Other people who have developed to this case are Logan (1990) who believed atomaticity developed through practice because the retrieval of appropriate responses becomes more rapid and does not require any intervening conscious thoughts or effort. Also Norman and Shallice (1986) developed this case a little further.
The aim to how I am going to try to cary out my investigation is below. It is very similar to J. Ridley Stroop’s procedure above.
Aim; To see whether it takes the participants longer to read a list of colours typed in black ink, or whether it takes the participants longer to read the list of colours typed in ink of random colours.
Hypothesis; Ho – There will be no difference between the amount of time taken to read the list of colours typed in black ink and the list of colours typed in coloured ink.
He – There will be a difference between the amount of time taken to read the list of colours typed in black ink in comparison to the amount of time taken to read the colours typed in coloured ink.
Variables; Independent Variable - whether or not the colours are typed in black ink, or whether the colours are typed in coloured ink.
Dependant Variable – The time the participants took to state the lists of words.
Extraneous Variables; There were a couple of extraneous variable in this experiment, mainly due to the fact that the procedure took place in our school, rather than in a laboratory. Because of these extraneous variables the experiment did not have the ecological validity that it should have had. One of these extraneous variables was noise. Most tests were done in different areas of the school, and at different times in the day. The fact that they were taken in different areas means that noise levels were bound to be different, and it is possible that one of the tests could have been taken between lessons, leading to excess noise as well, due to other students moving classrooms.
Target Population; In this experiment, my target population were boy and girl 6th Form students at Woodbridge School.
Sampling Method; I used opportunity sampling in this experiment, meaning I chose the first few 6th Form students I saw around school. This method of sampling was mainly used because it does not require a great amount of time, and it is relatively non-strenuous.
Ethical Issues; In this experiment there were certain things we had to do and offer, as they are thought of as ethical issues. The first thing is offering a briefing, at the start, and a debriefing once the experiment was over. Sometimes this is done verbally, but in our case, as it was a reading task, we decided to have them typed on the page. In the briefing we took a friendly approach, and clearly stated that ‘you can withdraw at any time if you feel, for any reason, you do not want to continue.’ (See appendix) Although we did not explain every detail, we got our point across. In the debriefing we explained that ‘All results will remain confidential, and your name will not be mentioned.’ (See appendix) We also offered the participants the chance to withdraw their information if they wanted.
As well as the briefing and the debriefing, we also had to gain informed consent. This was mainly gained from the briefing and debriefing, but also meant we had to inform the participants of all the objectives in the investigation. Also we had to inform the participants of all the aspects of the investigation or intervention that might reasonably be expected to influence willingness to participate.
Procedure; 1. We prepared two lists of words, each saying a colour. List A had a list of colours typed in black ink, and list B had a list of colours, each typed in coloured ink.
2. We typed our briefing and debriefing which were situated at the beginning and at the end accordingly.
3. We carried out our opportunity sampling around the school on the first 6th Form students we saw.
4. We instructed the participants to read the briefing, do the test, and read the debriefing, and then answered any questions they had about the investigation.
5. After offering the participants the opportunity to withdraw, we recorded our results onto a results table, and found out the mean times.
Data;
Our results show that the participants managed to read the colours in List A (black ink), in a shorter time than the colours in List B (coloured ink).
Verbal Summary; My results table, that is in the Appendix, shows me that List A was quite obviously easier to read, as not only the mean shows, but the range shows as well. The range for List A is 8.55, whereas the range for List B is far bigger, at 13.94. Also the table shows me that List A had the lowest time, with 18.83, and List B had the highest time, with 33.99. Overall the results table shows that there were not any largely anonymous results, and what I guessed would happen from the beginning; The coloured list would be more complicated.
Discussion; I think my hypothesis was accurate in the end. I thought the participants would take longer to read List B than List A, and they did. I think that by reading through the background information, about J. Ridley Stroop, and others, it was fairly obvious what the results would turn out to be.
Although the experiment seemed to conclude with moderately accurate results in my view, there were certainly a few limitations, which, with more time, could have been eliminated. One, for example, would be that our target population was relatively small, compared to what it could have been. For example if we had targeted anyone in Woodbridge, our target population would have been a great deal larger. Also, by using opportunity sampling, we reduced our sample hugely. It may be quick to do, but it does not give everybody the same chance of being a participant. It limits the sample size. Another criticism I would have with this procedure, is that everyone in the target population was from Woodbridge School. As we all go to the same school, we may be more similar to one and other, than we think. Many of us have known each other for years, since primary school, so I feel that this could have influenced our results.
To extend this investigation, with more time, we could alter the variables. For example, we could investigate into if the ‘Stroop Effect’ was more pronounced in boys rather than girls. Also, we could use random sampling to give a much more equal approach to the target population.
Conclusion; In conclusion we can see that we can identify our results to the results of J. Ridley Stroop’s in his investigation. It took our participants longer to read the list of colours typed in coloured ink, than it took the participants to read the list of colours typed in black ink. I think our sample method did not give us the fairest results, and if we had more time, we probably would now use random sampling, as it would reduce bias. Our target population only consisted of about 180 students, which again is not big enough in my view. I think that by using the whole school, or the whole of Woodbridge as the target population, it would have been a fairer investigation.
I am happy with how the investigation concluded, but I feel with more time our results could have been slightly more accurate.
The results have shown that automatic tasks can interfere with simultaneously performed consciously controlled processing, and therefore is evidence against Schneider and Shiffrin’s theory (1977).
References; Hill G (2001) a level PSYCHOLOGY through diagrams.
Appendix
Results;
