Literature DB >> 22258821

Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: evidence from the semantically based Stroop task.

Maria Augustinova1, Ludovic Ferrand.   

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that the suggestion for participants to construe words as meaningless symbols reduces, or even eliminates, standard Stroop interference in highly suggestible individuals (Raz, Fan, & Posner, 2005; Raz, Kirsch, Pollard, & Nitkin-Kaner, 2006). In these studies, the researchers consequently concluded that this suggestion de-automatizes word reading. The aim of the present study was to closely examine this claim. To this end, highly suggestible individuals completed both standard and semantically based Stroop tasks, either with or without a suggestion to construe the words as meaningless symbols (manipulated in both a between-participants [Exp. 1] and a within-participants [Exp. 2] design). By showing that suggestion substantially reduced standard Stroop interference, these two experiments replicated Raz et al.'s (2006) results. However, in both experiments we also found significant semantically based Stroop effects of similar magnitudes in all suggestion conditions. Taken together, these results indicate that the suggestion to construe words as meaningless symbols does not eliminate, or even reduce, semantic activation (assessed by the semantically based Stroop effect) in highly suggestible individuals, and that such an intervention most likely reduces nonsemantic task-relevant response competition related to the standard Stroop task. In sum, contrary to Raz et al.'s claim, suggestion does not de-automatize or prevent reading (as shown by a significant amount of semantic processing), but rather seems to influence response competition. These results also add to the growing body of evidence showing that semantic activation in the Stroop task is indeed automatic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22258821     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0217-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  29 in total

1.  Visual attention and word recognition in stroop color naming: is word recognition "automatic"?

Authors:  Tracy L Brown; Christopher L Gore; Thomas H Carr
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2002-06

2.  What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?

Authors:  D Besner; J A Stolz
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-03

3.  DMDX: a windows display program with millisecond accuracy.

Authors:  Kenneth I Forster; Jonathan C Forster
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2003-02

4.  Single letter coloring and spatial cuing eliminates a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect.

Authors:  Laurie A Manwell; Martha Anne Roberts; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

5.  Single-letter coloring and spatial cuing do not eliminate or reduce a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect.

Authors:  Maria Augustinova; Valentin Flaudias; Ludovic Ferrand
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-12

6.  Automatic semantic activation is no myth: semantic context effects on the N400 in the letter-search task in the absence of response time effects.

Authors:  Martin Heil; Bettina Rolke; Anna Pecchinenda
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-12

7.  The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity.

Authors:  D Besner; J A Stolz; C Boutilier
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1997-06

8.  Using hypnosis to gain insights into healthy and pathological cognitive functioning.

Authors:  David A Oakley; Peter W Halligan
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2010-02-25

9.  Automaticity in reading and the Stroop task: testing the limits of involuntary word processing.

Authors:  Tracy L Brown; Kelly Joneleit; Cathy S Robinson; Carli Rose Brown
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  2002

10.  Suggestion reduces the stroop effect.

Authors:  Amir Raz; Irving Kirsch; Jessica Pollard; Yael Nitkin-Kaner
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-02
View more
  17 in total

1.  The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis.

Authors:  Darcy White; Evan F Risko; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

2.  Oxytocin impedes the effect of the word blindness post-hypnotic suggestion on Stroop task performance.

Authors:  Benjamin A Parris; Zoltan Dienes; Sarah Bate; Stace Gothard
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  The semantic Stroop effect is controlled by endogenous attention.

Authors:  Sachiko Kinoshita; Luke Mills; Dennis Norris
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference.

Authors:  Ludovic Ferrand; Maria Augustinova
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04

5.  Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics.

Authors:  Elsa M Labuschagne; Derek Besner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-02-10

6.  Task conflict in the Stroop task: When Stroop interference decreases as Stroop facilitation increases in a low task conflict context.

Authors:  Benjamin A Parris
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-20

7.  Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines.

Authors:  Eric Lorentz; Tessa McKibben; Chelsea Ekstrand; Layla Gould; Kathryn Anton; Ron Borowsky
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-03-17

8.  Application of the ex-Gaussian function to the effect of the word blindness suggestion on Stroop task performance suggests no word blindness.

Authors:  Benjamin A Parris; Zoltan Dienes; Timothy L Hodgson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-20

9.  Hypnosis as neurophenomenology.

Authors:  Michael Lifshitz; Emma P Cusumano; Amir Raz
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Placebo-suggestion modulates conflict resolution in the Stroop Task.

Authors:  Pedro A Magalhães De Saldanha da Gama; Hichem Slama; Emilie A Caspar; Wim Gevers; Axel Cleeremans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.