Talk:Stroop effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexyoung339.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelventran, Pharmacystudentkm, Lauren.chen, Clphan. Peer reviewers: Lyjanicee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not to link here

An anonymous user posted this link http://forums.krazyletter.com/index.php?act=Arcade&do=play&gameid=106 to the article. While it works, I have doubts on whether or not it really is representative of the Stroop Effect (because it is an arcade game style, where you try to go as far as possible before messing up or running out of time), there's annoying music, and the words spin around, interfering with the automatic recognition of the words. It works, but it's not really Stroop, if you know what I mean. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

effect on non native speakers

I am a Portuguese speaker and I do not "fall in the trap" when the illusion is written in English. Of course I do it when it is written in Portuguese. I think that should be mentioned in the article. Afonso Silva 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That the Stroop effect has its greatest effect when the words are presented in the same language as the reader's native language is obvious as the words will have greater semantic impact. If I were to present the words in a language that neither of us know, we would expect zero impact of the word. This applies to all experiements where reading (or avoid trying to read in this case) is part of the test, not just the Stroop Effect, and is a basic assumption of the test, along with, say, ability to read.

I did some research on the effect, and it seems most later researchers pin the effect to (as our article states), the automization of reading: you read things automatically without conscious effort. If English is your second language, you probably have to consciously tell yourself what each word means. And then, the interference from the automization is gone.

Unfortunantely, I can't cite that. I lost access to the psychological database. If anyone is on a college campus, see if you have access to Psychinfo or Medline. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for it? I should be able to pull it out of psychINFO Liamdaly620 13:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly worth mentioning that(AFAIK) Americans used Stroop effect to find Soviet spies for precisely this reason (though this would require some serious citation). --Telecart 04:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I need to find the exact citations, but in recent years Stroop and Stroop-like effects have come under a lot of criticism. in Melara & Algom's "Deconstructing Stroop: A tectonic Explanation" they use Tectonic Theory to show that "Stroop is neither robust nor inevitable. Words are not read faster than colours are named." They show a confound in most Stroop methods, where most of the variance can be explained away due to correlation between word and colour and relative dimensional discriminability. When creating a truly random correlation, Stroop Effect evaporates. --Telecart 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In "This interference is thought to have been caused by the automation of reading, where the mind automatically determines the semantic meaning of the word, and then must override this first impression" the author(s) imply with their "impression" that - if you buy into the idea of stages - the effects affect the stage of stimulus-identification. It is debatable whether this is the case, and this is exactly the reason why the paper is cited so often, with many of them (e.g. Turken & Swick, 1999, Nature Neuroscience) actually arguing or taking for granted it is response-selection that is affected by the incompatible "automatic" response (verbalising the word) and the required "slow" response.87.212.5.202 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Adaptation

Hi everyone! Our names are Carly and Susan, and we are a part of a Cognitive Psychology Class at Davidson College. We are looking to add a section on Cognitive Adaptation to the Stroop effect article.

We are looking at various Peer-reviewed articles to help give us better information on the effects of cognitive adaptation, as well as cognitive control.

Definition and Research of Cognitive Adaptation

Importance of Cognitive Adaptation within Stroop Effect

Congruency Effects

Working Memory Capacity with Stroop Interference

Global vs. Local

Multiple levels of Cognitive Control with Stroop Interference

Brain Activity during a Stroop Task

Stroop Effect Reviews

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CogCarly (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions! Sudavis (talk) and CogCarly (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudavis (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 

Welcome

Dear Sudavis and CogCarly:

First of all welcome to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your psychology project here. I am looking forward towards your improvement of this article. If you take a look at the history of the article you would notice that I was one of the main contributors to this article over a year ago. Due to personal reasons I have been away of wikipedia for over a year and now I edit but not so frequently. In this sense it has been a while since I revised the Stroop article.

