Level of Interference
The Effect of Varying Levels of Interference on Response Time to Naming Ink Colors
Maitram Do
Queens College City University of New York
Abstract
This is a replication of Stroop’s (1935) investigation on the effect of interfering color stimuli on response time upon naming font colors. This study investigates the difference in speed of performance in completing three conditions - low, medium, and high with regards to the interference levels. It was hypothesized that at least one mean will differ between all three conditions. Participants were 36 undergraduate psychology students at Queens College. A one way repeated Anova (analysis of variance) and Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test are used to analyze within-subjects design. The researcher found significant response time differences between low, medium, and high interference with means of 103.83, 94.23, and 115.46, respectively. The overall mean errors were small but the medium interference was half of the low interference.
The Effect of Varying Levels of Interference on Response Time to Naming Ink Colors
The Stroop effect is the response latency due stimulus interference (Wikipedia). John Ridley Stroop’s experiment in 1935 had two different stimuli paradigms: low and high interference. The low interference stimuli consisted of “Reading color names printed in black” (RCNb) and naming the color of solid squares, also referred to as “Naming color test” (NC). The high interference stimuli consisted of “Reading color names where the color of the print and the word are different” (RCNd) and “Naming color of word test where the color of the print and the word are different” (NCWd).
Seventy undergraduate college students (14 males and 56 females) were the subjects of his first experiment consisting of RCNb and RCNd. This experiment showed students took 2.3 seconds longer to read 100 color names printed in different colors. This was deemed unreliable and congruent to Peterson’s (1918 and 1925)
Maitram Do
Queens College City University of New York
Abstract
This is a replication of Stroop’s (1935) investigation on the effect of interfering color stimuli on response time upon naming font colors. This study investigates the difference in speed of performance in completing three conditions - low, medium, and high with regards to the interference levels. It was hypothesized that at least one mean will differ between all three conditions. Participants were 36 undergraduate psychology students at Queens College. A one way repeated Anova (analysis of variance) and Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test are used to analyze within-subjects design. The researcher found significant response time differences between low, medium, and high interference with means of 103.83, 94.23, and 115.46, respectively. The overall mean errors were small but the medium interference was half of the low interference.
The Effect of Varying Levels of Interference on Response Time to Naming Ink Colors
The Stroop effect is the response latency due stimulus interference (Wikipedia). John Ridley Stroop’s experiment in 1935 had two different stimuli paradigms: low and high interference. The low interference stimuli consisted of “Reading color names printed in black” (RCNb) and naming the color of solid squares, also referred to as “Naming color test” (NC). The high interference stimuli consisted of “Reading color names where the color of the print and the word are different” (RCNd) and “Naming color of word test where the color of the print and the word are different” (NCWd).
Seventy undergraduate college students (14 males and 56 females) were the subjects of his first experiment consisting of RCNb and RCNd. This experiment showed students took 2.3 seconds longer to read 100 color names printed in different colors. This was deemed unreliable and congruent to Peterson’s (1918 and 1925)
References: Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662 Figure 1: Mean difference values (in seconds) representing response time for each condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the error bars attached to each column. Figure 2: Mean difference values representing the number errors for each condition. Standard errors are represented in the figure by the error bars attached to each column.