You are on page 1of 5


Nazi, Russ Joseph Jumawid, Rhema Faith

Mejia, Harra May Santander, Alexandra Femielle
Obuta, Khessa Mari Bogo, Alisha Mae
Liwanag, Jamie

Selective Attention theory

Stroop developed theories concerning his study, The Stroop Effect. One theory is

selective attention theory, wherein, in the concept of the study, the interference occurs

for the reason that color-naming tend to require more attention than readin the words

out loud. The brain takes a little longer to recognise the color so it needs to use more

attention to the color.

Selective attention is a cognitive process in which an individual, when exposed to

one or more sensory inputs, attends to a particular object and ignore the unimportant

ones. Since attention is a limited resource, an individual cannot attend to simultaneous

events that are concurrent. Selective attention helps individuals to focus to what really

matters. Selective attention theory can be used to explain the stroop effect. The

interference occurs because color naming requires more attention than reading words.

McLeod, S. A. (2008). Retrieved from

Speed of Processing Theory

Speed of processing theory explains why interference happen in stroop effect.

This is because word processing is faster than color processing. Reading words is

faster than naming colors. This process will be more complex if an individual will name

the color which is incongruent to its word, this is already an interference.

Relative Speed of Processing

This view states that words are read at a faster rate than colors are named. The

difference in speed between these two processes are emphasized when there are two
potential responses (one from a word and one from the ink color) that compete to be

produced Automaticity - Processing of one dimension requires more attention than

processing of another dimension. Therefore, identifying the name of an ink color will

require more attention resources than does reading the irrelevant word. Perceptual

Encoding - The perceptual encoding of information pertaining to the ink and color is

slowed down by incompatible and possibly contradicting information from a word with

interference. Parallel Model: Accuring Evidence Toward a Decision - Evidence

concerning an action accumulates over time until the threshold of response is reached,

during which the response produced is based on the coherence of the dimensions

involved. If there is coherence between dimensions (e.g., evidence from other

dimensions is consistent with the desired dimension), then total processing speed is

reduced. However if there is confict between dimensions, then total processing speed

increases. Parallel Distributed Processing Model - A model that views processing of

information as a system comprised of interconnected modules that continuously

operating units that inputs and outputs information to and from other units. In performing

a task, a relevant pathway is chosen that may include all units in a module. However,

individual units can be members of more than one pathway which means that it is

possible for inersections between pathways. If two pathways are simultaneously active

and produces conflicting activations, interference results.

It is well known that words are read faster than colors are named (Cattell, 1886).

According to the relative processing speed theory, this difference in the speed of color

naming and word naming is due to the respective processing speeds of the two tasks

(Morton, 1969; Morton & Chambers, 1973). Essentially, word reading takes less time to

process than naming the color of ink. The Stroop effect arises, therefore, due to this

difference in processing speed and a competition for response. When one is presented

with a color word written in colored ink they have two options: to name the word or to

name the color of the ink. According to the theory, stimulus analyzers for both the color

of the ink and the color word work in parallel to create a response. If multiple responses
are possible, however, the various responses will compete to be the exiting response.

This idea is known as response competition and will lead to a time costinterference.

The direction of this interference is determined by the processing speeds of the various

components. In the case of the Stroop task, the color word is processed faster;

therefore, the color word interferes with naming the ink color.

This theory is able to explain a surprising amount of the research. Facilitation can

be easily explained as the two congruent components could potentially prime one other

and lead to faster processing, in addition to the fact that either response would be

correct. Relative processing speed theory, however, cannot explain why direct

manipulations in processing speed through reorientation or practice do not produce

results consistent with this theoretical perspective (for more information see Dunbar &

MacLeod, 1984; MacLeod & Dunbar, 1988). Also, the theory essentially states that

interference should always be asymmetrical. This does not, however, have to be the

case. One can theoretically change which response will be received first by altering the

onsets of the stimuli. SOA studies have shown that interference is not an orderly

function of processing speed, as exposing the slower dimension first does not lead to a

clear reversal of the effect by allowing the the color name to catch up and interfere

with the read word (Glaser & Glaser, 1982; Glaser & Glaser, 1989, Kahnemand &

Chajczyk, 1983).

Automaticity of Reading Theory.

Another theory, which follows along in a similar vein, explains the Stroop effect

by assuming that reading is automatic. According to this theory, reading is automatic

due to the fact that it is obligatory and does not require attention (Posner & Snyder,

1975). When one sees a word he or she will read it either voluntarily or involuntarily. In

many situations this would not be a problem. This is an issue, however, when the

person does not want to read the word but, for example, should name the color of the

ink instead, as is the case in the Stroop task. The desire to name the ink color as
opposed to the word leads to one having to inhibit the automatic reading response and

leads to interference with the less automatic process (naming the ink color). Lastly, the

more automatic process always interferes with the less automatic process but never

vice versa, which can explain the asymmetry findings.

This theory is able to account for the results of many different analogous Stroop

tasks and can explain why varying the SOA would have little to no influence on the

effect due to the fact that reading would remain automatic and still need to be inhibited

regardless of when it is presented. The main problem with the automaticity of reading

theory is that reading may not, in fact, be automatic. If reading was completely

automatic, strategy use should have no impact on the effect. As various strategies can

be used to influence ones performancethereby leading to a correlation between ones

working memory capacity ones performance on the taskthis does not appear to be

the case. Furthermore, spatial separation should also have no effect, which is not what

the research suggests.

Risko, Stolz, and Besner (2005) conducted three experiments combining Stroop

and visual search tasks. All of this results that reading is not purely automatic and

obligatory. It is possible, however, that automaticity is not strictly dichotomous and

should instead be placed on a continuum (MacLeod & Dunbar, 1988).

The Attention System of the Human Brain

As is the case for sensory and motor systems of the brain, our knowledge of the

anatomy of attention is incomplete. Nevertheless, we can now begin to identify some

principles of organization that allow attention to function as a unified system for the

control of mental processing. Although many of our points are still speculative and

controversial, we believe they constitute a basis for more detailed studies of attention

from a cognitiveneuroscience viewpoint. Perhaps even more important for furthering

future studies, multiple methods of mental chronometry, brain lesions,

electrophysiology, and several types of neuroimaging have converged on common

findings. (Mesulam 1981, Rizzolatti et a11985)

Self-Regulation Theory

Self-regulation which is also called inhibitory control is evident on the stroop task in this

experiment, wherein a participant names the color with and without word interference.

Self-regulation as one of the executive functions of the brain, prevent an individual from

making an automatic response based on a dominant stimulus (Cameron Ponitz et al.,

2008; Rueda et al., 2005). In the experiment, this explains why participant tend to go

through choosing to attention to the color even with word interference.

Piagets Formal Operational Stage

Formal operational stage according to Piaget begins at about 11-12 years. Formal

thoughts are governed by abstraction and formal reasoning involves coordinating

multiple relationships. This has something to say about the difference in the color

naming with and without word interference especially on how adolescents may differ

from those of the other age groups. Formal thought may also be difficult even for adults.

Thus, even adolescents and adults who are capable of formal thought do not always

use it effectively.