I will try to help both of you as much as I can and you can ask me anything you want regarding wikipedia editing or the article in itself. On the other hand I also have to tell you that I will problably monitor closely your changes to the article and be quite strict on it so any changes made are in line with wikipedia policies. I am quite proud of the state of this article (even if it is not by far complete), and new editors (specially students) are both a great potential and a great risk (no pun intended :-)

Regarding your intended edits within the article I have a few questions:

1-Could you explain to me (briefly) what do you refer exactly with cognitive adaptation in the stroop paradigm? I am not really sure what are you referring to.

2-Just for curiosity: I am not used to the American education system, so I would be interested in knowing your age and psychology course so as to figure more or less your psychology level.

3-Regarding sources, I have already contacted your teacher to explain to him that in wikipedia secondary sources are the prime references for articles as opposed to primary sources. In the context of psychology, medicine and science in general scientific "experiment" articles are considered primary sources and therefore generally should not be added as references, whereas the way of improving articles such as this one is to find scientific reviews in peer-reviewed journals or scientific books. As you probably know review scientific texts are those in which an author instead of giving new evidence in an issue with experiments summarizes the existing literature over an issue and provides what he considers the state of the art in a field. I took a (quick) look to your references and at least Puccioni, konle and Funes are primary sources and therefore are not appopiate for use as references in wikipedia except in very specific cases, while Bugg seems a review but I could not access it so I am not completely sure. Please contact your teacher to see how to proccedeed regarding the use of primary sources.

Best regards and again: feel free to contact me for anything you need. --Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Garrondo. They're part of the Cognitive Psychology 200 class. In the US, a college 200 level class is typically sophomores (second-year). So depending on the prerequisites, it's typically mostly a sophomore class. Smallman12q (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer... although I am more interested in your view of the use of sources.--Garrondo (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Garrondo's view on sources. Please students, remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Garrondo, We are psychology students in a Cognitive class. We are 19 years old and are looking to add a section onto the very well done Stroop Effect page. This section is going to be about Cognitive adaptation and Cognitive Control for the Stroop Effect. We are looking at the different congruency effects and brain activity during the sequential congruency trials. We are working on our sources and have found two reviews that seem to fit what we are trying to talk about. We appreciate your help and are looking forward to continue working with you. All the best, CogCarly (talk) and Sudavis (talk)

It is also great to have you two here, there are some of us in wikipedia who think that its future is going to come from school projects like yours. My professional area of expertise is functional neuroimaging so I might be able to help you. Which sources are the two reviews that you are planning to use? (It is not clear from your comment above) In addition to the source that I added in the section below, a year ago I also found the personal page of Colin McLeod, an author who has published many articles in the stroop effect over 20 years (even one of the very few biographies on JR Stroop). Some of his work is already in the article but he has a lot more. He has a downloadable copy of most of his articles in his personal page. I think there were several interesting reviews that you might find useful (specially since I know that it is not that easy to find secondary sources in the stroop effect). The link to the page is [1]. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugg article

I have had access to the Bugg article: it is a 2012 review so it seems a really great source of info for your project.

I have taken the liberty of formatting it as an inline citation here so it is easier to see it. Additionally searching for the article in pubmed (it does not appear) I have found a related free review article by the same author which you might also be interested in using.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 10:56, 21 February 2013‎

Multiple problems

I have multiple problems with your addition to the article, to the point that I had to revert it and move it to the talk page to discuss it and improve it before re-adding it.

Sources

My main problem is with the sourcing of the article. Few of the references used are secondary sources. Most of them are primary articles which is SUBOPTIMAL for wikipedia. I have repeatedly stated this in the talk page of the article and in several talk pages of your class.

First a definition of primary source in science: they are mainly first-hand experiments and investigations. Authors analize data. Hint: if there is statistics or methods section it is most commonly a primary article

Second a definition of secondary source in science: they are reviews of many first-hand experiments (also meta-analysis). Authors instead of analizing data "analyze" previous works, ellaborate from the previous results and generalize conclussions. Hint: if there is no results section it is probably a review.

Third a definition of peer-review: peer review is the proccess of quality assurance in scientific journals by which a work (either primary or secondary) is judged and critized so the author has to make ammendments before publication. It is independent of tha article being primary or secondary.

