SQ7 – 2 options

For SQ7, please respond to one of the following two options:

  1. Discuss your hypotheses for Paper #3. Keep in mind the general research question: Is there a difference in response time when taking two versions of the Stroop test with and without a noise distractor?
    For your hypotheses, what do you expect to find once we run our results? You may have similar hypotheses to others in the class but you should still make sure that these make sense to you and are related to the readings (thus far). You will be able to expand on these for your paper once you read your other articles, but you need to have a strong foundation of your hypotheses before we run our results.
  2. Describe executive functioning generally and inhibition specifically. Inhibition is the focus of our paper, but it is part of the larger concept of executive functioning. Using the Miyake et al. (2000) article and Stroop’s (1935) discussion of inhibition in the introduction of his paper, describe executive functioning and inhibition, as it applies to our study.

32 thoughts on “SQ7 – 2 options”

  1. Executive function is one’s overall cognition and it is utilized to accomplish various tasks (Miyake et al., 2000). One component of executive function is inhibition. Miyake et al. (2000) defined inhibition as the intentional suppression of prepotent responses. In addition, Stroop (1935) believed inhibition to be the concept that if one is accustomed to a particular way of learning or thinking, it is difficult for them to then learn or think in a different way because of that. However, this definition is not specific to whether the inhibition is intentional.

    1. Hello Geralyn,
      I didn’t realize that the authors neglected to specify whether inhibition was intentional or not until you pointed it out. Upon giving this some further thought, in my opinion inhibition would be intentional since Miyake et al. (2000) states that inhibition is used to force oneself to deliberately terminate natural tendencies or responses. This deliberateness would mean a person is consciously aware of the act and therefore inhibition should be intentional.

  2. According to Stroop article we read in class, experiment one suggested that it took a little more time for participants to read the words in color and on colored paper as opposed to black ink. Although those results were not significant, I also supported this idea through my hypothesis. My hypothesis suggested that it would take longer to complete the harder version of the Stroop test. In addition, I also believed that it would take longer to complete the harder version of the Stroop test whilst the sound was playing, suggesting that the distracting sound does have an effect on the participant’s response time. For myself personally, I was surprised by my results because I took less time to correctly state the names of the colors in the harder version of Stroop whilst the sound was playing. Otherwise, the easier version of Stroop was much simpler.

    1. Jayanti,

      I have similar hypotheses. I was also surprised by my results because I did better by one tenth of a second in Condition C (hard Stroop and no noise) when compared to Condition D (hard Stroop and noise).

  3. I hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in response times between the easy and hard Stroop tests. I believe that responses will be slower when completing the hard Stroop test as compared to the easy test. This assumption is based on the original Stroop study, where the findings showed us that the respondents took more time completing the naming colors with words different test than they did reading color names in black ink. Due to the fact that our easy test includes colors that correspond with the words, this test can be compared to the test where respondents read color names in black ink. The hard test used in our study reflects the naming colors with words different test used by Stroop.
    My second hypothesis was that there will be a significant difference in response times with and without noise when completing both the easy and hard tests. I made the assumption that responses to the tests will be slower with the presence of noise. This is based on the idea that more interferences and distractions will make it more difficult to focus on naming the colors.

    3. Hi Afifa!

      I also agree with your hypothesis. I had the same ones. I also based my logic’ off the results of the original Stroop test. Unfortunately, while skimming the data, it seemed that besides myself, many others actually did better with the hard Stroop test as it was associated with noise. One reason may have been to quickly complete the test to further avoid the noise or maybe they got the hang of the pace of the test! Either way, can’t wait to see how well our results support our hypotheses!

    4. Hi Afifa,
      I agree with your hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the hard an easy stroop test. However I do not think their will be a significant difference between the noise and no noise for the hard or easy stroop test

    7. I hypothesized that responses for the easy test would take significantly less time than the difficult test. This hypotheses is supported by Stroop’s results where naming colors with different words took much longer than naming colors in black inc.
      My second hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference between naming colors in the difficult test without noise and naming colors in the difficult test with noise. The rational behind my hypothesis is that because the participant will be focusing on trying to correctly name the colors with the different words therefore the participants will tune out the noise, enabling their inhibition.

  4. One of my hypotheses is that slower response times will be reported on the Stroop incongruent conditions. My second hypothesis is that hearing an annoying noise will negatively affect response time on the Stroop task.

