The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The item-specific proportion congruent (ISPC) effect refers to the observation that the Stroop effect is larger for words that are presented mostly in congruent colors (e.g., BLUE presented 75% of the time in blue) and smaller for words that are presented mostly in a given incongruent color (e.g., YELLOW presented 75% of the time in orange). One account of the ISPC effect, the modulation hypothesis, is that participants modulate attention based on the identity of the word (i.e., participants allow the word to influence responding when it is presented mostly in its congruent color). Another account, the contingency hypothesis, is that participants use the word to predict the response that they will need to make (e.g., if the word is YELLOW, then the response is probably "orange"). Reanalyses of data from L. L. Jacoby, D. S. Lindsay, and S. Hessels (2003), along with results from new experiments, are inconsistent with the modulation hypothesis but entirely consistent with the contingency hypothesis. A response threshold mechanism that uses contingency information provides a sufficient account of the data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it