Publication Date
In 2025 | 0 |
Since 2024 | 0 |
Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 2 |
Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 2 |
Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
College Students | 2 |
Color | 2 |
Conflict | 2 |
Error Patterns | 2 |
Foreign Countries | 2 |
Interference (Learning) | 2 |
Reaction Time | 2 |
Visual Stimuli | 2 |
Cognitive Ability | 1 |
Cognitive Processes | 1 |
Cognitive Psychology | 1 |
More ▼ |
Source
Journal of Experimental… | 2 |
Publication Type
Journal Articles | 2 |
Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
Higher Education | 2 |
Postsecondary Education | 2 |
Audience
Location
Canada | 2 |
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
Stroop Color Word Test | 2 |
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Spinelli, Giacomo; Lupker, Stephen J. – Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2023
In the standard Proportion-Congruent (PC) paradigm, performance is compared between a list containing mostly congruent (MC) stimuli (e.g., the word RED in the color red in the Stroop task; Stroop, 1935) and a list containing mostly incongruent (MI) stimuli (e.g., the word BLUE in red). The PC effect, the finding that the congruency effect (i.e.,…
Descriptors: Cognitive Psychology, Conflict, Cognitive Processes, Reaction Time
Spinelli, Giacomo; Lupker, Stephen J. – Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2021
In the Stroop task, congruency effects (i.e., the color-naming latency difference between incongruent stimuli, e.g., the word BLUE written in the color red, and congruent stimuli, e.g., RED in red) are smaller in a list in which incongruent trials are frequent than in a list in which incongruent trials are infrequent. The traditional explanation…
Descriptors: Color, Interference (Learning), Visual Stimuli, Reaction Time