Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Unconsciously controlled processing: the Stroop effect reconsidered.

D Besner¹, J A Stolz

¹Psychology Department, University of Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada. dbesner@watarts.uwaterloo.ca

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

|August 30, 2002

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Semantic priming in visual word recognition: Activation blocking and domains of processing.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2013

Same author

Beyond the articulatory loop: A semantic contribution to serial order recall of subspan lists.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2013

Same author

Same-different judgments with words and nonwords: The differential effects of relative size.

Memory & cognition·2013

Same author

The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2011

Same author

Mental size scaling examined.

Memory & cognition·2011

Same author

What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect?

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2002

Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

See all related articles

The Stroop effect, often cited as proof of automatic reading, is not always present. Its occurrence depends on stimulus presentation and word meaning, suggesting context-controlled, not automatic, word recognition.

Area of Science:

Cognitive Psychology
Neuroscience of Reading
Human Perception

Background:

The Stroop effect demonstrates interference in reaction time when processing conflicting information.
It is traditionally interpreted as evidence for automatic word processing during reading.
This automaticity implies that lexical/semantic analysis of words is unavoidable, even when task-irrelevant.

Purpose of the Study:

To challenge the prevailing view of automaticity in reading using the Stroop effect.
To investigate the conditions under which the Stroop effect appears or disappears.
To propose an alternative framework for understanding skilled word recognition.

Main Methods:

Three experiments were conducted manipulating stimulus properties and distractor characteristics.

Related Experiment Videos

The study examined the presence/absence of the Stroop effect based on these manipulations.

A theoretical framework incorporating domain-specific encoding algorithms was developed.

Main Results:

The Stroop effect's presence was contingent on whether all target elements were colored.
The Stroop effect also depended on whether the target and distractor belonged to the same semantic domain.
These findings indicate that Stroop interference is not a universal outcome of reading.

Conclusions:

Skilled word recognition is better characterized as contextually controlled rather than strictly automatic.
Domain-specific encoding algorithms play a significant role in modulating Stroop interference.
The traditional interpretation of the Stroop effect as evidence for absolute automaticity in reading requires revision.