Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamson, C., Foster, T., & McEwan, J. (2000). Delayed matching-tosample: The effects of sample-set size on human performance. Behavioural Processes, 49, 149–161.
Aron, A. R. (2007). The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. The Neuroscientist, 13, 214–228.
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 170–177.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
Broadbent, D. E. (1970). Stimulus set and response set: Two kinds of selective attention. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 51–60). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress. London: Academic Press.
Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M. (1964). Stimulus set and response set: The alternation of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 309–317.
Caramazza, A., & Costa, A. (2001). Set size and repetition in the picture- word interference paradigm: Implications for models of naming. Cognition, 80, 291–298.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.
Cohen, J. D., & Huston, T. A. (1994). Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 453–476). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, J. D., Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (1998). A PDP approach to set size effects within the Stroop task: Reply to Kanne, Balota, Spieler, and Faust (1998). Psychological Review, 105, 188–194.
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215.
Deutsch, J. A. (1977). On the category effect in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 590–592.
French, R., & Perruchet, P. (2009). Generating constrained randomized sequences: Item frequency matters. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1233–1241.
Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.
Kanne, S., Balota, D., Spieler, D., & Faust, M. (1998). Explorations of Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland’s (1990) connectionist model of Stroop performance. Psychological Review, 105, 174–187.
Klein, G. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
La Heij, W. (1988). Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition, 16, 400–410.
La Heij, W., Van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Schreuder, R. (1985). Semantic priming and Stroop-like interference in word-naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 62–80.
Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs, A. (2007). Role of Gestalt grouping in selective attention: Evidence from the Stroop task. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1305–1314.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
MacLeod, C. M. (2005). The Stroop task in cognitive research. In A. Wenzel & D. Rubin (Eds.), Cognitive methods and their application to clinical research (pp. 17–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nielsen, G. D. (1975). The locus and mechanism of the Stroop color word effect (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 5672-B.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Proctor, R. (1978). Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 413–419.
Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1966). Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 264–272.
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.
Ray, C. (1974). The manipulation of color response times in a color-word interference task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 101–104.
Ridderinkhof, R. K. (2002a). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ridderinkhof, R. K. (2002b). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 312–323.
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.
Roelofs, A. (2001). Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 80, 283–290.
Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125.
Roelofs, A. (2008). Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: Analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 303–323.
Samuel, A., & Kat, D. (2003). Inhibition of return: A graphical metaanalysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 897–906.
Schneider, D., & Verbruggen, F. (2008). Inhibition of irrelevant category response mappings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1629–1640.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Styles, E. A. (2006). The psychology of attention. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 321–343.
West, R., & Alain, C. (2000). Age-related decline in inhibitory control contributes to the increased Stroop effect observed in older adults. Psychophysiology, 37, 179–189.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The preparation of the article was supported by a VICI grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to A.R.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lamers, M.J.M., Roelofs, A. & Rabeling-Keus, I.M. Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition 38, 893–904 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.893
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.893