While color-naming is easy, I don't think it's automatic in the sense that every time we see a color, we can't help but have its name pop in to our mind. And I think it is the case that the color-naming interference occurs to some extent because we need to speak the name of the color, thereby turning it in to verbal information. Barbara Brown Psychology Dept. Technical Assistant Grinnell College Grinnell, IA 50112 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Huff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 2/12/2005 6:07 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Cc:
Subject: RE: seeking wisdom
Annete Taylor says:
>It bothers me when we discuss the Stroop effect that color-naming, a
low-
>level, simple physical process, which is certainly automatized, is
inhibited
>by a higher level, more complex and serial process, reading, which is
also
>certainly automatized. Why should the higher level, more complicated
process
>dominate the lower level simpler process? Am I over-thinking this?
>
>Can anyone point me to a good resolution of this? I usually just talk
about
>how automatized reading becomes for us; and that the strength of that
>automatization has a lot to say about being pre-wired for language
etc. etc.
>all the usual related stuff.
Well, it is definitely outside my area, but I wonder if "higher" and
"lower" level as a metaphor for the processes is misleading here. If
the two processes must share some limited resource (like lexical
access) then one would expect each to inhibit the other. But here I
am ignorant. Do they each inhibit the other?
-Chuck
--
- Chuck Huff 1520 St. Olaf Avenue
- Psychology & Computer Science St.Olaf College
- Tel: 507.646.3169 Northfield, MN 55057-1098
- Fax: 507.646.3774 http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
