Perceptualand Motor Skills, 2004,98,67-77.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 2004

NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT '

ALLEN H . WOLACH MAUREEN A. McHALE

Illinois Institute of Technology Northwestern State University of Louisiana

ALINA TARLEA

Illinois Institute of Technology

Summary.-2 male and 2 female students from an undergraduate class in experi-

mental psychology were participants in a numerical Stroop effect experiment. Mean
age for the students was 19.5 yr., with a SD of 2.4. The Stroop effect was investigated
with a numerical, as opposed to a color, task. The four conditions were Symbols (-,
+ + +, ===, ::, :::), versus Alphabetic Characters (C, AAA, DD, BBB, DDD), versus
Matched Digits and Number of Digits (1, 4444, 333, 22, 4444), versus Mismatched
Digits and Number of Digits (2, 1111, 444, 33, 3333). Participants took longer to
count Mismatched Digits than Symbols or Alphabetic Characters (analogous to the
color Stroop effect). Participants took longer to read Mismatched Digits than Alpha-
betic Characters (analogous to the color reverse Stroop effect). Participants took less
time to read or count Matched Digits than Alphabetic Characters (facilitation effect).

Stroop (1935) was interested in whether printing the names of colors in

mismatched colors increased the time to name the color of the word or read
the color of the word. The first condition in one of his experiments used
words for colors printed in colors that did not match the words. The second
condition substituted color patches for the words for colors. Participants
had to name the color in which a word for color was printed. Time to name
the colors of incongruent words was longer compared to the time to name
colored patches (Stroop effect).
The first condition in a second experiment (Stroop, 1935) used the
names of colors printed in colors that did not match the words. The second
condition used the names of colors printed in black. The difference in read-
ing time for the two conditions was not statistically significant. If participants
had taken longer to read the mismatched words for the names of colors, a
reverse Stroop effect would have been demonstrated.
Most stidies that have included investigations of the Stroop effect have
used incongruent colors for the names of colors as stimulus items. When
new stimuli such as incongruent numbers and quantities of numbers are
used in Stroop-like experiments, it is important to assess whether findings
analogous to Stroop's findings would be obtained.

'Address correspondence to Allen H. Wolach, Institute of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Tech-

nology, Chicago, IL 60616 or e-mail ([email protected]).
68 A. H. WOLACH, ET AL.

Windes (1968) performed two experiments that relate to a numerical

Stroop effect. Condition 1 in Exp. 1 required reading single digit numbers
(1, 2, or 3) as they appeared on a display. Condition 2 required counting
(and saying) the number of characters (pluses) that appeared on the display
(+, + +, or + + +). Although the average time to say the single digits was less
as compared to the average time to say the number of pluses, the difference
in average times was not statistically significant. It should be noted that par-
ticipants in Condition 1 of Exp. 1 (Windes, 1968) were shown three charac-
ters (1, 2, and 3 ). Participants in Condition 2 observed only one character
(one, two, or three pluses). The potential confounding of different numbers
of characters in the two conditions is attended to in the experiment de-
scribed in the present paper.
Exp. 2 in the Windes (1968) study had two conditions. Both conditions
used the following stimuli: 1, 11, 111, 2, 22, 222, 3, 33, 333. Participants in
Condition 1 had to say the digit that was used in a given stimulus item. If
222 appeared on the display, the subject had to say "two." Participants in
Condition 2 had to count the digits that appeared on the display. If 222
appeared on the display, the subject had to say "three." Participants took
less time to say the digit that was used in a given stimulus item (Condition
I ) , compared to counting the digits that appeared on the display (Condition
2).
Windes's experiments (1968) were not directly comparable to Stroop's
experiments ( 1935). An experiment to investigate a numerical Stroop effect
should include a condition with mismatched digits (3, 2, 11, 33, 111, and
222) and a condition with characters that are not digits (A, AA,AAA, B, BB,
BBB, C, CC, and CCC). Participants would be required to count the num-
ber of characters in each stimulus item.
An experiment to investigate a potential reverse Stroop effect should in-
clude a condition with mismatched digits (3, 2, 11, 333, 111, and 222) and a
condition with characters that are not digits (A, AA, AAA, B, BB, BBB, C,
CC, and CCC). A participant would demonstrate a reverse Stroop effect by
taking longer to read mismatched digits, compared to the time taken to read
characters that were not digits.
The Windes's study (1968) did not include a matched-digits control
group who used digits congruous with the number of digits for a given stim-
ulus item, e.g., 1, 22, and 333 as stimulus items. Similarly, Stroop (1935) did
not include a matched-color control condition that had the names of each
color printed in its appropriate color. Matched-color or matched-digit con-
trol conditions make possible assessment of whether counting and reading
are facilitated for matched-color and matched-digit control conditions.
Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger (2003) described a numerical Stroop ef-
fect experiment that could be used in experimental psychology courses. The
 NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT 69