How many of your sources are primary articles? Most of them. Why are they inadequate? Take a look at WP:MEDRS, but in short: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a class project, and is mainly based in secondary sources. Moreover as volunteers we do not neccesarily have the knowledge or credentials to give our opinion on a subject. The best way to remain neutral and give a balanced overview of a field is by using secondary sources.

Your brain activation section is the perfect example of this: if you type fmri+stroop in pubmed you will get 450 results, and 50 more with PET+stroop. You have arbitrarely chosen 4. Could you give any reason to say that the 4 you choose are better or more important than the other 496? That is why we use reviews...

You should find several reviews, read them several times, and stick to them for referencing (I pointed you towards several sources in the talk page). Moreover this will help you to stay more focused, since the brain section and working memory sections I am not sure that are really correct, balanced or summarize scientific consensus.

Technical problems with sourcing

You have made a (small) mess with your system of adding sources. Each of your sources appears as a separate source each time you name it. Also if you take a look at some of the sources already in the article you will notice that they use templates, while you did not. I indicated you on the talk page how to create automatically references. Please do it.

I expand upon the example I gave you in the article talk page:

You added this <ref>Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358</ref> which gives the following reference

You should have added the following to continue with the style already used in the article: <ref>{{cite journal|last=Bugg|first=J. M.|title=Dissociating Levels of Cognitive Control: The Case of Stroop Interference|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|date=1 October 2012|volume=21|issue=5|pages=302–309|doi=10.1177/0963721412453586}}</ref> which gives the following reference

Indeed, as I explained in the talk page, you can get all this automatically by simply pasting the doi into the template filler.

Regarding on how to use twice each reference you simply re-added each time the same reference, which leads to the duplication as here.

What you should do is to give a name to the reference which substitutes the first ref in the template as here: <ref name=Helloforexample>{{cite journal|last=Hello|first=You M.|title=How to fix sources|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|date=1 October 2012|volume=21|issue=5|pages=302–309|doi=XXX}}</ref> (I chose Helloforexample so it is clear that the name does not matter). This will give the following ref. The next time you want to use the same ref you only have to add the following: <ref name=Helloforexample/> (important: notice the / symbol at the end); and voila: you have two links to the same source.

Content

I do not have the time to elaborate today, but the working memory and brain section are not up to the level of the article. Sources seem cherry-picked as seems content and conclussions.

My recommendation is that you get a more complete picture in one of the sections (probably the one on cognitive adaptation), read more about it, add better sources to it and do not loose your force trying to reach too much. There is tons of research for example in brain mechanisms and in two months it is probably way beyond your capabilities to get a good grasp of it...

3/15/17 -

Examples containing color words where font color matches word meaning are not ideal for communicating the Stroop effect. The Stroop effect is inherently relative: reaction times in a test condition relative to a control condition. In simple examples for those looking to learn about the Stroop effect, the control condition should not comprise stimuli that are opposite the test stimuli—i.e., color words printed in matching vs. mismatched font colors—as this introduces confounding facilitation effects (e.g., control stimuli might make subjects complete the task more quickly than they otherwise would) and it also confounds performance in the control condition (it is impossible to determine whether subjects are correctly reporting font color vs. simply reading the printed color word). The stimuli in the control condition should be comparatively neutral relative to the incongruence of the test stimuli; namely, they should match in all characteristics but word meaning (word frequency, font color frequency, character length, number of syllables, font size, etc.). In order to eliminate the possibility that reading causes slower response times, you still want subjects to read a word in both conditions ("RED" vs. "DOG" as opposed to "RED" vs. "XXX" — all printed in blue, say), but only the test condition should contain color words.

(cf. Lindsay, S. D., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 219-234.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28B6:BC88:4C53:F6FF:C1C5 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Using non-colour words as a control is useful when experimenting, but should not replace (as you did here by changing red/green/blue/etc to mouse/top/face/monkey/etc) the simple demonstration of the fundamental effect at the very top of the article.

I've restored the pure colour example. Belbury (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Some of your content (from my point of view mainly the conflict adaptation section) has some potential, but it needs better sourcing and with use this better sources found to complete it and give a more balanced view. The other two sections at this point are really far from being adequate.

Until it is done, the work might be better carried out here.

--Garrondo (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last version was 00:40, 22 March 2013‎ Sudavis and can be found in the "history" tab.Smallman12q (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stroop effect

I just declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stroop effect. Maybe an experienced editor wants to merge the section into this article. mabdul (public) 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflict Adaptation/ Cognitive Control Revision

Conflict Adaptation

Cognitive control plays a vital role in thinking, planning, and everyday life decisions in order to meet individual goals.. Anything that reduces interference when an incongruent stimulus occurs immediately after an incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation, also known as cognitive control . Cognitive control allows individuals to control all aspects of their thoughts. Using these thought processes individuals either make controlled or automatic decisions in everyday situations. Some of the mechanisms underlying conflict adaptation include top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and priming.

During the Stroop task a word is given an ink color. Individuals use cognitive control to ignore the semantic meaning of the word and simply state its color. There are two types of trials in this task: congruent trials and incongruent trials. A congruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color match. Yet, an incongruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color do not match. This task challenges individuals to differentiate between congruent and incongruent trials also known as the congruency effect. Cognitive control allows individuals to make these conscious decisions during the Stroop task. Insert power point

Some of the mechanisms underlying conflict adaptation can be explained through top-down processing. During top-down processing individuals are tempted to quickly identify the word instead of the color during the Stroop task because individuals are focused on the overall word rather than the item- specific features (ink color). Researchers have debated whether top-down processing is the only mechanism underlying cognitive control or if there are other mechanisms involved . It has been concluded that other processes such as bottom-up processing also aid in making decisions, task-related or not .

Bottom-up processing is when individuals focus on the item-specific features (ink color) of the item (word). Cognitive control also enables individuals to identify item-specific features(ink color) rather than the broad concept of the word. In a study done by Besner et al., the Stroop effect, or the difference in response times of a congruent and an incongruent trial, decreased when all of the letters except one were uncolored.

Today, psychologists often debate whether the Stroop effect results from priming mechanisms or cognitive control.

Evaluation of last proposal

Thanks for your efforts to follow my proposal of centering your work in the conflict adaptation section. I think some of it merits its inclussion in the article. This does not mean is perfect, but it can be improved in the future by other editors. However I still see some problems in your writting, mainly derived from essay-cism in writting. This is not an essay but an encyclopedia, so writting usually has to be concise and to the point. There are also some redundancies with info already in the article. I am going to copy here your paragraphs and do some comments on them

Cognitive control plays a vital role in thinking, planning, and everyday life decisions in order to meet individual goals.. This is vague and also hard to understand out of context. Also not really related to the stroop effect. I would eliminate it.

Anything that reduces interference when an incongruent stimulus occurs immediately after an incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation, also known as cognitive control .

Cognitive control allows individuals to control all aspects of their thoughts. This is vague. Also not really related to the stroop effect. I would eliminate it.

Using these thought processes individuals either make controlled or automatic decisions in everyday situations. Some of the mechanisms underlying conflict adaptation include top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and priming.

During the Stroop task a word is given an ink color. Individuals use cognitive control to ignore the semantic meaning of the word and simply state its color. There are two types of trials in this task: congruent trials and incongruent trials. A congruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color match. Yet, an incongruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color do not match. All this info is already in article. No point in repeating it

This task challenges individuals to differentiate between congruent and incongruent trials also known as the congruency effect. Imposrtant sentence. I am not English but I believe wording/grammar can be improved

Cognitive control allows individuals to make these conscious decisions during the Stroop task. Quite vague. I would elaborate this further since it is the most improtant piece of info in your addition.

Insert power point ???

