Stroop interference is a composite phenomenon: Evidence from distinct developmental trajectories of its components

Abstract

Only one previous developmental study of Stroop task performance (Schiller, 1966) has controlled for differences in processing speed that exist both within and between age groups. Therefore, the question of whether the early developmental change in the magnitude of Stroop interference actually persists after controlling for processing speed needs further investigation; work that is further motivated by the possibility that any remaining differences would be caused by process(es) other than processing speed. Analysis of data from two experiments revealed that, even after controlling for processing speed using z‐transformed reaction times, early developmental change persists such that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference is larger in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to 1st graders. This pattern indicates that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference peaks after 2 or 3 years of reading practice (Schadler & Thissen, 1981). Furthermore, this peak is shown to be due to distinct components of Stroop interference (resulting from specific conflicts) progressively falling into place. Experiment 2 revealed that the change in the magnitude of Stroop interference specifically results from joint contributions of task, semantic and response conflicts in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to a sole contribution of task conflict in 1st graders. The specific developmental trajectories of different conflicts presented in the present work provide unique evidence for multiple loci of Stroop interference in the processing stream (respectively task, semantic and response conflict) as opposed to a single (i.e. response) locus predicted by historically – favored response competition accounts.

Editorial: The Locus of the Stroop Effect

“…Much of the theory and research however has assumed that the interruption, the locus of the Stroop effect, is at the level of responses (Cohen et al, 1990;Roelofs, 2003), and that it is this type of conflict for which control mechanisms monitor (Botvinick et al, 2001). In line with a recent and burgeoning literature (e.g., Parris, 2014;Levin and Tzelgov, 2016;Augustinova et al, 2018;Entel and Tzelgov, 2018;Kalanthroff et al, 2018;Ferrand et al, 2019;Hasshim et al, 2019;Hershman and Henik, 2019;Parris et al, 2019), the contributions to this Research Topic report findings that indicate that there is more than one locus to the Stroop effect.…”

The contribution of meaning to the detection of task conflict

“…Recently, task conflict has attracted attention (Littman et al, 2019) and researchers tend to suggest that task conflict is a major component of Stroop interference (Levin & Tzelgov, 2014). Interestingly, in a recent study by Ferrand et al (2020), it was shown that for the first-grader participants, the magnitude of the Stroop interference was a result of only task conflict, whereas for third and fifth graders, more cognitive conflicts were present (i.e., task, semantic, and response conflicts).…”

The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses

“…Given that considerable behavioral, electroencephalography (EEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) evidence points to the viability of both SC-RC and TC-RC multistage accounts of Stroop interference (see above), several lines of research highlighted the necessity to adopt an integrative perspective that would allow for bridging the two previously outlined multistage perspectives (Augustinova et al, 2018b; Parris et al, under review; for reviews). To implement this latter integrative proposal empirically, Augustinova et al (2018b); see also Ferrand et al, in press) proposed that color-associated incongruent words (e.g., SKY green ) and color-neutral letter strings (e.g., XXX green ) supplement the standard color-incongruent words (e.g., BLUE green ) and color-neutral words (e.g., DOG green ) that are commonly used in the standard Stroop task (see above). Indeed, if the color-neutral letter strings (e.g., XXX green ) and words (e.g., DOG green ) only trigger task conflict, the color incongruency involved in both color-associated (e.g., SKY green ) and standard (e.g., BLUE green ) color-incongruent words triggers additional type(s) of conflict.…”

“…Using this extended form of the Stroop paradigm – that builds on both SKY-PUT design suggested by Neely and Kahan’s (2001) and Klein’s (1964) semantic gradient – all three conflicts (i.e., task, semantic, and response conflicts) have been shown to contribute significantly to standard Stroop interference in both adults (Augustinova et al, 2018b) and reading-level children (Ferrand et al, in press) and have been shown to have specific developmental trajectories (Ferrand et al, in press). Taken together, these studies not only strongly reaffirm that the standard (i.e., overall) Stroop interference constitutes a composite and not a unitary (response-level) phenomenon but also clearly show the relevance of an integrative perspective bridging SC-RC and TC-RC multistage accounts.…”