Aim: To test the color-word interference hypothesis based on the Stroop Effect.

Basic Concepts:
Sensation: Sensation is a conscious or mental process generated by stimulating a sense organ,
sensory nerve, or sensory region in the brain. It is the physical process by which our sense
organs, namely the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin, react to external stimuli.
There are fundamental concepts that govern the process of sensation, regardless of whether
we're talking about sight, taste, or any of the other senses. Our sensations follow a three-step
process: they absorb sensory stimuli, convert them into neural impulses, and then transport
the neural information to our brain. Transferring one type of energy into another that our
brain can use is known as transduction.
Electrical stimulation converts physical energy such as light or sound waves into a type of
energy that the brain can interpret. We make sense of all this stimulus and begin to grasp the
complicated world around us when our brain gets the electrical impulses

Perception: Everyday different stimuli around us will be stimulating our sense organs. Many
of these stimuli are received by our sense organs and are converted into sensations. These
sensations are transmitted to the concerned parts of brain. In turn the brain will interpret these
sensations. It is only after such interpretation we understand what the stimulus is.Hence in
understanding the world around us, attention occurs first, followed by sensation and finally
interpretation by brain. This process of ‘interpretation of stimulus is known as perception’. So
perception involves two processes: sensation interpretation. But interpretation of any stimulus
requires past experience also. For example, a child who has not seen an elephant earlier either
in photo or directly cannot identify that animal, whereas another child who has seen earlier
will identify the animal easily.

When perceiving objects around us, our brain engages in two types of processing - bottom-up
and top-down. For example, as soon as we see the letter 'P', our brain's perception
immediately identifies it as that letter. No additional processing is required as the brain
already has the information to recognize the letter from the visual information it is receiving.
This is called bottom-up processing.

Bottom-up processing is when the brain relies on the sensory information to perceive and
understand the world.
Bottom-up processing during perception is often driven by data and usually occurs in real-
time. Other times, the brain needs to use a higher level of mental processing to understand
sensory information. This type of processing is called top-down processing.

Top-down processing is when the brain uses a higher level of mental processing from our
previous experiences and expectations to understand and perceive new stimuli.
In top-down processing, the brain uses contextual clues to understand unknown sensory
information.

Difference in perception and sensation:

Definition
Sensation is the process of receiving information via our five senses, which can then be
experienced and interpreted by the brain. Perception is the process of interpreting the
information acquired through the five senses accordingly.

Source
The source of sensation is the stimuli obtained from sensory organs whereas the source of
perception is the information sent to the brain through sensation.

Result
Sensation results in perception, which results in interpreting and giving meaning to the
information received.

Procedure
Whereas sensation is a general biological procedure, perception has more psychological
significance since the person’s past experiences and ideologies affect directly.

Conclusion
Sensation and perception are basic phenomena in us that happen throughout our life.
Sensation basically refers to the process of sensing our environment using the stimuli we
obtain from our five senses, on the other hand, perception refers to the process of interpreting
those stimuli to meaningful information. Thus, perception typically follows sensation. This is
the basic difference between sensation and perception.

Attention: Attention is the cognitive process that involves observing or becoming aware of
something; this does not have to be in your peripheral visual field.
An example is when we try to recall memories, we have to attend to them to bring them from
the long-term to the short-term memory store. Now we don't actually see the memory but
instead, focus on it.
The brain receives an overwhelming amount of information; it has limited resources, so it
cannot process every single thing we see. This is where the process of attention comes in. The
attention process can be compared to an analogy of a filter. During the process, it filters
through stimuli that we determine as important, e.g. when we focus on it and ignore irrelevant
stimuli.

Factors affecting perception and attention:

Internal Factors
These elements encourage the individual to respond to objective factors and to engage in
activities that fulfill his/her own goals, as well as those that suit his interests and attitude. It is
the perceiver’s mental state.

