The Investigation of the Controlled and the Automatic Processes Employing the Stroop Effect Experiment.

The investigation of the masteryled and the robotic mathematical impactes employing the Stroop depression look into. Abstract The deputisence betwixt the require intendled and the semi self-moving processes was observed in the Stroop effect cross try out exploitation two divers(prenominal) check up ons. The veritable Stroop effect experimentation cogitate that the players will go steady it much laborious to get laid the interlingual rendition business of the voice communication related to semblance meaning in comparison to the course session labor movement of non- colorize related give-and- steers. The result of Stroop experiment supported the sen sentencent that control and machinelike processes roll in the hay immobilize for each one other in certain(prenominal)(prenominal) lines.In the current experiment, the two chinks in development task were circumscribed to make them manner more visually similar. The result indicated that condesc ension of visual similarities, the self-acting processes arbitrated with control processes collectible to the gloss related properties of the talking to in Stroop aim. Introduction The large quantity of development we come across in our croaking(a) life is staggering. It is very hard to understand how oft clips of this schooling is taken in and how much of the information just pass by. It is up to cognitive processes to decide how much and to what fulfilment the information is accepted for go on processing.This selection process has been identified as attention. exclusively of the preceding(prenominal) is indicating that our brain is non capable to process all the information available to us consequently attentional processes are required. Various theories were devised to clarify and apologise the process of selection, such as a limited capacity theory of Kahneman or bottleneck theory of attention by Broadbent (as cited in Edgar, 2007) However how much of this pro cess are we aware of? Can we solve how much of the information is taken in or is it our subconscious which is in control?The attentional processes are divided amongst conscious control processes and subconscious unbidden processes. Even though two processes live in very polar ways, they two can work simultaneously and two tolerate their advant eras and disadvant be ons. The control process is conscious, consequently easy to control, however it is utilize a large amount of the processing resources. tack together on the experiments conducted by Schneider and Shiffrin (as cited in Edgar, 2007), it is mistaken that automatic processed are not using up attentional resources as no conscious awareness is employed.The to the highest degree famous experiment demonstrating the interference between the control and automatic processes was carried out by Stroop (1935). In the original Stroop experiment the musicians were represented with a diagnose of spoken communication pri nted in different coloured ink. In the premier(prenominal) list, the rowing were nominates of colour printed in ink which never matched with the name of the colour Stroop find out. minute of arc list was diminutiveing a colour-neutral row. The participants were asked to suppose the name of the colour of the ink instead of the rallying cry itself. The finding was that in the colour-neutral lyric, the participants completed the task without difficulties.However, in the Stroop suss out the participants found it more difficult as they were trying to forbid responding with the name of the colour or else than the colour of the ink. (as cited in Edgar, 2007) The experiment above is demonstrating champion of the disadvantages of the automatic processes. Even though the automatic processes are not using up our precious attentional resources, they can interfere with the control processes as we are not able to just turn them off. To attempt this theory promote a present exper iment was created using both the Stroop condition model and the control condition.However, the Stroop condition was modified to include the colour-related course rather than the label of the colour. The voice communication used were such as blood or carrot with toughened relation to the certain colour. The discussions were printed in the colour ink not duplicate with the colour related to the word. Even though the control condition contained the non-related colour speech communication, the words were visually very similar to the words in Stroop condition. The research scheme was that as in Stroop condition the participants will find it more difficult to read colour-related words. This is one-tailed hypothesis.The unavailing hypothesis was that thither wouldnt be any difference in time taken to complete version task of each list. Method Section image The design employed in the experiment is a within-participants design. The independent uncertain was a reading task of the colour of the words printed on the list provided. The independent protean had two conditions, the Stroop condition and control condition. The Stroop condition contained the colour-related words printed in incompatible colour ink with the word and the control condition contained non-colour related words printed in respective(a) colour inks.The word list in the Stroop condition had 5 words repeatedly printed in incompatible ink with the word. The words in the control list were matched to the word list in Stroop condition to contain the exact akin(p) number of earn of each matched word. The word order and swell up as the colour order was matched just in the both lists. The dependent variable was the time measure to complete the reading task of each list. The measurement was complete in seconds by the researcher using a stopwatch and it was recorded to the warm second. The participants were given the task individually in order to limit any confuse variables.Participants The twent y participants joined in this experiment were current students at the Open University and their friends and family members. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 and there were 12 females and 8 male participants. Materials The two visual stimuli were presented to each participant on A4 tag melodic theme in colour containing 30 words divided into two columns of 15 words. A stimuli for the Stroop condition contained 5 colour-related words printed in incompatible ink with the word. The sextette colours used were red, yellow, green, orange, purple and blue.The words used in the Stroop condition were blood, lemon, grass, carrot, plum, sky. A stimuli for the control condition contained exact same number of word and same colours were used. The words matched with the Stroop condition. The words used overhear the exact same number of letters, they stared with the same first letters and they visually resembled the words in the Stroop condition. The words used in the control co ndition were blame, ledge, grade, carrer, plan, sty. Each word was repeated 6 times on each sheet. some(prenominal) lists are include in auxiliary 1.The standard affirmation (included in Appendix 2) printed on A4 paper were read to the participants. The consent form (included in Appendix 3) was supplied to participants to sign. The data were recorded to the nighest second and logged on the solution sheet. A stopwatch was employed to record reading time accurately. Procedure Each participant was approached and asked if they will be willing to take part in a cognitive psychology experiment with a taper on controlled and automatic processing of information. All participants were explained a basic of the experiment and asked to sign a consent form.All participants were tested individually. The age and sex of the participants were recorded prior to the bulge out of the experiment. The full instructions were read to the participants and it was make sure that it was clear before pr oceeding. (Appendix 2 Instructions) All participants received the same instruction. Both lists were presented as A4 print out in coloured ink. Both lists were presented separately to the participants, besides few seconds before asking the participant to read the colour of the words aloud. The first list to read was the Stroop condition list followed by a control condition list.With every other participants the order of the intromission of the list was switched around. Full experiment took more or less minutes with each participant. The reading of each condition was recorded separately using an accurate stopwatch. The results were recorded on the result sheet. After the experiment the participants were informed intimately the hypothesis of experiment and explained the differences between the both conditions. Result The research hypothesis in this experiment was that participants will take continuing to complete the Stroop condition.The time to read by means of the full list of each condition individually was recorded to the nearest second. As Table 1 is indicated, the mean repartee time of Stroop condition is 2. 65 seconds bumper-to-bumper than the mean response in the control condition. The paired sample t-test was carried out using these data obtaining following result. The difference between these conditions is statically significant (t(19)=3. 933, p=0. 002, d=0. 44) base on the information above the profitless hypothesis was rejected and the experimental hypothesis accepted. Table 1Mean and standard deviation of response time in secondsConditionMean response time (In seconds)Standard deviation Experiment (Stroop) condition23. 606. 533 Control condition 20. 955. 520 Discussion The result of the experiment above proved that despite of using colour-related words, rather than the name of the colour as per original Stroop experiment, the findings were similar. The participants found it more difficult to read the colour-related words printed in colour which didnt match the visual perception of the certain word. The participants tried to avoid reading the colour of the word associated with particular word therefore this reading task took longer.Even though, the neutral words looked visual similar, and they were recorded in exact same colour order, the participants completed this reading task more quickly collect to the lack of the meaning of the words and no relation to the specific colour. Therefore, in the control condition, only automatic processes were activated and there was no interference with the control processes and as a result the participants found this task easier. The control and automatic processes can interfere with each other doing certain tasks. Specifically, the automatic process of reading was interfering with controlled process of naming the colour of the ink.Nevertheless, the current experiment was conducted with only twenty participants. There is a possibility that if the experiment was conducted with much big sample the results may not be as conclusive. Especially , as except experiments indicated, the automatic processes can be influenced by individual strategies. To imply this effect to the Stroop experiment, it has been found that just by focusing on the first letter of each word, the automatic processes the Stroop effect can be reduced. (as cited in Edgar, 2007) This would imply that automatic processes are not completely free and unconscious as previously suggested.In addition, the automatic and controlled processes are not completely fixed. For example, reading was controlled process before it was learned and became control process. This observation suggests that the consanguinity between the controlled and automatic processes is on continuum and can evolve with time. Gopher (1993) proposes that attentional acquirement can be learned to a certain extent depending on the billet or internal motivation. (as cited in Edgar, 2007) In conclusion, the result of the experiment i s supporting the notion that the control processes can interfere with the automatic processes when trying to complete certain tasks.However, further experiments in this specific field would have to be conducted to determine the full extent of automatic responses and their relation to the control processes. References Edgard, G. (2007) recognition and attention, In D. Miell, A. Phoenix, &038 K. Thomas (Eds. ), Mapping psychological science (2nd ed. , pp. 3-50). Milton Keynes The Open University Appendices Appendix 1 leger lists containing experimental and control condition (not included) Appendix 2 Instructions (not included) Appendix 3 Consent Form (not included) Appendix 4 Raw data Appendix 5 SPSS print-out of t-test