch, to time the percipients. A Computer and the internet, to video call (due to Covid-19) and to record my results on a table. The researcher also sent a consent form (see appendix 1), instructions (See appendix 2), Resources (see appendix 3) questionnaire (see appendix 4) and debrief to participants (See appendix 5)

For the experiment the scoring system the researcher used was a table and the time in seconds, I used this to record my results.

Ethical considerations

• Lack of Informed Consent: When conducting the experiment, The researcher made sure that the participants can be debriefed the participants about the experiment I am conducting, not all the details though because it could have changed the outcome of the situation. Provided them with a consent form (see appendix one)
• Deception: When conducting the experiment the researcher needed to make sure to debrief the participants (See appendix 5) and don’t withhold information that the participants may have needed to know.
• Protection from harm: Participants were given the right to withdraw before and after the experiment, if they are in distress as this can cause psychological harm.
• Confidentiality: Participants needed to be anonymous this means the researcher should have not given any personal details or information of others. The researcher addressed this for example by naming them participant 1,2 etc.
• The researcher needed to consider the situation with COVID-19, and make sure that and my participants are safe, during the experiment. To address this I stuck to COVID-19 guidelines.

Procedure:

When doing the experiment, the researcher firstly gathered all six of the participants. These participants were all tested online (through Microsoft teams) and individually. When conducting the experiment with them, the researcher gave them a consent form to fill out beforehand, with their written names and signatures on there, to show that they have consented to and for the participants to know and understand their rights. The researcher than went through the standardized instructions (see appendix 2) with the participants these were clear and easy to understand. The researcher then making sure that the participants fully understand what there are asked to do , than the researcher, started the experiment with them by doing conditions one and condition 2 , the participants were asked to read out a list of colors that was the same as the text and list of text with different colors e.g. blue was written in red, this showed recall, while doing this I timed the participants so that the researcher had some data as evidence. When doing the experiment the researcher gave them a time limit of 10 mins. After the participants conducted the researcher’s pilot study, they then went on to answer a 5 question questionnaire (see appendix 4) , which was done with close questions, so that we got simple answers. Lastly, at the end of the experiment the researcher then debriefed (see appendix 5) the participants, so that the participants fully understand what the experiment was about and what they did by doing this, here the researchers told them everything including the aim and hypothesis of the pilot study. The researcher and participants then discussed this and the participants were able to ask any questions. The Participants then agreed that if they wanted to be part of the experiment, and If participants didn’t their data will then be withdrawn from the experiment.

Results

For my results, the researcher obtained descriptive statistics and raw data see table below, the researcher then put it in a graphical display (see below).

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics ( see table below). I did interval data which is the mean scores of the researcher results, for the working outs (see appendix 6).

In table 2, condition 2 had the highest average with a score of 20, this means that participants took longer to read out the list of colors that were written in different colors than they did for the words written in the same color. Condition 1, had a lower mean score by 13 seconds, than condition 2. People, therefore, did much better in condition 1 than in condition 2.

The findings, that the researcher obtained explain that when the brain tries to process what color it is, it takes much longer and more effort due to the two types of information conflicting in the brain. It takes the brain much longer to realize which was is right. This explains the researcher’s hypothesis, ‘ That it takes more effort to recall colors than of words’. When the researcher was carrying out the experiment, they found out that there was a certain piece of data, that was unexpected. This was the anomalous data, were compared to other participants, one took a very long time on condition one (39 seconds), just to read out the colors written in the same ink. There was a pattern as most of them had similar results. All of them took longer in condition 2 than in condition 1.

Strengths and limitations:

For sampling, the researcher chooses a target population from an age range from 16-43, all from the same area. The issue with this is that for the age, it consisted of 4 out of 6 is the same age of 16 and the other two with different ages in the range. This is a little brief and isn’t much of a variety, this could have impacted the experiment as younger people have quicker reaction times than those who are older. With the ages and areas, if they are all similar it makes it harder to generalize to different areas and ages. They were also all volunteers, as the researcher asked them if they wanted to take part, this may have changed the results to other sampling methods, which might make it much more valid. The study did run somewhat smoothly, the researcher got results that were accurate and was in line to the original study. The participants seemed to enjoy taking part from what I gathered from the questionnaire (appendix 4), there was times however when participants were a little distracted from the things going on around them, as this wasn’t very standardized, due to the fact that the experiment was done over video because of COVID-19. In the researcher questionnaire, some participants said to be a little more professional , when conducting the experiment. The researcher findings does support the hypothesis, as it does show all that it takes longer to recall colours written in the same colour ink , this is shown with the raw data and the mean (average) score I obtained, for example, the mean score for condition 1 was 7 while condition 2 was 20. This is a clear difference and clearly shows ‘That it takes more effort to recall colours than of words’ . The instructions given to participants was easy to follow, as it was written in simple bullet points, and any questions were answered, this was shown when the participants did the questionnaire, as out of six participants all said that yes the instructions was easy to understand. When looking back at the literature review, the results obtained was very similar, as it did show that condition 2 that it takes longer, when the colour ink and the word don’t correspond together. James McKeen Cattell who also repeated the experiment obtained similar results and findings. The researcher is pretty confident in the results obtained as they make sense and they line up, with the findings from past experimenters who repeated this study.

