The Stroop Effect is a classic experiment showing that naming a colour is slower when it conflicts with the word spelling a different colour, such as “red” printed in green ink.
First studied by J.R. Stroop in the 1930s, the effect occurs because reading is automatic and hard to suppress, interfering with the controlled task of naming ink colour. Researchers now study it using the Stroop Color-Word Interference Test.
Key Takeaways
- Experiment: In the classic Stroop task, participants are asked to name the color of the ink a word is printed in, not the word itself. Accuracy and speed are measured to observe how conflict affects attention.
- How It Works: The effect occurs because reading is automatic, while identifying ink color requires more mental effort. This mismatch creates cognitive interference and delays reaction time.
- Applications: The Stroop task is widely used to study attention, self-control, and brain function. It also has clinical relevance in assessing conditions like ADHD or brain injury.
- Implications: The Stroop Effect highlights the limits of mental control and the brain’s tendency to prioritize familiar, automatic tasks.
- Reliability: The effect is highly consistent at group level, but a single person’s Stroop score is not a stable measure of their individual inhibitory control.
The First Stroop Experiment
The Stroop Effect was first published in 1935 by American psychologist John Ridley Stroop.
Although discoveries of this phenomenon date back to the 19th century, Stroop’s three experiments formally demonstrated how automatic reading can interfere with color naming.
Aims
Stroop set out to answer two key questions:
-
Interference: Does it take longer to name the color of a word when the word and ink color do not match? For example, is it harder to say “blue” when the word “red” is printed in blue ink?
-
Practice: Can practice reduce this interference? In other words, can people improve their ability to ignore the word and focus only on the ink color with training?
Experiment 1: Word Reading
-
Participants: 70 undergraduates.
-
Task: Read aloud a list of color words (e.g., “green”), ignoring the ink color.
-
Control Condition: The same words were printed in black ink, with no color interference.
-
Incongruent Condition: Participants read aloud color words printed in mismatched (incongruent) ink colors.
-
Purpose: To test whether the color of the ink interferes with the ability to read the word.
-
Finding: The presence of conflicting ink color had minimal effect on reading speed.
-
Result: Participants took only 2.3 seconds longer to read 100 words on the incongruent cards compared to the control (a 5.6% increase), which Stroop reported as “far from significant.”
Experiment 2: Color Naming
-
Participants: 100 undergraduates.
- Task: Participants named the ink color of color words, ignoring the word itself.
-
Control Condition: Participants named the color of solid colored squares, printed in the same colours and order as the experimental cards.
-
Incongruent Condition: The words were color names that did not match their ink color (e.g., the word “RED” printed in blue ink).
-
Purpose: To test whether the meaning of the word interferes with naming the ink color.
-
Finding: Naming the ink color was significantly slower when the word spelled a different color than the ink. Over 99% of trials in the incongruent condition took longer than the corresponding control trials.
-
Result: Participants took an average of 47 seconds longer to name 100 ink colors in the incongruent condition—a 74.3% increase in time compared to the control.
Experiment 3: Effects of Practice upon Interference
-
Participants: 32 undergraduates.
-
Task: Participants practiced naming the ink colors of incongruent color words for 8 consecutive days to examine whether practice reduced interference.
-
Control Stimuli: For this experiment, Stroop replaced the solid colour squares with a neutral symbol of similar visual complexity to printed words. This gave a more closely matched baseline for comparing colour-naming speed.
Finding 1: Reduced Interference in Color Naming
-
Observation: With daily practice, participants became faster at naming the ink colors of incongruent words.
-
Result: The time to name 50 color words dropped from 49.6 seconds (Day 1) to 32.8 seconds (Day 8), indicating reduced Stroop interference due to practice.
Finding 2: Temporary Interference in Word Reading (Reverse Stroop Effect)
-
Observation: Practice in color naming introduced interference into a previously automatic process—word reading.
-
Result: After 8 days of color-naming practice, word reading times for incongruent stimuli increased from 19.4 seconds (pre-test) to 34.8 seconds (post-test). However, this interference quickly faded—dropping to 22.0 seconds in a second post-test conducted shortly afterward.
Conclusion
Stroop concluded that reading words is a more automatic and practiced skill than naming ink colors.
Because reading happens automatically, it’s difficult to suppress—even when we’re trying to focus on something else.
-
The brain associates written words with a specific, well-learned response: to read.
-
Colors, on the other hand, can be linked to a variety of responses: to name, to describe, or simply to notice.
