Exploring The Stroop Effect

The Stroop effect is a phenomenon wherein individuals take longer to name the color of words printed in a non-matching color, such as the word blue printed in red ink, than when the words are printed in the same color as the word designates, such as the word blue printed in blue ink.; J. R. Stroop first described this in 1935 (Goldstein, 2011). Stroop found that this effect occurs when the names of the words cause a competing response, which then leads to a slower response to the target (Goldstein, 2011). The Stroop effect is extremely difficult as we as humans automatically read rather than actually identify or rather we read to identify (Goldstien, 2011). Stroop wanted to use reaction time as a measure to see how reading, which is an automatic
The participants were required to execute two tasks simultaneously; the first holding information of the target stimulus, and the second paying attention to different “distractors” stimuli (Goldstein, 2011). From this study and the many ongoing trials and related practice, Schneider and Shiffrin found that automatic processing occurs when a person unintentionally does something, or at the cost of a person’s cognitive resources (Goldstein, 2011).

A most common explanation for the Stroop effect is that college students have automatized the process of reading (Francis & Neath, 2015). A College student might therefore find it difficult to perform a task like such as the Stroop effect test. (Francis and Neath, 2015). Stroop found that participants are slower to identify the word when the name of the color was different than the font color (Francis & Neath, 2015). The automatic processing of the color name of the word interferes with identifying the reporting of the color of the ink the color name is in (Francis & Neath,
Even though the participants had many limitations while performing the experiment in an uncontrolled environment including distractors at home that surrounded them, the evidence indicated the presence of the Stroop effect. This particular data set represents a class of 20 college students, for whom reading has become automatic processing for them (Goldstein, 2011). This makes it is harder for students to not read to identify a word that is right in front of them. The finding from this experiment was congruent with earlier research of Stroop (1935). In the Stroop experiment participants were slower to identify red ink when it read the word blue. (Francis & Neath, 2015). The evidence implies that when performing a task, outside stimuli can affect the participant’s performance. An example of this could include prior knowledge of this experiment providing a basis for performance, or in this case a disadvantage to performance. The Stroop effect has been a widely known experiment that has helped bring a deeper and more profound understanding to the concept and function of identifying without