Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Psychological distance and reaction time in a Stroop task

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several sources of interference may simultaneously affect the onset of the well-known “Stroop effect.” Among them is the semantic component, which is reflected in the gradient or semantic effect. This effect consists of an increase in the amount of interference as the semantic distance between the word and the color concept decreases. Shepard (Science 237:1317–1323, 1987) relates psychological space, measured through multidimensional scaling, to mean response times. The present investigation aims to study the function relating the semantic gradient with the psychological distance between the word and the color in a Stroop task. After measuring the gradient, we obtained the subjective rating of the degree of dissimilarity of the gradient words with the concept of “color.” In our work, we show that the amount of interference in a Stroop task increases when the semantic distance from the word to the color concept decreases, and it does so exponentially. We replicated the study with different stimuli to test the robustness of the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Hereafter, the word in uppercase letters refers to the name of the color, and the subindex refers to the color of the ink.

  2. The photoreceptors of color called “cones” can be divided into three types—blues, greens, and reds—and, therefore, we can consider them to be the basic colors of sight. The activation or inhibition of these different types of cells depends on spectral opponency, which can be roughly classified into two types: blue–yellow contrast and red–green contrast (Mather 2006). These colors correspond to those found by Ekman (1956).

References

  • Alperson BL (1967) The effect of semantic relatedness and practice on the color-word test. Michigan State University, East Lansing

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JD, Dunbar K, McClelland JL (1990) On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol Rev 97:332–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple-AIford EC (1972) Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task. Percept Psychophys 11:274–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple-Alford EC, Azkoul J (1972) The locus of interference in the Stroop and related tasks. Percept Psychophys 11:385–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis CJ, Perea M (2005) BuscaPalabras: a program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighbourhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods 37(4):665–671. doi:10.3758/BF03192738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer EN (1973) Same and different judgments for word-color pairs with “irrelevant” words or colors: evidence for word-code comparisons. J Exp Psychol 98:102–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer EN (1974) Stroop interference with long preexposures of the word: comparison of pure and mixed preexposure sequences. Bull Psychon Soc 3:8–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman G (1954) Dimensions of color vision. J Psychol 38:467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman G (1956) Discrimination of hue as a function of wave length. Acta Psychol 12:15–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman G (1963) A direct method for multidimensional ratio scaling. Psychometrika 28:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox LA, Shor RE (1976) Semantic gradients and interference with sorting according to color, spatial position, and numerosity. Bull Psychon Soc 7(2):187–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox LA, Shor RE, Steinman RJ (1971) Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity. J Exp Psychol 91(1):59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garson GD (2012) Multidimensional scaling. Retrieved 10 Feb 2012, from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/mds.htm

  • Gutiérrez-Palma N, Palma-Reyes A (2008) On the use of lexical stress in reading Spanish. Read Writ Interdiscip J 21:645–650. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9082-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1999) Análisis multivariante, 5th edn. Pearson Educación, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Inquisit 2.0.61004.7 [Computer software] (2008). Millisecond Software, Seattle, WA

  • Keele S (1972) Attention demands of memory retrieval. J Exp Psychol 93:245–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klein GS (1964) Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. Am J Psychol 77:576–588

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kole JA, Healy AF, Bourne LE Jr (2008) Cognitive complications moderate the speed-accuracy tradeoff in data entry: a cognitive antidote to inhibition. Appl Cogn Psychol 22:917–937. doi:10.1002/acp.1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal JB (1964a) Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness to fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal JB (1964b) Nonmetric Multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois J (1974) Frequency of occurrence as a factor in interference on the Stroop word-color test. Percept Mot Skills 38:986

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan GD (1985) Skill and automaticity: relations, implications, and future directions. Can J Psychol 39:367–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod CM (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull 109(2):163–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mather G (2006) Foundations of perception. Taylor & Francis Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Melara RD, Algom D (2003) Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychol Rev 110(3):422–471. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melcher T, Gruber O (2009) Decomposing interference during Stroop performance into different conflict factors: an event-related fMRI study. Cortex 45:189–200. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milham MP, Banich MT (2005) Anterior cingulate cortex: an fMRI analysis of conflict specificity and functional differentiation. Hum Brain Mapp 25:328–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchat D (1968) An Investigation into some of underlying associative verbal processes of Stroop colour effect. Q J Exp Psychol 20:351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor RW (1978) Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task. Percept Psychophys 23:413–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Protopapas A (2006) On the use and usefulness of stress diacritics in reading Greek. Read Writ Interdiscip J 19:171–178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00316.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko EF, Schmidt JR, Besner D (2006) Filling a gap in the semantic gradient: color associates and response set effects in the Stroop task. Psychon Bull Rev 13(2):310–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofs A (2003) Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychol Rev 110(1):88–125. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard RN (1987) Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237:1317–1323. doi:10.1126/science.3629243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling N (1979) Stroop interference—input and an output phenomenon. Q J Exp Psychol 31(FEB):121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18:643–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taagepera R (2008) Making social sciences more scientific. The need of predictive models. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Veen V, Carter CS (2005) Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: a functional MRI study. NeuroImage 27(3):497–504. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Giorgio De Marchis

  2. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain

    María del Prado Rivero Expósito & José Manuel Reales Avilés

Authors
  1. Giorgio De Marchis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María del Prado Rivero Expósito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Manuel Reales Avilés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio De Marchis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Marchis, G., Rivero Expósito, M.P. & Reales Avilés, J.M. Psychological distance and reaction time in a Stroop task. Cogn Process 14, 401–410 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0569-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0569-x

Keywords