Some of the mechanisms underlying conflict adaptation can be explained through top-down processing. During top-down processing individuals are tempted to quickly identify the word instead of the color during the Stroop task because individuals are focused on the overall word rather than the item- specific features (ink color). Researchers have debated whether top-down processing is the only mechanism underlying cognitive control or if there are other mechanisms involved . It has been concluded that other processes such as bottom-up processing also aid in making decisions, task-related or not . Bottom-up processing is when individuals focus on the item-specific features (ink color) of the item (word). Cognitive control also enables individuals to identify item-specific features(ink color) rather than the broad concept of the word. Good section. Net improvement to the article.

In a study done by Besner et al., the Stroop effect, or the difference in response times of a congruent and an incongruent trial, decreased when all of the letters except one were uncolored. Unneeded primary description. Therer 1800 articles on the stroop effect. Unless you find a review to indicate this article is important it should be left aside. We cannot decide if it is important or not.

Today, psychologists often debate whether the Stroop effect results from priming mechanisms or cognitive control. Also important and interesting, but a bit vague and short. I would elaborate more this paragraph.

I do not have much time to comment. I hope this serves as guidelines to further improve the article.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Garrondo, we really appreciate all of your feedback on our project. Because this is a work in progress, we are now working on it in our sandbox. We will put our final draft on the talk page of the Stroop effect this Friday. Thanks, Sudavis (talk)sudavis and Sudavis (talk)cogcarly —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Garrando, Susan and I have submitted our final cognitive control section below. We worked extremely hard on this and we hope that it is an improvement. We wanted to leave it on the talk page so if you feel comfortable you can add it the Stroop Effect page. We greatly appreciate all of your input and feedback. Again, thank you for your time and effort in helping us make this addition the best it could be. CogCarly (talk)CogCarly

Hi Susan and CogCarly:

I certainly see that this version is quite better than any other you have posted, and references and style have been improved and I really like the two images (although probably a bit redundant and with one would be enough to make the point). Nevertheless it would have been great that you have had some more interaction with me (or other editors) to get the best of it. Moreover, above I pointed several sentences that I was not really sure that fitted in the article and I still see most of them in your final version. I would have been open to discussing them if you had given me any reason for finally including them, but you have not given me the opportunity. In this sense I believe that some work is needed in this version to include it in the article. It would be great if you were interested in doing it with other editors help, but if you are not as your class project is just ending I will try to do it as I have time so all your work improves the article.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Conflict Adaptation/ Cognitive Control Revision

Conflict Adaptation

Cognitive control plays a vital role in thinking, planning, and everyday life decisions in order to meet individual goals. Cognitive control allows individuals to selectively attend to a certain task, by ignoring distractions. For example, students use cognitive control when they choose to ignore distracting conversations around them in order to fulfill their chosen task of studying. In the Stroop task, anything that reduces interference when an incongruent trial occurs immediately after another incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation, also known as cognitive control . Individuals use thought processes to make controlled or automatic decisions in their everyday life. Cognitive control is vital to individuals when automatic processing does not apply. It is necessary in situations when a task requires selective attention, such as thinking and reasoning, while choosing to ignore other distractions. Cognitive control enables individuals to carry out tasks to the best of their ability. Psychologists have discussed top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and priming as some of the mechanisms underlying cognitive control.

These are incongruent and congruent trials in the Stroop task. Both sequences have the same response patterns, however the response times are different due to the congruency effect. The incongruent trial will have a longer response time than the congruent trial.

During the Stroop task a word is given an ink color. There are two types of trials in this task: congruent trials and incongruent trials. A congruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color match. Yet, an incongruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color do not match. This task challenges individuals to differentiate between congruent and incongruent trials, also known as the congruency effect. In an incongruent trial, individuals use cognitive control to ignore the semantic meaning of the word and simply state its color. Cognitive control allows individuals to make these conscious decisions during the Stroop task. The conflict during a specific trial of the Stroop task does not rely solely on the conflict of the preceding trial, but on the average of the multiple trials before. Therefore, the context of the overall series of trials is significant to the results of the Stroop task.

These sequences include both congruent and incongruent trials. Psychologists debate whether one preceding trial or sequential trials earlier within the task affects cognitive control.