  5. I hypothesized that there would be a longer response time in general for participants that took the harder stroop test as compared to the easy stroop test. Participants would have the urge to read the word instead of naming the color. This must be temporarily suppressed which not only costs additional effort but also time on the participants behalf. Similarly, I hypothesized that there would be a longer response time when participants completed the hard stroop test with noise as compared to without noise. More concentration would be necessary to focus on the task at hand with distracting sounds in the background. I realized, on my personal experience, I improved drastically and took less time when I completed both the hard stroop test with and without noise. This contradicted both my hypotheses possibly due to the practice effect.

  6. Hello,

    For my first hypothesis, I predict a prolonged response time for the participants taking the hard version of the Stroop test. I expect the participants to experience difficulty reading a written color, say “black,” in blue ink, for instance. As for my second hypothesis, I anticipate longer response time for the participants taking the test while listening to an annoying sound at high volume because it will affect the participants’ level of attention.

  7. Executive functioning consists of a set of skills that helps one with completing tasks, using their memory, and inhibiting actions. In the study conducted by Miyake et al. (2000), they focused on the three main executive functions. The first one is being able to shift between tasks, the second function is updating memory and being able to use it for later use, and the last function is the inhibition of dominant responses. According to Stroop (1935), inhibition is operationally defined as interference. Interference is when previously attained knowledge gets in the way of new material. It is hard to separate the two and that is why executive functioning helps to assist with shifting between new and old material. Inhibition is the ability to consciously restrain from producing the dominant reaction. In our study, we examine the difference in time response with and without a noise distractor in both easy and hard Stroop conditions. This study helps us to see how inhibition plays a role in our reaction to either words or the color of the words present.

  8. Based on the Stroop article, and our own experimental experience I hypothesize that that reaction time for the harder stroop test will be longer than the easier test. It will take a longer time trying to finish the harder stroop test because there is more than one stimuli and our brain can only fixate on one at a time. I also hypothesize that noise would have a significant difference on reaction time, since the noise (especially if it is dissonant and bothersome) may interfere with the input of the stimuli hence increasing the reaction time.

  9. I hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in response time between easy and hard Stroop experiment. Participants who took the harder Stroop test with the loud noise, their response will be slower and longer compared to the easy Stroop test. Participants will find it harder to read the word “Orange” if it is written in gray . It is difficult to pay attention with loud noise playing in the back and when I was doing the hard Stroop test it was difficult for me to pay attention and focus.

  10. My first hypothesis states that participants will exhibit longer response times while reciting the hard version of the Stroop test. My second hypothesis predicts that the participants will exhibit a longer response time when the Stroop test is taken in conjunction with listening to the annoying sound. I predict this because to me it logically makes sense. When we are presented with a difficult task, we often hesitate in getting things right and therefore have to think a little harder which requires more brain work hence more time. This can be supported by Stroop ‘s description of executive functioning which claims to help assist with shifting between new and old material. We might hesitate because we are not sure what the answers may be given our previous knowledge. In addition to that, we also may get distracted by a factor when completing a task, therefore, we might not gear our focus completely on the task since we have this other factor affecting us. When looking at this more closely we can see how Miyake et al. (2000) focused on the of shift between tasks. Maybe the way in which we want to shift tasks requires more work hence more time.

  11. I hypothesized that participants who take part in the hard stroop test will take longer than those who participate in the easy Stroop test. I believe this because it has been suggested by previous research that pairing conflicting stimuli slows down thinking and reaction time, making it take longer to complete the Stroop test.
    I also hypothesize that participants will take longer in the easy as well as the difficult stroop test when noise is added. While noise does not directly conflict with the stimuli, it is still distracting and it should cause the participant to take longer.

  12. I hypothesized that there will be a longer response time while taking the hard stroop test than the response time for those taking the easy stroop test. This is due to the findings of research on the original stroop test in which participants exhibited a longer response time while trying to read color names in actual different colors in comparison to reading a color name with the same color. My second hypothesis is that the addition of noise will also alter response time while taking either of the stroop tests. This is hypothesized due to distraction and difficulty in already trying to read color names with different colors as well as conflict with natural habit/stimuli.

  13. My first hypothesis is that there will be a longer response time if a participant were to take the hard test over the easy test. This is because an easy test is bound to be easier to finish, which would lead to faster completion times. This is also due to an earlier finding with from the Stroop experiments.
    My second hypothesis is that regardless of the difficulty of the tests, the addition of an annoying sound will increase the times. This is due to the clashing of stimuli, which a person can typically only handle one at a time. This would impede the performance of the participants.

