Abstract
AbstractDespite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.
Funder
Agence Nationale De La Recherche
RIN Tremplin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference161 articles.
1. Algom, D., & Chajut, E. (2019). Reclaiming the Stroop effect back from control to input-driven attention and perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683
2. Algom, D., Chajut, E., & Lev, S. (2004). A rational look at the emotional stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 323–338.
3. Algom, D., & Fitousi, D. (2016). Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability–integrality distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 142(12), 1352–1383.
4. Altmann, E. M. & Davidson, D. J. (2001). An integrative approach to Stroop: Combining a language model and a unified cognitive theory. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 21–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
5. Augustinova, M., Clarys, D., Spatola, N., & Ferrand, L. (2018b). Some further clarifications on age-related differences in Stroop interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 767–774.
Cited by
55 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献