바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.35 No.1

Citation Share

The Spatial Stroop Effect between The Direction and Installed Location of The Emergency Evacuation Route Sign

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2016, v.35 no.1, pp.1-12
https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.03.35.1.1






& (2016). The Spatial Stroop Effect between The Direction and Installed Location of The Emergency Evacuation Route Sign. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 35(1), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.03.35.1.1

Abstract

It is vital to select a correct evacuation route based on the direction guided by emergency evacuation route signs during a disaster. Because emergency evacuation route signs guide evacuation directions using left and right arrows, it is possible to produce the spatial Stroop effect due to the direction of the emergency evacuation route sign and its installed location. The current study conducted a laboratory experiment to examine whether the Stroop facilitation and/or interference effect is observed due to the installed location of the emergency evacuation route sign in various scenes. The results showed that the interference effect was strongly observed across scenes whereas the facilitation effect was weaker in stair-scenes than in corridor-scenes. These results indicate that the installed location of the emergency evacuation route sign in the horizontal plane can strongly affect human evacuation behavior. Therefore, the current findings should be legislated in a standard manner for fast and accurate human decision making in evacuation situations.

keywords
spatial Stroop effect, emergency evacuation route sign, evacuation behavior, facilitation effect, interference effect, 공간 스트룹 효과, 통로유도등, 피난행동, 간섭효과, 촉진효과

Reference

1.

송국섭. (2003). 화재 발생과 인간의 행동반응.한국생활환경학회지, 10, 15-24.

2.

조양석, & 배기열. (2013). 공간 부합성과 SNARC 효과의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 25, 219-238.

3.

Benthorn, L., & Frantzich, H. (1999). Fire alarm in a public building: How do people evaluate information and choose an evacuation exit? Fire and Materials, 23, 311-315.

4.

Bishop, S., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 184-188.

5.

Brown, T. L., Roos-Gilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1395.

6.

Cannon, W. B. (1935). Stresses and strains of homeostasis. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 189, 13-14.

7.

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332.

8.

Glockner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215-228.

9.

Jin, T., Yamada, T., Kawai, S., & Takahashi, S. (1991). Evaluation of the conspicuousness of emergency exit signs. Fire Safety Science, 3, 835-841.

10.

Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 497.

11.

Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B., & Post, J. G. (2010). Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review. Fire Safety Journal, 45, 1-11.

12.

Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219.

13.

Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.

14.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163.

15.

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.

16.

Ng, A. W., & Chan, A. H. (2015). Effects of user factors and sign referent characteristics in participatory construction safety sign redesign. Safety Science, 74, 44-54.

17.

Phelps, E. A., Ling, S., & Carrasco, M. (2006). Emotion facilitates perception and potentiates the perceptual benefits of attention. Psychological science, 17, 292-299.

18.

Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2005). Stroop dilution revisited: evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 3.

19.

Tang, C. H., Wu, W. T., & Lin, C. Y. (2009). Using virtual reality to determine how emergency signs facilitate way-finding. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 722-730.

20.

Tsal, Y., & Lavie, N. (1993). Location dominance in attending to color and shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 131.

21.

West, R., & Alain, C. (2000). Age‐related decline in inhibitory control contributes to the increased Stroop effect observed in older adults. Psychophysiology, 37, 179-189.

22.

Williams, B. R., Strauss, E. H., Hultsch, D. F., & Hunter, M. A. (2007). Reaction time inconsistency in a spatial Stroop task: Age-related differences through childhood and adulthood. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14, 417-439.

23.

Xie, H., Filippidis, L., Galea, E. R., Blackshields, D., & Lawrence, P. J. (2012). Experimental analysis of the effectiveness of emergency signage and its implementation in evacuation simulation. Fire and Materials, 36, 367-382.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy