Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task

Lamers, Martijn J. M.; Roelofs, Ardi; Rabeling-Keus, Inge M. · 2010 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/mc.38.7.893

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the mechanisms underlying the "response set" effect in the color–word Stroop task, specifically addressing whether interference arises from the selective allocation of attention to eligible responses or from the inhibition of ineligible distractors. While previous research established that distractors corresponding to eligible responses cause greater interference than those that do not, the underlying cognitive process remained unclear. The authors aimed to adjudicate between two competing accounts: the attention allocation account, which posits that attention is selectively directed toward eligible responses, and the inhibition account, which suggests that noneligible responses are actively inhibited. Additionally, the study examined how the number of eligible responses (set size) influences performance. The researchers conducted two experiments using a modified Stroop task. In Experiment 1, response set membership was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis using visual cues that indicated the two possible responses for each trial. Participants named the ink color of color words while the distractor word was either inside or outside the cued response set. The experiment also varied the set size (three vs. six colors) to test for interactions between membership and set size effects. Experiment 2 further tested the inhibition account by cuing the distractor word itself on half of the trials, predicting that inhibition would reduce interference if the distractor was known in advance. Response times (RTs) were analyzed using both mean comparisons and Vincentile distributional analyses to assess effects across the entire RT range. The results from Experiment 1 demonstrated a significant membership effect, with slower RTs for distractors inside the response set compared to those outside. A set size effect was also observed, where larger sets increased RTs for incongruent trials but not congruent ones. Crucially, the membership and set size effects were additive rather than interactive, supporting the attention allocation account. Distributional analyses revealed that the membership effect remained constant across all RT quantiles, whereas the inhibition account predicted larger effects in the tail of the distribution. Experiment 2 found that cuing the distractor decreased RTs for both congruent and incongruent trials, consistent with enhanced attention allocation to eligible responses rather than specific inhibition of the distractor. These findings support the conclusion that response set effects in the Stroop task arise from the selective allocation of attention to eligible responses at the response selection level, rather than from the inhibition of noneligible distractors. The additive nature of membership and set size effects, along with the constant magnitude of the membership effect across RT distributions, aligns with models like WEAVER++ that emphasize selection space restriction. This work clarifies the role of response set in attentional selection, suggesting that attention is strategically allocated to potential responses, thereby increasing interference for distractors that compete within this selection space.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• task switching