C‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍hecklist and Grading format for Paper (Stroop effect) Intro

C‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍hecklist and Grading format for Paper (Stroop effect) Introduction (1) Discuss information processing or automatic attention in a general way. (2) Discuss the original Stroop experiment (1935). What did it show and how? Discuss background of study and implications. (3) Go further in discussing how these concepts were explored in later and more current research. (Automaticity, selective attention, information processing, etc.) Use other references here. (4) Have it lead into the Aim and Hypotheses of our experiment. Aim: Demonstrate the automaticity of information processing using the Stroop Test Hypothesis: The incongruent condition of the Stoop test will take significantly longer to complete than the congruent condition. Method Explain what was done, in enough detail that someone could replicate what we did. 1. Participants How many people participated? Describe their demographics as far as we know. What kind of sample is it? 2. Materials What materials did we use to carry out the research? Type of computers, website, test, etc. 3. Procedures What exactly did you do? Explain when, where and how you collected your data, in enough detail that someone could replicate our study exactly. What trials did you do? Results 1. Descriptive statistics. 2. What kind of statistical test did we do? Did it support, partially support, or contradict your hypotheses? Refer to tables and figures. Discussion Relate the results of your experiment back to the story in your introduction. Now, go from the specific back to the general to explain the larger meaning of your research. 1. Summarize your results in words and draw some general conclusions about what the relationships of the variables are and whether or not the hypotheses were supported. Explain the results conceptually, not just saying they were significant. In what direction were they significant? 2. How do your results compare to the research cited in your introduction? If they are consistent, then explain the similarities. If they are different, then postulate reasons about what could have made the difference. 3. Dis‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍cuss the limitations of the study—. in what ways your study, as currently set up, cannot fully answer the larger questions about the topic. How could we overcome these limitations in designing a new study? 4. Future research possibilities: Discuss some ideas for a next study you might do to explore this topic further. You can discuss some other ideas that deal with automatic vs. non-automatic information processing like the Stroop effect. Identify some new variables, new procedures, or items that you would explore further. References On a separate page, list the bibliographic references for all the sources you cited. Every item in the References must appear in the paper, and vice versa. You should have at least 5 references, including the original Stroop paper (1935). Tables and figures Tables: Use any relevant tables. Figure: Use relevant figures. down below are the stroop results of classmates data collected this must be used in paper. This paper is based on this data down below Congruent,Incongruent 628,687 939,1105 893,935 809,882 824,1001 861,1021 1025,1092 1026,1186 1008,1129 1053,1280 847,924 661,721 1005,1063 771,926 831,908 793,963 1310,1378 891,979 1144,1084 885,1068 786,958 504,567 down below are some references Tierney, A., Rosen, S., & Dick, F. (2020). Speech-in-speech perception, nonverbal selective attention, and musical training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition van Maanen, L., van Rijn, H., & Borst, J. P. (2009). Stroop and picture–word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Bargh, J. A. (1982). Attention and automaticity in the processing of self-relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Schneider, D. W. (2020). Alertness and cognitive control: Interactions in the spatial stroop task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Grégoire, L., Poulin-Charronnat, B., & Perruchet, P. (2019). Stroop interference depends also on the level of automaticity of the to-be-interfered process. Acta Psychol‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍ogical