Abstract
The present study suggests that the idea that Stroop interference originates from multiple components may gain theoretically from integrating two independent frameworks. The first framework is represented by the well-known notion of “semantic gradient” of interference and the second one is the distinction between two types of conflict – the task and the informational conflict – giving rise to the interference (MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000; Goldfarb and Henik, 2007). The proposed integration led to the conclusion that two (i.e., orthographic and lexical components) of the four theoretically distinct components represent task conflict, and the other two (i.e., indirect and direct informational conflict components) represent informational conflict. The four components were independently estimated in a series of experiments. The results confirmed the contribution of task conflict (estimated by a robust orthographic component) and of informational conflict (estimated by a strong direct informational conflict component) to Stroop interference. However, the performed critical review of the relevant literature (see General Discussion), as well as the results of the experiments reported, showed that the other two components expressing each type of conflict (i.e., the lexical component of task conflict and the indirect informational conflict) were small and unstable. The present analysis refines our knowledge of the origins of Stroop interference by providing evidence that each type of conflict has its major and minor contributions. The implications for cognitive control of an automatic reading process are also discussed.
Highlights
A landmark cognitive task in the field of automaticity research is rightfully considered the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935)
We propose that Stroop interference might have an orthographic component, reflecting the automatic nature of the initial—orthographic encoding—stage of the reading process
The data from Experiments 1 and 2 indicate that there are two robust components consistently contributing and almost entirely constituting the interference effect.10. These are the markers of the task and informational conflicts, which were replicated in two experiments employing different languages
Summary
A landmark cognitive task in the field of automaticity research is rightfully considered the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935). That in contrast to early views of automaticity (Posner and Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977; Hasher and Zacks, 1979), the definition proposed by Tzelgov, and Tzelgov and Perlman does not involve relying on other cognitive constructs such as attention or awareness. Instead, it emphasizes the ballistic feature of automatic processes—their inclination to run to full completion once they have been trigged by the stimulus they are highly associated with (Bargh, 1989). The Stroop situation is unique in that it provides tangible evidence of automaticity of the reading process that can be measured and explored
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
