| P · prime | the printed colour word (irrelevant) |
| T · target | the ink colour to be named |
| B · baseline | colour-naming time with a neutral stimulus |
| E · priming effect | slower naming when word and colour conflict |
| A · association | incongruent (negative) |
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | color-word interference— “Interference in serial verbal reactions has been studied by means of newly devised experimental materials.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “But the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors (each color being the print of a word which names another color) caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent of the normal time for naming colors printed in squares.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Seventy college undergraduates (14 males and 56 females) were used as subjects.” | |
| mechanism | interference from automaticity: the highly-practiced automatic response (reading a word) competes with a slower, less-automatic response (naming the ink color), so conflicting color words slow color naming - the Stroop effect— “a given association can function automatically even though some effect of a previous contrary association remains” | mechanisms[0] |
| builds-on | prior experimental research on interference and inhibition— “Interference or inhibition (the terms seem to have been used almost indiscriminately) has been given a large place in experimental literature.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Woodworth-Wells (1911), Brown (1915) and Ligon (1932) on the sex difference in colour naming— “This reliable sex-difference favoring the females in naming colors agrees with the findings of Woodworth-Wells (1911), Brown (1915), Ligon (1932), etc.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Peterson and Barlow's (1928) hypothesis about practice and individual differences— “These findings lend some support to Peterson's hypothesis, "Subjects of normal heterogeneity would become more alike with practice on the simpler processes or activities, but more different on the more complex activities" (Peterson and Barlow, 1928, p. 228).” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Peterson's prediction about the reading of colour names printed in conflicting colours— “This difference is not reliable which is in agreement with Peterson's prediction made when the test was first proposed.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE ASYMMETRY WITH BOTH HALVES, WHICH IS THE FINDING - NOT THE HALF THAT GETS QUOTED: `The interference of conflicting color stimuli upon the time for reading 100 words ... caused an increase of only 2.3 seconds or 5.6 percent over the normal time for reading the same words printed in black. This increase is not reliable. But the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors ... caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent.` One direction is a null and the other is enormous. A record that holds only `colour-word interference` has half of this paper; the whole of it is that interference runs one way and not the other, and that fact is what needs explaining— “The interference of conflicting color stimuli upon the time for reading 100 words (each word naming a color unlike the ink-color of its print) caused an increase of only 2.3 seconds or 5.6 percent over the normal time for reading the same words printed in black. This increase is not reliable. But the interference of conflicting word stimuli… | senses[0] |
| sense | AND STROOP'S EXPLANATION IS A TRAINING HISTORY, NOT AN ARCHITECTURE: `The word stimulus has been associated with the SPECIFIC response 'to read,' while the color stimulus has been associated with VARIOUS responses: 'to admire,' 'to name,' 'to reach for,' 'to avoid,' etc.` One-to-one against one-to-many. Not automaticity, not a module, not a race between pathways - a difference in how many responses each stimulus class has been attached to over a lifetime. It is in the paper's own SUMMARY, not buried in a discussion - and because it is a claim about learning rather than about structure, it is testable by training, which is exactly what Stroop then does in Experiment 3. (An earlier version of this note said the training account is 'the part later citation usually loses'. I had not measured that and cannot from one record: the corpus holds 7 records mentioning Stroop, which is no base for 'usually', and counting how often those records say 'automatic' measures their own topics rather than what they attribute to him. Retracted 2026-08-19)— “The word stimulus has been associated with the specific response 'to read,' while the color stimulus has been associated with various responses: 'to admire,' 'to name,' 'to reach for,' 'to avoid,' etc” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND HE TESTED IT THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD SETTLE IT - BY TRAINING THE NULL DIRECTION UNTIL IT STOPPED BEING NULL. Eight days, 200 reactions a day, naming the colours of conflicting words: `1. It DECREASED the interference of conflicting word stimuli to naming colors but did not eliminate it. ... 5. It increased the interference of conflicting color stimuli upon reading words.` The direction that was `not reliable` became reliable once it was trained, and the direction that was enormous shrank. That is the training account making a prediction and collecting it, and it is stronger evidence than the headline asymmetry it explains— “It decreased the interference of conflicting word stimuli to naming colors but did not eliminate it. 2. It produced a practice curve comparable to that obtained in many other learning experiments. 3. It increased the variability of the group. 4. It shortened the reaction time to colors presented in color squares. 5. It increased the… | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE INTERFERENCE HE BUILT DECAYED FASTER THAN THE ONE HE FOUND, WHICH IS A SEPARATE CLAIM: `it is evident that the newly developed interference disappears very rapidly with practice. From one day to the next the mean decreases from 34.8 to 22.0 seconds. This indicates that renewing the effectiveness of old associations which are being opposed by newly formed ones is easier than strengthening new associations in opposition to old well established ones.` A trained interference is real but shallow; the lifetime one is not. Age of an association, not just its strength - and it is measured here in 1935 with a stopwatch— “it is evident that the newly developed interference disappears very rapidly with practice. From one day to the next the mean decreases from 34.8 to 22.0 seconds. This indicates that renewing the effectiveness of old associations which are being opposed by newly formed ones is easier than strengthening new associations in opposition to old… | senses[3] |
| control | the colour order constructed so that no colour repeats consecutively in a row or column, and each appears TWICE in every row and column — held — rules out regularity of occurrence - a predictable sequence lets the reader anticipate the next colour, so a naming-speed difference would measure prediction rather than interference. Balancing across rows and columns also equalises how often each colour is named— “The colors were arranged so as to avoid any regularity of occurrence and so that each color would appear twice in each column and in each row” | controls[0] |