experiment they proposed eliminated some problems relating to potential

stimulus items for control conditions.
The present study was intended to remove the problem of having a dif-
ferent average number of characters for stimulus items in experimental and
control conditions (Windes, 1968, Exp. 1; Elmes, et al., 2003). Four condi-
tions which required counting and four parallel conditions that required
reading were used in the present study.
Counting and reading conditions in the present study included count-
ing or reading letters of the alphabet (CCCC, AAA, B, DD), counting or
reading symbols (-, + + + +, ===, ::), counting or reading digits where the
digit matched the digit count for the stimulus item (1, 4444, 22, 333)) and
counting or reading digits in a stimulus item where the digit in the stimulus
item did not match the digit count for the stimulus item (2, 1111, 444, 33).
Unlike the Stroop (1935) and Windes (1968) studies, all conditions had the
same number of characters. That is, the symbol conditions used symbols -,
+, =, and :, the alphabet condition used letters A, B, C, and D, and the two
mismatched and matched counting and reading conditions used digits 1, 2,
3, and 4.
The symbol and alphabet conditions were neutral conditions. The sym-
bol condition was included to exclude the possibility that participants had
learned to attach numerical values to the letters of the alphabet ( A = 1, B = 2,
C = 3, and D = 4) as a result of previous experience with numbers and letters
of the alphabet. If participants had not attached numerical values to letters
of the alphabet prior to the experiment, time to count letters of the alpha-
bet and time to count symbols should be comparable.
The four reading conditions in the present study used the same stimu-
lus items as the four counting conditions. All stimulus items in the two con-
ditions that required reading digits and the alphabetic letter condition were
one-syllable words. The names of the symbols (minus, plus, equal, and
colon) were on the average longer words than the names for the digits (one,
two, three, or four) or letters of the alphabet (A, B, C, or D). Three of the
four symbol names were two-syllable words. Longer two-syllable words
should make the symbol reading condition take longer as compared to the
three other conditions.
Studies that have investigated the color Stroop effect (e.g., Stroop, 1935)
suggest the following analogous finding for a study of the numerical Stroop
effect. Participants who count digits when the digit does not match the digit
count for the stimulus item should count the digits slower than they count
symbols or letters of the alphabet (Stroop-like effect). Participants who read
digits when the digit does not match the digit count for the stimulus item
should not read the digits slower than they read letters of the alphabet (no
70 A. H. WOLACH, ET AL.

