1. The Impact of Bilingualism And Monolinguals on language Switching in Stroop Tasks:
A Study of Interference using Colour Naming Sequences
Student Number 100192349
Completed in fulfilment of the BSc Psychology, University of Derby, 2015
Abstract
The Stroop effect demonstrates the reaction time of a task when illustrating automatic processing versus
conscious control (Stroop, 1935). Research has conflicted over whether monolinguals process data faster than
bilinguals and vice versa. This is due to the complexity of multi-faceted phenomenon of bilingualism making it
difficult to define (Hoffmann, 1991). The present study aimed to look at the differences in response times
between bilingual and monolingual participants during colour Stroop tasks that had three different conditions
(Congruent, Incongruent and Control). Participants were asked if they were monolingual or bilingual at the start
of the survey to differentiate data. Participants were required to name ink colours of random words given in
English. Words were randomly changed to one of three different conditions as an interference distractor.
Participants were asked to read the ink colours of the words on the screen in each 24 word sequence whether it
be ink colours of words or random words such as ink colours of fruit. They were asked to do this as quickly as
possible as the page will be timed giving an accurate participant response time for each sequence answered
before being asked to click a next button to move on. 104 Stroop responses were obtained for the study.
Participant’s needed to be between the ages of 18-75 to take part and have no visual impairment or colour
blindness. A two-way (2x3) mixed analysis of variance was conducted on a version of the Stroop colour test.
The independent variables included one between group variables, language (monolingual vs bilingual) and one
within subject variable, Stroop condition, with three levels (control, incongruent and congruent). In order to
look at differences between conditions a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare response times in (IV
level / condition 1) Congruent and (IV level / condition 2) Incongruent conditions but also in Congruent and (IV
Level/ condition 3) Control, and Control and Incongruent. A significant effect was seen across all three
conditions (See Results section). Overall the Bilinguals performed better on all three conditions than the
Monolingual individuals. Findings are discussed in line with previous literature and future studies in the
discussion. They should also consider other factors such as age, gender or culture which might interact with
differences in response times or their scores achieved.
Declaration
This report is a product of my own work, and was conducted in conformity with the British Psychological
Societies Code of Conduct and Ethics. I agree that this report can be made available for reference to the staff
and students at the University of Derby.
Introduction
‘Bilingualism is the regular use of two or more languages and is mostly used by those who need to use them in
their everyday lives’ (Grosjean 1992, p.51). Half the population have some kind of knowledge of more than one
language and developed western countries do not have the privilege of bilingualism such as others do like
Canada (French-English), Belgium (Dutch-French), Wales (Welsh-English) (Grosjean 1982, p.vii). In
Cameroon they have 285 dialects, 2 official languages and four ‘lingua francas.’ More than half of the
population here speaks three or more languages (Bamgbose 1994). Focus on major research on bilingualism has

2. not become a part of formal research interest until the last century. It is for this reason areas of bilingualism
needs to be further researched or areas that have been researched need further clarification and validation.
One view of bilingualism is that there are three different types of bilinguals; native, late and early. A native
bilingual is someone that has learnt both languages from birth up to the ages of 5 and 6 years old (Bialystok &
Craik et al., 2004, pp. 290– 303). Native bilinguals are also referred to as simultaneous bilinguals as they speak
both languages at the same time. Early bilinguals are introduced to second language after the age of 5 but before
puberty and this type of bilingualism is usually referred to as sequential bilingualism. Late bilinguals have their
second language introduced after puberty and normally have cases of interlanguage. This is where the learner’s
errors are caused by interference of the first language on the second language because the learner has not
proficiently learnt the second language. Any individual can be bilingual but older individuals acquiring a second
language later on must make a much needed effort to have the same standards that are reached by children
especially in regards to pronunciation and syntax (Fabbro, 2010).
Loraine Obler (1982) researched first language attrition and discovered that when a second language is used,
lexical retrieval and word choice becomes vulnerable and can contradict the first grammatical construction.
