![]() Facility at isolating the task-relevant attribute is indispensable for adaptation and survival. In the absence of this ability, one cannot concentrate on texting a friend in the cafeteria, listening to a presentation in class, or negotiating the traffic when driving or walking. Moreover, many Stroop results, ignored in the control literature, are inconsistent with any control account of the effect.Įveryday functioning requires a modicum of ability to attend selectively to the relevant feature of objects, excluding irrelevant or distracting features. Applying Occam’s razor, the effects marshaled in support of the control view are better explained by a selectivity of attention account. Looking at the Stroop effect from a historical perspective, we argue that the recent paradigm change from stimulus-driven selective attention to control is unwarranted. We identify four pitfalls plaguing conflict monitoring and control studies of the Stroop effect and show that the notion of top-down control is gratuitous. The case for data-driven attention is not new: a mere twenty-five years ago, the Stroop effect was considered “the gold standard” of attention ( MacLeod, 1992). Against a wealth of studies and emerging consensus, we posit that data-driven selective attention best accounts for the gamut of existing Stroop results. We list some of the most compelling developments and show that no control account can serve as a viable explanation for major Stroop phenomena and that there exist more parsimonious explanations for other Stroop related phenomena. We argue otherwise: control studies fail to account for major Stroop results obtained over a century-long history of research. A tidal wave of recent research alleges that incongruent Stroop stimuli generate conflict, which is then managed and resolved by top-down cognitive control. ![]() 2Department of Education and Psychology, Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, IsraelĪccording to a growing consensus, the Stroop effect is understood as a phenomenon of conflict and cognitive control.1School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.Directional Proportion-Congruity (PC) Effects.Pitfall 4: Color-Word Correlation and Word-Response Contingency Render Central Control Gratuitous.Pitfall 3: Physical Determinants of the Stroop Effect: The Relative Discriminability of the Words and the Colors.Pitfall 2: The Stroop Effect: Conflict and Facilitation.Pitfall 1: General Definition of Conflict and Non-Conflict Stimuli.Resolving the Pitfalls within Bona Fide Stroop Research.Four Pitfalls in Control Studies of the Stroop Effect. ![]() What is not Explained by Conflict Monitoring and Control?.What is Explained by Conflict Monitoring and Control?.The Main Argument: What is and what is not Explained by Conflict and Control?.The editor and reviewers' affiliations are the latest provided on their Loop research profiles and may not reflect their situation at the time of review.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |