Test-Retest Reliability of the Emotional Stroop Task: Examining the Paradox of Measurement Change

The Emotional Stroop (ES) task (I. H. Gotlib & C. D. McCann, 1984) has been proposed as an experimental measure to assess the processing of emotion or the bias in attention of emotion-laden information. However, study results have not been consistent. To further examine its reliability for empirical research, the authors of this study administered the ES task to 33 participants on 2 separate occasions separated by 1 week. Results indicated that retest reliabilities for reaction times (RTs) derived from the 3 separate emotion conditions (manic, neutral, and depressive) across the 1 week interval were very high. However, consistent with previous research, the reliabilities were very low for the interference indices (manic and depressive). These low reliabilities reflect the very high intercorrelation between the RTs derived from the 3 conditions. The authors concluded that a better indicator of the reliability for this task is the individual RTs from each emotion condition.     

面孔-词Stroop范式中的情绪冲突效应研究

为探究面孔-词Stroop范式中的情绪冲突效应,本实验给被试呈现两种时长（150ms或1500ms）的刺激,令其分别完成对面孔-词Stroop范式中的“面孔任务”和“词任务”。结果发现：只有“面孔任务”中出现Stroop效应,产生情绪冲突,而在“词任务”中未出现Stroop效应;当呈现时间为150ms时,情绪词影响情绪面孔加工从而引发个体的情绪冲突,出现Stroop效应;当呈现时间为1500ms时,“面孔任务”中的Stroop效应消失。这提示了呈现时间是影响面孔-词Stroop范式中情绪冲突效应的一个重要因素。     

情绪Stroop效应与Stroop效应的关系

摘 要 本研究通过位置判断任务、图-词干扰任务和色-词干扰任务来测量Stroop效应;通过表情面孔性别判断任务、情绪词汇判定任务和情绪图片颜色命名任务来测量情绪Stroop效应;运用结构方程建模的方法对情绪Stroop效应与Stroop效应的关系进行了探讨。结果发现：（1）Stroop效应和情绪Stroop效应是显著的。（2）情绪Stroop效应与Stroop效应是两种相互独立的现象。     

The automatic activation of emotion words measured using the emotional face-word Stroop task in late Chinese–English bilinguals

In the current study, late Chinese–English bilinguals performed a facial expression identification task with emotion words in the task-irrelevant dimension, in either their first language (L1) or second language (L2). The investigation examined the automatic access of the emotional content in words appearing in more than one language. Significant congruency effects were present for both L1 and L2 emotion word processing. Furthermore, the magnitude of emotional face-word Stroop effect in the L1 task was greater as compared to the L2 task, indicating that in L1 participants could access the emotional information in words in a more reliable manner. In summary, these findings provide more support for the automatic access of emotional information in words in the bilinguals’ two languages as well as attenuated emotionality of L2 processing.     

The experience of positive emotion is associated with the automatic processing of positive emotional words

The current study examines the relationship between attention bias for positive emotional words and self-reported emotional experience. Previous research suggests that the experience of positive emotion momentarily broadens cognitive processes, potentially allowing individuals to build an array of enduring personal resources. However, it is unknown whether the experience of positive emotion also broadens emotional information processing. Participants included 60 healthy undergraduate students who completed measures of psychopathology, self-reported emotional experience, and an emotional Stroop task designed to measure attentional bias to positive and negative emotional information. Results indicate significant associations between reaction times for high-intensity happiness words and self-reported high levels of positive emotion and low levels of negative emotions. These associations were not present for low intensity happiness words. Findings suggest that individuals who experience high levels of positive emotion and low levels of negative emotion demonstrate an attention bias for positive information and, from an information processing perspective, provide insight into the manner in which positive emotions broaden cognitive processes.     

Emotional Salience and the Isolation Effect

When a homogeneous list contains a few items that are different from the rest of the items in the list, these isolated items show enhanced recall compared to the same items in a list where these items are not isolated. This phenomenon, known as the isolation effect, has been explained on the basis of isolated items eliciting salience. In this experiment, negative pictures and neutral pictures were isolated at the early and late part of the list. The salience explanation would predict that participants would pay more attention to these isolated items resulting in higher judgments of learning (JOL) ratings compared to the same items in the control list. Negative pictures showed the isolation effect for both early and late isolation; however, for early isolation, JOL was similar between the isolated and non-isolated pictures indicating that the emotional isolation effect does not require emotional salience.     

不同提示线索对于Stroop干扰效应的影响

本研究采用线索提示任务探讨了不同提示线索颜色、SOA及提示有效应对于经典Stroop干扰效应的影响。结果发现,线索提示类型及其颜色是否与目标色词一致会对Stroop任务产生显著影响。其中有效提示下出现显著Stroop效应,而无效提示下Stroop效应消失,显示视觉注意空间搜索会影响Stroop效应;线索提示颜色与色词颜色是否一致同样影响Stroop干扰效应,两者不一致时存在显著Stroop效应,而两者一致时Stroop效应消失,表明Stroop效应的发生依赖于色词加工中不同通道间信息的转译。关键词：Stroop 效应;线索提示任务;转译理论     

Stroop效应研究的新进展——理论、范式及影响因素

Stroop效应的研究经久不衰。本文根据有关Stroop效应的最新研究资料。对Stroop效应中一些热点、争议的问题进行     

情绪Stroop效应：威胁驱动还是反应偏差？

为了考查情绪Stroop效应的产生机制是威胁驱动还是反应偏差,本研究进行了两个实验.实验一用一般负性情绪词语和中性词语作为实验材料,实验二用威胁性的情绪图片和中性图片作为实验材料.每个实验均要求一组被试做按键反应,另一组被试做摇杆反应.结果发现,当实验材料为词语时,未出现情绪Stroop效应;当实验材料为威胁性图片时,无论是趋向性反应方式还是回避性反应方式,都出现了情绪Stroop效应.本研究结果支持威胁驱动机制.     

The interaction between schizotypy and latent inhibition: modulation by experimental parameters

Two recent experiments (Della Casa et al., in press) yielded the typical reduced latent inhibition (LI) in high vs low schizotypy subjects after a slow, irregularly presented masking task (Stroop task), and reduced LI in low vs high schizotypy subjects after a fast, regularly presented masking task. The present experiment was aimed at testing whether speed or regularity was responsible for the different results. The present slow, regular experiment replicated the results of the former slow, irregular experiment, i.e. reduced LI in high schizotypals and significant LI in low schizotypals, indicating that speed and not regularity is the critical experimental variable. The modulation of the schizotypy—latent inhibition relationship can be attributed to differences in attentional resources or the time available to process the to-be-target stimuli during preexposure, in accordance with the hypothesis of Lubow and Gewirtz, 1995 that automatic processing of these stimuli is critical for the development of latent inhibition in adult humans. In addition, results on Stroop and negative priming effects are presented.     

情绪劳动：表层动作与深层动作，哪一种效果更好？

情绪劳动（表层动作和深层动作）,哪一种情绪劳动的效果更积极？该项研究结合“情绪调节”和“双任务”的实验范式,以指导语引起不同的情绪劳动,以电影片段诱发负情绪（以悲伤为主）,同时测量情绪劳动过程情绪的变化,并通过数学成绩和自我真实感检测情绪劳动对后续工作和心理上的作用。结果表明：（1）操作表层动作与深层动作都具有一定的难度,需要付出一定的努力;且深层动作引起更多的精力集中;（2）表层动作和深层动作都可以减弱已被诱发的悲伤情绪,深层动作引起了更大的生理激活（R-R间期增加较小）;（3）表层动作导致后续工作成绩降低,自我真实感减弱。结论：如果需要在负情绪（悲伤）状态下展现正情绪（微笑）,深层动作是更积极的情绪劳动方式     

情绪对错误记忆的影响及其应用启示

与真实记忆一样,错误记忆也会受到情绪的影响,这主要表现在以下几个方面：（1）在正性心境下,个体会有更多的错误记忆;（2）个体对负性刺激更易产生错误记忆;（3）错误记忆存在着心境一致性效应。这些研究结果在临床治疗和司法鉴定等方面给了我们重要的启示：（1）避免心境一致性效应;（2）根据心境状态选择恰当的提问方式;（3）移植负性错误记忆治疗成瘾行为;（4）根据情绪体验辨别记忆的真伪。未来的研究在深入探讨情绪影响错误记忆的理论机制的同时,可以立足于两者的交互作用进行更多应用性的研究,以扩大其现实意义。     

不同年龄阶段Stroop效应及反转Stroop效应的特点

本实验以中学生和大学生为被试对Stroop效应及反转Stroop效应的年龄特征进行了研究,结果发现:在错误率指标上存在显著的年龄主效应,初中生的错误率显著高于大学生和高中生,高中生和大学生的差异不显著;颜色判断和单字判断任务中,不一致条件的反应时和错误率都显著高于一致条件的反应时和错误率,即两种任务分别产生了Stroop效应和反转的Stroop效应.     

情绪Stroop效应:来自汉字的证据

通过颜色命名和词汇阅读两种作业任务,采用情绪词、中性词两类刺激材料,探索情绪Stroop效应中Stroop加工的特点和机制。结果发现：（1）两种作业任务都发现明显的情绪Stroop效应;（2）两种作业任务中情绪Stroop效应不受情绪词的抽象性影响。它说明情绪stroop效应与经典的Stroop效应是两种独立的现象,前者的加工过程是由于情绪词所产生的情绪威胁而导致反应延迟,而不是经典Stroop效应的选择性注意机制。     

儿童外显视空间注意转移

采用提示范式探讨了三、六年级儿童的外显视空间注意转移。实验结果表明：内源性提示下儿童表现出显著的提示效度效应,其效度效应量在年龄组间没有显著差异;较短SOAs的外源性提示下,儿童表现出显著的提示效度效应;较长SOAs的外源性提示下儿童没有表现出返回抑制效应。用注意的过滤器理论和对象文件模型讨论了本研究的结果     

不同认知方式对词—面孔任务Stroop效应的影响

该研究采用词—面孔Stroop任务,以76名大学生为被试,探讨了不同认知方式（场独立、场依存）对情绪冲突Stroop效应的影响。结果发现：（1）情绪冲突的Stroop效应显著,即,在词—面孔Stroop任务中,当词和面孔的情绪效价一致时,被试的反应时更短,正确率更高。（2）认知方式对情绪冲突Stroop任务的影响显著,表现为无论是一致还是不一致条件下,场独立者比场依存者的反应时都更短。（3）场依存者的情绪冲突Stroop效应更大,表现为其在词—面孔情绪效价一致和不一致条件下的反应时差异更大。