Strategy or Local Control? Interaction of Gratton Effect and Proportion’s Effect in the Stroop Test

Models of cognitive control contain the mechanism of the general strategy of solving a task and control of specific stimuli special mechanisms. There is an ongoing discussion as to which control is responsible for the Gratton effect and the Stroop test’s proportion effect. The Gratton effect consists in decreasing the Stroop effect after an incongruent stimulus, the proportion effect is to increase interference when incongruent stimuli predominate among other types of stimuli. In this study, we set out to test whether there would be an interaction between these effects. If it is detected, we can say that both effects of study are produced by a general cognitive mechanism. Similar studies of general strategy using the Stroop task include congruent and incongruent stimuli. Congruent stimuli produce a response facilitation effect that is mixed with an interference effect, making final interpretation difficult. To avoid this, we used different proportions of incongruent and neutral stimuli. We conducted three experiments using different proportions of incongruent versus neutral stimuli (66:33/33:66 and 80:20/20:80), as well as the type of design (intragroup and intergroup plans). Only the Gratton effect was detected in the experiments performed — no proportion effect or significant interaction between the Gratton and proportion effects was found. In three experiments (N=70), only indirect evidence was found for the effect of proportion on the Gratton effect. These results are difficult to explain in terms of “strategic” interference model who explain both effects by a change in the global strategy for solving the task. Given the systematic lack of interaction between the Gratton effect and other effects in the literature, we can say that the Gratton effect is caused by a local control system, which the proportion effect influences, if at all, only slightly. The connection between the proportion effect and strategic control and the factors that mediate it are discussed

Bausenhart, K. M., Ulrich, R., Miller, J. (2021). Effects of conflict trial proportion: A comparison of the Eriksen and Simon tasks. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 83 (2), 810–836. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02164-2

Benarroch-Altman, M. F. (2021). Proportion Manipulation of the Emotional Stroop. Doctoral dissertation. Hamilton. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/27080 (accessed: 10.06.2022).

Blais, C., Stefanidi, A., Brewer, G. A. (2014). The Gratton effect remains after controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01207

Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8 (12), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23 (9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002

Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 (5), 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412453586

Bugg, J. M., Hutchison, K. A. (2012). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39 (2), 433. https://doi:10.1037/a0029145

Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Сognition, 36 (8), 1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC. 36.8.1484

Bustamante, L., Lieder, F., Musslick, S., Shenhav, A., Cohen, J. (2021). Learning to overexert cognitive control in a Stroop task. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21 (3), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00845-x

Cochrane, B. A., Pratt, J. (2022). The item-specific proportion congruency effect transfers to non-category members based on broad visual similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02104-1

Dignath, D., Eder, A. B., Steinhauser, M. Kiesel, A. (2020). Conflict monitoring and the affective-signaling hypothesis — An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27 (2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01668-9

Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Notebaert, W. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research, 78 (4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0498-4

Duthoo W., Notebaert W. (2012). Conflict adaptation: It is not what you expect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 (10), 1993–2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.676655

Entel, O., Tzelgov, J., Bereby-Meyer, Yo. (2014). Proportion congruency effects: Instructions may be enough. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01108

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (4), 480. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1993-12151-001 (accessed: 10.06.2022).

Lindsay, D. S., Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: the relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (2), 219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.219

MacLeod, C. M. (2005). The Stroop Task in Cognitive Research. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10870-002

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.

Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman E., Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior research methods, 51 (1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y

Questienne, L., Van Opstal, F., van Dijck, J. P., Gevers, W. (2018). Metacognition and cognitive control: behavioural adaptation requires conflict experience. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 71 (2), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1251473

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed: 18.03.2022).

Rey-Mermet, A., Meier, B. (2017). Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: From general to conflict-specific. Psychological research, 81 (3), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0767-0

Schmidt, J. R. (2013). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142 (1), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.004

Schmidt, J. R., Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (3), 514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514

Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta psychologica, 138 (1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002

Spapé, M. M., Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (6), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117

Spinelli, G., Lupker, S. J. (2020). Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect. Memory & Cognition, 48 (3), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00980-y

Spinelli, G., Lupker, S. J. (2021). Proactive control in the Stroop task: A conflict-frequency manipulation free of item-specific, contingency-learning, and color-word correlation confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47 (10), 1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000820

Starodubtsev, A. S., Allakhverdov, M. V. (2017). The influence of the attitude about the presence of conflicting stimuli in the Stroop test on the magnitude of interference. Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Psychology, 7 (2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu16.2017.203 (In Russian)

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18 (6), 643. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

Verbruggen, F., McLaren, I. P., Chambers, C. D. (2014). Banishing the control homunculi in studies of action control and behavior change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9 (5), 497–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614526414