The Impact of Dyslectic Priming on the Stroop Effect

Abstract

Increasing experimental evidence suggested that the Stroop effect and priming effect have a significant impact on individuals’ behavior and perceptions. The current study aimed to investigate the influence of dyslexia priming on the Stroop effect. The study was conducted on 420Deakin University psychology students, without consideration of age and gender. All students completed the online-based Stroop task experiment in which a series of congruent and incongruent words were presented in separate trials to determine the students’ reaction time. The study was conducted in two different phases, before and after dyslectic priming manipulation, which was about what it would be like to have severe dyslexia, both containing congruent and incongruent trials. Participants’ reaction time on the correct trails were measured.  Results indicated that the reaction times for the harmonious trails were quicker relative to the incongruent trials before priming. However, after priming, there was no significant difference in reaction time between the congruent and incongruent trials. The results supported both of two hypotheses. These findings determined that dyslectic priming eliminated the Stroop effect involuntarily.

Moreover, the results extended the understanding of the impact of priming on individuals’ behavior and perception. The findings of the study contribute in several ways to improving the knowledge of the cognitive process, automatic processes, and how the priming effect has a significant impact on the elimination of the Stroop effect. Precisely, Stroop interference could be eliminated under certain conditions. The study has extended the understanding of the development of the cognitive process/cognitive approach to the perception of the world.

The Impact of Dyslectic Priming on the Stroop Effect

The Stroop effect refers to a phenomenon in psychology that the brain’s reaction slows down when naming the printed color of a word that conflicts with the meaning of the word (Raz et al.,2006). John Ridley Stroop is known for discovering the Stroop effect in 1935 (Stroop, 1935).

The Stroop task is a psychological test, which has been broadly researched since its disclosure during the 1930s. It includes a choice around one component of a multidimensional stimulus where different measurements may differ or concur with the judgment measurement (Logan, 1980). The Stroop effect alludes to people’s inclination to encounter trouble naming a natural shading when it is utilized to spell the name of an alternate shading (the word blue written in red ink, for the most part, alluded to as the incongruent condition. Yet not when individuals just read out shading words (the word red printed in red ink, known as a consistent condition), or when perusing out words in dark ink or shades of square shape patches (impartial condition). The obstruction impact happens in naming the print color of a word when the word itself is the name of another color. However, impedance inside the compatible condition itself has named the incoherency effect (Barnes et al., 2003), and the facilitation effect alludes to the distinction among harmonious and nonpartisan situations (Chen et al., 2001). Stroop task is considered as an appraisal of impedance and preparing speed and has been changed in a wide range of approaches to the first rundown-based undertaking. Consequently, a massive assortment of studies has begun to utilize pictorial versus words stimuli, card versus PC introductions, visual versus sound-related stimuli, or rundown versus single stimuli, and assignments have been changed by the vocal versus manual reaction position ( Jira, 2018).

Stroop’s original experiment entails three stimuli: congruent (names of colors match the ink in which they are written), incongruent (names of colors conflict with the ink in which they are written), and neutral (squares of solid colors). Stroop task demonstrated there was a significant difference in reaction times for the congruent and incongruent trials; the interference occurred from the automatic process of the reading (Raz et al.,2006). The automaticity described when people respond to information without any cognitive effort (Reisberg, 2018).Most of the time, automatic processes save people time and cognitive effort, which are very useful. However, it is occasionally people who might want to override these processes and need to exert cognitive control to do so. It is useful to understand more about the factors that help people to exert this control or limit the automatic process from occurring in the first place.

Stroop’s original experiment involved two trials. In the initial trial, the respondents were presented with names of colors in a different ink from the colored name. Where the word ‘red’ was printed in blue, it was to be called ‘blue,’ which is the incongruent trails. In the second trial, the respondents were presented with squares of a given solid color, which is the neutral trails (Stroop, 1935).For each trial, the time the subjects took to say the color names of the print was recorded. The subjects took a mean 74% longer and made more mistakes when completing the task in the incongruent trial than in the neutral trail, which indicated that interference occurs when identifying a color incongruent with the word printed. The experiment provided evidence for the automaticity in reading. It showed that the automatic process interfered with completing the required task when there was a conflict between two sources of information.