Motives
Our basic wants and motivations drive our interest in a major part; thirst and hunger, sexual
anxiety, and curiosity are only a few of the primary factors that influence our attention; for
example, kids are drawn to food.

Mood
The physical state of an individual influence their mood. As a result, tiredness and
discomfort, as well as fever, might make mobilizing attention more challenging. If, on the
other hand, a person is in a survival state, such as thirst or hunger, stimuli associated with
meeting these demands will attract more attention to resources.

Interest
Interest is the origin point of attention. We pay attention to things that attract us. We want to
watch a movie or a TV series because the subject of the film or series interests us. When a
topic of our interest is discussed during a gathering, it quickly draws our attention and
encourages us to participate in the conversation. We pay attention to the stimuli that attract us
in our daily lives.

Emotion
Stronger inspiring emotions are more likely to get attention. Positive emotions aid in the
concentration of attention resources, whereas negative moods make concentration difficult.

External Elements

External factors are related to the characteristics of stimuli. The situations described are
frequently the outcome of external circumstances or stimuli that aid in attracting our
attention.

Intensity: The more powerful a stimulus is greater the likelihood you will focus your
attention on it.
Size: The larger a stimulus is, the more attention resources it draws.
Motion: The moving stimulus draws more attention than the ones that remain static.
Novelty: The latest or strange stimuli grab our focus.
Change: If a new stimulus comes that disrupts the dynamic, our attention will be drawn to it.
Colour: Colourful stimuli are more attractive than black and white ones.
Contrast: stimuli that are contrasted against one another draw more focus.
Emotional Burden: Positive, as well as negative stimuli, grab our interest more than neutral stimuli.
Differences
Every person is unique and brings different attitudes to a team. You may work well
when collaborating with others while your coworker prefers to work in isolation. Each
of these differences affects your perception of your team and organization. You’ll
behave differently when you’re working with your colleague as opposed to someone
else. Your perception of your coworker shapes the way you work as well. In the
workplace, it’s necessary to respect these differences and work with others to create
harmony.

2. Motivations
Say you want to work for a few years and gain enough experience to get into business
school for an MBA. Your motivations will impact your perception of your work.
You’re more likely to make just enough effort to work well, get positive feedback and
fulfill your requirements. So, our motivations affect the way we approach a situation.
When it comes to teamwork, each member’s motivations will be different. But to
achieve collective goals, management has to bring everyone on the same page and
communicate their expectations.
3. Organizational Behavior
For Priyanka, her informal organization transformed into a traditional hierarchical
office. Her behavior as a professional had to change to accommodate her external
environment. When you’re working with others and aiming to accomplish long-term
goals, you have to meet them halfway. An organization’s values, mission and beliefs
are important factors influencing perception.

4. Past Experiences
Our past experiences shape us into who we are today. We can’t separate ourselves from
them. Past experiences are also significant factors influencing perception. They shape
our personal biases and opinions as well as our expectations from others and ourselves.
It’s important to be open to changing our perceptions when situations change. For
instance, the Earth wasn’t always considered to be round.

5. External Factors
Perception isn’t only affected by internal or personal factors. External factors affecting
perception can include what people think of us, others’ expectations and cultural norms
such as taboos or rules followed by society.

Stroop Effect:
Definition: The Stroop effect is one of the best known phenomena in all of cognitive science
and indeed in psychology more broadly. It is also one of the most long standing, having been
reported by John Ridley Stroop in the published version of his dissertation in 1935. In its
basic form, the task is to name the color in which a word is printed, ignoring the word itself.
When the word is a color word printed in a mismatched ink color, this is very difficult to do
and results in slow, error-prone responding. To illustrate, consider GREEN: To say “red” to
the ink color is difficult relative to a variety of comparison or control conditions such as
naming the color of XXXXX or the word TABLE or even the word RED. The performance
cost in the mismatch condition – usually referred to as the incongruent condition – relative to
the controls is called the Stroop effect or Stroop interference. Figure 1 provides an illustration
of the phenomenon

