Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception
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: contro...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683/full |
| _version_ | 1819081105240752128 |
|---|---|
| author | Daniel Algom Eran Chajut |
| author_facet | Daniel Algom Eran Chajut |
| author_sort | Daniel Algom |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T19:55:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-056ca51f1e64486f8efc1cd87afafa97 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T19:55:29Z |
| publishDate | 2019-08-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-056ca51f1e64486f8efc1cd87afafa972022-12-21T18:52:06ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782019-08-011010.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683470902Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and PerceptionDaniel Algom0Eran Chajut1School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelDepartment of Education and Psychology, Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, IsraelAccording 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.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683/fullStroopcontrolconflictsaliencecongruitycontingency |
| spellingShingle | Daniel Algom Eran Chajut Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception Frontiers in Psychology Stroop control conflict salience congruity contingency |
| title | Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception |
| title_full | Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception |
| title_fullStr | Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception |
| title_short | Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception |
| title_sort | reclaiming the stroop effect back from control to input driven attention and perception |
| topic | Stroop control conflict salience congruity contingency |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danielalgom reclaimingthestroopeffectbackfromcontroltoinputdrivenattentionandperception AT eranchajut reclaimingthestroopeffectbackfromcontroltoinputdrivenattentionandperception |