Visual search inverts the classic Stroop asymmetry

Abstract

The Stroop effect is typically much larger than the reverse Stroop effect. One explanation for this asymmetry asserts that interference between the attended feature and an incongruent unattended feature depends on which feature is more strongly associated with the processing typically needed to complete the task. Accordingly, because identification of the target's color or the target word (as in the traditional Stroop paradigm) is more strongly associated with verbal processing than visual processing, the target's meaning should interfere with identification of the target's color (Stroop) more than vice versa (reverse Stroop). In contrast, localization is more strongly associated with visual processing, so strength-of-association predicts that the target's color should interfere with localizing the target word (reverse Stroop) more than vice versa (Stroop). Experiments 1 and 2 supported the strength-of-association account: compared to Stroop, the reverse Stroop effect was smaller for an identification task, but larger for a localization task. Because overall responses were slower for the reverse Stroop condition than the Stroop condition in Experiment 2, we entertained two alternative explanations for the reverse Stroop effect being larger than the Stroop effect. Experiments 3 and 4 showed that the larger reverse Stroop effect could not have been due to scaling, and Experiment 5 showed that it could not have been due to covert translation. Taken together, these experiments demonstrate the role of strength of association in generating the classic Stroop asymmetry, and pave the way for future exploration of the reverse Stroop effect using localization tasks.