reverse Stroop effect). It is possible that a reverse Stroop effect can be ob-
tained in a numerical Stroop effect situation.
One could predict that participants who count digits in a stimulus item
when the digit in a stimulus matches the digit count for the stimulus item
should count the digits faster than participants who count symbols or letters
of the alphabet. Such a finding would indicate a facilitation effect for match-
ed digits. Facilitation effects have been obtained in experiments on the color
Stroop effect (e.g., Sichel & Chandler, 1969; Dyer, 1973).
The hypotheses for the present study are that (1) Participants will count
symbols and letters of the alphabet in the same amount of time when a
given trial consists of 32 symbol presentations, e.g., -, + + +, ==, :, or 32
presentations of letters of the alphabet (e.g., AAA, BB, CCCC, DDD). (2)
Participants will take longer to read symbols than to read letters of the
alphabet when the same symbols and letters of the alphabet used to test the
first hypothesis are used to test this hypothesis. (3) A numerical Stroop ef-
fect will be obtained as subjects take longer to count mismatched digits, e.g.,
111, 33, 444, 2, than when they count the symbols or letters of the alphabet
in the first two hypotheses. (4) A reverse numerical Stroop effect will be ob-
tained as participants will take longer to read digits when digits are mis-
matched, e.g., 111, 33, 44, 2, than when they read letters of the alphabet. (5)
A facilitation effect will be obtained as participants will take less time to
count matched digits, e.g., 1, 22, 333, 4444, than when they count symbols
or letters of the alphabet. (6) A reverse facilitation effect will be observed as
participants will take less time to read matched digits, e.g., 1, 22, 333, and
4444, than to read letters of the alphabet.

Participants
Four students, two male and two female, from an undergraduate Ex-
perimental Psychology class were participants. Their mean age was 19.5 yr.,
with a SD of 2.4. The students received credit toward their grades for partic-
ipating in the experiment.
Apparatus
Participation required a home computer that ran under Windows 95 or
higher. The participants installed two computer programs, Stroopl and
Stroop2, on their home computers.
Procedure
Participants were instructed to alternate running computer programs
Stroopl and Stroop2 for a total of four sessions with each program. Partici-
pants were required to wait at least one day after running a program before
running the other program. All four participants completed eight sessions
within two weeks.
 NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT 71

First, the four experimental conditions were randomized by the pro-

gram, and each condition was presented one time (Daily Block 1). Then, the
four conditions were randomized a second time, and each condition was
presented one time (Daily Block 2). Finally, the four conditions were ran-
domized for a third time, and each condition was presented one time (Daily
Block 3). In summary, each participant was administered 12 trials per ses-
sion, four trials in each of three Daily Blocks.
When the program started for a daily session, one of three instruction
sets appeared at upper left of the screen. A Command Button labeled "Be-
gin" appeared below the instructions. The three instruction sets for the first
computer program (Stroopl) were as follows.
1. After you click on "Begin," nonnumeric characters w d appear in
rows on the screen. Count the number of characters aloud in each row as
fast as you can. Then click on "End" to record your time.
2. After you click on "Begin," nonnumeric characters (letters of the al-
phabet) will appear in rows on the screen. Count the number of characters
aloud in each row as fast as you can. Then click on "End" to record your
time.
3. After you click on "Begin," digits will appear on the screen. Count
the number of digits aloud in each row as fast as you can then click on
"End" to record your time.
The numbers (1, 2, or 3) that distinguish the three instruction sets were
not shown on the computer screen. Instruction Set 1 was used for Condition
1 (Symbols), Instruction Set 2 was used for Condition 2 (Alphabetic Let-
ters), and Instruction Set 3 was used for Condition 3 (Matched Digits), and
Condition 4 (Mismatched Digits).
In all four experimental conditions, the 32 stimuli for a trial were pre-
sented in 32 rows with one to four characters per row. All characters in a
row were the same. The stimuli for Condition 1 (Symbols) were -, =, :, and
+. Possible stimulus items for Condition 1 were -, - -, - - -, - - - -, -- ) --
--,
--
- - -
-- ----
-- . ..,
-, ., .. ..., ,,.. +, + +, + + +, and + + + +. The stimuli for Condi-
.,. ....,
tion; (Alphabetic Letters) were A, B, C, and D. Possible stimulus items for
Condition 2 were A, AA, AAA, AAAA, B, BB, BBB, BBBB, C, CC, CCC,
CCCC, D, DD, DDD, and DDDD. The stimuli for Condition 3 (Matched
Digits) were 1, 2, 3, and 4. Possible stimulus items for Condition 3 were 1,
22, 333, and 4444. Note that the digit count for a stimulus item in Condi-
tion 3 matched the digit used in the stimulus item. The stimuli for Condi-
tion 4 (Mismatched Digits) were 1, 2, 3, and 4. Possible stimulus items for
Condition 4 were 11, 111, 1111, 2, 222, 2222, 3, 33, 3333, 4, 44, and 444.
Note that the digit count for a stimulus item in Condition 4 never matched
the digit used in the stimulus item.
After the participant clicked on "Begin," all 32 stimulus items for one
72 A. H. WOLACH, ET AL.

