Torin Franz & Evan FrickHanover College
Introduction
Stroop (1935) Asked participants to report the ink color of
100 words The spelled color did not match the actual color
Asked participants to report the ink color of 100 sets of squares
Took the participants on average a total of 47 seconds longer to identify color of the words Even when told not to pay attention to the
word itself, participants could not ignore what was being spelled
Introduction The way that participants are instructed to
respond has an effect on their accuracy When speed is stressed, accuracy rates go down When accuracy is stressed, accuracy is
comparatively better (Chen & Johnson, 1991) Automatization-when a task does not require
conscious effort to be completed Sometimes participants do not even realize they are
completing the task Being asked to quickly report the color of the word is
difficult due to the fact that the color name interferes in the process (Francis, Neath, & VanHorn, 2008)
Automaticity Examples
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae.
Research Question
How correct does the spelling of the words need to be in order to see the effects of automaticity?
Hypothesis
We expect to find that the more jumbled the words the quicker the reaction time, because it will be harder to identify words that are more jumbled.
Method
Participants Obtained 22 participants through a sign-
up sheet College age students of all levels No one reported color deficiency
Method
Equipment Gateway Computer, model E4300 Monitor resolution of 1024 by 786 pixels Internet Explorer 8 Stroop Experiment on CogLab website
(Krantz, n.d.) Written in Java
Spread sheet to record data Written in Java
Method Stimuli
4 different stimuli XXXX Incongruent words Middle Random Congruent words All Random Incongruent
25 words in each condition Shown in the center of the screen Font size 16 3 different colors possibilities for font color and
word spelling Green, Orange, Purple
Method
Procedure One word displayed at a time Participants responded to the color of the
word Could respond by striking corresponding
key or clicking button at bottom of the screen
There were 25 trials for the 4 conditions After each condition, participants
recorded their average reaction time and accuracy on a separate sheet of paper
ResultsX: 814.89 msecIncon: 1062.61 msecRand: 846.26 msec
Reaction times differed significantly between conditions (F (3, 19)=10.48, p <.001, such that the X condition was the fastest (M =814.89), random was the middle (M=846.26), and incongruent was the slowest (M=1062.61).
Accuracy Findings There was a significant difference of accuracy
between conditions (F(3, 19)=4.06, p=.02), such that random was the most accurate (M=.995), X was the middle (M=.98), and Incongruent was the least accurate (M=.97).
Supports our hypothesis because the fast conditions have the best accuracy There is no speed-accuracy tradeoff
Note: One participants data was taken out-accuracy of .16 Told the researchers that she did the condition
wrong and that is why the accuracy was so low
Discussion
Our hypothesis was supported by our data The most jumbled condition (random),
had the second fastest reaction time, only behind the X’s (control)
Automatization is less effective when a word is jumbled beyond immediate recognition of an intended word
Practical Applications and Limitations Practical applications
Teachers need to be aware: as students get older reading is automatized-they can read without
thinking Younger students are so focused on the step-by-step process because
reading is not automatized-it is harder to take in the information
Limitations Used the wrong condition : Middle Congruent Computers did not work-froze Did not ask about gender (Van der Elst, Van Boxtel, Van
Breukelen, & Jolles, 2006) Hanover may not be representative of the entire population
because of the educational level
ReferencesChen, J., & Johnson, M.K. (1991). The Stroop congruency effect is
more observable under a speed strategy than an accuracy strategy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73(1), 67-76. doi:10.2466/PMS.73.4.67-76
Francis, G., Neath, I., & VanHorn, D. (2008). CogLab 2.0. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Krantz, J. (n.d.). Cognition Laboratory Experiments. Serial Position Effect. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition.html
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M., Van Breukelen, G. & Jolles, J. (2006). The Stroop Color-Word Test: Influence of Age, Sex, and Education; and Normative Data for a Large Sample Across the Adult Age Range. Assessment, 13(1), 62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427