Abstract
The contribution of stimulus-response compatibility to Stroop interference was tested in an auditory version of the Stroop test. The words “high” and “low” were presented in high and low pitches with either the pitch or the word designated as the relevant dimension. College students categorized the relevant stimulus dimension with a verbal response, a buttonpress, or a pitched hum. Significant interference occurred in the incompatible conditions (pitch-verbal, word-hum, pitch-button), but not in the compatible conditions (pitch-hum, word-verbal, word-button). The results indicated that stimulus-response compatibility was an important determinant of observed interference. It was suggested that stimulus-response incompatibility contributed to the response competition that presumably occurs in Stroop tasks.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beller, H. K. Naming, reading, and executing directions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,104, 154–160.
Cohen, G., &Martin, M. Hemisphere differences in an auditory Stroop test.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,17, 79–83.
Dyer, F. N. The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word.Psychonomic Science, 1971,15, 229–231.
Dyer, F. N. The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes.Memory & Cognition, 1973,1, 106–120.(a)
Dyer, F. N. Same and different judgments for word-color pairs with “irrelevant” words or colors: Evidence for word-code comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,98, 102–108.(b)
Eoeth, H. E., Blecker, D. L., &Kamlet, A. S. Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 355–356.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,15, 249–263.
Fraisse, P. Why is naming longer than reading?Acta Psychologica, 1969,30, 96–103.
Green, E. J., &Barber, P. J. An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender.Perception & Psychophysics. 1981,30, 459–466
Greenwald, A. G. A double-stimulation test of ideomotor theory with implications for selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,84, 392–398.
Gumenik, W. E., &Glass, R. Effects of reducing the readability of the words in the Stroop Color-Word Test.Psychonomic Science, 1970,20, 247–248.
Hamers, J. F., &Lambert, W. E. Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 303–310.
Harrison, N. S., &Boese, E. The locus of semantic interference in the “Stroop” color-naming task.Perception & Psychophysics, 1976,20, 408–412.
Hintzman, D. L., Carre, F. A., Eskridge, V. L., Owens, A. M., Shaff, S. S., &Sparks, M. E. “Stroop” effect: Input or output phenomenon?Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,95, 458–459.
Jensen, A. R., &Rohwer, W. D. The Stroop Color-Word Test: A review.Acta Psychologica, 1966,15, 36–93.
Keele, S. W. Attention demands of memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,93, 245–248.
Keele, S. W.Attention and human performance. Pacific Palisades, Calif: Goodyear, 1973.
Klein, G. S. Semantic power measured through interference of words with color-naming.American Journal of Psychology, 1964,77, 576–588.
Morton, J. Categories of interference: Verbal mediation and conflict in card sorting.British Journal of Psychology, 1969,60, 329–346.
Morton, J., &Chambers, S. M. Selective attention to words and colors.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,15, 387–397.
Murray, D. J., Mastronardi, J., &Duncan, S. Selective attention to “physical” vs “verbal” aspects of colored words.Psychonomic Science, 1972,16, 305–307.
Nealis, P. The Stroop phenomenon: Some critical tests of the response competition hypothesis.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973,37, 147-l53.
O’hara, W. P. Evidence in support of word unitization.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,17, 390–402.
Palef, S. R., &Olson, D. R. Spatial and verbal rivalry in a Stroop-like task.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1975,19, 201–209.
Pritchatt, D. An investigation into some of the underlying associative verbal processes of the Stroop colour effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,10, 351–359.
Simon, J. R., &Sudalaimuthu, P. Effects of S-R mapping and response modality on performance in a Stroop task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 176–187.
Stirling, N. Stroop interference: An input and an output phenomenon.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1979,31, 121–132.
Stroop, J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935,18, 643–662.
Treisman, A., &Fearnley, S. The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words.Nature, 1969,222, 437–439.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McClain, L. Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics 33, 266–270 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202864
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202864