-
This mismatch in experience creates a conflict in the brain when the word and ink color don’t match—leading to slower reaction times.
Stroop’s research showed how automatic thinking can interfere with controlled thinking, making his work foundational in the study of attention, cognitive control, and executive function.
Modern Computer Version
In today’s computer-based versions of the Stroop task, the colours red, blue, green, and yellow are most commonly used.
These colours and their matching words (like the word “red” in red ink) are used because they are easy to recognise and are part of many people’s everyday vocabulary.
Why Use These Specific Colours?
Researchers use red, blue, green, and yellow for a few important reasons:
-
Easy to tell apart: These colours are very different from each other, so it’s unlikely that someone will confuse them.
-
Well-known words: Most people are familiar with these colour names, which makes the task easier to understand.
-
Balanced design: With four colours, you can make:
-
12 mismatched (incongruent) combinations – like the word “green” printed in red ink.
-
4 matched (congruent) combinations – like the word “green” in green ink.
In a typical experiment, each mismatched combination might be shown 2 or 3 times, making 24–36 trials.
Matched combinations are fewer, so they may be shown more often to balance things out.
-
How Trials Are Organised
Trials are usually shown in a random order. But researchers often make sure the same colour or word doesn’t appear twice in a row.
This helps avoid patterns that might make the task easier or harder.
Independent Variable (IV):
Whether the word and ink color were congruent (matched) or incongruent (mismatched).
- Congruent: word and ink match, such as “green” written in green ink. These trials are few, and some researchers drop them to stop participants slipping into a reading strategy.
- Incongruent: word and ink mismatch, such as “green” written in red ink. This creates interference, making it slower and harder to name the ink colour.
Worked example: the word “BLUE” printed in red ink requires the response “red”, the ink colour. But the display instantly activates the automatic reading response “blue”.
The participant must inhibit that automatic response and instead retrieve and say “red”. Resolving this competition costs time and produces more errors than a congruent or neutral trial.
Dependent Variable (DV):
The dependent variable is reaction time: how long, in milliseconds, someone takes to name the ink colour.
This lets researchers compare how congruent, incongruent, and neutral stimuli affect mental processing speed.
What About Control Conditions?
Control for Colour Naming
To measure baseline performance, researchers use neutral items that aren’t real words. These might include:
-
A string of symbols like “*****” or “xxxxx”
-
Random letters like “wwww” (same length as “blue”)
-
Made-up words or words that aren’t colours
These items are printed in colour, and participants are asked to name the colour of the ink.
Because the string isn’t a word, it doesn’t trigger automatic reading—so it gives a clearer measure of how fast someone can name a colour without interference.
Researchers are careful not to use strings that might accidentally remind someone of a real colour (like a word starting with “g,” which could suggest “green”).
Control for Word Reading
To get a baseline for how fast someone can read colour words, researchers use the same colour words, but print them in black ink (e.g., the word “blue” in black).
Participants are simply asked to read the word, with no conflicting colour to process.
How Do People Respond?
Participants can respond in two main ways:
1. Speaking aloud (vocal response)
- Response: the participant says the name of the ink colour out loud.
- Strength: this method usually produces faster responses and stronger Stroop effects.
- Setup: it closely reflects real-time cognitive interference but requires a voice detection system, such as a microphone or voice key.
2. Pressing keys (manual response)
- Mapping: each colour is matched with a keyboard key, for example red = “z”, green = “x”.
- Response: the participant presses the correct key based on the ink colour.
- Trade-off: this method is a bit slower but useful for testing large groups or recording accuracy.
Before starting the task, participants usually complete a few practice rounds to get used to the instructions and key mappings.
How the Stroop Effect Works
The Stroop Effect occurs because the brain prioritizes faster, automatic processes, such as reading, over slower, controlled ones, such as naming colors.
1. Relative speed of processing theory:
This theory explains why reading the word interferes with naming the ink color, but naming the color does not interfere with reading the word.
Reading happens faster than color naming, so it takes over more easily.
Interference happens because the brain gets ready to say the word before it finishes processing the color.
The word and the color compete to be spoken, but the brain can only produce one response at a time. This slows the response, especially when word and color do not match.
Limitation
While this theory explains why reading the word often interferes with saying the ink color, it does not work in every situation.
Researchers have tested the idea by showing the color slightly before the word, hoping this “head start” would let people focus on the color first.
