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