| effect direction | word stimuli —causes→ interference — increases— “the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors (each color being the print of a word which names another color) caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent of the normal time for naming colors printed in squares”— “caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | word stimuli —causes→ interference — THE EFFECT THE PAPER IS REMEMBERED FOR, at 4.35 standard deviation units. Weight 0.95: the number, the comparison condition and the reliability are all in the paper's own summary. The edge that matters is the OTHER one - this one alone is the half-quoted version.— “the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors (each color being the print of a word which names another color) caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent of the normal time for naming colors printed in squares” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | word stimuli —causes→ interference — 0.95— “the interference of conflicting word stimuli upon the time for naming 100 colors (each color being the print of a word which names another color) caused an increase of 47.0 seconds or 74.3 percent of the normal time for naming colors printed in squares” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | color stimuli —causes→ interference — no-change | concept_edges[1] |
| note | color stimuli —causes→ interference — 'no-change' ON A 5.6 PERCENT INCREASE, BECAUSE STROOP SAYS 'This increase is not reliable' AND THAT SENTENCE IS INSIDE THE QUOTE. The point estimate is positive; the paper declines to treat it as an effect. Recording it as 'increases' because the number is above zero would contradict the author, and dropping the edge would lose the half of the finding that needs explaining. Read with the edge above, this pair IS the Stroop asymmetry - and the third sense shows the null becoming reliable after eight days of training, which is what makes it a fact about learning rather than about colour. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | color stimuli —causes→ interference — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | practice —causes→ interference — increases Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | practice —causes→ interference — THIS IS THE TRAINING ACCOUNT BEING COLLECTED RATHER THAN ASSERTED. Eight days of naming the colours of conflicting words INCREASED the interference running the other way - the direction Experiment 1 had found 'not reliable'. 'due to' is Stroop's own attribution and it is in the quote. Weight 0.9: a measured within-subject change with the manipulation named, against 0.85 for the interpretive sentence where he says it 'seems reasonable to conclude' that differential training explains the asymmetry. The explanation is the 'training' concept; this edge is the test of it. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | practice —causes→ interference — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the reading-incongruent condition specifically: THIS DIFFERENCE IS NOT RELIABLE, WHICH IS IN AGREEMENT WITH PETERSON'S PREDICTION MADE WHEN THE TEST WAS FIRST PROPOSED Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — every reported time: THIS PLAN OF CORRECTION WAS ARBITRARY BUT SEEMED TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE SITUATION Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[1], with the reason: SINCE NO ACCURATE OBJECTIVE MEASURE WAS OBTAINABLE AND THE NUMBER OF ERRORS WAS SMALL THE ARBITRARY PLAN WAS ADOPTED Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison across college years: ONLY COLLEGE YEARS ONE AND TWO CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CASES FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | in one condition (reading incongruently-colored color names) the observed difference was not statistically reliable Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The scheme used to penalise uncorrected errors was chosen arbitrarily rather than derived from an objective measure. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | No accurate objective correction for uncorrected errors was available. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Only the first two college-year groups had enough cases to support comparison. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | the difference was not reliable, in agreement with Peterson's prediction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | naming colors takes more time than reading color names Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | the color naming vs word reading speed gap does not depend on practice Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| evidence status note | finding — THE QUOTE IS BROWN'S (1915) CONCLUSION, WHICH THIS PAPER CITES - it is not a finding of this paper's own experiments, and the paper's own conclusion accounts for the difference in speed by the difference in training in reading and in naming. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | a prior association can interfere with forming an opposite one Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 70 undergraduates — subjects in Experiment I (14 male, 56 female) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 200 reactions — reactions each subject made per test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 2.3 seconds — extra time to read 100 color names in conflicting ink Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 638 subjects — Ligon's genetic-study sample across grades 1-9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| variable | interference of color stimuli upon reading words (quantity measured in Experiment I) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | increase in time (dependent measure of interference) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | recall power (predictor of inhibition strength (Kline)) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| evidence status note | variable — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | conflicting stimuli (simultaneously presented opposing cues) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | associative inhibition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | RCNd Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | RCNb Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | interference or inhibition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| key-terms | interference, color naming, word reading, color stimuli, word stimuli, reaction times, associative inhibition, serial verbal reactions, practice |
| concept | interference Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | word stimuli — not defined in this paper's own words; the printed word, which wins: it interferes with colour-naming by 74.3 percent while being almost untouched in return. Stroop's account is that it has been attached to ONE response, 'to read', for a lifetime Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | color stimuli — not defined in this paper's own words; the ink colour, which loses: it costs only 5.6 percent when it conflicts with a word to be read, and that increase 'is not reliable'. The null half of the effect, and the half usually dropped when the effect is described Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | training — not defined in this paper's own words; STROOP'S OWN EXPLANATION, and it is a learning history rather than an architecture: the asymmetry is attributed to how much practice each association has had, which is why he then goes and trains the weak direction to see it move Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
| concept | practice — not defined in this paper's own words; eight days, 200 reactions a day, naming the colours of conflicting words - and the reason this paper is more than a demonstration: it is the manipulation that turns Stroop's training account from an interpretation into a prediction he can collect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[10] |
| mean μ | as written: mean of Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| median | as written: medians Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| standard-deviation SD/σ | as written: standard deviations Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824