Stroop Effect

Introduction

The Stroop Effect is a psychological experiment in which a participant must say the colour of a word
rather than the word itself. For example, ‘blue’ might be printed in red colour and the participant
must say the colour (red) rather than the word (blue). It refers to the delayed response time when
the colour of the word doesn't match the name of the word. It was created by John Ridley Stroop in
1935.

The Stroop Effect can be used for assessing an individual’s cognitive processing speed and their
attentional capacity. It is also modified in numerous ways to examine neurodevelopmental disorders
such as schizophrenia and autism.

Aim

To determine, investigate and assess whether a word's meaning interferes with the ability to state
the word's colour by using the Stroop effect. To also investigate if age affects the response time.

Hypothesis

The brain will have a propensity to peruse the words, as opposed to the colour of the words. The
words written in matching colours (e.g. ‘Red’ written in red colour) will be simple to peruse as they
will match up with the words. However, the clashing of stimuli in the words with different colours
(e.g. ‘Red’ written in blue colour) will confuse the brain and will increase the response time. Age
difference will also significantly impact the results. Children, teenagers, and adults (aged 20-30
years) will have a much quicker response times than older adults (aged 40-60 years).

Materials

 Stopwatch
 2 sets of flashcards: corresponding words and colours, non-corresponding words and colours
 Chart/table for recording data
 5 male participants of age groups (8 years – 59 years)
 Calculator
 Computer
 Printer with coloured ink
 6 A4 size papers

Method

1. To start with, print out a set of cards. The first set should include 22 cards of the same
corresponding words and colours. E.g. if the word is blue, then the colour of text should also
be blue. The set should include ten different colours, each colour coming twice in a random
order. The ten colours to be used should be: blue, red, green, yellow, black, grey, brown,
orange, pink and purple.

2. The second set should also include 22 cards but should not have corresponding words and
colours. E.g. if the word is yellow, then the colour of the text can be anything but yellow. The
ten colours used should be as per step 1.
3. Create a table consisting of 6 columns and 6 rows with the title ‘1st set- Corresponding
Colours’. Column heading: Participant Name, Age (in years), Trial 1 Time (seconds), Trial 2
Time (seconds), Trial 3 Time (seconds) and Average Time (seconds).

4. Create another table consisting of 6 columns and 6 rows with the title ‘2nd Set- Non-
Corresponding Colours’. The column headings should be same as per step 3.

5. Select a participant and first fill in details about name and age in both the tables.

6. Give the participant the 1st set of cards which has corresponding words and colours.

7. Explain to the participant that he must read the colour of the text rather than the text itself
and that he has to repeat these 3 times.

8. Measure, using a stopwatch, how long it takes for the participant to read out all the words in
the set of cards and then record the time (in seconds) in the column named ‘Trial 1 Time’ in
Table ‘1st set- Corresponding Colours’.

9. Repeat step ‘8’ twice and record the results in ‘Trial 2 Time’ and ‘Trial 3 Time’ respectively.

10. Calculate the average time of the three trials using a calculator and record the result in the
final column named ‘Average Time (Seconds)’.

11. Give the participant the 2nd set of cards which has non-corresponding words and colours.

12. Explain to the participant that he must read the colour of the text rather than the text itself
and that he has to repeat these 3 times.

13. Measure using a stopwatch, the time it takes for the participant to read out all of the words
in the set of cards and record the time (in seconds) in the column named ‘Trial 1 Time’ in
Table ‘2nd Set- Non-Corresponding Colours.

14. Repeat step ‘13’ twice and record the results in ‘Trial 2 Time’ and ‘Trial 3 Time’ respectively.

15. Calculate the average time of the three trials using a calculator and record the result in the
final column named ‘Average Time (Seconds)’.

16. Repeat steps 5 to 15 with 4 other participants, recording the data for each participant.

17. Create another table, named ‘Comparison of Average Times in Two Sets’ with 3 columns and
6 rows. Name the columns as ‘Participant Name’, ‘Average Time (Seconds) 1st Set-
Corresponding Colours’ and ‘Average Time (Seconds) 2nd Set – Non-Corresponding Colours’.

