Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 1441–1448 | Cite as

Performance Differences in Hindi and English Speaking Bilinguals on Stroop Task

  • Kalyani Datta
  • Naresh Nebhinani
  • Abhinav DixitEmail author


Previous studies have found that bilinguals differ in their response times on the bilingual version of Stroop Task. Automaticity and control and Language proficiency have emerged as important factors that lead to differences in the response time. This study aimed to understand Stroop Effect in Hindi-English bilinguals on the computerized version of Hindi and English language Stroop task. The study was conducted on 42 Hindi–English bilinguals. All were more proficient in the Hindi language as compared to the English Language. Results of the study revealed greater Stroop Effect in the English language as compared to the Hindi language.


Cognition Bilingualism Stroop task Automaticity and control Language proficiency 



This work was supported by the (Indian Council of Medical Research) under Grant (55/4/2014-/BMS).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethics committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual adult participants included in the study.


  1. Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 633–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cedrus Corporation. (1990). SuperLab Manual. Cedrus Corporation. Accessed 12 July 2018.
  6. Costa, A., La Heij, W., & Navarrete, E. (2006). The dynamics of bilingual lexical access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1968). Interlingual interference in a color-naming task. Psychonomic Science, 10(6), 215–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot, A. M., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 53(2), 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer, F. N. (1971). Color-naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(3), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehri, L. C., & Ryan, E. B. (1980). Performance of bilinguals in a picture-word interference task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(3), 285–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, S. P., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Alva, E. (1981). Intra-versus inter-language Stroop interference effect in bilingual subjects. Memory & Cognition, 9, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerhand, S. J., Derȩgowski, J. B., & McAllister, H. (1995). Stroop phenomenon as a measure of cognitive functioning of bilingual (Gaelic/English) subjects. British Journal of Psychology, 86(1), 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(3), 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Kerkhofs, R., Dijkstra, T., Chwilla, D. J., & De Bruijn, E. R. (2006). Testing a model for bilingual semantic priming with interlingual homographs: RT and N400 effects. Brain Research, 1068(1), 170–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kousaie, S., & Phillips, N. A. (2012). Ageing and bilingualism: Absence of a “bilingual advantage” in Stroop interference in a nonimmigrant sample. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 356–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & Van Der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(5), 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Logan, G. D. (1985). Skill and automaticity: Relations, implications, and future directions. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 39(2), 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mägiste, E. (1984). Stroop tasks and dichotic translation: The development of interference patterns in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paulmann, S., Elston-Güttler, K. E., Gunter, T. C., & Kotz, S. A. (2006). Is bilingual lexical access influenced by language context? NeuroReport, 17, 727–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Posten, H. O. (1984). Robustness of the two-sample t-test. In D. Rasch & M. L. Tiku (Eds.), Robustness of statistical methods and nonparametric statistics (pp. 92–99). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preston, M. S., & Lambert, W. E. (1969). Interlingual interference in a bilingual version of the Stroop color-word task. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Santisi, M. N., Arecco, M. D. R., Salvatierra, J., Conde, A., et al. (2002). Stroop effect in Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8(6), 819–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological review, 84(2), 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2012). Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence from Hindi-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tse, C. S., & Altarriba, J. (2012). The effects of first-and second-language proficiency on conflict resolution and goal maintenance in bilinguals: Evidence from reaction time distributional analyses in a Stroop task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(5), 760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Heuven, W. J., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Language conflict in the bilingual brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalyani Datta
    • 1
  • Naresh Nebhinani
    • 2
  • Abhinav Dixit
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PhysiologyAll India Institute of Medical SciencesJodhpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryAll India Institute of Medical SciencesJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations