Does Standing Improve Focus?
Stroop Test Experiment
Israel Edery
CUNY Brooklyn College
Abstract
For a task that requires extra focused/selective attention is it better to stand or sit while doing it? Previous research (Rosenbaum, Mama, and Algom, 2017) has indicated that there is an advantage present when performing a task while standing. This conclusion regarding the benefits of posture has, however, been contested in a later publication by Caron et al. who stated that they have failed to detect any consistent effect of posture (sitting vs. standing) on the magnitude of the Stroop effect (Caron et al. 2020). Because of the inconclusive results regarding this question we have decided to use the Stroop test to conduct a similar experiment and publish our results. The Stroop test involves having to read words that are written in text that either match (/are congruent with) the word being presented (“red” written in red ink) or not (“red” written in blue ink - i.e. not congruent). The longer it takes to identify the correct written word, the higher the Stroop effect. We had two groups, one standing and one sitting, perform the Stroop task on the psytoolkit website. We then measured the magnitude of the Stroop effect in both conditions. While we detected an effect between the congruent and incongruent stimuli, our study did not find a significant difference in the Stroop effect when comparing the standing vs. the sitting groups. Since our findings do not align with the findings of Rosenbaum et, al., we believe that further exploration in this domain is warranted in order to have solid data upon which the research community and the general public can rely.
Introduction
Since the central question of this experiment is “should I sit or stand when doing something that requires selective attention”, we wanted to create a situation that reflected a context where this question can be tested in a controlled way. To measure the quality of the participant’s selective attention, we used the Stroop test where one is asked to read stimuli that are presented in congruent and incongruent forms. Since the Stroop test is essentially asking the participant to focus solely on the written aspect of the stimuli and not on the color that it is presented in (which is where the “incongruence” would exist when the color doesn’t match the text), this was thought to be an easy metric that would allow us to demonstrate the level of selective attention of our participants. Simply put, the larger the Stroop effect, the greater the failure of selective attention (Rosenbaum, Mama, and Algom, 2017).
After recruiting our participants we randomly assigned half of them to the standing group, and the other half to sit while they were doing the Stroop test. With regard to posture, there have been studies that have indicated that stress does indeed enhance selective attention (Chajut, and Algom, 2003). Since incongruent stimuli are harder to process and standing is more demanding and stressful than sitting (Rosenbaum, Mama, and Algom, 2017), we hypothesized that our experiment would produce multiple effects. Firstly, a significant main effect resulting from the type of stimuli - congruent/incongruent. Second, we expected to find a main effect of standing on the Stroop test, and finally, an interaction effect between standing and incongruent stimuli - indicating a higher level of accuracy on the Stroop test when taken while standing.
We set up our experiment in a way that would yield four conditions from two groups of people. The conditions include; congruent-standing, incongruent standing (group #1), congruent-sitting, incongruent-sitting (group #2). Our logic in our design was that if our assumptions about the effects of stress/posture were correct, we would observe a decrease Stroop effect in the standing group. If not, then we would need to reject our theory and conclude that we do not have sufficient evidence to prove that standing is better for selective attention.
Method
Participants
The participants for this experiment consisted of a diverse group of college students (N = 36) ranging from approximately age 18 to 28.
Materials
Participants were asked to partake in a two-minute Stroop test demo on the psytoolkit website. The results were then gathered and analyzed using an ANOVA analysis on the JAMOVI software.
Procedure
The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. One group was asked to stand while doing the demo while the other was instructed to do it sitting. The online demo/activity involved the presentation of text/stimuli in congruent (color of text matching the text) and non-congruent (color of text not matching the text) stimuli. Following the presentation of each stimulus, the participants were required to press a key on their computer that indicated was linked to the correct answer - the written aspect of the stimulus and not the color. The reaction time for all stimuli was gathered and the Stroop effect was recorded as the average response time in incongruent trials, minus the congruent trials. The dependent variable was the observed reaction time that was represented qualitatively by the entire set of data collected from the total of four conditions of the experiment.
Results
We ran the resulting data from our experiment through a Repeated Measures ANOVA (analysis of variance) in the Jamovi software (see Table #1). Our analysis showed that the IV of “type of stimuli” had a significant effect on the reaction time of the participants, meaning that the quickest RT (lowest Stroop effect) occurred when the stimuli were congruent. We did not, however, detect any significant effect on the Stroop effect between the standing or sitting positions. Likewise, there was no interaction between position*stimuli that yielded a significant effect on RT. The following is a more detailed report of our findings. For stimuli type (congruent/incongruent) there was a main effect detected (df = 1, F = 65.107, P = <.001) with the mean response time for congruent stimuli (M = 932, SD = 185) being much shorter than that of the incongruent stimuli (M = 1034, SD = 193) (see Table #2). For posture (standing/sitting) there was no main effect detected (df = , F = 3.27, P = 0.079). Likewise, there was no interaction effect detected of - stimuli type with position (df = 1, F = 0.292, P = 0.592).
Discussion
In alignment with the findings of the original Stroop experiment, our experiment has detected a significant delay in response time when the stimuli/text presented was not compatible with the color it was presented in (Stroop, 1935). However, unlike the results obtained by Rosenbaum et al., we did not find that there was a decreased Stroop effect in the group of participants who conducted the Stroop test while standing. As a result, we cannot conclude that there are significant benefits in selective attention when the task is being done specifically while standing. While our results turned out to be contrary to our expectations, predictions, and the findings of Rosenbaum et al., they are not isolated findings. As mentioned earlier, in the recent experiment of Caron et al., they have also failed to confirm the findings of Rosenbaum et al. (Caron et al. 2020). I think it would be interesting to extend this research to other kinds of situations beyond the binary sitting vs. standing positions. How good is our selective attention while walking on a treadmill? What about if someone is on a bicycle (a non-mobile electric one)? Does the magnitude of a person’s heart rate or other physiological factors play a role in their ability to focus or get distracted? I also wonder if there are metrics other than the Stroop test that would produce other results. These are all topics that I believe are worthy of consideration for further research.
Limitations and Conclusion
A key limitation in our experiment making it a less prominent reference point is the small sample size. As noted in an article about experiments related to sport and exercise psychology, larger sample sizes are particularly important in experimental studies in order to avoid false conclusions (Schweizer, and Furley, 2016). Since the participants in this experiment used their personal computers for this experiment, some of the data obtained may have been altered as a result of inconsistent specifics when it came to exact posture and the way the stimuli were presented across different types of computer/laptop interfaces. While the study of selective attention and the Stroop effect has been around for a very long period of time, we are far from having a full grasp on many of the mechanisms that interact to produce human perception, cognition, and performance. As we see from this study, there are experiments that yield inconsistent results. This points to a need to explore these topics further in order to establish theories that can guide researchers and practitioners in their everyday work. The implications of understanding human cognition are by no means trivial. We all think and speak and perform activities all the time. The better we understand the underlying processes of how these things work, the easier it will be to optimize our abilities, ultimately getting the most that we could out of our limited time on this planet.
References
Rosenbaum, Mama, Y., & Algom, D. (2017). Stand by Your Stroop: Standing Up Enhances Selective Attention and Cognitive Control. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1864–1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617721270
Caron, E. E., Reynolds, M. G., Ralph, B. C. W., Carriere, J. S. A., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2020). Does Posture Influence the Stroop Effect? Psychological Science, 31(11), 1452–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620953842
Chajut, & Algom, D. (2003). Selective Attention Improves Under Stress: Implications for Theories of Social Cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.231
Stroop. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
Schweizer, & Furley, P. (2016). Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.11.005
Tables