Many researchers have investigated the factors that limit the Stroop effect. Raz et al. (2006) conducted a study to govern whether a simple direct suggestion to experience Stroop words as pointless symbols in a foreign language could reduce the Stroop effect in highly suggestible individuals. In the study, those participating were told to see the construct words as meaningless foreign symbols. Each of the participants completed the task twice, once receiving suggestions that the stimulus seemed meaningless, and the second time without the suggestions. Half the participants received the proposal in hypnosis, and half received the suggestion without the induction of hypnosis. This experiment included three experimental conditions: neutral, congruent, and incongruent. It was found that a direct proposal produced a significant reduction in the Stroop effect, regardless of whether hypnosis had been induced or not, and that there was a remarkable variance in reaction times when comparing dissimilar and neutral trails. Those findings indicated that direct suggestions could override the automatic processes associated with the Stroop effect. In turn, cognitive processes could be de-automatized via cognitive control (Raz et al.,2006).

Another study examined the impact of priming on an individual’s behavior (Bargh et al., 1996). Priming is an increased sensitivity to a particular schema due to a recent experience (Bargh et al., 1996). This study aimed to investigate whether people’s social behaviors could be automatically activated through social priming manipulation. The experimental subjects were randomly assigned to three different prime conditions: rude, polite and neutral in which they were given a sentence primed with words about rudeness (for example disturb, bother, interrupt), politeness (for instance appreciate, courteous, polite), and a neutral sentence (for example send, watches, and ages), respectively. In part one of the experiment, the subjects were required to grammatically correct sentences in a Scrambled Sentence Test, which exposed them to words related to the concept being primed. In part two of the experiments, the subjects were required to find the experimenter. The experimenter was waiting for them down the hall, pretending to be in conversation with the united. The time it took the participants to interrupt the conversation between the experimenter and the confederate was compared among the three different prime groups. It was found that the average time for interrupting the conversation was significantly shorter for the group primed with words associated with rudeness, and there was no significant variance between the participants in the polite-prime condition and neutral condition. This study indicated that the brain and social interaction behavior could be primed in a certain way. Environmental features of the stereotypes informed how people viewed the world and influenced people’s social behaviors unconsciously and automatically.

These past studies have been valuable in forming an understanding of the critical aspect of the cognitive process. Findings indicated that a direct suggestion to see the Stroop word as pointless symbols reduced the Stroop effect. Besides, social priming manipulation noticeably influenced an individual’s social interaction behavior. The findings shift the focus on the Stroop effect from consciousness into the cognitive concept (Raz et al., 2006).Whether an indirect suggestion-based on social priming would reduce the Stroop effect. What happens when participants were prevented from reading the words differently? The current study aimed to examine whether dyslectic priming will reduce the Stroop effect. It was hypothesized that the participants would react faster in the congruent trials than incongruent trials before priming. It was also hypothesized that the Stroop effect would be reduced after, compared with before, dyslectic priming.

Method

Participants

Four hundred and twenty participants completed the experiment. They were students enrolled in HPS203 and HPS773 during Trimester 1, 2020. Age and sex were not recorded.

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed the experiment online. They completed a Stroop task in which they had to name the ink color of each word presented on a computer screen. In incongruent trials, ink color was different from the color word (e.g., RED showed in green ink). Incongruent trials, ink color, was the same as the color word (e.g., YELLOW showed in yellow ink). Four colors were selected (blue, green, red, and yellow); they appeared with equal frequency across trials. Participants were instructed to press the key on the keyboard that matched the ink color. They were told to respond quickly and without making errors. The “B” key represented blue, the “G” key represented green, red was represented by “R: the “Y” key represented key, and yellow. Participants completed 12 trials. Reaction times for correct responses were recorded for congruent and incongruent trials.

After taking part in the Stroop task, participants were given dyslectic priming in the form of sentences to read and questions to answer. They were given 2 minutes to type their thoughts into a textbox to answer the questions at the end of the sentences. The sentences and questions were:

”Mark is 25 years old, and he has very severe dyslexia. He cannot read or write at all; it can be said that Mark is completely illiterate. For the next 2 minutes, think and write about Mark’s everyday life. What does his daily routine look like? What are the things that he is good at, and what are the things that he is bad at?”

After 2 minutes, participants completed another 12 Stroop trials.

Results

Mean reaction times for correct responses on congruent and incongruent trials are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Mean reaction times for correct trials (ms)

Note. Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

Two paired t-tests were conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between reaction times for congruent vs. incongruent trials before the dyslectic priming and after the dyslectic priming. Before priming, there was a significant difference in reaction time between the congruent and incongruent trials, t(419) = 5.41, p = .001. After priming, there was no significant difference in reaction time between the congruent and incongruent trials, t(419) = 1.21, p = .24.

