Abstract:The Stroop effect is referred to the failure to focus exclusively on the target dimension of a stimulus,because of the task-irrelevant dimension of the same stimulus.For example,when naming the print color of color words,people seem unable to prevent processes of reading even when such processes are irrelevant to the task at hand and can hurt performance.While,the emotional Stroop effect is defined as the interference between emotional information and the non-emotional information of the same stimulus.For example,usually,people read or name the color of emotionally charged words or threat words both are slower than neutral words. There are two different views on the relationship between the emotional Stroop effect and the Stroop effect.One is the selective attention mechanism,which argues that the emotional Stroop is a variant of the Stroop paradigm.It assumes that both the Stroop and the emotional Stroop effects document the failure of fully selective focusing on target dimension of the stimuli.The other account is the threat-driven mechanism,which postulates that the emotional Stroop effect and the Stroop effect are two independent and different phenomena.The competing account attributes the emotional delay to a threat-driven generic slowdown,but not a selective attention mechanism associated with the classic Stroop effect.To resolve the controversy,this study was to explore the relationship between the emotional Stroop effect and the Stroop effect at the level of latent variables.The latent variable approach is highly theory-driven and can alleviate the task impurity problem.Therefore,this latent variable approach has several important advantages over a more common approach of relying on zero-order correlations and Exploratory Factor Analysis,particularly in the context of studying the relationship between the emotional Stroop effect and the Stroop effect. In present study,133 undergraduates,from 17 to 23 years old,attended six tasks respectively.All participants didn' t know the purpose of the experiment and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.Stimulus presentation and data collection were controlled by a Founder microcomputer running E-prime software. In this study,we used three tasks to assess the Stroop effect.In the location-decision task,participants were instructed to decide the location of the stimuli.In the picture-word interference task,participants were asked to name the pictures.In the color word interference task,participants were required to name the color of the stimuli.In the above three tasks,participants were instructed to ignore the semantic information of the stimuli. Similarly,in this study,we used three tasks to evaluate the emotional Stroop effect.In the emotional facial gender-decision task, participants were asked to judge the gender of the emotional faces.In the affective lexical decision task,participants were instructed to decide the lexical stimuli either true words or non-words.In the affective picture color-naming task,participants were required to name the color of the frames of the pictures.In the above three tasks,participants were asked to ignore the emotional information of the stimuli. Then,we calculated the Stroop effect size and the emotional Stroop effect size,and explored the relationship between the two effects at the level of latent variables through the method of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.The results showed:(1) There were significant Stroop interferences and emotional Stroop interferences among participants.(2) The emotional Stroop effect and the Stroop effect were two independent and different phenomena.In summary,these results provided further evidence for the threat-driven mechanism.The emotional Stroop effect was caused by a threat-driven generic slowdown,rather than a selective attention mechanism associated with the classic Stroop effect.

Word Wins Over Face: Emotional Stroop Effect Activates the Frontal Cortical Network

An fMRI Study of Response and Semantic Conflict in the Stroop Task

Neural Substrates of the Emotion-Word and Emotional Counting Stroop Tasks in Healthy and Clinical Populations: A Meta-Analysis of Functional Brain Imaging Studies

Improved Emotional Conflict Control Triggered by the Processing Priority of Negative Emotion

Emotion Perception and Executive Control Interact in the Salience Network During Emotionally Charged Working Memory Processing.

Losing Control in Front of a Fearful Face: the Effect of Emotional Information on Cognitive Control

Emotional conflict occurs at an early stage: Evidence from the emotional face–word Stroop task

Modulation of Emotional Conflict Processing by High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-TDCS)

Isolation of Specific Interference Processing in the Stroop Task: PET Activation Studies

The influence of emotional interference on cognitive control: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies using the emotional Stroop task

Emotional Modulation of Conflict Processing in the Affective Domain: Evidence from Event-related Potentials and Event-related Spectral Perturbation Analysis

Interference produced by emotional conflict associated with anterior cingulate activation

Functional MRI study of the neural mechanism of component processing during Stroop task performance

Stimulus Feature Conflicts Enhance Motor Inhibitory Control Processes in the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex

Brain Functional Mechanisms in Attentional Processing Following Modified Conflict Stroop Task

The effect of high-frequency rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on the resolution of response, semantic and task conflict in the colour-word Stroop task

When conflict cannot be avoided: executive control dominates early selective sensory modulations during cognitive conflict

The Relationship Between the Emotional Stroop Effect and the Stroop Effect

Automatic Processing of Emotional Words in the Absence of Awareness: the Critical Role of P2

Stimuli with a positive valence can facilitate cognitive control

Distinct Neural Correlates for Resolving Stroop Conflict at Inhibited and Noninhibited Locations in Inhibition of Return.