Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Frontiers Media S.A.
Journal: Frontiers in Psychology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Stroop, Original Research, Psychology, BF1-990, interference, facilitation, script, trilinguals
This study investigated effects of cross-language similarity on within- and between-language Stroop interference and facilitation in three groups of trilinguals. Trilinguals were either proficient in three languages that use the same-script (alphabetic in German–English–Dutch trilinguals), two similar scripts and one different script (Chinese and alphabetic scripts in Chinese–English–Malay trilinguals), or three completely different scripts (Arabic, Chinese, and alphabetic in Uyghur–Chinese–English trilinguals). The results revealed a similar magnitude of within-language Stroop interference for the three groups, whereas between-language interference was modulated by cross-language similarity. For the same-script trilinguals, the within- and between-language interference was similar, whereas the between-language Stroop interference was reduced for trilinguals with languages written in different scripts. The magnitude of within-language Stroop facilitation was similar across the three groups of trilinguals, but smaller than within-language Stroop interference. Between-language Stroop facilitation was also modulated by cross-language similarity such that these effects became negative for trilinguals with languages written in different scripts. The overall pattern of Stroop interference and facilitation effects can be explained in terms of diverging and converging color and word information across languages.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abunuwara, E. (1992). The structure of the trilingual lexicon. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 4, 311-322.
    • Biederman, I., and Tsao, Y.-C. (1979). On processing Chinese ideographs and English words: some implications from Strooptest results. Cogn. Psychol. 11, 125-132.
    • Brauer, M. (1998). “Stroop interference in bilinguals: the role of script similarity between two languages,” in Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention, eds A. F. Healy and L. E. Jr. Bourne (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 317-337.
    • Brown, T. L. (2011). The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation effects: statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 85-99.
    • Brown, T. L., Gore, C. L., and Pearson, T. (1998). Visual half-field Stroop effects with spatial separation of words and color targets. Brain. Lang. 63, 122-142.
    • Chen, H.-C., and Ho, C. (1986). Development of Stroop interference in Chinese-English bilinguals. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 12, 397-401.
    • Cohen, J., Dunbar, K., and McClelland, J. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol. Rev. 97, 332-361.
    • Colomé, A. (2001). Lexical activation in Bilinguals' speech production: language-specific or languageindependent? J. Mem. Lang. 45, 721-736.
    • Costa, A., Albareda, B., and Santesteban, M. (2008). Assessing the presence of lexical competition across languages: evidence from the Stroop task. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 11, 121-131.
    • Costa, A., Caramazza, A., and Sebastian Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26, 1283-1296.
    • Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1968). Interlingual interference in a color- naming task. Psychon. Sci. 10, 215-216.
    • de Groot, A. M. B., Delmaar, P., and Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: support for nonselective access to bilingual memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 53, 397-428.
    • Dijkstra, T. (2003). “Lexical processing in bilinguals and multilinguals: the word selection problem,” in The Multilingual Lexicon, eds J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, and U. Jessner (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 11-26.
    • Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., and van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: the neglected role of phonology. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 496-518.
    • Dijkstra, T., and van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 5, 175-197.
    • Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., and ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: effects of task demands and language intermixing. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 1, 51-66.
    • Dyer, F. N. (1971). Color-naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 10, 297-302.
    • Fang, S.-P., Tzeng, O. J. L., and Alva, L. (1981). Intralingual vs. interlingual Stroop effects in two types of writing systems. Mem. Cognit. 9, 609-617.
    • Forster, K. I., and Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: a Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 116-124.
    • Francis, W. S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilingual memory: semantic representations. Psychol. Bull. 125, 193-122.
    • Goldfarb, L., and Tzelgov, J. (2007). The cause of the within-language Stroop superiority effect and its implications. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 60, 179-185.
    • Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 1, 67-81.
    • Guo, T., and Peng, D. (2006). ERP evidence for parallel activation of two languages in bilingual speech production. Neuroreport 17, 1757-1760.
    • Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., and Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 1, 213-229.
    • Hoshino, N., and Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition 106, 501-511.
    • Jared, D., and Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? J. Mem. Lang. 44, 2-31.
    • Kane, M. J., and Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132, 47-70.
    • Lee, T. M. C., and Chan, C. C. H. (2000). Stroop interference in Chinese and English. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 22, 465-471.
    • Lee, W. L., Wee, G. C., Tzeng, O. J. L., and Hung, D. L. (1992). “A study of interlingual and intralingual Stroop effect in three different scripts: logographic, syllabary, and alphabet,” in Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals, ed. R. J. Harris (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers), 427-442.
    • Lemhöfer, K., and Dijkstra, T. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Mem. Cognit. 32, 533-550.
    • Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., and Michel, M. C. (2004). Three languages, one ECHO: cognate effects in trilingual word recognition. Lang. Cogn. Process. 19, 585-611.
    • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 109, 163-203.
    • MacLeod, C. M., and MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 4, 383-391.
    • Mägiste, E. (1984). Stroop task and dichotic translation: the development of interference patterns in bilinguals. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10, 304-315.
    • Melara, R. D., and Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychol. Rev. 110, 422-471.
    • Preston, M. S., and Lambert, W. E. (1969). Interlingual interference in a bilingual version of the Stroop colorword task. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 8, 295-301.
    • Protopapas, A. (2007). CheckVocal: a program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 859-862.
    • Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychol. Rev. 110, 88-125.
    • Roelofs, A. (2010). Attention and facilitation: converging information versus inadvertent reading in Stroop task performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 411-422.
    • Smith, M. C., and Kirsner, K. (1982). Language and orthography as irrelevant features in colour-word and picture-word Stroop interference. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 34, 153-170.
    • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 643-662.
    • Sumiya, H., and Healy, A. F. (2004). Phonology in the bilingual Stroop effect. Mem. Cognit. 32, 752-758.
    • Sumiya, H., and Healy, A. F. (2008). The Stroop effect in English-Japanese Bilinguals: the effect of phonological similarity. Exp. Psychol. 55, 93-101.
    • Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., and Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Mem. Cognit. 20, 727-635.
    • Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., and Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop interference: evidence from a bilingual task. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16, 760-771.
    • Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., Sneg, R., and Baruch, O. (1996). Unintentional word reading via the phonological route: the Stroop effect with crossscript homophones. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22, 336-349.
    • van Hell, J. G., and de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 1, 193-211.
    • van Hell, J. G., and Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 780-789.
    • van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, A., and Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 39, 458-483.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.