In many cases, the interference still happens even with the extra time.
This suggests speed is not the only factor at work. The theory is helpful, but it cannot fully explain the Stroop effect on its own.
2. Automaticity theory:
This theory holds that reading is an automatic process: fast, effortless, and requiring little attention.
Naming the ink color, in contrast, is not automatic. It takes more focus and mental effort.
Because reading happens so quickly and automatically, it is hard to ignore the word even when the task calls for naming the color instead.
This automatic reading gets in the way and causes interference.
This also explains why reading affects color naming, but color naming does not affect reading as much.
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman (2011) explained this tension using the System 1 vs. System 2 framework:
-
System 1: Fast, automatic thinking (like reading).
-
System 2: Slow, deliberate thinking (like overriding your instinct to read and instead name the ink color).
In a Stroop task, System 1 tends to dominate, and System 2 must work harder to override the automatic response.
Limitation
The theory originally claimed that automatic processes, such as reading, cannot be controlled by attention. Newer research shows that is not completely true.
When researchers change how often the word and color match, or provide helpful cues, Stroop interference can become weaker.
This means even automatic processes can be influenced by attentional focus.
Automaticity theory explains much of the Stroop effect, but it does not fully capture how flexible the brain can be with conflicting information.
3. Selective attention theory:
This account treats the Stroop effect as a failure of selective attention. The task asks a person to focus on one feature of the stimulus, its ink colour, while filtering out another highly salient feature, its meaning.
Attention has limited capacity, so it cannot fully block out an over-learned dimension like word meaning. The irrelevant word “leaks through” and competes with the colour for a response.
On this view, the size of a person’s Stroop effect indexes how well they can hold attention on a target while a compelling distractor competes for it (MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000).
This is also why the Stroop task is used more broadly as a measure of selective attention and cognitive interference in its own right, not simply as a demonstration of automatic reading.
4. Parallel distributed processing (PDP) theory:
How does the Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) model offer a more comprehensive explanation of the Stroop Effect?
The PDP model, proposed by Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990), gives a more complete explanation of the Stroop effect by focusing on how practice and attention strengthen mental pathways over time.
Instead of saying a process is either “automatic” or “controlled,” this model says automaticity exists on a spectrum, depending on how much we’ve practiced a task.
Key features
1. Strength of Processing
The PDP model says it is not just speed that matters, but the strength of a pathway in the brain. Think of these pathways like well-worn roads:
-
Reading is a strong pathway because we’ve practiced it all our lives.
-
Color naming is weaker because we use it less often.
Because reading is stronger, it wins the race to the brain’s response system, leading to interference in tasks like the Stroop test.
2. Practice Builds Stronger Pathways
As we practice a task, our brains strengthen the neural connections involved. Over time, these tasks become faster and feel more automatic. For example:
-
If you practice naming made-up shapes over and over, that task can eventually become automatic.
-
In some experiments, those practiced shape names started to interfere with color naming, just like real words do.
This shows that automaticity is not fixed. It grows with training and repetition.
3. Automaticity Is a Continuum, Not Either/Or
Older theories said a task is either automatic (fast, effortless) or controlled (slow, effortful). The PDP model instead treats it as a scale.
-
Tasks can become more automatic with practice.
-
Some tasks are partly automatic but still influenced by attention.
For example, even word reading (which feels automatic) can be weakened or controlled if we focus hard enough or change the task conditions (like showing more incongruent trials).
4. Direct vs. Indirect Pathways
The PDP model also talks about two kinds of processing routes in the brain:
-
Direct pathways: These are fast and automatic, built through lots of practice. Word reading usually uses this route.
-
Indirect pathways: These are slower and used for tasks we’re not yet fluent in. They require more effort, attention, and possibly step-by-step thinking.
As you practice, tasks can move from indirect to direct, becoming faster and more automatic over time.
Why the PDP Model Is Better Than Older Theories
Limitations of Earlier Theories:
-
Speed-of-processing theory: explains why faster processes interfere with slower ones, but not why interference persists even when the slower task gets a head start.
-
Automaticity theory: claims automatic processes are completely uncontrollable, but research shows attention can reduce their influence.
What the PDP Model Adds:
-
Practice: shows that practice and learning are key to how automatic a task becomes.
-
Attention: explains how attention can adjust the strength of interference.
-
Flexibility: describes processing as continuous and flexible, not all-or-nothing.
-
Facilitation: accounts for both interference and facilitation, when matching word and colour helps instead of hurts.
