Abstract
Five experiments demonstrate that context has a powerful effect on the ease with which people can name (Experiments 1–3) or categorize (Experiments 4–5) a stimulus while ignoring another stimulus, irrelevant or conflicting with the target. Selectivity of attention to the target dimension was gauged through Stroop and Garner effects. When the stimulus values along the target dimension and the to-beignored dimension were correlated over the experimental trials, large effects of Stroop and Garner influenced performance. However, when random allocation of values created zero dimensional correlation, the Stroop effects vanished. These results imply that when the nominally irrelevant dimension is in fact correlated with the relevant dimension, participants then attend to the irrelevant dimension and thus open themselves up to Stroop interference. Another variable of context, the relative salience of the constituent dimensions, also affected performance with the more discriminable dimension disrupting selective attention to the less discriminable dimension. The results demonstrate the importance of context in engendering the failure of selective attention and challenge traditional automaticity accounts of the Stroop effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algom, D., Dekel, A., &Pansky, A. (1993). On the perception of number. In A. Garriga-Trillo, P. R. Minon, C. Garcia-Gallego, C. Lubin, J. M. Merino, & A. Villarino (Eds.),Fechner Day ’93 (pp. 1–6). Palma de Mallorca: International Society for Psychophysics.
Algom, D., Dekel, A., &Pansky, A. (1996). The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited.Memory & Cognition,24, 557–572.
Alloy, L. B., &Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.Psychological Review,91, 112–149.
Arieh, A., &Algom, D. (1997). Reading words in Stroop-like tasks: The effect of contingency between semantic and visual components.Psychologia,6, 7–19. (Hebrew)
Bar-Hillel, M., &Wagenaar, W. A. (1991). The perception of randomness.Advances in Applied Mathematics,12, 428–454.
Bauer, B., &Besner, D. (1997). Processing in the Stroop task: Mental set as a determinant of performance.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 61–68.
Besner, D., &Stolz, J. A. (1999). What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 99–104.
Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., &Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 221–225.
Dunbar, K. N., &MacLeod, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 622–639.
Garner, W. R. (1962).Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Garner, W. R., &Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing.Cognitive Psychology,1, 225–241.
Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming.Cognition,42, 61–105.
Glaser, W. R., &Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 13–42.
Hasher, L., &Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 356–388.
Kahneman, D., &Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 497–509.
Kahneman, D., &Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.),Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Kareev, Y. (1995). Positive bias in the perception of covariation.Psychological Review,102, 490–502.
Kareev, Y., Lieberman, I., &Lev, M. (1997). Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 278–287.
Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.Cognitive Psychology,12, 523–553.
Logan, G. D., &Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task.Memory & Cognition,7, 166–174.
Logan, G. D., &Zbrodoff, N. J. (1998). Stroop-type interference: Congruity effects in color naming with typewritten responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 978–992.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203.
MacLeod, C. M. (1992). The Stroop task: The “gold standard” of attentional measures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 12–14.
MacLeod, C. M., &Hodder, S. L. (1998). Presenting two incongruent color words on a single trial does not alter Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition,26, 212–219.
Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (1996, October).Stroop and selective attention: Putting it all in context. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.
Melara, R. D., &Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice.Memory & Cognition,21, 627–645.
Melara, R. D., &Mounts, J. R.W. (1994). Contextual influences on interactive processing: Effects of discriminability, quantity, and uncertainty.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 73–90.
Pansky, A., &Algom, D. (1999). Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 38–58.
Pellegrino, J.W., Rosinski, R. R., Chiesi, H. L., &Siegel, A. (1977). Picture-word differences in decision latency: An analysis of single and dual memory models.Memory & Cognition,5, 383–396.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112, 515–540.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.),Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Visual perception (pp. 1–30). New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1991). The structure of visual configurations: Stimulus versus subject contributions. In G. R. Lockhead & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),The perception of structure: Essays in honor of Wendel R. Garner (pp. 195–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pomerantz, J. R., Pristach, E. A., &Carson, C. E. (1989). Attention and object perception. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 53–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I. (1978).Chronometric explorations of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sabri, M., Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (in press). A confluence of contexts: Asymmetric versus global failure of selective attention to Stroop dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Shalev, L., &Algom, D. (2000). Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner’s beam: Reconciling two conceptions of selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 997–1017.
Smith, M. C., &Magee, L. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture-word processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 373–392.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Stolz, J. A., &Besner, D. (1999). On the myth of automatic semantic activation in reading.Current Directions in Psychological Science,8, 61–65.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research is based on part of a doctoral dissertation by M.D.-B. in the Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, supervised by D.A.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dishon-Berkovits, M., Algom, D. The stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition 28, 1437–1449 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211844
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211844