Distinct Components of Stroop Interference and Facilitation: The role of phonology and response modality

Multi-stage accounts of Stroop effects suggest that Stroop effects result from different conflict and facilitation components. Consistent with these accounts, Augustinova et al. (2019) reported evidence for task, semantic and response components in Stroop effects. They also investigated how vocal and manual responses impacted the magnitude of each of the conflict and facilitation components. However, the role of phonological components in Stroop effects was not investigated in their study. The impact of phonology on Stroop effects has been observed in several studies (Besner & Stolz, 1998; Parris et al., 2019; Spinks et al., 2000). However, these studies did not investigate the role of different conflict/facilitation components in Stroop effects. To investigate the impact of phonological components as well as task, semantic, and response components on Stroop effects, a vocal and manual Stroop task was for the first time conducted with Chinese speakers using a design similar to that of Augustinova et al. (2019). The data revealed only in the vocal Stroop task phonological conflict and facilitation, whereas semantic and response conflicts were found with vocal and manual responses. Implications of the findings for response modality effects and the measures of facilitation/conflict components are discussed.