J ridley study:
The effect was named after John Ridely Stroop who published the effect in English in 1935
in an article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology entitled "Studies of interference in
serial verbal reactions" that includes three different experiments. However, the effect was
first published in 1929 in Germany by Erich Rudolf Jaensch and its roots can be followed
back to works of James Mckeen Cattell and Wilhem Wundt in the nineteenth century.
In his experiments, Stroop administered several variations of the same test for which three
different kinds of stimuli were created: Names of colors appeared in black ink; Names of
colors in a different ink than the color named; and Squares of a given color.
In the first experiment, words and conflict-words were used (see first figure). The task
required the participants to read the written color names of the words independently of the
color of the ink (for example, they would have to read "purple" no matter what the color of
the font). In experiment 2, stimulus conflict-words and color patches were used, and
participants were required to say the ink-color of the letters independently of the written word
with the second kind of stimulus and also name the color of the patches. If the word "purple"
was written in red font, they would have to say "red", rather than "purple". When the squares
were shown, the participant spoke the name of the color. Stroop, in the third experiment,
tested his participants at different stages of practice at the tasks and stimuli used in the first
and second experiments, examining learning effects.
Unlike researchers now using the test for psychological evaluation, Stroop used only the three
basic scores, rather than more complex derivative scoring procedures. Stroop noted that
participants took significantly longer to complete the color reading in the second task than
they had taken to name the colors of the squares in Experiment 2. This delay had not
appeared in the first experiment. Such interference were explained by the automation of
reading, where the mind automatically determines the semantic meaning of the word (it reads
the word "red" and thinks of the color "red"), and then must intentionally check itself and
identify instead the color of the word (the ink is a color other than red), a process that is not
automated.
Theoretical background
1)Speed of processing theory: The processing speed theory claims that people can read words
much faster than they can name colors (i.e., word processing is much faster than color
processing).
When we look at the incongruent stimuli (the word “green” printed in red, for example), our
brain first reads the word, making it much more difficult to then have to name the color.
As a result, a delay occurs when trying to name the color because doing so was not our
brain’s first instinct (McMahon, 2013). : Simply stated, this theory for the cause of the Stroop
effect posits we can process written words faster than we can process colors. Thus, it is
difficult to identify the color once we’ve already read the word.

2) Selective attention theory : According to this theory, naming the actual color of the
words requires much more attention than simply reading the text. According to the second
edition of the “Handbook of Psychology,” selective attention chooses “which
information will be granted access to further processing and awareness and which
will be ignored.” In relation to the Stroop effect, identifying the color of the words
takes more attention than simply reading the text. Therefore, this theory suggests
that our brains process the written information instead of the colors themselves.

3)Automaticity : Our two types of cognitive processing include automatic and

controlled thinking. In relation to the Stroop effect, the brain likely reads the word
because reading is more of an automated process than recognizing colors. This
theory proposes that automatic reading doesn't require focused attention. Instead, the brain
simply engages in it automatically. Recognizing colors, on the other hand, may be less of an
automated process. While the brain registers written meaning automatically, it does require a
certain amount of attentional resources to process color, making it more difficult to process
color information and therefore slowing down reaction times.

Variants of classic Stroop effect/ Literature review

The classic Stroop task has been modified and extended in various ways to study different
aspects of attention and perception. Some common variants of the Stroop task include:
A. Congruent/incongruent trials: In this variant, participants are presented with a mix of
congruent (word and colour match) and incongruent (word and colour mismatch) trials to
compare the processing time and accuracy of each condition.
B. Number-word Stroop: This variant replaces colour names with numbers and measures the
interference between the processing of numbers and words.
C. Emotional Stroop: This variant replaces colour names with emotional words (e.g. "angry",
"happy") and measures the interference between the processing of emotions and words.
D. Spatial Stroop: This variant replaces colour names with spatial words (e.g. "up", "down")
and measures the interference between the processing of spatial information and words.
 E. Flanker task: This variant adds a series of arrows that point in either the same or different
direction to the left or right of the target word. Participants are asked to name the colour of
the target word while ignoring the flanking arrows.
F. Simon task: This variant replaces colour names with symbols and measures the
interference between the processing of spatial information and symbols. These variants of the
Stroop task have been used to study different aspects of attention and perception, including
selective attention, response inhibition, emotional regulation, and spatial processing. They
have also been used to study the effects of factors such as ageing, anxiety, depression, and
neurological disorders on attention and perception.