Additional Research
John Ridley Stroop helped lay the groundwork for decades of further research into the effect.
Neurobiological Basis of the Stroop Effect
Neuroimaging studies point to two key brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Both MRI and fMRI scans show activity in these regions during the Stroop test (Milham et al., 2003).
The DLPFC activates color perception and inhibits word encoding, while the ACC selects the appropriate response and allocates attentional resources (Banich et al., 2000).
Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter and Cohen (2001) formalised this division of labour as conflict-monitoring theory. The ACC detects response conflict and recruits DLPFC-led control to bias processing toward the correct dimension.
Aim: MacDonald, Cohen, Stenger and Carter (2000) set out to separate the brain’s preparation for a Stroop task from its response to the conflict itself.
Method: Using event-related fMRI, they compared brain activity at the moment participants were told whether to name the ink or read the word with activity at the moment the stimulus appeared.
Results: Left DLPFC activity rose during the instruction to name the colour, before the stimulus appeared. ACC activity rose later, during the response to incongruent trials.
Conclusion: This timing split showed the DLPFC implements top-down control in advance, while the ACC monitors conflict as it happens, rather than the two regions doing the same job.
Key Empirical Signatures
Repeated testing of the Stroop effect reveals a few key recurring findings (van Maanen et al., 2009). Three signatures recur:
- Semantic interference: naming the ink colour of an incongruent word is slower than naming a neutral stimulus, the cost of a conflicting meaning.
- Semantic facilitation: naming the ink of a congruent word is faster than naming a neutral stimulus, the benefit of an agreeing meaning.
- Stroop asynchrony: both effects disappear when the task is reading the word rather than naming the colour, supporting the claim that reading is far more automatic than colour naming.
Van Maanen and colleagues (2009) argued the colour-word Stroop task and picture-word interference, naming a pictured object while ignoring a superimposed word, are “two sides of the same coin,” reflecting a shared competitive-selection mechanism.
Related Experimental Variations
Other experiments have modified the original paradigm to probe related questions.
One study found participants were slower to name the colour of emotion words than neutral words (Larsen et al., 2006).
Another found no difference among panic-disorder patients, OCD patients, and controls, even using threat words as stimuli (Kampman et al., 2002). This shows the emotional Stroop is a less stable marker than the classic effect.
A third line of research pitted duration against numerosity. Participants judged which of two dot series contained more dots, or which lasted longer, with incongruent trials showing fewer dots for longer.
Numerical cues interfered with duration judgements: fewer dots shown for longer were harder to time accurately (Dormal et al., 2006). This dissociates how the brain processes quantity and time.
Other Uses and Versions
The Stroop paradigm’s core logic, measuring the cost of one automatic dimension intruding on another, has been extended well beyond colour and word (MacLeod, 2015).
Stroop Task Variants
Researchers have adapted the classic design to probe several related forms of interference:
- Emotional Stroop: uses emotionally charged words, such as “grief” or “pain”, mixed with neutral words to measure attentional bias in anxiety and depression.
- Numerical Stroop: pits the physical size of a digit against its numerical value, probing how automatically number meaning is processed.
- Spatial Stroop: a direction or location word conflicts with a spatial feature, such as the word “UP” shown at the bottom of the screen, probing spatial attention.
- Reverse Stroop: swaps the roles so ink colour interferes with reading the word. This interference is normally negligible, but can be induced with intensive colour-naming practice, testing the limits of reading’s automaticity.
- Picture-word interference: naming a pictured object while ignoring a superimposed distractor word, treated as a close cousin of the Stroop effect.
Applications of the Stroop Task
Because performance depends on suppressing a dominant response, the Stroop task is prized in both research and clinical assessment.
- Clinical assessment: measures selective attention, processing speed, and cognitive flexibility (Howieson et al., 2004), and is used with populations affected by dementia, depression, or ADHD (Lansbergen et al., 2007; Spreen & Strauss, 1998).
- Anxiety and depression: the emotional Stroop task shows people with depression are slower to name the colour of negative words than neutral ones (Frings et al., 2010).
- Ageing and brain injury: slowed performance and greater interference on the task track normal ageing and neurological damage, informing clinical evaluation of executive dysfunction (Howieson et al., 2004).
What began as a test of word-colour processing has expanded into a tool used across psychopathology and brain-injury research, illustrating how far a single experimental paradigm can grow.