18. Copy each participant’s name, and the average time from Set 1 and Set 2 into the new table
created in step 17. Besides participant’s name include their age in brackets.

19. Plot the data from the table ‘Comparison of Average Times in Two Sets’ into a clustered
column graph.
 20. Compare, contrast, and discuss results.

Results

1st Set – Corresponding Colours

Participant Age Trial 1 Time Trial 2 Time Trial 3 Time Average time
Name (Years) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds)
Abhinav 44 14.732 14.102 12.298 13.711
Prakhar 13 14.308 13.814 13.505 13.876
Simone 59 17.455 18.766 17.69 17.97
Evin 8 8.74 8.567 7.988 8.432
Matthew 28 10.556 9.878 10.109 10.181

2nd Set- Non-Corresponding Colours

Participant Age Trial 1 Time Trial 2 Time Trial 3 Time Average time
Name (Years) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds)
Abhinav 44 44.396 44.135 43.477 44.003
Prakhar 13 30.102 29.997 27.653 29.251
Simone 59 55.673 54.622 54.118 54.804
Evin 8 23.209 23.113 21.376 22.566
Matthew 28 22.119 22.107 21.433 21.886

Comparison of ‘Average Times’ in Two Sets

Participant Name Average time (Seconds)- Average time (Seconds)- 2nd

1st Set- Corresponding Set- Non-Corresponding
Colours Colours
Abhinav (44) 13.711 44.003
Prakhar (13) 13.876 29.251
Simone (59) 17.97 54.804
Evin (8) 8.432 22.566
Matthew (28) 10.181 21.886
 Comparison of 'Average Times' in Two Sets
60 54.804

50 44.003
Time (Seconds)

40
29.251
30
22.566 21.886
17.97
20
13.711 13.876
8.432 10.181
10

0
Abhinav (44) Prakhar (13) Simone (59) Evin (8) Matthew (28)
Participant Name (Age)

Average time (Seconds)- 1st Set- Corresponding Colours

Average time (Seconds)- 2nd Set- Non-Corresponding Colours

Discussion

The results successfully demonstrated that reading out the words with non-corresponding colours
took additional time. There were huge time contrasts for each participant between their first
arrangement of cards with corresponding words and colours to their second arrangement of cards
with non-corresponding words and colours. The results additionally, viably depicted the time
difference between various age groups (8-59). There are time differences between all the five
participants, suggesting that their brain processes information at an alternate speed dependent on
their age. The results likewise demonstrated that the reaction times of the brain improved after
repeating the test multiple times. After repeating the test once or twice, the brain starts to get
familiarised with the content that it is processing and so can process it quicker than the time it
would take to process something completely new.

The first participant to be tested was Abhinav. This participant's time contrast between the two
arrangements of cards was a little more than 30 seconds. Research demonstrates that the brain and
the body start becoming less effective at the age of 40. Being the second oldest from the group of
participants (aged 44), the reaction time was significantly higher than some of the youthful
participants in the group. In the two sets of cards, the reaction times gradually improved after doing
the test multiple times. The first trial was the slowest in the two sets and the third trial was the
quickest. While there was a minor time distinction between the first and second trial, the third trial
had a substantially greater time contrast. These results demonstrated that for this participant, the
brain was adjusting to the content rapidly so by the time of the third trial, the brain was familiarised
enough to process the information faster than it could have when it was processing information
during trial 1. Abhinav mentioned after doing the second set that it was much more difficult to
oversight the content of the text and read out the colour of the text. This explains the increase in the
response time in set 2.