Real-life Examples and Applications of Stroop Effect

1.Emotional Stroop Test (Larsen et al., 2006)
The principle behind the emotional Stroop test is based on the Stroop effect. This test is used
to assess the emotions of people by analysing the way they approach information. In this test,
the response time of the subjects in reporting the colour name of the words shown to them is
measured. The words presented in this test are either neutral (table, chair, pen, watch, box) or
they are related to any disorders or emotional states (headache, pain, love, cancer, death).
When this test was conducted on the participants suffering from depression, it was found that
they took comparatively more time in reporting the colours of the depressing words in
comparison to the time taken in reporting the colours of the non-depressing words. Even
when the test was conducted on the non-clinical participants, the time taken for reporting the
colour of emotional words was more than the time taken in reposting the colour of neutral
words. This may happen due to the emotional relevance of the subject with that word. The
negative or emotional words in the emotional Stroop test are carefully selected by the
researchers for better emotional analysis of the people.

2.Stroop Test
The Stroop test is one of the most widely used neurological tests. It is used to measure
various factors like processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and selective attention. Stroop test
shows increased interference in various psychological disorders such as dementia,
schizophrenia, ADHD and depression. Different types of Stroop tests are available these days
depending upon the number of stimuli, duration of the task, number of tasks and subtasks in
the test, and scoring procedure. A study conducted in 1976 showed that the Stroop test was
around 88.9 per cent precise in distinguishing between the participants who suffered from
brain damage and those without any brain damage.

3.Interference in Numerosity Processing and the Duration (Dormal et al., 2006)

Unlike the standard Stroop effect experiment of the relation between the word and the colour
processing, another experiment to find the relation between the numerosity and duration was
conducted. In this experiment, ‘two series of dots in successions’ were shown to the subjects
and they were asked either of the two questions.

Which series out of the two consists of more dots?

Which series seems longer in appearance from first till the last dot of the series?
The incongruent stimuli occurs when a few dots were flashed longer on the screen and the
congruent stimuli refer to the situation when more dots results in the longer series. The results
of the experiment show the interference between the numerosity processing and the duration,
i.e., it was difficult for the subjects to decide which series appeared for longer on the screen
when the few dots were presented for longer.

Other applications:

The stroop effect can be used as a part of cognitive tests in various clinical settings-increased
errors could be attributed to problems in Attention or in ability to ignore/filter interfering
factors.
The stroop effect is also useful in marketing and advertisements. For example, billboards or
magazine ads have to be designed carefully using the right font size and colour as it
influences emotions and perceptions.
It is also useful in conjunction with various neuropsychological assessments to examine a
person’s executive processing ability which can further help In the diagnosis and
characterisation of different psychiatric and neurological disorders.
Researchers also use the stupid fact during Brain imaging studies to investigate regions of the
brain that are involved in planning, decision making and managing real life interference ( eg,
texting and driving)
Hypotheses:
1. The time taken for reading the incongruent lists will be more than the time taken for reading the
congruent lists.
2. The time taken to read the colour of the ink (ignoring the word) will be more as compared to the
time taken to read out the word (ignoring the ink colour).

