- 學位論文
反應形式對Stroop作業反應時間影響之研究
Effects of Response Type on Reaction Time of Stroop Task
若您是本文的作者，可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。
摘要
本研究的主要目的在於探討在聲音與按鈕兩種不同的反應形式下，Stroop作業的干擾現象會受到什麼影響。過去的研究主要著重在對顏色反應的情境，但不同反應形式的影響牽涉到字與顏色反應相對時間的變化，因此我們的研究同時涵蓋對字與顏色的反應，並藉由隨機方式呈現刺激，以降低受試者在固定類型刺激的反應中展出對應策略。 研究參與者為台北市立體育學院的研究生，其中男性20人(平均年紀27.7± 5.5歲)，女性28人(平均年紀 28.1± 3.99歲)。研究採重複量數實驗設計，共有四種不同的情境，分別是按鈕對字反應、按鈕對顏色反應、聲音對字反應、以及聲音對顏色反應。受試者必須完成這四種情境。為了避免情境間的順序效果，實驗將四種情境的先後順序排列出四種不同的流程，將每位受試者隨機分派到其中一種流程。實驗的結果以成對樣本t檢定及重複量數單因子變異數分析進行比較。 研究結果發現：一、不同的反應形式對改變對字與對顏色的相對反應速度，以聲音反應時，字佔優勢，以按鈕反應時，顏色佔優勢。二、以聲音反應時，字會對顏色的反應產生干擾，顏色不會對字干擾；而以按鈕反應時，不僅是字會對顏色產生干擾(不過干擾產生的反應時間延遲縮短)，顏色也會對字產生干擾。因此自動化理論與相對反應速度理論各自取得了部分優勢。三、輔助效果與Lexicality現象可能都是因為非隨機呈現下，受試者的對應策略造成的結果。最後，我們建議，未來在進行這類型的研究時，採用類似觸控面板這類可隨機更改按鈕顏色位置的工具，可更有效的避免受試者發展出對應策略的影響。
並列摘要
This study aimed to investigate whether the distraction effect on Stroop task will be affected by different sources of response, namely, vocal response and motion response. Literatures in the field have in-depth discussions on responses to colors under different circumstances. However, source of response was rarely mentioned. A repeated measure experiment was designed to explore the interaction between stimuli (character and color) and sources of responses (vocal and motion). Motion response was operationalized as pressing on the colored buttons. Participants include 48 graduate students from a local college. Each participant was asked to respond to all four situations: vocal response to character, vocal response to color, motion response to character, and motion response to color. Stimuli were randomly generated, with and without distractions, to eliminate the possible development of problem-solving strategies. Sequential effect was evened out by permutations and random assignment. Two statistical findings were highlighted: 1. Vocal response react faster on characters and motion response react faster on color; 2. During vocal response, characters have a distraction effect but colors do not. However, both characters and colors have distraction effect on motion response but characters have a weaker distraction, as compare to distractions on vocal response. These results suggested that, due to non-random stimuli, pervious findings of supporting facilitation effect and Lexicality effect could be a by-product of problem-solving strategies developed by the respondent. Further studies are encouraged and suggestions are made.
參考文獻
Brown, T. L. (2011). The Relationship Between Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects: Statistical Artifacts, Baselines, and a Reassessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 85-99.
Brown, T. L. (1996). Attentional selection and word processing in Stroop and word search tasks: The role of selection for action. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 265–285.
Brown, T. L., Gore, C. L., & Pearson, T. (1998). Visual half-field Stroop effects with spatial separation of words and color targets. Brain and Language, 63, 122–142.
Brown, T. L., Roos-Gilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1395–1411.
Brown, W. (1915). Practice in Associating Color Names with Colors. Psychological Review, 22, 45-55.