of the four conditions appeared at the left of the screen in a column. The
caption on the "Begin" Command Button changed to "End." When the
participant completed counting the characters for all 32 stimulus items, he
clicked on "End." Then the instructions for the next trial appeared on the
screen along with the "Begin" Command Button. In addition to randomiz-
ing the four conditions within each of the three Daily Trial Blocks, the rows
for the 32 stimulus items in a given condition were randomized before the
condition was presented. For example, any of the 32 rows in a condition
could be the first row presented for that condition. All 32 rows for a condi-
tion were presented each time the condition occurred.
The computer recorded the time to count the items in the 32 rows for
each of the 12 daily trials and placed the 12 times in a file. The time for a
trial was the time from when the "Begin" Command Button was clicked un-
til the "End" Command Button was clicked.
When the second computer program (Stroop2) was run, the procedure
was the same as the procedure for computer program Stroopl with one ex-
ception. The three instruction sets for computer program Stroop2 required a
subject to "Read the" characters or digits as opposed to "Count the number
of" characters or digits.
RESULTS
A Randomized Block factorial analysis of variance with four factors of
interest was performed. The first factor, Count or Read, had two levels,
Count Characters in Each Row versus Read Characters in Each Row. The
second factor was Blocks of Daily Trials. The first block included the first
day of training with program Stroopl and the first day of training with pro-
gram Stroop2. The second block included the second day of training with
program Stroopl and the second day of training with program Stroop2, etc.
The third factor was blocks of trials within a daily session, Daily Block 1,
versus Daily Block 2, versus Daily Block 3. The fourth factor was for Condi-
tions 1 through 4 (Symbolic versus Alphabetic Letters versus Matched Digits
versus Mismatched Digits).
All statistically significant results (alpha level of .05) are presented in
this Results section. The Mean Square Error term for all F ratios in the anal-
ysis of variance and all simple main effects tests was 9.25 with 285 dlf. This
error term provides a measure of variability for the analysis of variance. The
values for Partial Eta Squared (PES), the NonCentrality Parameter (NC),
and Observed Power (OP) are provided after each statistically significant F
ratio from the randomized block analysis of variance. Values for Partial Eta
Squared and NonCentrality Parameter provide information about the effect
size. The values for Observed Power provide an estimate of power for a
given F ratio.
 NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT 73

The analysis of variance produced a statistically significant main effect

for Count Characters in Each Row (M= 15.9 sec.) versus Read Characters in
Each Row (M= 19.2 sec., F,,2, = 110.67, p < .05; Partial Eta Squared = 0.49,
NonCentrality Parameter = 61.4, Observed Power = 1.00). This main effect in-
dicated that participants took less time to count characters than to read char-
acters.
A statistically significant main effect for Blocks of Daily Trials (F,,,,, =
11.40, p < .05; Partial Eta Squared = 0.67, NonCentrality Parameter = 18.9,
Observed Power=O.96) was obtained. The means for the four Blocks of
Daily Trials were 19.0 sec., 17.4 sec., 17.3 sec., and 16.5 sec. All painvise
comparisons were performed among the four Blocks of Daily Trials with
Tukey HSD procedure. The painvise comparisons revealed the first Block of
Daily Trials differed significantly from the second (q,,, = 5.37), the third
(q,,,=5.50), and the fourth (a,=8.02) Block of Daily Trials. The compari-
sons with Tukey procedure indicated that participants took longer to count
or read the rows in the first block of Daily Trials as compared to the sec-
ond, third, and fourth Blocks of Daily Trials.
A statistically significant main effect for Conditions 1 through 4 (F3,2==
38.92, p < .05; Partial Eta Squared = 0.70, NonCentrality Parameter = 65.5,
Observed Power= l.OO), and an interaction for Count Characters in Each
Row versus Read Characters in Each Row by Conditions 1 through 4 (F3,335
= 12.37, p < .05; Partial Eta Squared = 0.61, NonCentrality Parameter = 21.1,
Observed Power =O.98) was obtained. Table 1 shows the eight conditions in
the interaction for Count Characters in Each Row versus Read Characters in
Each Row by Conditions 1 through 4.

