Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, CRFDP, Rouen, France.
LAPSCO, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Mem Cognit. 2024 Aug;52(6):1229-1245. doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01538-3. Epub 2024 Mar 11.
The study addressed the still-open issue of whether semantic (in addition to response) conflict does indeed contribute to Stroop interference (which along with facilitation contributes to the overall Stroop effect also known as Congruency effect). To this end, semantic conflict was examined across the entire response time (RT) distribution (as opposed to mean RTs). Three (out of four) reported experiments, along with cross-experimental analyses, revealed that semantic conflict was absent in the participants' faster responses. This result characterizes Stroop interference as a unitary phenomenon (i.e., driven uniquely by response conflict). When the same participants' responses were slower, Stroop interference became a composite phenomenon with an additional contribution of semantic conflict that was statistically independent of both response conflict and facilitation. While the present findings allow us to account for the fact that semantic conflict has not been consistently found in past studies, further empirical and theoretical efforts are still needed to explain why exactly it is restricted to longer responses. Indeed, since neither unitary nor composite models can account for this polymorphic nature of Stroop interference on their own, the implications for the current state of theory are outlined.
该研究解决了一个悬而未决的问题，即语义（除了反应）冲突是否确实有助于 Stroop 干扰（与促进共同构成了整体 Stroop 效应，也称为一致性效应）。为此，研究人员在整个反应时间（RT）分布（而不是平均 RT）中检查了语义冲突。四项研究中的三项（以及跨实验分析）表明，参与者更快的反应中不存在语义冲突。这一结果将 Stroop 干扰描述为一种单一的现象（即仅由反应冲突驱动）。当相同的参与者的反应较慢时，Stroop 干扰成为一种复合现象，除了反应冲突和促进之外，还有一个独立的语义冲突的贡献。虽然目前的发现使我们能够解释为什么过去的研究中没有一致发现语义冲突，但仍需要进一步的实证和理论努力来解释为什么它仅限于较长的反应。事实上，由于单一或复合模型都无法单独解释 Stroop 干扰的这种多态性质，因此概述了对当前理论状态的影响。