    1. Jimmy,

      I fully agree with both your hypotheses and reasoning for them. When you talk about noise and how stimuli clash this can be described as the brain having to use inhibition to properly respond to the task at hand.

  14. I have come up with two hypotheses thus far. My first one is that response time will be significantly slower on Stroop test with noise involved. I believe that the noise will act as a distraction and cause the participants to react much slower with the noise than without. What I find interesting is that when I was doing the tests, I actually performed quicker when there was noise. My second hypothesis is that response time will be significantly slower while taking the harder level of Stroop test. I believe that people will take longer on the Stroop test that is at a harder level.

  15. My first hypothesis is that there will be a significant difference in the response times between the Stroop test taken with noise and the Stroop test taken without noisel it will take longer to take the test with the noise than it will to take the test without. I believe this will be the case because the distraction caused by the noise will make it hard for participants to focus on their thoughts and coherently analyze the test before them. The noise will cause a delay in the participant’s thought process therefore causing a delay in the overall time it takes for the participant to complete the test.
    My second hypothesis for this paper is that there will be a significant difference between the response times of a easy Stroop test and the response times of a hard Stroop test. I believe it will take longer to finish a hard Stroop test because it entails stating the color of the word rather than the word itself which can be hard to do and will take longer for the brain to process in comparison to just simply reading the word itself.

  16. I hypothesized that the response time for the hard Stroop test would be significantly slower than the response time for the easy Stroop test. I also hypothesized that having noise would significantly slow down response time for the Stroop test (regardless of whether you take the easy or hard version). Based on what we read on the Stroop test, Stroop found that naming colors who’s ink was different than the color it named significantly slowed down the response time of his participants and so my hypotheses are in concordance with the readings (thus far).

  17. Executive functioning described by Miyake et al. (2000) are the mechanisms that control and regulate sub-processes in the brain and is reflected in cognition. 3 aspects of executive functioning was evaluated in the study; shifting, updating, and inhibition. Shifting is the ability to move back and forth between multiple tasks, updating is the monitoring and updating (making changes that reflect more recent knowledge) of working memory, and inhibition is the ability for one to stop dominant/automatic responses to stimuli when necessary. Stroop (1935) looks at inhibition as a process that occurs when creating associations. Meaning that if a and b are to be associated with each other there requires the inhibition of stimuli a to anything besides b. The reverse is true that if a and b are already associated it is difficult to associate a to anything besides b because the association already exists with b (Stroop references Muller and Schumann (1894) and Kline (1921) which calls this the law of associative inhibition). Stroop also notes that inhibition is affected by practice and can facilitate the creation of new associations. Inhibition is mechanism of executive functioning which forms cognition or automatic behaviors or views of our surroundings. For our experiment the use of inhibition is going against executive functioning, because inhibitions are a mechanism that are being “used” for cognition we are in fact trying to repress or go against these inhibitions. The executive functions we are going against is the favoring of reading words versus the color of the word and the shifting between auditory and visual stimuli. We have 4 different experimental conditions where inhibition varies. Trail A includes no inhibition because the words and colors match and there is no noise. Trial B requires the need to inhibit noise because there is noise but the words and colors match. Trial C required inhibition of of the word because the Stroop test requires that the color of the word be said rather than the word itself and there is no noise distractor. Trial D requires the inhibition of both word and noise because the words and colors do not match and noise is present. When there is noise present in the trials there requires the inhibition to shift between performing the Stroop test and paying attention or listening to the noise. When the words and colors do no match (are incongruent) there requires the need to inhibit the word because executive functioning favors reading words over attention to color of the words.

  18. My first hypothesis is that students that have to say the color of the text that is different from the written color will take longer to respond. Actively ignoring what the text says is difficult and is similar to Miyake et al. study on inhibition of prepotent response. The idea that people who actively stop an automatic response will use up a lot of resources in the brain. Thus creating lag in response time. My second hypothesis is that noise will also slow down response time because it acts as a distraction. The participant will have to spent resource to ignore the external stimulus.

  19. I hypothesized that reaction times will be slower on the hard Stroop test if noise is applied. The distraction provided by the noise will cause people to process the color of the word. Stroop recorded that those who took the harder test had a slower response time than the time recorded for the easier test. Another hypothesis for this study is that noise will not have a significant effect on response time for the easy test. I believe that this hypothesis could be true because the noise distraction is not paired with the difficult stroop style. The
    noise distraction would not be enough to influence the response time if the words were the same color as written.

Leave a Reply