Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception

Frontiers in Psychology

article

Daniel Algom¹  Eran Chajut² 

[1] School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University;Department of Education and Psychology, Open University of Israel

关键词: Stroop;    control;    conflict;    salience;    congruity;    contingency;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

According to a growing consensus, the Stroop effect is understood as a phenomenon of conflict and cognitive control. A tidal wave of recent research alleges that incongruent Stroop stimuli generate conflict, which is then managed and resolved by top-down cognitive control. We argue otherwise: control studies fail to account for major Stroop results obtained over a century-long history of research. 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. Against a wealth of studies and emerging consensus, we posit that data-driven selective attention best accounts for the gamut of existing Stroop results. 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 ). 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. 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. Applying Occam’s razor, the effects marshaled in support of the control view are better explained by a selectivity of attention account. Moreover, many Stroop results, ignored in the control literature, are inconsistent with any control account of the effect.

【 授权许可】

CC BY