Discussion

The current study examined the effect of dyslectic priming on the Stroop effect. The results demonstrated that there was a significant difference in participants’ reaction times between the congruent and incongruent trials before priming, and there was no significant difference in participants’ reaction time between the congruent and incongruent trials after priming. The result supported the hypothesis that the participants would react faster in the congruent trials than incongruent trials before priming. In other words, the results demonstrated the Stroop effect. It was also supported the hypothesis that the reaction time between incongruent and congruent trials would be reduced after, compared with before, dyslectic priming, which indicated that no Stroop effect was demonstrated. In other words, dyslectic priming substantially eliminated the Stroop effect.

Both of the current experiments and Raz et al. (2006) study aimed to investigate the factors that interrupt automatic processing and reduce the Stroop effect. However, the results were slightly different. Comparing to Raz et al. (2006), who found that the direct suggestion substantially reduced the Stroop effect, the current study indicated that an indirect suggestion based on “social priming” eliminated the Stroop effect. Moreover, there were methodological differences between the two studies too. Raz and colleagues’ application of the word blindness suggestion directly told the participants to see the words as meaningless symbols. In the current study, the participants received an indirect suggestion based on “social priming.” Accordingly, both the current study and that conducted by Bargh et al. (1996)aimed to examine whether the social priming manipulation would influence performance, by the same priming method, and correspondingly, consistencies in the results can be identified. Bargh et al. (1996) demonstrated increased rudeness by participants primed with “rude” concepts. In the current study, dyslectic priming had a negative influence on the subjects’ ability to read that reduced Stroop interference. Eventually, It can be concluded that social priming significantly impacts an individual’s social, behavioral change, and cognitive-behavioral change, and this influence was mostly involuntary.

All of these previous studies mentioned above, and the current research, confirmed that within specific contexts, the Stroop effect could be significantly reduced. Moreover, these findings have significant implications for understanding the automatic process and how cognitive controls override the automatic process. In the experiment, participants showed the Stroop effect before dyslexia priming. Because reading words in a language people are fluent in is an automatic process, an individual can process and read words faster than identify and name colors. When the meaning of the words and the colors were incongruent, a state of confusion was created; the brain required a particular amount of attention to enable the correct processing of the answer, which led to increased reaction time. Participants did not show the Stroop effect after the priming task because of the effect of dyslexia priming, which determined that the exposure of individuals to words related to a certain stereotype, might unconsciously influence one’s behavior. Subtle priming of dyslectic in the environment can affect participants’ behavior and responses unconsciously. It demonstrated that automatic processes, like reading, can be overcome under the trigger of priming. In other words, priming can partially overcome the automaticity associated with the Stroop effect.

There were two major limitations to this study. The first limitation was the participants completed the experiment online in an uncontrolled environment. When participants take an online experiment, their environment will affect their answers because of uncontrollable factors around them. Participants who undertake the test in an environment with many distractions (e.g., supermarket), or who were distracted by other people in the same room will find it difficult to concentrate on the task. This scenario might influence the incongruent trial result, especially. The second was the lack of practice trails given to participants before the actual experiment, which could confirm that participants understand the instructions, familiarize themselves with the response keys, and the automated procedures. Overall, future studies with pilot test conduction and using data collected in a controlled experimental setting (for example, laboratory room) would improve the validity of the results.

Future research could also be conducted on the nature of the human cognitive process, which were categorized as either controlled or automatic (Raz et al.,2006) and the distinction between the two modes of information processing and provide further insight into how cognitive control can effectively override automatic information process.

Conclusion

The study findings contribute in several ways to improve the understanding of the cognitive process, automatic processes, and how the priming effect has a significant impact on the elimination of the Stroop effect. In other words, Stroop interference could be eliminated under certain conditions. The findings of this study have several important implications for future practice and have extended the understanding of the development of the cognitive process/cognitive approach to the perception of the world.

References

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230

Barnes, D. E., Yaffe, K., Satariano, W. A., & Tager, I. B. (2003). A longitudinal study of cardiorespiratory fitness and cognitive function in healthy older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(4), 459-465.

Chen, E. Y., Wong, A. W., Chen, R. Y., & Au, J. W. (2001). Stroop interference and facilitation effects in first-episode schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research, 48(1), 29-44.

Jira, K. (2018). Concurrent Performance of Stroop and Single-Leg Balance Influences Postural Control Under a Dual-Task Paradigm (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).

Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.Cognitive psychology, 12(4), 523-553.

Raz, A., Kirsch, I., Pollard, J., & Nitkin-Kaner, Y. (2006). Suggestion reduces the Stroop effect. Psychological Science, 17(2), 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01669.x

Reisberg, D. (2018). Cognition: Seventh international student edition. W.W. Norton & Company.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651