Variables:
Independent Variables: Type of stimuli, that is, the four lists:
1. List 1: Colour words (8*8) printed in uniform white ink (congruent condition)
2. List 2: Colour words printed in four different ink- red, green, yellow, and blue
(incongruent condition)
3. List 3: Colour words written in their own ink (congruent condition).
4. List 4: Colour words printed in four different ink- red, green, yellow, and blue
(incongruent condition)
Dependent Variable: Time taken to read the words in each condition
Control Variables: 1. Same number of items in all the four lists (64)
2. Uniform size and font of the stimuli
3. The same four colour words— red, green, yellow, and blue in all the lists where words are
presented.
4. The same four ink colours— red, green, yellow, and blue in all the lists where different
ink is used. 5. Each color to appear twice in a row and column.
6. A rest pause of 2 minutes between the presentation of each of the four lists.

Materials Required:
1. Stopwatch
2. Stroop card PPT containing both congruent and incongruent condition.
3. Chart to record data: name/ID number (given), time, age, gender, date and place of
conduction.
4. Pencil to note the time and errors
5. Consent form
6. Laptop to present the stroop card PPT

Procedure
Experimental Settings:
1. Light and ventilation was optimized.
2. Noise and distraction was minimized.
3. The computer/laptop was kept at eye level of the subject.
4. Working of the computer/Power point presentation was checked before conducting the
experiment.
5. Stop watch/timer in mobile phone was kept handy.
6. Screen was kept on the table and all the materials required were behind the screen, on the
experimenter’s side.

Precautions:
1. The subject did not have any familiarity with the experiment beforehand.
2. The subject was physically and mentally not fatigued.
3. Proper lab conditions were maintained with minimum noise and distraction, optimum
light and ventilation.
4. No information about the aims or the design of the experiment was given to the subject.
5.2 minutes rest pause was given between presentations of all the slides.
6.No feedback was provided during the experiment.
7.The laptop/computer was kept at the eye level of the subject.
8. Working of power-point presentation was checked before calling the subject for the
conduction of the experiment.
9. The number of words in all lists were = 64.
10. Stopwatch/ timer in mobile phone were kept handy
Instructions:
”Please sit comfortably and leaning forward. Please pay attention.
You will be shown some words of different colours. You have to read them out as quickly as
possible. You can read the words column-wise or row-wise. But maintain the same procedure
throughout.
RED GREEN YELLOW
YELLOW BLUE RED
Read aloud each word, ignoring its print color, and do this as quickly as possible. In case you
pronounce the word incorrectly, read it again. Have you understood? Ready?”
List 2:
“Read aloud each word, ignoring its print color, and do this as quickly as possible. In case
you
pronounce the word incorrectly, read it again.
RED GREEN YELLOW
YELLOW BLUE GREEN
Have you understood? Ready?”
List 3:
“Name the color of the ink in which the word has been written, ignoring the word itself, and
do
this as quickly as possible. In case you pronounce the word incorrectly, read it again.
EXAMPLE
RED YELLOW GREEN
YELLOW BLUE GREEN
Have you understood? Ready?”
List 4:
“Name the color of the ink in which the word has been written, ignoring the word itself, and
do
this as quickly as possible. In case you pronounce the word incorrectly, read it again.
RED YELLOW GREEN
YELLOW BLUE GREEN
Have you understood? Ready?”
Preliminaries:
Name: XYZ
Age: 18 years
Gender: Female
Educational Qualification: B.A Hons English, 1st year
Date of conduction: 29th December 2022
Place of conduction: Psychology Laboratory
Time of Conduction: 11:30 am

Rapport Formation: The subject was called in the laboratory after the materials were
setup. The subject was made comfortable by a brief introduction and an informal
conversation was carried out between the subject and the experimenter. Preliminaries were
noted down and the subject was also inquired about their day at college. After making sure
that the participant was comfortable consent form was given to them for their voluntary
participation.

