Interference On Automatic And Controlled Cognitive Processing Tasks Psychology Essay

Interference On mechanical And Controlled Cognitive Processing Tasks Psychology EssayThe take of flutter was explored during a modified Stroop experiment. This paper reports a study of the re piece of musicee quantify taken to pass with flying colors a variation of the Stroop test to determine whether autoloading(prenominal) rifle cognitive processes associated with recording interfere with masteryled processes associated with twist assignment businesss. It was found that naming sign burnish was lazy for a list of intensity-related speech than when so-so(p) discourses were use, video display that interference does occur during an interaction of automatic and controlled cognitive processes. These findings ar concurrent with previous empirical look which has shown that performance decreases when completing much than one labour at a time.INTRODUCTIONThe senses receive a phenomenal amount of information from stimuli but it is understood that the brain has a limi ted capacity of resources available to process this information (Kahneman, cited by Edgar 2007). forethought is the fundamental cognitive process that mediates amidst what is sensed and perceived, this incorporates the selection and process of some information and the disregard of. An important concept to consider is that by understanding cognitive processes much(prenominal) as attention and perception, inferences brush off be made about how behaviour may be affected (Edgar 2007).inside the attentional information process framework, twain distinct modes of cognitive surgical operation exist controlled processing and automatic processing (Gross 2005, Edgar 2007). Schneider and Shiffrin (cited by Edgar 2007) distinguished some(prenominal) characteristics between controlled and automatic processing. Controlled processing demands heavily on attentional resources, is capacity-limited, slower and involves conscious directing of attention towards a occupation. In contrast, automati c processing makes little or no demands on attentional resources, is relatively fast, unmoved by capacity limitation and is not subject to conscious consciousness (Gross 2005, Edgar 2007).The might to perform tasks automatically is advantageous as it nastys in that respect ar still resources available for the processing of other tasks. Everyday experiences and lab experiments indicate that it is possible to perform two or more tasks simultaneously and efficiently (Edgar 2007), e.g. holding a conversation while cooking or driving. However Kahneman highlighted disadvantages, claiming that interference roll in the hay occur when attempting more than one task at a time apiece task is thought to grapple for resources from a central processer (cited by Edgar 2007). For example it is not possible to read and hold a conversation at the same time. Posner and Boies also ascertained that despite simplification, performance may decrease when people perform more than one task at a tim e (cited by Edgar 2007).To explain, when a task such as experience is well learned and practised, it becomes automatic. The automaticity of information is so powerful that it is difficult to avoid or change and this can interfere with ability to respond to other tasks such as naming burnishs (Edgar 2007). This is clearly demonstrated by the Stroop effect, a classic and healthy phenomenon associated with cognition and reaction time (cited by Edgar 2007). In 1935 Stroop revealed that if a chroma script was written in a conflicting colour (such as blue being written in red) thespians would find it difficult to note the colour the spoken language were written in (Gross 2005, Edgar 2007).The above search into automatic and controlled processing provides the motivation for conducting this experiment. The aim is to test whether interference will burst out on the cognitive processing during a variation of the Stroop Test. The oral communication apply in this experiment are man ipulated to include a colour-related list (instead of authentic colour words used by Stroop) and a neutral list. The research hypothesis is that it will take longer for participants to label the sign colour of the list of colour-related words than to name the ink colour of neutral words. This is a one-tailed hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that thither will be no residual in the time that it takes for participants to name the ink colour for the lists of colour-related and neutral words.method actingDesignThe experiment was conducted using a within-participants program. The independent variable comprised 2 gibes, a list of colour-related words (the data-based condition) and a list of neutral words (the control condition). The words were printed in different coloured ink, and apiece participant was required to name the ink colour of each word in two conditions. The dependant variable was the time taken to name the ink colour of the words in each condition. Response times fo r each condition were mensurable by the researcher using a stopwatch, and record to the nearest wink. All participants were read the same standard instruction manual, and the conditions used were identical except for the manipulated variable the actual words printed (colour-related/neutral words). To pay for rank effects the participants were given a number from 1 to 20, the singular numbered participants finish condition 1 followed by condition 2, and the even numbered participants immaculate condition 2 and then 1.ParticipantsThe sample included 20 participants 16 were recruited by staff at The Open University and were colleagues, friends or family members. The remaining 4 were opportunistically recruited by the researcher they were family members who volunteered. There were 10 males and 10 females ranging from 30 to 60 years old. All participants were naive to the hypothesis of the experiment but were briefed beforehand, sign a consent form, and were debriefed afterwards. Each participant had normal or correct to normal vision, ability to distinguish colours, and ability to read and speak English.MaterialsThe stimuli presented in each condition consisted of a list of 30 words, printed in two columns on a pall of A4 paper. The experimental condition consisted of the following colour-related words snag, LEMON, GRASS, CARROT, PLUM and SKY, printed in a colour incongruent with the word (e.g. BLOOD was not printed in red ink, SKY was not printed in blue). The control condition consisted of the following neutral words BLAME, LEDGE, GRADE, CAREER, PLAN and STY. Each word was printed five times in a random order both conditions matched for corresponding words, and were printed in same ink colours, size, font and order (see vermiform process 1 for both stimuli). metre written instructions were used (see addition 2), and a consent form was perfect by each participant (see Appendix 3). A digital stopwatch was used to measure retort times, and all data c ollected