Abstract
Since Stroop (1935), semantic access has been seen as automatic but today this is questioned, following minor modifications of the Stroop task. Besner, Stolz and Boutilier (1997) showed that coloring a single letter differently from the others and asking the participant to name the color of this letter, significantly reduced the Stroop effect. Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil and Dumas (1999) showed that another person’s presence during the test significantly reduced the Stroop effect. Raz, Shapiro, Fan and Posner (2002) showed a reduction in Stroop effect when hypnotized participants were told what would appear on the screen was not a word. These reductions suggest that semantic access of a word needs attentional resources, and is not automatic.
This review summarizes recent results concerning reduction of the Stroop effect through the three manipulations mentioned above. The similarities and conflicts of these studies are illustrated. The conclusions suggest that these manipulations seem not to reduce or prevent automatic semantic activation, but rather reduce non-semantic task-relevant response competition. Using measures other than behavioral measures like Event-Related Potentials and a new definition of automaticity are proposed to understand better the different results cited.