Some of the mechanisms underlying conflict adaptation can be explained through top-down processing. During top-down processing individuals are tempted to quickly identify the word instead of the color during the Stroop task because individuals are focused on the word rather than the item-specific features (ink color). Researchers have debated whether top-down processing is the only mechanism underlying cognitive control or if there are other mechanisms involved. It has been concluded that other processes such as bottom-up processing also aid in making decisions, task-related or not.

Not only is top-down processing used during the Stroop task, but also stimulus-driven control contributes to an individual’s attention This alternate view of processing shows that cognitive control can have multiple levels. Stimuli, such as the congruent or incongruent words in the Stroop task, cause this kind of bottom-up control. Bottom-up processing is when individuals focus on the item-specific features (ink color) of the item (word). Cognitive control also enables individuals to identify these item-specific features.

Today, psychologists often debate whether the Stroop effect results from priming mechanisms, also known as the repetitions of congruent trials. More specifically, priming is when a certain stimulus influences an individual to believe a similar stimulus will follow. For example, when an individual sees multiple congruent trials, they often expect the subsequent trial to be congruent as well.

Psychologists are still debating whether automatic or controlled processing, specifically cognitive control, is used in the Stroop task.

References

Conflict Adaptation/ Cognitive Control Revision review

I have taken a closer look at your last proposal and I see quite important problems which make it quite complicated to integrate it on the article. At this point I do not think my comments above praising your work are valid.

1-The article is on the stroop effect, in which there are certainly mechanisms of cognitive control involved. However, most of your content is generalities related to cognitive control which are not direcly related (nor from your text neither in your sources) to the stroop effect. For example in the first paragraph all sentences but one are not direcly related to the stroop effect and are probably too general for this article (bolded all content only tangentially related to the article):

Cognitive control plays a vital role in thinking, planning, and everyday life decisions in order to meet individual goals. Cognitive control allows individuals to selectively attend to a certain task, by ignoring distractions. For example, students use cognitive control when they choose to ignore distracting conversations around them in order to fulfill their chosen task of studying. In the Stroop task, anything that reduces interference when an incongruent trial occurs immediately after another incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation, also known as cognitive control . Individuals use thought processes to make controlled or automatic decisions in their everyday life. Cognitive control is vital to individuals when automatic processing does not apply. It is necessary in situations when a task requires selective attention, such as thinking and reasoning, while choosing to ignore other distractions. Cognitive control enables individuals to carry out tasks to the best of their ability. Psychologists have discussed top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and priming as some of the mechanisms underlying cognitive control.

2-Regarding the second paragraph (congruent vs incongruent): as I stated in the previous review most of it adds nothing to the article since the info is already there (bolded info already in the article): During the Stroop task a word is given an ink color. There are two types of trials in this task: congruent trials and incongruent trials. A congruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color match. Yet, an incongruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color do not match. This task challenges individuals to differentiate between congruent and incongruent trials, also known as the congruency effect. In an incongruent trial, individuals use cognitive control to ignore the semantic meaning of the word and simply state its color. Cognitive control allows individuals to make these conscious decisions during the Stroop task. The conflict during a specific trial of the Stroop task does not rely solely on the conflict of the preceding trial, but on the average of the multiple trials before. Therefore, the context of the overall series of trials is significant to the results of the Stroop task.

3-Regarding paragraphs 3,4 and 5 I am really sorry but I do believe that I know what priming, bottom-up and top down mechanisms are, but yet I am not capable of grasping what is your intended message. Most probably these problems in explaining the concepts and their relationship to the stroop effect come from the sources used, which are all primary and therefore only give a partial view of the mechanisms involved in the stroop effect.

4-Maybe the most important: You mix important concepts that may be related but are not the same, which moreover are at the center of your subject. In this sense: cognitive control IS NOT the same as cognitive adaptation. From my understanding cognitive control is an explanation to the stroop effect, whereas cognitive adaptation is an specific finding in regards of this mechanism and effect. It is an effect inside the stroop effect, or an exception to the stroop effect, since it only says that the congruency effect is reduced when two sequential incrongruent trials are presented. This exception can be explained through cognitive control mechanisms but this does not mean that the two are the same. I believe that you misrepresented the source (Funes) since from a fast look to the abstract at no point does it say that they are the same (Moreover the abstract would in general lines agree with what I just stated).