Implications:

The research done by the researcher can impact practice in the real world because it can be used by psychiatrists and researchers to figure out someone’s attention spam, and how long it takes someone to process and recall information. The research could be used to change education, advertisement and age, as for education it can be used to test students’ intelligence and their attention span. For age it can be used to see how someone who is older is mental, it is known that doing the strop test is much harder for the older generation, than it is for the young. It could also be used in advertising because it might be much easier for people to understand if the color and text is written in the same color. To further this investigation, the researcher could maybe do some more research and experiment In how the brain processes things. My recommendations for future research is to get more data and use more participants so that it is more accurate and valid.’

Professional development:

Doing this research will help the researcher in the future because it will help me to be able to conduct an experiment again if I go into psychology. It has built my confidence and given me some insight into university. It will help me be aware of confidentially and data protection, which can be used in everyday life. While conducting the experiment, the researcher has learnt a range have skills, that has helped with my progress and development. Some of the personal skills I have learned is that I have good organization skills and time management, this is good because it will help me do reports and conduct experiments again. Another personal skill is that I am able to work indivually better, so I am able to get things done efficiently and not have to rely on other people. Some of the professional skills I have learned is that I have now improved on my academic research skills, such as some IT skills and paying attention to detail, this will be useful in jobs I may undertake and everyday uses, such as reading and analyzing texts. Another professional skill I have learned is that I have learned the importance of health and safety, especially with making sure my participants weren’t in distress and the added pressure of making sure my participants were safe during the experiment with COVID-19. When the researcher did this experiment they found it hard to keep a clear head and act professionally to make sure that nothing affected the research and the experiment. All these skills I have learned is shown by the questionnaire where 100 percent of people said they enjoyed the experiment and that the instructions were easy to understand. To improve this the researcher could have acted more efficiently and professionally and focused directly on the tasks at hand. Overall I believe that I had done my first experiment very well, as my experiment went well and participants were happy and my research skills have improved dramatically due to doing this experiment.

Abstract

In a class experiment a mindfulness exercise was used to investigate the effects it would have on attention. Before the mindfulness exercise was carried out an emotional stroop test was taken by all participants and again after the mindfulness test to investigate the effects. Participants were given a mindfulness test or a relaxation test to also investigate if either exercise will make a difference. The results obtained from the experiment indicated that the mindfulness test did have an effect on the stroop test and significantly reduced the emotional stroop effect, which was not the case for the relaxation exercise. The means of both the mindfulness and relaxation exercise showed a reduction in the emotional stroop test effect however the reduction was enduring for the participants who completed the mindfulness exercise. This shows that the hypothesis was not supported.

Introduction

Mindfulness is a state which enables one’s ability to be aware of present moments, without judgement. Past researchers have claimed that mindfulness can promote positive change and in wellbeing and cognition. Mindfulness meditation improves cognition by increasing the ability to control attention and ignore task-irrelevant/distracting information and has gained popularity in many fields of life such as in schools, the military, and mental health services. As a result, there has been a huge increase in research that seeks to critically evaluate why mindfulness is associated with these benefits. There are two hypotheses that were tested in this experiment 1. The mindfulness exercise will significantly reduce the Emotional Stroop effect and 2. the relaxation exercise will not significantly reduce the Emotional Stroop effect. The aim of this study was a replication of evaluating whether a brief mindfulness exercise is sufficient to reduce the Emotional Stroop effect. In 2016 Waiter and Dubois conducted a study on The effects of a brief mindfulness exercise on executive attention and recognition memory. The participants involved were either assigned to a brief mindfulness condition, an attention exercise control condition, or an arithmetic exercise control condition (Waiter and Dubois, 2016). An emotional Stroop task and recognition test which was a surprise were used to measure attention and recognition memory. Their results showed that a brief mindfulness exercise can increase levels of state mindfulness compared to the arithmetic exercise but not to an attention exercise.