Actual Conduction:
The laptop, with the congruent and incongruent lists, was set up in a way that it's perfectly
visible to the subject. A black screen was placed behind it. The experimenter sat
perpendicular to the subject. After ensuring that the participant understood all the instructions
properly, she was asked to
begin the task. The participant was constantly observed and an observation report was made.
As the slideshow was played, the subject was reading everything with full concentration,
whispering what she reads side by side. The first stroop card was shown to the subject. She
read the first stroop card with ease, where she had to read the printed words in white ink,
ignoring the print color. She completed the task in 28.14 seconds. A rest pause of 2 minutes
was given. The second stroop card was shown to the subject. The participant read the second
stroop card more easily than the first list, where she had to read the word, ignoring the print
color. She completed the task in 25.63 seconds. A rest pause of 2 minutes was provided.
Afterwards, the third stroop card was presented before the subject. She took more time in
reading this card, where she had to read the ink color of the word, ignoring the word itself.
She completed the task in 65 seconds. A rest pause of 2 minutes was given. The last and the
fourth slide was then showed to the subject, where she had to read the ink color of the word,
ignoring the word itself. She completed the task in 29.96 seconds.

Introspective Report

Behavioural Report
The subject showed high level of enthusiasm and motivation for the task and tried to
corporate with the experimenter. She understood the Stroop task instructions properly and
completed the task vigilantly and quickly. She was very focused and rarely made mistake.

Data Analysis

Table 1. Time taken(in seconds) under various conditions in Stroop effect

List 1 List 2 List 3 List 4
28.14 sec 25.63 sec 65 sec 29.96 sec

Time taken in seconds

List 4

List 3

List 2

List 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time taken in seconds

Table 2: The time taken for reading incongruent lists and congruent lists (in seconds)
Conditions Part A ( reading the word Part B ( Reading the ink, Total
ignoring the word) time
Ignoring the ink colour)
Control List 1 List 4 58.1 sec
(Congruent)
28.14 sec 29.96 sec
 Experimental List 2 List 3
(Incongruent)
25.63 sec 65 sec 90.63 sec

Chart Title

Incongruent

Congruent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total Time

Table 3. Time taken (in seconds) to read the incongruent conditions

Condition Part A Part B Difference
in time
(Reading the word, ignoring (Reading the ink,
the ink colour) ignoring the word)
Experimental List 2 List 3 39.37
(Incongruent)
25.63 65
 Chart Title

List 3

List 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time taken

Discussion and Interpretation:

The Stroop Colour and Word Test (SCWT) is a neuropsychological test extensively used to
assess the ability to inhibit cognitive interference that occurs when the processing of a
specific stimulus feature impedes the simultaneous processing of a second stimulus attribute,
well-known as the Stroop Effect. This study was given by John Ridley Stroop. The
experiment is discussed as follows:
The subject was called in after signing the consent form. The instructions were properly
given after the rapport formation was done. The subject was given 4 lists wherein list 1 and
list 4 depicted the congruent conditions and list 2 and list 3 represented the incongruent
condition. In list 1 all the words were printed in uniform white ink and the subject was asked
to read aloud each word ignoring its print colour. According to the data table the subject took
28.14 seconds to read the first list. In list 2, words were printed in four different ink colour-
red, green, yellow, and blue and subject was asked to read the word ignoring its print colour.
The subject took 25.63 seconds to read the second list. In list 3, words were printed in four
different ink colour-red, green, yellow and blue and the subject was asked to name the colour
of the ink ignoring the word itself. The subject took 1 minute 5 seconds ie 65 seconds to read
the third list. In list 4, colour words were written in their own ink and the subject was asked
to name the colour of the ink in which the word was written, ignoring the word itself. The
subject took 29.96 seconds to read the fourth list. A rest pause of 2 min was given after every
list. The total time taken to taken to read the congruent lists (List 1 and list 4) was 58.1
seconds. The total time taken to read taken to the incongruent lists (list2 and list 3) were
90.63 seconds. The total time taken to read the colour of ink (ignoring the word) was 94.96
seconds and the time taken to read the word (ignoring the ink colour) is 58.77 seconds. The
difference between the time taken to read congruent and incongruent list is 32.53 seconds and
the difference between the time taken to read the ink colour (ignoring the ink colour) is 36.19
seconds.
This test reveals the interference between the automatic processing of the word meaning and
the deliberate processing of the ink colour. Results typically show longer response times and
more errors when the ink colour and the word meaning are incongruent, suggesting that our
brain has trouble inhibiting the automatic processing of the word meaning. This experiment
supports the colour-word interference hypothesis, demonstrating the power of automatic
processing in causing interference with deliberate processing, and the difficulty in inhibiting
this interference.