Critical Evaluation
1. The Stroop task is highly replicable and reliable.
One of the main strengths of the Stroop effect is that it has been replicated many times across different studies, settings, and populations.
Because the task is simple, standardised, and easy to administer, researchers consistently find similar interference effects.
MacLeod (1991) reviewed over 400 studies and found the Stroop effect to be one of the most robust findings in cognitive psychology.
This high reliability strengthens the effect’s validity as a measure of attention and interference.
It also makes the Stroop task a valuable tool for research and clinical assessment. Clinicians use it with individuals who have brain damage or attention disorders.
2. The Stroop task has strong internal validity.
The task is carefully controlled, with clear independent (congruent vs. incongruent stimuli) and dependent variables (reaction time).
Because participants are typically tested individually under similar conditions, extraneous variables are reduced.
This allows researchers to draw strong conclusions about cause and effect: incongruent word-colour pairings lead to longer reaction times because of cognitive interference.
The strong internal validity allows psychologists to make confident claims about the mechanisms of selective attention and automaticity.
However, this level of control may come at the cost of real-world relevance, limiting how well the results generalise beyond the lab.
3. The Stroop task lacks ecological validity.
The Stroop task is useful for understanding attention in a laboratory setting, but it does not reflect how people use attention in everyday life.
Naming colours of printed words is an artificial task. Real-world distractions are usually more complex or emotionally loaded.
As a result, Stroop findings may not fully generalise to situations that demand managing competing demands, such as driving while listening to the radio or working in a noisy office.
This limits how applicable the findings are outside experimental settings.
4. The task assumes reading is automatic, but this varies by individual.
The classic Stroop effect is based on the assumption that word reading is an automatic process for all participants.
However, this may not hold true for individuals with lower reading proficiency, such as children, non-native speakers, or people with dyslexia.
In these cases, reading may not be more automatic than colour naming.
This raises concerns about the generalisability of the findings.
If reading is not automatic for a given group, then the Stroop effect may not appear, or may look very different, which limits the universality of the conclusions drawn from Stroop studies.
5. The Stroop task can be adapted for diverse research and clinical applications.
One strength of the Stroop effect is its adaptability.
Researchers have developed variations such as the Emotional Stroop, which uses emotionally charged words to measure attentional biases in anxiety or depression. The Numerical Stroop compares the physical size of numbers with their numerical value.
These adaptations extend the task beyond colour-word interference to explore broader cognitive processes.
These flexible applications make the Stroop paradigm a valuable diagnostic and research tool, particularly in clinical psychology and neuroscience.
However, care must be taken when interpreting results, as the meaning of “interference” may differ across task versions.
6. The theoretical explanations for the Stroop effect remain debated.
Several models have been proposed to explain the Stroop effect: the speed-of-processing theory, automaticity theory, and the parallel distributed processing (PDP) model. None fully captures every aspect of the phenomenon.
The automaticity theory struggles to explain why attentional strategies reduce interference. The speed-of-processing model fails when the timing of stimuli is manipulated.
These theoretical limitations suggest that our understanding of cognitive interference is still incomplete.
Researchers must be cautious when drawing conclusions about mental processes based solely on Stroop performance, as multiple mechanisms may be involved.
7. The Stroop task is a weaker measure of individual differences than its group-level effect suggests.
The Stroop effect is highly consistent at the group level, but this does not mean it reliably ranks individual people. Dishon-Berkovits and Algom (2000) argued the effect is less robust than assumed once stimulus and design factors are controlled.
Hedge, Powell and Sumner (2018) identified a broader “reliability paradox” in cognitive tasks like the Stroop test. Tasks that produce large, dependable average effects can still have poor test-retest reliability for individual differences, because low variation between people is exactly what makes a group effect so consistent.
In short, a large average effect is not the same as a reliable individual ruler.
This matters clinically: a single person’s Stroop score should not be treated as a stable trait measure of inhibitory control. The problem is worse for the emotional Stroop variant, where effects are smaller and less consistent across studies.
The task’s sensitivity to practice adds a further complication. Because interference declines with repeated practice, retesting the same person confounds any change in their score, a concern for clinical re-assessment.
FAQs
1. How is the Stroop Effect used in clinical psychology or brain injury assessment?
The Stroop task is widely used in neuropsychological assessments to evaluate executive functions, particularly inhibitory control and selective attention.
Patients with frontal lobe damage, ADHD, schizophrenia, or dementia often show greater interference on Stroop tasks, suggesting impaired cognitive control mechanisms.
Clinicians use variations like the Color-Word Interference Test (part of the D-KEFS battery) to assess how well a person can manage competing information, which is critical for diagnosing issues related to brain injury or neurological conditions
2. What does the Emotional Stroop task reveal about anxiety and depression?
The Emotional Stroop task uses emotionally charged words (e.g., “death,” “failure”) instead of neutral color words.
People with anxiety disorders often take longer to name the ink color of threat-related words, indicating attentional bias toward emotionally salient stimuli.
Similarly, individuals with depression may show slower reaction times to negative or self-referential words.
This suggests that emotional interference reflects underlying mood-related cognitive biases, making the Emotional Stroop a useful tool in clinical and research settings.
3. How does practice change performance in the Stroop task over time?
According to the Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) model, performance in the Stroop task improves with repeated practice.
As people practice a task (like naming the color of shapes or unfamiliar stimuli), their brains develop stronger processing pathways, making the task faster and more automatic.
With enough training, even a new task can begin to interfere with other tasks—just like word reading does in the classic Stroop effect. This shows that automaticity is learned, not fixed, and evolves over time with repeated exposure
4. Can the Stroop Effect be reduced or trained away?
Yes, research shows that interference in the Stroop task can be reduced through strategic attentional control, feedback, and practice.
For example, changing the proportion of congruent vs. incongruent trials or using cues can help participants shift attention away from reading and improve performance.
Over time, with consistent training, individuals can learn to suppress automatic word reading more effectively, reducing the Stroop interference.
However, even with practice, the effect is not fully eliminated, especially in highly literate adults.
5. Are there cultural or language differences in the Stroop Effect?
Yes, language proficiency, orthography, and reading experience can influence Stroop interference.
For instance, bilingual individuals may show different interference patterns depending on which language is used and their fluency.
Languages with non-alphabetic scripts (like Chinese or Japanese) may also engage different cognitive processes during reading, which can affect how automatic reading is—and therefore how strong the Stroop effect appears.
Additionally, cultural differences in reading instruction and exposure may impact how quickly reading becomes automatic, especially in children or second-language learners.
References
Banich, M. T., Milham, M. P., Atchley, R., Cohen, N. J., Webb, A., Wszalek, T., … & Magin, R. (2000). fMRI studies of Stroop tasks reveal unique roles of anterior and posterior brain systems in attentional selection. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 12 (6), 988-1000.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect . Psychological Review, 97 (3), 332.
Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437-1449.
Dormal, V., Seron, X., & Pesenti, M. (2006). Numerosity-duration interference: A Stroop experiment. Acta psychologica, 121 (2), 109-124.
Frings, C., Englert, J., Wentura, D., & Bermeitinger, C. (2010). Decomposing the emotional Stroop effect. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 63 (1), 42-49.
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166-1186.
Howieson, D. B., Lezak, M. D., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Orientation and attention. Neuropsychological assessment, 365-367.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kampman, M., Keijsers, G. P., Verbraak, M. J., Näring, G., & Hoogduin, C. A. (2002). The emotional Stroop: a comparison of panic disorder patients, obsessive–compulsive patients, and normal controls, in two experiments. Journal of anxiety disorders, 16 (4), 425-441.
Lansbergen, M. M., Kenemans, J. L., & Van Engeland, H. (2007). Stroop interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychology, 21 (2), 251.
Larsen, R. J., Mercer, K. A., & Balota, D. A. (2006). Lexical characteristics of words used in emotional Stroop experiments. Emotion, 6 (1), 62.
MacDonald, A. W., III, Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288(5472), 1835-1838.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 109 (2), 163.
MacLeod, C. M. (2015). The stroop effect. Encyclopedia of Color Science and Technology.
MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 383-391.
Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Claus, E. D., & Cohen, N. J. (2003). Practice-related effects demonstrate complementary roles of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortices in attentional control. Neuroimage, 18 (2), 483-493.
Monahan, J. S. (2001). Coloring single Stroop elements: Reducing automaticity or slowing color processing? . The Journal of general psychology, 128 (1), 98-112.
Sahinoglu B, Dogan G. (2016). Event-Related Potentials and the Stroop Effect. Eurasian J Med, 48(1), 53‐57.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18 (6), 643.
van Maanen, L., van Rijn, H., & Borst, J. P. (2009). Stroop and picture—word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16 (6), 987-999.