Method

Study 1

Design

The independent variable for the experiment was the time it took before and after the Stroop test and the dependent variable was the difference in response times to negative and neural words which was done separately for mindfulness and relaxation. The experimental design was a two repeated measures design (within participants design) because both mindfulness and relaxation were separately investigated.

Participants

A total of number 120 students. 60 students (15 male, 45 female) participated in the mindfulness exercise and the other 60 students (7 male, 53 female) participated in the relaxation exercise. The participants were a sample of volunteers from Goldsmith’s university campus. The participants were asked by their lab teachers to complete an experiment during their lab class and was described as being about attention . The participants were unaware of the experimental hypothesis.

Materials/stimuli

The materials used for the experiment was a windows computer, an emotional Stroop task programmed in E-Prime 2.0, a mindfulness exercise which was taken from a mindfulness based stress reduction 8-weel training course and consisted of breathing exercise and a 10-minute relaxation exercise which was taken from YouTube.

Procedure

The experiment was run on a windows computer in a lab class. Participants were instructed to sit at an arm’s length distance of the computer to ensure that they can easily reach the keyboard to select either v, b, n and m with one hand. The participants were then presented with a Stroop task which is a well-known measure for attention. They were then presented with coloured words on their screens which were displayed in different inks. The participants were then expected to produce the word, regardless of the colour it is presented in e.g., blue with the correct answer being ‘blue’ or name the colour, inhibiting, the comprehension of the word (e.g. blue with the correct answer being ‘red). This was completed by the participants before and after the mindfulness exercise. The practice blocks consisted of 8 trails and the main blocks consisted of 25 negative trails and 25 neural trials which were counterbalanced.

Results

The emotional Stroop test tries to investigate how negative and neural words have different response times and how they associate with each other. The larger the number shows a larger Stroop effect (i.e., negative words are processed on a more slower scale than neural words. The outcome of the stroop task indicated that there were no significant differences in the reduction of the stroop task on both the mindfulness and relaxation exercise and did not support the experimental hypothesis.

Study 2

Design

The independent variable for the experiment was the time it took before and after the Stroop test and the dependent variable was the difference in response times to negative and neural words which was done separately for mindfulness and relaxation. The experimental design was a two repeated measures design (within participants design) because both mindfulness and relaxation were separately investigated.

Participants

A total of number 120 students. 60 students (15 male, 45 female) participated in the mindfulness exercise and the other 60 students (7 male, 53 female) participated in the relaxation exercise. The participants were a sample of volunteers from Goldsmith’s university campus. The participants were asked by their lab teachers to complete an experiment during their lab class and was described as being about attention . The participants were unaware of the experimental hypothesis.

Procedure

The experiment was run on a windows computer in a lab class. Participants were instructed to sit at an arm’s length distance of the computer to ensure that they can easily reach the keyboard to select either v, b, n and m with one hand. The participants are then presented with a Stroop task which is a well-known measure for attention. They were then presented with coloured words on their screens which were displayed in different inks. The participants were then expected to produce the word, regardless of the colour it was presented in e.g., blue with the correct answer being ‘blue’ or name the colour, inhibiting, the comprehension of the word (e.g. blue with the correct answer being ‘red). This was done before and after the relaxation exercise. The practice blocks consisted of 8 trails and the main blocks consisted of 25 negative trails and 25 neural trials which were counterbalanced.

Stimuli/materials

The materials used for the experiment was a windows computer, an emotional Stroop task programmed in E-Prime 2.0, a mindfulness exercise which was taken from a mindfulness based stress reduction 8-weel training course and consisted of breathing exercise and a 10-minute relaxation exercise which was taken from YouTube.

Results

The emotional Stroop test tries to investigate how negative and neural words have different response times and how they associate with each other. The larger the number shows a larger Stroop effect (i.e., negative words are processed on a more slower scale than neural words. The outcome of the stroop task indicated that there were no significant differences in the reduction of the Stroop task on both the mindfulness and relaxation exercise and did not support the experimental hypothesis.

Discussion

Mindfulness exercises are used to examine the correlation between mindfulness and attention. We examined how a Stroop task would affect the measures of how mindful a person can be. We first predicted that the mindfulness exercise would have a significant effect on a person. The limitations of the emotional Stroop test can be disrupted due to whether the participant is in a good mood or a bad mood or their individual experiences. Re-testing over a longer period of time would give better results.