Naming the color of a word: is it responses or task sets that compete?
Subjects named the colors in which high- and low-frequency words and pronounceable nonwords, otherwise matched, were displayed. Color naming was slower for all three item types than for visually equivalent strings of nonalphanumeric symbols but was no slower for words than for nonwords, nor for high-frequency words than for low-frequency words. Unpronounceable letter strings had intermediate color-naming latencies. However, frequency and lexical status had large effects on latency for reading the same words and pseudowords aloud. Interference is thus predicted not by the strength of association between a letter string and its pronunciation but by the presence of word-like constituents. We argue that the interference from an unprimed noncolor word is due to, and isolates, one of two components of the classic Stroop effect: competition from the whole task set of reading. The other component, response competition, occurs only when lexical access is sufficiently primed.
University of Cambridge, England. s.monsell@exeter.ac.uk
S
S
Monsell
T J
TJ
Taylor
K
K
Murphy
D000328:Adult; D003071:Cognition; D003118:Color Perception; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008037:Linguistics; D008297:Male; D012033:Refractory Period, Psychological; D012718:Set, Psychology; D014936:Word Association Tests