TABLE 1
TIME(SEC.) TO COUNTOR READ STIMULUS
AVERAGE ITEMSAND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR EACHCONDITION
Condition Count Read
- - - - - - - -
M SD M SD
Symbols 16.0 2.5 22.5 6.3
Alphabet 16.1 2.1 17.9 3.9
Matched Digits 13.6 2.5 16.5 4.5
Mismatched Digits 18.0 1.4 19.8 3.4

Simple main effects tests were performed on each row and each column
of the interaction for Count Characters in Each Row versus Read Characters
in Each Row by Conditions 1 through 4. All six simple main effects tests
were statistically significant. The four simple main effects tests for Count
versus Read were Count (M = 16.0 sec.) versus Read (M = 22.5) Symbols
(F,,*, = 215.03, p < .05); Count (M = 16.1 sec.) versus Read (M= 17.9 sec.) Al-
74 A. H. WOLACH, ET AL.

phabetic Letters (F,,2,,= 16.66, p < .05); Count (M= 13.6 sec.) versus Read
(M= 16.5 sec.) Matched Digits (F,,,,,= 46.05, p < .05); Count (M= 18.0 sec.)
versus Read (M= 19.8 sec,) Mismatched Digits (F,,2,5=17.84, p<.05). The
four statistically significant simple main effects tests in conjunction with the
means in this paragraph indicate that participants took longer to read than
to count in Conditions 1 through 4.
The two simple main effects tests for Conditions 1 through 4 were
Count (Mean Symbols = 16.0, Mean Alphabetic Letters = 16.1, Mean Match-
ed Digits = 13.6, Mean Mismatched Digits = 18.0, F,,,,, = 17.06, p < .05); Read
(Mean Symbols =22.5, Mean Alphabetic Letters = 17.9, Mean Matched Dig-
its = 16.5, Mean Mismatched Digits = 19.8, F,,,5 = 34.27, p < .05).
Tukey HSD procedure was used to make pairwise comparisons for the
two simple main effects tests (Count and Read) for Conditions 1 through 4.
Pairwise comparisons for counting produced the following statistically signif-
icant differences in mean times: Count Symbols (iM=16.0 sec.) versus Count
Matched Digits (M= 13.6 sec., q,,, = 5.65); Count Symbols (M = 16.0 sec.)
versus Count Mismatched Digits (M= 18.0 sec., q,,, = 4.41); Count Letters of
the Alphabet (M= 16.1 sec.) versus Count Matched Digits (M= 13.6 sec.,
q,,, =5.88); Count Letters of the Alphabet (M = 16.1 sec.) versus C o ~ n Mis-
t
matched Digits (M = 18.0 sec., a,, = 4.18); Count Matched Digits (M = 13.6
sec.) versus Count Mismatched Digits (M = 18.0 sec., q,,,= 10.06).
The comparisons with Tukey procedure indicated that participants took
less time to count digits when the Digit and Number of Digits in a row were
the same than in any of the other three conditions (Count Symbols, Count
Alphabetic Letters, and Count Mismatched Digits). This series of findings
indicates that a numerical Stroop effect was found for counting. Participants
took more time to count digits when the digit and number of digits in a row
were not the same when compared with any of the other three conditions.
This finding indicates that the conflict in the digit and number of digits for
a stimulus item increased the time it took to read the digits in a stimulus
item.
Painvise comparisons for reading produced the following statistically
significant differences in mean times: Read Symbols (M= 22.5 sec.) versus
Read Alphabetic Letters (M = 17.9 szc., q,, = 10.34); Read Symbols (M = 22.5
sec.) versus Read Matched Digits (M= 16.5 sec., y,,,= 13.52); Read Symbols
(M=22.5 sec.) versus Read Mismatched Digits (M= 19.8 sec., q2,=6.03);
Read Alphabetic Letters (M = 17.9 sec.) versus Read Mismatched Digits (M =
19.8 sec., q,,, = 4.32); Read Matched Digits (M = 16.5 sec.) versus Read Mis-
matched Digits (M = 19.8 sec., g,,5 = 7.50).
DISCUSSION
A numerical Stroop effect was demonstrated for subjects who counted
characters. That is, when the digit in a stimulus item and the number of dig-
 NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT 75