In this
experiment, this would have
been illustrated with two levels
of task: naming the word and
identifying the ink-color.
Furthermore, there is also a
focus on automatic processes
“working
together” with other process to
analyze information better
(Augustinova & Ferrand,
2014). This
In this
experiment, this would have
been illustrated with two levels
of task: naming the word and
identifying the ink-color.
Furthermore, there is also a
focus on automatic processes
“working
together” with other process to
analyze information better
(Augustinova & Ferrand,
2014). This
In this experiment, this would have been illustrated with two levels of task: naming the word
and identifying the ink-color. Furthermore, there is also a focus on automatic processes
“working together” with other process to analyze information better (Augustinova & Ferrand,
2014). This aspect of the experiment was carried out using another variable, congruency with
two experimental levels, congruent and incongruent. The hypothesis was therefore, two-fold;
that congruent trials would be faster than in incongruent trials, and that reading the word
would be a faster than naming the ink color due to automatic processing. When dividing the
hypothesis by levels of the independent variables, two predictions are made:1) the mean
reaction time for the congruent reading task will be faster than the congruent ink-color
identification task; 2) the mean reaction time for the incongruent reading task will be faster
than the incongruent ink-color identification task.This experiment found all two hypothesis to
be true and therefore support Stroop’s original findings. The results for response time were
looked at separately and each was organized for reading the word and naming the ink under
congruent and incongruent trials. With respect to reaction time, congruence had a large effect,
task had a medium effect, and the interaction of congruence with task type also had a medium
effect. The fastest reaction times were in reading the word tasks versus in identifying the ink-
color. The data support the hypothesis. In turn, the data also reflects Stroop’s original
findings (1935). Regarding the theoretical implications of this research, the process of
automaticity is experimentally sound in its role as the prevailing processing mechanism
(Augustinova & Ferrand, 2014). Reading is an automatic process because through practice,
the brain is capable of processing the information requiring little active attention and little
effort to do so (Walczyk, 2000). The automaticity of reading should have facilitated ink-color
identification when the trial was congruent. Whereas in incongruent trials, the automatic
reading process should have interfered with color identification (Hintzman et al., 1972). This
experiment’s results support both assertions. Congruent trials were on average faster than
incongruent trials for both levels of task, illustrating that with a lack of conflict, automaticity
does not interfere. Kinoshita et al, further claim that with lack of conflict, automaticity can
facilitate as the streams of information coincide (are congruent) by working together with the
non-automatic information to speed up processing overall. This experiment focused on
inhibition in incongruent conditions, but facilitation in congruent conditions could potentially
be just as significant. With respect to our data, reaction times were faster in congruent tasks
compared to incongruent ones. The cognitive mechanisms at play here are mainly
automaticity and interference. This study found that on average reading a word occurs faster
than identifying the color of the word, illustrating the dominance of automatic reading
processes over the non-automatic color. identification processes. Also, on average, congruent
color-identification trials were faster than incongruent color-identification trials, showing that
in trials where the two streams of information did not correspond (eg: “blue” in red ink),
automatic reading processes interfered in analyzing the information. In the trials where the
two streams of information did not correspond (eg: “blue” in red ink), the automaticity of
reading interfered in analyzing the information from ink-color.

REFERENCES
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative
review. Psychological Bulletin.
Passer, M.W.,& Smith, R.E. (2010). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour.
NewDelhi:
Tata McGraw-Hill. Ruhl , C. (2020, Dec 01). The Stroop effect. Simply Psychology.
www.simplypsychology.org/stroop-effect.html
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology