Figure 1. Example Picture of Computer Stimulus
This is the pineapple-orange stimulus used in the Eye Lines Picture Stroop Effect experiment.
Theories of reading have often maintained that the visual perception of words is in some sense of the term automatic, at least for mature, skilled readers (Carr, Brown, Vavrus, & Evans, 1990; Downing & Leong, 1982). Following the logic first developed by Bryan and Hartner (1899), the core claim has been that skilled readers need not devote limited attentional capacity to word recognition, freeing attention for higher level syntactic, propositional, and referential processing. Although the presumably automatic nature of word perception has played an important role in theories of reading skill, it has been substantively challenged by various empirical findings in the last decade (Kahneman & Chajczk, 1983; Kahnman & Henik, 1981).
Probably the most frequently cited source of support for the automaticity of word perception has been the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) and its numerous variations (e.g., Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984; Dyer, 1971).
According to Arieh and Algoma (2002), when people are asked to name the word or the picture of picture-word compounds, (a) they name the words faster than the pictures and (b) their performance with the pictures suffers interference from the irrelevant words. When people are asked to categorize the same stimuli, the outcome is the mirror image of the pattern obtained with naming. People categorize the pictures faster than the words, and their performance with the words suffers interference from the irrelevant pictures. In their study, they show word superiority in naming and picture superiority in categorization to be contingent phenomena depending on a few variables on context.
The purpose of this study is to test the Stroop effect on the naming of fuits and vegetables by the picture that represents them that has a different fruit or vegetable word printed on it. The purpose is to test the previous evidence that reading words is an automatic process in mature readers' minds. By assuming that the previous evidence is correct, our experiment should show a longer average of time being used to say the fruit or vegetable by means of the picture when there is an opposing fruit or vegetable word printed on it, compared to just being asked to say the fruit or vegetable based on the picture when there is no opposing printed word on it. This would show that the human mind reads words first, automatically, causing a delay in deciding what the picture object is over the opposing printed word.
This study's participants contained 30 Alma College students ranging in age from 18 to 22 years of age. There were 11 males and 19 females who participated in this study.
The equipment used in this study was the Eye Lines computer program created by Dr. Walter Beagley. This computer program places the stimuli on the monitor when any keyboard key is pressed and the stimuli are removed at another press of a keyboard key. The program measures the amount of time between the two pressings of the keys which mark the beginning of the stimulus being shown, and the end, when the participant has said the name of the picture correctly. The next stimulus appears with another press of a keyboard key. The stimuli consist of pictures of fruit and vegetables in black and white color with either the name of the fruit or vegetable printed on it, or no word printed on it. See Figure 1 for an example screen from the computer program used in this experiment. See Table 1 for all of the stimuli combinations used in this experiment.
Figure 1. Example Picture of Computer Stimulus
This is the pineapple-orange stimulus used in the Eye Lines Picture Stroop Effect experiment.
The study was explained to the participants, they were instructed to say the name of each picture object as quickly as they could. The participants were placed in front of the computer screen with one of the experimenters seated next to them. The pictures, either with printed words on them or without, were shown on the screen in random order by the experimenter's pressing of a keyboard key. When the participant named the picture of the fruit or vegetable, the experimenter pressed the keyboard key to bring up a blank screen, and the computer timed this reaction from the presenting of the stimulus to the naming of the picture by the participant. The experimenter then gave a brief pause and then pressed the keyboard key again to bring up the next stimulus. This continued until the participant named all of the picture stimuli in the experiment.
The Picture Stroop Effect experiment data show it took the participants 1.359 seconds on average to say the picture of the fruit or vegetable when only the picture was shown. It took the participants 1.375 seconds on average to say the picture of the fruit or vegetable when the corresponding word was printed on it. It took the participants 1.794 seconds on average to say the picture of the fruit or vegetable when a non-corresponding word was printed on it. See Figure 2 for the graph of the results.
This experiment found that the non-corresponding stimuli took longer to say the picture than the control stimuli and the corresponding stimuli. With this being found, we conclude that people automatically read words, which in effect causes a slight delay in being able to say a picture instead of a word when presented simultaneously. When there was no word to distract the participants, they averaged a faster time in naming the picture. When the printed word was corresponding to the picture, they said the picture faster than when the word did not correspond, but it still took them longer than when there was no word because the word in itself caused a miniscule pause before being able to focus on the picture, and then being able to say the picture instead of the word printed on it.
This agrees with Stroop (1935), Dunbar & MacLeod (1984), and Dyer (1971) that skilled readers have a word automaticity that causes them to read words that are placed in front of them whether or not they consciously want to. This also agrees with Arieh and Algoma (2002), when they found that participants can name words faster than pictures, and when asked to name the pictures instead of the words, they irrelevant words caused the participants' performance to suffer.
From this data, we can tell that reading words is an automatic response in mature readers' minds. This data supports the automaticity theory with the average time being significantly less for the participants to say the pictures in the stimuli when there was no opposing word printed on it to distract the participant from saying what the picture was.
Arieh, Yoav; Algom Daniel. Processing Picture-Word Stimuli The Contingent Nature of Picture and of Word Superiority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 28, 2002, 221-232.
Brown, Tracy L.; Roos-Gilbert, Linda Carr. Thomas, H. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. November, 1995. Vol. 21, No. 6, 1395-1411
Bryan W. L., Harter N. Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review, In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science, (pp. 631-683). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vol. 105, 1992, 201-237.
Carr T. H., Brown T. L., Vavrus L. G., Evans M. A. Cognitive skill maps and cognitive skill profiles: Componential analysis of individual differences in children's reading efficiency., In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development (pp.1-55). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 1990.
Downing J., Leong C. K. The psychology of reading., New York: MacMillan. 1982
Dunbar K., MacLeod C. M. A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptions and Performance, New York: MacMillan. Vol. 10. 1984, 622-639
Dyer F. N. Color naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, New York: MacMillan., Vol. 10, 1971, 297-302
Kahneman D., Chajczyk D. Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon., Vol. 9, 1983, 497-509
Kahneman D., Henik A. Perceptual organizations and attention., In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 181-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum., 1981
Stroop J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions., Journal of Experimental Psychology, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press., Vol 18. 1935, 643-662
More Posters
Web Posters from other courses and projects
Alma College Psychology Department