The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: New evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task

Augustinova, Maria; Ferrand, Ludovic

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.014

Cited by 34 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The third condition was the neutral condition. Many investigators advocate the use of neutral words rather than just patches of colour, because then the only difference between each of the three conditions is the meaning of the distractor word (Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012;Mead et al, 2002). In our case, we used the words 'car', 'sheep', 'plug', and 'jigsaw' in place of the four colour words (see also Hanauer & Books, 2005).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both for child and adult participants, errors were noted by a researcher seated behind the participant, as is common in Stroop-like research (Bub et al, 2006). Although the presence of a bystander has been shown to reduce interference in adults (Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012), there is little empirical evidence on this issue regarding children. Furthermore, our procedure was designed to give priority to issues such as children alone in such an experimental environment becoming anxious or demotivated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

Wright

2016

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rich body of research concerns causes of Stroop effects plus applications of Stroop. However, several questions remain. We included assessment of errors with children and adults (N = 316), who sat either a task wherein each block employed only trials of one type (unmixed task) or where every block comprised of a mix of the congruent, neutral, and incongruent trials. Children responded slower than adults and made more errors on each task. Contrary to some previous studies, interference (the difference between neutral and incongruent condition) showed no reaction time (RT) differences by group or task, although there were differences in errors. By contrast, facilitation (the difference between neutral and congruent condition) was greater in children than adults, and greater on the unmixed task than the mixed task. After considering a number of theoretical accounts, we settle on the inadvertent word‐reading hypothesis, whereby facilitation stems from children and the unmixed task promoting inadvertent reading particularly in the congruent condition. Stability of interference RT is explained by fixed semantic differences between neutral and incongruent conditions, for children versus adults and for unmixed versus mixed task. We conclude that utilizing two tasks together may reveal more about how attention is affected in other groups.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

Wright

2016

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is especially true in the case of Klauer et al (2008), who showed that when neutral words were used as the control condition, there was no decrease, suggesting that semantics was not the cause of this decline. Likewise, when color-associated words were used, no decrease of semantic access was observed (Augustinova & Ferrand, 2012b).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…When this condition was added, no decrease of the semantically-based Stroop effect was observed (Augustinova et al, 2010, Augustinova & Ferrand, 2007, 2012a, 2012b. The results favored an automatic semantic access.…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A brief review of three manipulations of the Stroop task focusing on the automaticity of semantic access

Flaudias¹,

Llorca²

2014

Psychologica Belgica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task

Saunders

Melcher

Zoest

2017

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People working together on a task must often represent the goals and salient items of their partner. The aim of the present study was to study the influence of joint task representations in an interference task in which the congruency relies on semantic identity. If task representations are shared between partners in a joint Stroop task (co-representation account), we hypothesized that items in the response set of one partner might influence performance of the other. In Experiment 1, pairs of participants sat side by side. Each participant was instructed to press one of two buttons to indicate which of two colors assigned to them was present, ignoring the text and responding only to the pixel color. There were three types of incongruent distractor words: names of colors from their own response set, names of colors from the other partner's response set, and neutral words for colors not used as font colors. The results of Experiment 1 showed that when people were doing this task together, distractor words from the partner's response set interfered more than neutral words and just as much as the words from their own response color set. However, in three follow-up experiments (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c), we found an elevated interference for the other response-set words even though no co-actor was present. The overall pattern of results across our study suggests that an alternative response set, regardless of whether it belonged to a co-actor or to a non-social no-go condition, evoked equal amounts of interference comparable to those of the own response set. Our findings are in line with a theory of common coding, in which all events-irrespective of their social nature-are represented and can influence behavior.

show abstract

The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: New evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task

Cited by 34 publications

References 36 publications

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

What Stroop tasks can tell us about selective attention from childhood to adulthood

A brief review of three manipulations of the Stroop task focusing on the automaticity of semantic access

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About