The second participant to be tested was Prakhar. This participant is in his teenage years and is one of
the more youthful participants in the group. This participant's reaction times in the first set were
quite like that of Abhinav's. When taking a gander at average times, this participant's average time
was the second longest. These results highly contradict with his results in the second set. While
having comparable times to that of Abhinav in set 1, this participant's time was much lower to
Abhinav's in the second set. While the participant's average time in set 2 was the third highest, the
time contrast between the 2 sets for this participant was just around 16 seconds compared to
Abhinav's 30 seconds. This participant's reaction times likewise gradually enhanced after repeating
the test, suggesting that his brain too was acclimatising to the content being processed.

The third participant to be tested was Simone. This participant is the oldest in the group. Being aged
59, his brain does not process information as quickly as other participants which is apparent in the
results. In all trials, his times were higher than anyone else in the group. With this participant there
was no improvement in time after each trial whereas all the other participants had gradually
improved their response times in successive trials. While the response times were varied, with some
being higher and some being lower than others, they were in no set pattern, demonstrating no
confirmation of the brain acclimatising itself to the content being processed.

The 4th participant to be tested was Evin. Aged just 8, he is the youngest participant in the group and
at a stage where his brain is developing and growing rapidly. His confidence in reading out the words
quickly was evident in the results as well. In the 1st set he had the quickest response time, and in the
2nd set he had the 2nd quickest response time. This participant’s response time also gradually
improved after repeating the trial for a couple of times. This participant’s brain had the least
difficulty in familiarising itself with the content being processed, allowing it to have the quickest
response time. After doing the test, Evin stated that it was much easier to read the content with
corresponding colours as they synchronized rather than reading the words with non-corresponding
colours.

The last participant to be tested was Matthew. Aged 28, this participant’s brain is at the stage where
it has just stopped developing. The results of the participant indicate that the brain is working at it’s
strongest when it has just stopped developing, from the mid-20’s to mid-30’s. This participant had
the 2nd quickest response time in the 1st set and had the quickest response time in the 2nd set. While
there was no evidence of the response times improving in the 1st set after multiple trials, the
response times slightly improved in the 2nd set.

The time difference between every participant in the group strongly indicates that age is a vital
factor when doing the Stroop Test. After the age of 45 the brain works less proficiently. The more
youthful participants of the group such as Evin, Prakhar and Matthew had quicker response times to
that of some of the more senior participants in the group such as Abhinav and Simone. Not only did
all participants take longer to read out the words in set 2, they also fumbled a few times and had to
repeat or even skip some words due to the difficulty and intensity of the moment. This strengthens
the belief that the word’s meaning interferes with the word’s colour.

The experiment could have produced more accurate results, however, to perceive a better
understanding of the Stroop Effect and the human brain. The inclusion of more colours and
projecting the experiment on a bigger screen for the participants to read out could have differed the
results and made them more accurate. The inclusion of more participants from different age groups
would have given us an extended knowledge of the Stroop Effect and the impact on the response
times.
Conclusion

The hypothesis stated was correct, with the results clearly showing a major time contrast between
the 2 sets of corresponding colours and non-corresponding colours. The word’s meaning interferes
with the ability to state the word’s colour and this is evident from the results as well as the
participants’ feedback. Reading out the text with non-corresponding colours took a lot longer than
reading out the text with corresponding colours irrespective of the participant’s age. However, with
multiple trials, the response time gradually improved. The results also showed that younger
participants took less time to read the text in both the scenarios. This implies that their brain is
processing information faster than the older participants.

Bibliography
Author/ Year last Title of Name of the Date URL
Owner updated Webpage organisation/ Viewed
Website
Kendra 2018 The Stroop Verywellmind.com 25/02/2018 https://www.verywellmind.com/w
hat-is-the-stroop-effect-2795832
Cherry Effect: Naming
the Colour but
not the word
Bryn 2016 The Stroop Imotions.com 25/02/2018 https://imotions.com/blog/the-
stroop-effect/
Farnsworth Effect – How it
Works and
Why
Julian Trubin 2013 Stroop Effect Juliantrubin.com 20/02/2018 http://www.juliantrubin.com/ency
clopedia/psychology/stroop_effect.
Experiments,
html
Labs and
Studies