Article

Effects of taboo words on color-naming performance on a stroop test.

Department of Social Psychology, University of Zürich, Switzerland.
Perceptual and Motor Skills (Impact Factor: 0.66). 01/1996; 81(3 Pt 2):1119-22. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1995.81.3f.1119
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effect of irrelevant taboo and control words on performance on the Stroop task was examined. The mean response time for taboo words was higher than that for control words. Single stimulus presentation made it possible to estimate internal consistency for interference of taboo words, which was acceptable (Cronbach alpha = .80).

3 Followers
 · 
190 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using an auditory adaptation of the emotional and taboo Stroop tasks, the authors compared the effects of negative and taboo spoken words in mixed and blocked designs. Both types of words elicited carryover effects with mixed presentations and interference with blocked presentations, suggesting similar long-lasting attentional effects. Both were also relatively resilient to the long-lasting influence of the preceding emotional word. Hence, contrary to what has been assumed (Schmidt & Saari, 2007), negative and taboo words do not seem to differ in terms of the temporal dynamics of the interdimensional shifting, at least in the auditory modality.
    Emotion 02/2011; 11(1):29-37. DOI:10.1037/a0022017 · 3.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review considers evidence from cognitive experimental investigations of attentional processing of emotional information. The review contrasts findings from the general population with those from populations selected for clinical disorder or vulnerability to it. Concepts critical for appreciation of this literature are presented and major cognitive theories are summarised, evaluated and compared. Empirical data are organised by type of attentional function, covering filtering (dichotic listening, emotional Stroop), search (visual search), cuing (attentional probe, spatial cuing) and multiple task (RSVP) paradigms. Conclusions are that, consistent with current models, differences in an “evaluative system” appear to lie at the heart of the phenomena reviewed and attentional biases to emotional material reflect the responsiveness of this system. If so, desensitising its over-reactivity would be the best approach to ameliorating the negative consequences of attentional biases in psychopathology. To do so requires greater understanding of how and on what basis the “evaluation” is conducted. A possible way forward is suggested.
    Cognition and Emotion 01/2010; 24(1):3-47. DOI:10.1080/02699930903205698 · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Even in the presence of irrelevant stimuli, word production is a highly accurate and fluent process. But how do speakers prevent themselves from naming the wrong things? One possibility is that an attentional system inhibits task-irrelevant representations. Alternatively, a verbal self-monitoring system might check speech for accuracy and remove errors stemming from irrelevant information. Because self-monitoring is sensitive to social appropriateness, taboo errors should be intercepted more than neutral errors are. To prevent embarrassment, speakers might also speak more slowly when confronted with taboo distractors. Our results from two experiments are consistent with the self-monitoring account: Examining picture-naming speed (Experiment 1) and accuracy (Experiment 2), we found fewer naming errors but longer picture-naming latencies for pictures presented with taboo distractors than for pictures presented with neutral distractors. These results suggest that when intrusions of irrelevant words are highly undesirable, speakers do not simply inhibit these words: Rather, the language-production system adjusts itself to the context and filters out the undesirable words.
    Psychological Science 06/2011; 22(7):855-9. DOI:10.1177/0956797611410984 · 4.43 Impact Factor