Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task
until further notice
SourceMemory & Cognition, 38, 7, (2010), pp. 893-904
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
SW OZ DCC CO
SW OW PsKI [owi]
SW OW PsKI (owi)
Memory & Cognition
SubjectDI-BCB_DCC_Theme 1: Language and Communication; Psycholinguistics
Response set membership contributes much to the interference in the color word Stroop task. This may be due to selective allocation of attention to eligible responses or, alternatively, to greater inhibition of distractors that are not responses. In the present article, we report two experiments that were designed to adjudicate between these accounts. In Experiment 1, membership was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis by cuing the possible responses for each trial. Response time (RT) was longer for distractors that corresponded to a cued, eligible response than to an ineligible one. This cuing effect was independent of the number of different responses. In Experiment 2, the distractor was cued on half the trials. Cuing the distractor decreased RTs on both incongruent and congruent trials. Vincentile analyses in both experiments revealed that the effects were constant throughout the entire RT distributions. These results suggest that response set effects arise because of selective allocation of attention to eligible responses.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) tolog in with SURFconextto upload a file for processing by the repository team.