were recorded on a rejoinder/data sheet (Appendix 4).ProcedureEach participant was approached and asked to take part in an experiment, on the understanding that it was associated with naming ink colour of lists of words, as part of an investigation into cognitive processing, and to provide data for the researchers assignment. The participants were asked if they had any knowledge of the Stroop effect to determine naivety of the hypothesis. Once it was ascertained that those who agreed to put surmount were suitable for the experiment (with normal or corrected to normal vision, and ability to read and speak English, and distinguish colours), their written consent was obtained. Participants were tested on an individual basis demographic data was recorded including age and sex, before the standard instructions in Appendix 2 were read out verbatim. These told the participant that they would be presented with a list of words, in two columns, that they should work through cons truction aloud the colour of ink each word is printed with. They were told to complete the task as quickly as possible. An example was given and once each individual confirmed that they understood what they had to do, the first stimuli was placed face down on a desk. When the participant was ready it was turned over and the experimenter started the stopwatch. On completion of the last word the stopwatch was stopped and the time it took to complete the task was recorded to the nearest second on the response sheet. The second stimuli was then placed face down immediately and the procedure was repeated. The nonpareil numbered participants completed Condition 1 then 2 and the even numbered participants completed Condition 2 then 1. After the response time was recorded for the second task, the participant was debriefed. They were informed about the nature of the Stroop effect and the diversitys between the two conditions. They were also given the opportunity to ask any questions, their anonymity was reiterated and they were thanked for their contribution.RESULTSThe research hypothesis was that it will take longer for participants to name the ink colour of the words on the colour-related list than to name the ink colour of the list of neutral words. The time it took for each participant to complete the task was measured in seconds and recorded on a data sheet (see Appendix 4). Table 1 below shows the differences between mean response times and standard deviation for both conditions. The colour-related words condition took 2.9 seconds longer, on average, to complete than the neutral words condition. The standard deviation indicates that there is a greater dispersion of response times (in simile to the mean) in condition 1 than in condition 2. Further SPSS Descriptive Statistics output can be seen in Appendix 5.Table 1. Mean Response clock (in seconds) For Each ConditionConditionMean Response Time(in seconds)Standard DeviationColour-related words(Condition 1)24.15 5.304Neutral words(Condition 2)21.205.180Inferential statistical outline was conducted on the data, including a paired samples t-test (t (19) = 3.276 p = .002 d = 0.553), which showed that the differences between conditions were statistically important and not due to sampling error (see Appendix 6 for SPSS inferential analysis output). As the effect size shows a difference of 0.5 standard deviation draw a bead ons, it was considered to be a medium sized effect (Cohen cited by DSE212 Course Team 2007, p172). Based on this analysis, the hypothesis was recognised and the null hypothesis was rejected.DISCUSSIONThe results of this experiment showed that there was a significant increase in the time taken to name the ink colour of the list of colour-related words compared with the list of neutral words. This was consistent with the Stroop effect and supports the experimental hypothesis of the study. Intrusion that resulted from interference is consistent with Kahnemans model, suggesting that if tasks compete for a adept pool of resources interference occurs. It is also consistent with Schneider and Shiffrins descriptions of automatic processes and controlled processes (cited by Edgar 2007).As reading the colour-related words is automatic and unavoidable, controlled processing is required to remove the automatic colour-related word response and replace it with the correct verbal ink colour response. This takes extra processing time and explains the greater response times measured for the colour-related task. Automatic processing is relatively quick, and requires less mental effort than controlled processes that are comparatively slower and require greater conscious effort. This explains why reading is processed before the colour naming response is processed and verbalised.It was observe that the even-numbered participants who completed condition 2 first, had a very small mean difference in response times between both conditions compared with those who completed c ondition 1 first (this is graphically presented in Appendix 7). This shows that counterbalancing for order effects was an effective design. It would be interesting to explore this effect in a repeated but larger study of the same design it is possible the participants completing the neutral word list first had demonstrable a strategy for naming ink colours during the second condition, such as focusing on the first letter of a word, sooner than reading the colour-related word automatically. This could be explored further in future.There were several(prenominal) limitations to the methodology of the experiment. Although the number of participants used for this study was effective in showing the predicted Stroop effect (for the population tested), the sample size was small and so there cannot be widespread comparison or generalisations. Also, the experiment itself was an unnatural agency and people are unlikely to find themselves in real liveliness situations where they have to read out lists of words or colours. The experiment therefore also lacks ecological validity.Two of the researchers participants made mistakes by naming the misuse ink colour, of which they were unaware. Data was not collected during the experiment in relation to numbers of errors that occurred, but this could be considered in future, noting whether errors are corrected or not. A failure of conscious or controlled attention to notice errors has say-so consequences in real life situations.The automaticity of reading has been a focal point of this experiment, but an alternative study could incorporate the use of printed numbers, instead of words to see if similar effects of interference occur with automaticity of recognising numbers as opposed to reading words. Also, while this experiment clearly demonstrates the effects of interference that Kahneman described, it offers no explanation for how tasks performed simultaneously can be done so effectively this is another area that could be explored in future research through dual-task experiments.