its in the stimulus item were mismatched, the subjects took longer to count
the mismatched digits than to count letters of the alphabet -or symbols.
When the digit in a stimulus item and the number of digits in the item
matched, the subjects counted the digits faster than counting letters of the
alphabet or symbols (facilitation effect). Sichel, et al. (1969), Dyer (1973),
and Hintzman, Carre, Eskridge, Owens, Shaff, and Sparks (1972) demon-
strated facilitation effects when participants stated the colors of words for
colors printed in compatible colors. This finding is also consistent with find-
ings from the Francolini and Egeth study (1980) that showed facilitation
occurred when participants counted matched digits.
The time to count symbols was comparable to the time to count letters
of the alphabet. This demonstrates that participants had not learned to at-
tach numbers to consecutive letters of the alphabet before the experiment
was performed.
Since participants had not learned to attach numbers to letters of the
alphabet, the alphabet condition was an appropriate control condition for
the reading task. The symbol reading task was not an appropriate control
condition for the reading task because names for symbols were on the aver-
age longer (and sometimes multisyllable words) than words for characters in
the other three conditions (short one-syllable words such as "onc" or "A").
When participants read stimulus items, they took longer to read symbols
than letters of the alphabet. The difference in the time it took to read in the
Symbol and ~ l ~ h a b e tCharacters
ic conditions was probably related to differ-
ences in average length of words for the two conditions.
Reading stimulus items always took longer than counting the same stim-
ulus items. When the digit in a stimulus item and the number of digits in
the item were mismatched, the subjects took longer to read the mismatched
digits than to read letters of the alphabet. This reverse Stroop effect is at
variance with Stroop's failure (1935) to find a reverse Stroop effect. That is,
Stroop found no difference in time to read mismatched items as compared
to reading control items. The Stroop data showed trends in the direction of
the significant finding for reading that was obtained in the present study.
Stroop (1935) performed a third experiment in which he showed a transient
reverse Stroop effect. Stroop found the reverse Stroop effect when subjects
read words for the names of colors printed in mismatched colors after eight
days of practice with naming the colors in which mismatched words for the
names of colors were printed. One can posit that the numerical reverse
Stroop effect in the present experiment was caused by practice with count-
ing stimulus items on alternate days. However, Blocks of Daily Trials was
not statistically significant in the present experiment. In addition, Blocks of
Daily Trials did not interact with any of the other factors in the present ex-
periment. These findings do not suggest that practice led to increased diffi-
76 A. H. WOLACH, ET AL.

culty for reading mismatched digits. It is possible that a reverse Stroop ef-
fect is more likely to occur with numerical tasks than color tasks.
The present study included conditions comparable to all conditions
used in Stroop7sstudy (1935). The present study did not include conditions
that can be compared to the specific conditions used in Windes's study
(1968). Windes7s reading conditions required subject to read (say) the char-
acter that was in a stimulus item. For example, a subject was required to say
2 when he observed 222. The reading conditions in the present study re-
quired a subject to read all characters in a stimulus item. A subject would say
2 three times when he saw 222. Since the comparisons Windes made were
between reading and counting conditions, Windes did not use conditions
comparable to the conditions in the Stroop study or in the present one.
The participants in a given condition were timed across a series of items
in the Stroop study (1935) and the present study. Reaction times were taken
for individual stimulus presentations in the Windes study (1968). The
Stroop study and the present study used a within-subjects design to com-
pare conditions. Windes used a between-subjects design. Windes's mismatch-
ed condition included the following stimulus items: 1, 11, 111, 2, 22, 222, 3 ,
33, and 333. Note that some of the items (1, 22, and 333) were not mis-
matched. The Stroop experiment and the present experiment did not use
matched items in the mismatched condition.
Stroop-like interference has been explained by the allocation of atten-
tion to one of two dimensions, relevant or nonrelevant. Suppose a partici-
pant in an experiment has to count the number of digits in a stimulus item.
Further suppose the stimulus item is 3333. The appropriate response on the
relevant dimension is "four." The inappropriate response on the irrelevant
dimension is "three." A traditional view of the Stroop effect assumed inter-
ference effects occur because of different responses to automatic (direct pro-
cessing) and controlled (indirect processing) processes (Cohen, Dunbar, &
McClelland, 1990). Reading (irrelevant dimension) is presumed to be the au-
tomatic process and counting (relevant dimension) is presumed to be the
controlled process in a numerical Stroop effect experiment.
The Stroop effect may have occurred in the present study because auto-
matic processing (reading digits) interfered with controlled processing (count-
ing digits). The reverse Stroop effect may have occurred because the con-
trolled process (counting digits) interfered with the automatic process (read-
ing digits).
A facilitation effect occurred when matched digits were read or count-
ed. When the controlled and automatic processes were consistent with each
other, the two processes worked together to facilitate performance.
The theoretical model of Cohen, et al. (1990) considers automaticity of
cognitive processes in terms of a continuum based on strength of processing.
 NUMERICAL STROOP EFFECT 77

Counting and reading can be interpreted not as controlled and automatic,

but as processes of different automatic strengths.
Studies with mismatched names of colors and the word colors usually
show the Stroop effect but do not always find the reverse Stroop effect (e.g.,
Stroop, 1935). If the relevant dimension for a Stroop effect (counting) has
less strength of automatic processing than the irrelevant dimension (reading),
a Stroop effect may be easy to obtain. If the relevant dimension for a poten-
tial reverse Stroop effect (reading) has more strength of automatic process-
ing than the irrelevant dimension (counting), a reverse Stroop effect may be
more difficult to obtain. Perhaps the initial disparity in automaticity is small-
er in numerical than color Stroop and reverse Stroop effect studies.
REFERENCES
COHEN,J. D., DUNBAR, K., &MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1990) On the control of automatic processes:
a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97,
332-361.
DYER,F. N. (1973) Interference and facilitation for color naming with separate bilateral pre-
sentations of the word and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 3 14-317.
ELMES,G., KANTOWITZ, B. H., & ROEDIGER, H. L. 111. (2003) Research methods in psychology.
(7th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
FRANCOLINI, C. M., &EGETH,H. E. (1980) On the non-automaticity of "automatic" activation:
evidence of selecting seeing. Perception G- Psychophysics, 27, 331-342.
HINTZMAN, D. L., CARRE,F. A., ESKRIDGE, V. L., OWENS,A. M., SHAFF,S. S., & SPARKS, M. E.
(1972) "Stroop" effect: input or output phenomenon? Journal of Expeninental Psycholo-
gy, 95, 458-459.
J. L., &CHANDLER,
SICHEL, K. A. (1969) The Color-Word Interference Test: the effects of var-
ied color-word combinations upon verbal response latency. Journal of Psychology, 72, 219-
231.
STROOP,J. R. (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18, 643-662.
WINDES,J. D. (1968) Reaction time for numerical coding and naming of numerals. lournal of
Experimental Psychology, 78, 3 18-322.

Accepted November 25, 2003.