Literature DB >> 18444752

The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.

James R Schmidt1, Derek Besner.   

Abstract

The item-specific proportion congruent (ISPC) effect refers to the observation that the Stroop effect is larger for words that are presented mostly in congruent colors (e.g., BLUE presented 75% of the time in blue) and smaller for words that are presented mostly in a given incongruent color (e.g., YELLOW presented 75% of the time in orange). One account of the ISPC effect, the modulation hypothesis, is that participants modulate attention based on the identity of the word (i.e., participants allow the word to influence responding when it is presented mostly in its congruent color). Another account, the contingency hypothesis, is that participants use the word to predict the response that they will need to make (e.g., if the word is YELLOW, then the response is probably "orange"). Reanalyses of data from L. L. Jacoby, D. S. Lindsay, and S. Hessels (2003), along with results from new experiments, are inconsistent with the modulation hypothesis but entirely consistent with the contingency hypothesis. A response threshold mechanism that uses contingency information provides a sufficient account of the data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18444752     DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  89 in total

1.  Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation.

Authors:  J Toby Mordkoff
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08

2.  Selective attention to pitch amid conflicting auditory information: context-coding and filtering strategies.

Authors:  Blas Espinoza-Varas; Hyunsook Jang
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-07-17

3.  Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Todd S Braver
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-07-28

4.  Implicitly strengthened task-irrelevant stimulus-response associations modulate cognitive control: Evidence from an fMRI study.

Authors:  Tiansheng Xia; Hui Li; Ling Wang
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research.

Authors:  Anna Dreber; Thomas Pfeiffer; Johan Almenberg; Siri Isaksson; Brad Wilson; Yiling Chen; Brian A Nosek; Magnus Johannesson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Activation of context-specific attentional control sets by exogenous allocation of visual attention to the context?

Authors:  Caroline Gottschalk; Rico Fischer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-02-05

7.  Cueing cognitive flexibility: Item-specific learning of switch readiness.

Authors:  Yu-Chin Chiu; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Does response modality influence conflict? Modelling vocal and manual response Stroop interference.

Authors:  Alex Fennell; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay.

Authors:  W Duthoo; E L Abrahamse; S Braem; W Notebaert
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-07

10.  Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.