Psychology IA SL page 1 of 15

PSYCHOLOGY
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

THE STROOP EFFECT

”An experimental investigation into the interference of conflicting stimuli on a
response task”

CANDIDATE NAME:
CANDIDATE NO.:
CLASS AND SCHOOL:
SUBJECT AND LEVEL: Psychology SL
WORDCOUNT: 1484
DATE OF SUBMISSION:

1
 Psychology IA SL page 2 of 15

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to investigate the Stroop effect, that is if automatised processes
such as reading would interfere with naming a colour or the name of a word. The experiment was a
simple replication of Stroop (1935). The design was a repeated measures and the participants were
chosen by convenience sampling as this was easiest. The IV was whether a congruent word list or
incongruent word list was presented. The DV was the time in seconds that it took the participants to
state the colour of ink in which each word was presented. The participants were therefore presented
with word lists where the words were in either congruent or incongruent colour.
The results supported the Stroop effect. The mean time it took participants to name the correct
colour in condition 1 (congruent) was 4.8 compared to 9.9 in condition 2 (incongruent). The SD in
condition 1 was 0.99 and in condition 2 the SD was 2.05.
The conclusion was that the Stroop effect could be observed in this experiment and this is in line
with Stroop (1935) and many subsequent replications of that study. It therefore seems that the
Stroop effect is fairly consistent.

(197 words)

2
 Psychology IA SL page 3 of 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Introduction page 4

Method
- Design page 5
- Participants page 6
- Materials page 6
- Procedure page 6

Results
- Description of results page 7

Discussion page 8
References and Bibliography page 9

Appendices page 10

3
 Psychology IA SL page 4 of 15

INTRODUCTION

Perception is the process by which information in the environment is transformed into an

experience of objects, sounds and events. Perception involves physiological processes of the senses
as well as processes within the brain which integrate and interpret sensory inputs. Perception
processes have been suggested to be built up from a combination of stimulus information,
expectations and hypothesises. Furthermore, much psychological research has been conducted in
attempt to shed light on the area of attention and inhibitions in relation to information processing,
and a distinction between automatic and controlled processing has been suggested by numerous
researchers within this perspective. An experiment in demonstration of this was conducted by J.R.
Stroop (1935)1 who introduced the colour naming experiment known as the Stroop Effect, where he
showed that people’s ability to read words interfere when they have to name colours of words.

Stroop (1935) asked participants to read words as quickly as possible in one condition and in a
second condition (the congruent condition), participants had to name the ink colour in which each
word were printed as quickly as possible. In a third condition (the incongruent condition),
participants had to name the ink colour in which each word was printed, however in this condition
the words themselves were colour names. For example, the participants were exposed to the word
blue printed in red ink, and they had to name the colour of the word. Stroop found that the
participants were much slower at naming the ink colours when the stimuli were themselves colours
as (as in the third, incongruent condition), indicating that a possible explanation for the Stroop
effect is that people quickly and automatically process the meaning of the word. This would
therefore interfere with the ability to process “red” in the incongruent condition, and consequently
delay the response.
Schneider and Shiffrin (1977)2 supported this explanation in their automaticity model in which they
distinguished between controlled and automatic attentional processing. They suggested that
controlled processing involves conscious directing towards a task, occurs slowly and is capacity-
limited, while automatic processing is unavoidable and difficult to modify, occurs fast and without
conscious awareness, and is unaffected by capacity limitations. Schneider and Shiffrin’s model does
provide a possible explanation for the findings of the Stroop Effect in that, it indicates that once the
automatic skill of reading is obtained it becomes unavoidable and hard to modify, which further
1
J. Ridley Stroop (1935) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, pp. 643-662.
2
Gross, Richard Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2001. p.193

4
 Psychology IA SL page 5 of 15

explains the controlled process, in which there is a difficulty in not reading a word, but stating the
colour of the ink. Furthermore, Stroop’s findings are supported by the speed processing model, put
forward by Morton and Chambers (1973)3 suggesting that people are able to read words faster than
state colours. They argued that since reading is claimed to be automatic and stating colours is not,
the information from each dimension seems to clash when having to name a colour. Due to this, it
appears that people make mistakes and hesitate and it takes longer time in answering.
Our experiment is a partial replication of that of J.R. Stroop (1935).
The aim of our experiment is to investigate the effect of two “contradicting” stimuli (the congruent
and incongruent wordlists), on the time it takes participants to answer correctly.

METHOD

DESIGN

The design repeated measures was chosen, in order to control for participant variables such as
intelligence. The possible disadvantages in using this design could be order effects such as fatigue
and boredom, which could affect the results of the experiment. In order to minimize order effects
half of the participants were presented with the congruent wordlist first and then with the
incongruent one, and the other half of the participants were firstly presented with the incongruent
wordlist which was then followed by the congruent one.
Moreover, ethical considerations were followed, in that each participant was briefed before the
experiment, and debriefed after it. During these proceedings it was made clear to them that their
anonymity would be protected, and that they had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any
time. The participants were not deceived in any way, and no physical or psychological harm was
caused inflicted on any of the participants. Furthermore, all participants signed an informed consent
form4.
Independent variable: (I.V.) Use of congruent word list or incongruent word list.

Dependent variable: (D.V.) Time in seconds that it took the participants to state the colour of ink

in which each word was presented.

3
Gross, Richard Psychology; The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2001, p 387-390
4
See Appendix VI

5
 Psychology IA SL page 6 of 15

PARTICIPANTS

The target population for the experiments was International Baccalaureate students at Nørre

Gymnasium of both sexes with an age range of 17-20. The reason for choosing IB students was to

ensure a similarity between the participant’s level of English language ability. It was additionally

assumed that people in this age-group had good eyesight, and fast reflexes. Nevertheless, it had to

be made certain that the participants were not suffering from dyslexia or colour blindness because

this would affect the results. By means of “convenience sampling”, ten males and ten females

(N=20) were chosen to participate in the experiment. This method was chosen as it was the most

convenient and the easiest in the present experiment.

MATERIALS.

• Two wordlists:

- Congruent wordlist5

- Incongruent wordlist6

• Standardized briefing instructions7

• Standardized debriefing instructions8

• Informed consent note9

• Stopwatch.

PROCEDURE.

The participants selected by means of convenience sampling were approached individually in a

friendly way and asked if they would agree to be part of a psychological experiment. If they agreed,

5
See appendix IV
6
See appendix IV
7
See appendix V
8
See appendix V
9
See appendix VI

6
 Psychology IA SL page 7 of 15

the standardized briefing instructions were read out loud to each participant, where-after the

researchers asked if he/she would like to continue or withdraw, or if there were any further

questions. Hereafter, the researcher thanked the participant for his/her consent and asked the

participant to sign a notifying consent form, where-after he/she was taken to a quiet classroom, to

avoid extraneous variables, and each participant was tested individually here.

Once the participant felt confidently aware of the task about to be performed, he/she was given the

first wordlist, and the stopwatch was set. The wordlist was turned over when researchers instructed

the participant to do so, and the time it took for the participant to state the colour of ink in which

each of the listed words presented on the paper, was recorded. In order to avoid order effects, the

participants in the first group were presented individually with the condition 1 first, followed by

condition 2, and the participants in the second group were firstly presented with condition 2,

followed by condition 1.

Once the participant’s time on each task had been recorded, the standardized debriefing manual was

read out loud by the researcher, and the participant was thanked for his or her participation. The

participant was invited to ask question, and was informed that he/she was welcome to view the

finished results of the reports at the completion of them.

RESULTS

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS

The raw data shows10 a clear difference between the two conditions, and this is supported by the

difference in the two means of 4.8 for condition 1 and 9.9 for condition 2.

Additionally, the scores occurred fairly close to the mean, in that the standard deviations were quite

small, as seen in Table 1.

10
See appendix I

7
 Psychology IA SL page 8 of 15

Table1:MEASUREMENTS OF STANDARD DEVIATION AND OF THE CENTRAL TENDENCY OF CONDITION 1

AND 2:

MEAN (seconds) STANDARD DEVIATION

CONDITION 1 4.8 0.99

CONGRUENT WORDLIST

CONDITION 2 9.9 2.05

INCONGRUENT WORDLIST

Figure 1: MEANS OF PROCESSING TIME IN SECONDS COMPARED IN CONGRUENTS AND

INCONGRUENT WORDLIST.

10

8
Condition 1- CONGRUENT
6 WORDLIST

4 Condition 2 -
INCONGRUENT
2 WORDLIST

0
MEAN

DISCUSSION.

The aim of this experiment was to investigate the effect of conflicting stimuli on a response task,
and the obtained results - showing that it took significantly more time for the participants to perform
condition 2 than condition 1 - indicate that there is a distinction between controlled and automatic
processing. The average difference in time in seconds between the two performances was 5.1
seconds, which further demonstrates a significant difference. Additionally, the scores occurred
fairly close to the mean, in that the standard deviations were small.
These results therefore highly support those of Stroop (1935). Morton and Chambers (1973)
suggested the speed of processing model, in which it is assumed that we are able to read words
faster than naming colours. It appears that our mind chooses to receive specific presented stimuli

8
 Psychology IA SL page 9 of 15

before others. Due to this, when the word itself is a colour and the ink another colour it is harder to
focus on only saying the colour of the ink, as the automatic process of reading takes over, and the
two dimensions clash. However, this is not the case when the words are congruent. Thus, this
assumption provides a strong possible explanation for the obtained results.
A major limitation in this experiment is that of order effects, as they cannot be entirely excluded,
even by means of counterbalancing. Additionally, the methodology used may cause further
limitations in that the participants were within a specific target population, which makes any
generalisations problematic. In particular, the convenience sampling method used, further restrains
the possibility of generalisation, as the people within the target population did not have an equal
chance of being selected.
Nevertheless, replications of Stroop’s experiment over the years suggest, that the effect investigated
is fairly consistent, indicating that it is a universal cognitive process, and hereby suggesting that
issues such as gender and culture do not interfere. In conclusion, automaticity of reading interferes
with naming a word when the colour of the word is incongruent so that it takes longer time to name
the word compared to a situation where the word is congruent.

REFERENCES.

• Morton and Chambers (1973) In Gross, “Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour”, p.
387-390.
• Schneider & Shiffrin (1977). Automatic vs. controlled processing. In Gross, “Psychology: The
Science of Mind and Behaviour”, p. 193.
• Stroop (1935). The Stroop Effect.
In “Essential Practical Psychology”, pp. 108-109.

• J. Ridley Stroop (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. (Electronical version)
In “Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, pp. 643-662. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop/
Retrieved: February 2nd, 2005

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

* Gross, Richard
“Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour” (4th edition)
Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2001.

* Maglennon, Keith
“Essential Practical Psychology”
Collins Educational, London 1993

9
 Psychology IA SL page 10 of 15

APPENDIX I - RAW DATA

PARTICIPANTS GENDER TIME (in seconds) TIME (in seconds)

CONGRUENT INCONGRUENT
LIST LIST

GROUP A – PRESENTED WITH CONDITION 1 FIRST. (Congruent wordlist)

participant condition 1 condition 2
1 FEMALE 5.64 7.8
2 FEMALE 5.89 7.21
3 FEMALE 5.52 8.41
4 FEMALE 4.12 7.92
5 FEMALE 3.86 10.23
6 MALE 4.58 9.11
7 MALE 4.16 8.59
8 MALE 2.93 8.28
9 MALE 4.8 11.13
10 MALE

GROUP B – PRESENTED WITH CONDITION 2 FIRST. (Incongruent wordlist)

Participant Condition 2 Condition 1
11 FEMALE 5.66 15.03
12 FEMALE 6.34 13.02
13 FEMALE 4.27 11.91
14 FEMALE 4.7 7.03
15 FEMALE 6.52 11.44
16 MALE 5.32 10.35
17 MALE 3.28 11.86
18 MALE 4.25 8.14
19 MALE 5.7 9.57
20 MALE 4.23 10.27

10
 Psychology IA SL page 11 of 15

APPENDIX II – STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS.

PARTICIPANTS TIME (in seconds) FOR CONGRUENT WORDLIST DEVIATION (d) d²

1 5.64 0.48 0.23
2 5.89 1.09 1.19
3 5.52 0.72 0.52
4 4.12 -0.68 -0.46
5 3.86 -0.94 -0.88
6 4.58 -0.22 -0.48
7 4.16 -0.64 -0.41
8 2.93 -1.87 -3.5
9 4.8 0.00 0
10 3.5 -1.30 -1.69
11 5.66 0.86 0.74
12 6.34 1.54 2.37
13 4.27 -0.53 -0.28
14 4.7 -0.10 -0.01
15 6.52 1.72 2.96
16 5.32 0.52 0.27
17 3.28 -1.52 -2.31
18 4.25 -0.55 -0.30
19 5.7 0.90 0.81
20 4.23 -0.57 -0.32
N = 20 Mean: 4.8 ∑d² = 19.73

PARTICIPANTS TIME (in seconds) FOR INCONGRUENT WORDLIST DEVIATION (d) d²

1 7.8 -2.10 4.41
2 7.21 -2.69 7.23
3 8.41 -1.49 2.22
4 7.92 -1.98 3.92
5 10.23 0.33 0.11
6 9.11 -0.79 0.62
7 8.59 -1.31 1.72
8 8.28 -1.62 2.62
9 11.13 1.23 1.51
10 10.7 0.80 0.64
11 15.03 5.13 26.32
12 13.02 3.12 9.73
13 11.91 2.01 4.04
14 7.03 -2.87 8.24
15 11.44 1.54 2.37
16 10.35 0.45 0.20
17 11.86 1.96 3.84
18 8.14 -1.76 4.00

11
 Psychology IA SL page 12 of 15

19 9.27 -0.63 0.40

20 10.27 0.37 0.14
N = 20 Mean: 9.9 ∑d² = 84.28
APPENDIX III – CALCULATIONS.

MEAN: USING THE FORMULA ∑x

n

CONGRUENT WORDLIST:
(5.64 + 5.89 + 5.52 + 4.12 + 3.86 + 4.58 + 4.16 + 2.93 + 4.8 + 3.5 + 5.66 + 6.34 + 4.27 + 4.7 + 6.52
+ 5.32 + 3.28 + 4.25 + 5.7 + 4.23) / 20 = 4.8
INCONGRUENT WORDLIST:
(7.8 + 7.21 + 8.41 + 7.92 + 10.23 + 9.11 + 8.59 + 8.28 + 11.13 + 10.7 + 15.03 + 13.02 + 11.91 +
7.03 + 11.44 + 10.35+ 11.86 + 8.14 + 9.57 + 10.27) = 9.9

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS:

(9.9 – 4.8) = 5.1

VARIATION: USING THE FORMULA s² = ∑(x-x)²

N

CONGRUENT WORDLIST: = 19.73 = 0.99

20

INCONGRUENT WORDLIST: = 84.28 = 4.21

20

STANDARD DEVIATION: USING THE FORMULA: s = √∑(x-x)²

N

CONGRUENT WORDLIST: = √0.99 = 0.99

INCONGRUENT WORDLIST: = √4.21 = 2.05

12
 Psychology IA SL page 13 of 15

APPENDIX IV – WORDLISTS.

CONGRUENT WORDLIST INCONGRUENT WORDLIST

RED YELLOW
GREEN RED
YELLOW BLUE
RED GREEN
BLUE RED
GREEN BLUE
RED GREEN
YELLOW YELLOW
BLUE RED
BLUE BLUE

13
 Psychology IA SL page 14 of 15

APPENDIX V – BRIEFING AND DEBRIEFING INSTRUCTIONS.

Standardized Briefing Instructions.

You will be presented with two lists of words. Your task for this experiment is to state the colour of

ink in which each word is presented regardless of the word. You will need to start naming the

colours starting at the top of the list, and ending at the bottom. Your performance on each list will

be timed. Please remember that if at any time during the proceedings of this experiment you wish to

withdraw, you have the right to do so. If you have any questions, please ask them now. I will give

you the first list now. Please turn it over when I instruct you to.

Standardized Debriefing Instructions.

The experiment is now over. We want to thank you for your corporation. If you would like the
results of the experiment or to read the final reports on it, you are welcome to do so at the
completion of them. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask them. Thank you
again.

14
 Psychology IA SL page 15 of 15

APPENDIX VI – CONSENT FORM.

Consent Form
• I have been informed satisfactorily about the experiment
• I know that I have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and that
any information/data about me will remain confidential
• My anonymity will be protected.
• The experiment will be conducted so that the participants are not harmed in any
way.
• I have the right to ask questions.
• I will be debriefed at the end, and have the opportunity to find out the results if I
wish to do that.

I agree to participate in this experiment

NAME and date____________________________________________

Contact number_____________________________________________

15