5-In summary: you have an essay on conflict adaptation on the stroop effect in which 90% of the info is on cognitive control mechanisms unrelated to the stroop effect (which altough you estate the opposite is not the same as conflict adapation). All this problems make it quite hard to include the text as it is in the article.

Some content is potentially interesting but at the moment is not by far at the level needed for inclusion in the article.

--Garrondo (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

References

In Pop Culture

Mythbusters used the stroop effect test to see if males are cognitively effected by having a pretty woman in the room. The Myth was busted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.97.23 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stroop effect/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this page is sorta useful but when i put it on microsoft word it didnt help. can anyone help me?

Last edited at 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Effect of Hepatitis B Vaccine on the Stroop effect

In a previous edit, someone removed the section on the proposed effect of the Hepatitis B vaccine on the Stroop effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stroop_effect&oldid=857868206). It was subsequently removed by Goodone121 with reference to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have just removed the section in question again for the following reasons:

Most importantly, the study cited does not warrant the strong conclusion made in this article. The results are based on a sample of only 14 participants, the resulting effect sizes are improbably large (possibly due to publication bias), the study has not been pre-registered and study data is not openly available. The article has been cited five times and none of the citing articles refer to similar findings or replication studies. Therefore, I consider the study to be very weak evidence on scientific grounds and don't think it should be included in the article.

Secondly, -- as far as I understand Wikipedia's guidelines -- references should be secondary literature (e.g. systematic reviews) which can be considered more trustworthy than single studies (in general).

--131.220.249.76 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2, 2019, Group 2b goals

Hello. We are editing this page as a part of our class assignment.

Goals include:

• Change the header from Experiment to Original Experiment better describe the content of the paragraph
• Reorganize and clean up language
• Add more about the applications of the stroop test in psychology and link to other pages

Pharmacystudentkm (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure other group members assign themselves to the page before making their individual edits. Thanks. Health policy (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Part 1: The group's edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review framework. The edited lead for this article gives a good and easy to understand overview of the rest of the article, making it clear what the most important takeaway points are. The group's edits also have clear structure, with information organized into the appropriate headings and with one heading title renamed to better clarify the content presented. The addition of a specific example of the emotional Stroop test being used in modern psychology, while providing important information, throws off the balance of the section. Perhaps it would be better to add specific examples for the Warped words, Spatial, Numerical, and Reverse variations of the test as well. Ultimately, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. Lyjanicee (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Part 2: The edits remain neutral and are strictly informative without making claims that are negative or positive. Lyjanicee (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC) The points included are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are available freely. Huyha63 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) The edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style. Laurafansun (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC) There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. The information is presented in the author's own words and includes proper citations.

Sharonluong (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

This article is about the Stoop Test with only a brief mention of the Stroop Effect. If there is no objection, I propose moving "Stroop effect" to "Stroop test" and having "Stroop effect" redirect to "Stroop test". If there is no objection, I will make the change. Jgkwiatek (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The text box should be edited in some way

In my opinion, the text box should either be made smaller or removed completely as it is currently affecting the alignment of the text next to it, making the article look sloppy and unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the two custom text boxes don't respond particularly well when the page is resized, or viewed on mobile. I've replaced them with simple captioned images showing the same text in the same colours. Belbury (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It also turns out that both diagrams had been edited away from their originals: the top image by having the same-colour example replaced with a WP:OR monkey/mouse version per this talk thread, the second by having one word erroneously deleted and another changed from blue to black. I also hadn't realised that the ASCII row of 25 separate coloured squares in the second image was meant to be conveying 5 coloured bars.

I've changed the lead image to be a simple demonstration of the Stroop effect showing same/different colours (also adding brown to match the original experiment, and randomising the second list so that the reader can attempt to read the text themselves without the short-term memory advantage of the second sequence being identical to the first), and have updated the second diagram to match the description in the article text. --Belbury (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)