These findings are discussed in line with previous reports concerning changes in lexical skills associated with
typical ageing and those associated with bilingual first language attrition. According to Mechelli, Crinion,
Noppeney, O’Doherty, Ashburner, Frackowiak, (2004) found that an increased density in gray matter in the left
section known as inferior parietal cortex of bilinguals meant that second language was linked to language
learning and language performance. To define the executive function, it is the function that is involved in
complex cognitions such as solving problems, modifying behaviour, generating strategies and sequencing
complex activities. Inhibition is needed for sustained attention. Working memory is needed to remember the
steps and planning skills to put the steps in a logical order. In tests of executive memory the Wisconsin card test
is used (WCST, Heaton, 1981). Rumsey (1985) found that individual’s scores were impaired on all aspects
compared to relative controls on key dependents of the sorting task. These findings were justified with 7 out of
9 studies with similar findings of deficits. For inhibition the BADS test is used (Norris & Tate, 2000) (Chen &
Leung, 1989; Gerard & Scarborough, 1989; Groot & Nas, 1989; Grainger & Beauvillain, 1989; Tzelgov &
Henik, 1989). Executive control for instance is needed to attend to representational system corresponding to the
required language at the time and avoiding the system associated with the other language. Fox (1996) revealed
that bilinguals recognized words in their second language slower when semantic words in their native language
had previously been shown as a distractor stimuli. Phonological representation and word recognition within
sentence can cause interference across languages. For instance Marian, Spivey and Hirsch (2003) saw a
phonological overlap between Russian and English when instructing participants “to pick up a marka” in
Russian translation “marka” is [stamp]. Differences were evident in activation of different centres associated
with first and second language processing within the left Inferior Frontal Gyrus, but not within the Superior
Temporal Gyrus. There have been many studies that have looked at production of semantic concept occurring
between both languages (Colome, 2001; Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999; Jared & Kroll, 2001). Jared &
Kroll (2001) showed during a target-language production task where cross language words were used, as well
as matched single language control words. Participants named the words, first in their own language and then in
the other. A disadvantage of this study is that there may be carry-over effects from naming words in one
language and then naming in another. Results showed, French letter-to-phoneme rules were delayed reading
aloud of English words for French-English bilinguals showing activation of non-target-language phonology.
The most influential research in the last decade on lexical autonomy has been the Bilingual Interactive
Activation (BIA) model by Dijkstra and Van Heuven, (1998, 2002). The BIA is an extension of the current
interactive activation model of monolingual visual word recognition (e.g. McClelland & Rumelhart 1981)
which contains feature, letter, word and language nodes. The model shows that word recognition is non-
selective and that both languages compete but does not include a top down processing connection. Bilinguals
have more than one lexical representation to express meaning. Words may differ across languages but semantic

3. representations (concepts) do not. A dog in English is the same concept in Dutch just a different word. It would
only seem logical for bilinguals to have one store for concepts. Most psychological research has backed this
assumption and theory, Francis (1999, 2005). Van Heuven, Dijkstra and Grainger (1998) studied research with
monolinguals and the speed they recognized words depending on orthographic neighbors that a word has. For
instance the word ‘car’ has a neighborhood size nineteen (bar, far, war, ear, etc.) and ‘chair’ has two (choir and
chain). They found that the speed of recognition depended on the neighborhood sizes in both languages. The
speed in which Dutch-English bilinguals recognized the word the English word for ‘farm’ would depend on the
orthographical neighbors this word had in both Dutch and English. Even though the number of orthographical
neighbors effects the speed any one person responds, there was no difference in response from both bilinguals
and monolinguals.
Inter-lingual homographs are another example of interference between languages which have been studied. It is
where words are written the same way but mean different things in both languages. For instance, in English the
word ‘room’ means ‘cream’ in Dutch. Dijkstra, Timmermans and Schriefers (2000) conducted a lexical go/no
task with Dutch-English bilinguals where they had to press a button if the word was in English. They found that
participant’s reactions were slower to inter-lingual homographs than to control words causing interference with
the participant’s responses. This would conclude from the results from Dijkstra, Timmermans and Schriefers
(2000) research that bilinguals show decreased performance due to interference on bilingual tasks. Michel
(2004) showed that cross-lingual activation occurs in multiple languages affecting Dutch-English-German
trilingual. Dutch-English-German trilingual participants showed faster responses to German words that are
cognates with both Dutch and English (park, film, tunnel etc.) than German words that only cognate with Dutch
such as schuld (guilt), pech (bad luck) and kunst (art).
(Bijeljac-Babic, Biardeau, & Grainger, 1997; Duyck, Assche, Drieghe, & Hartsuiker, 2007; Schwartz & Kroll,
2006; van Heuven, Dijkstra, & Grainger, 1998; Voga & Grainger, 2007) It is thought that bilinguals can execute
and demonstrate a degree of control over language selection and may develop mechanisms to overcome
competition. However when it comes to recognition, bilinguals control seems to be undermined and when
processing information in one language the activation of the other language becomes a contender. This is seen
in a research by Marian, Spivey (2003b). There are conflicting cognitive processes taking place between
language production and word recognition during target-language tasks that influence processing. The
interactive activation model by McClelland, J. L., and D. E. Rumelhart, (1981) has visual word recognition
which is driven by bottom-up processes also known as data driven processing by sensory inputs. For example if
data is processed through the eyes it is then registered in sensory memory and then processed higher until a
match is found within long term memory. (Dijkstra & Van Heuvan, 1998, 2002; Van Heuvan, 2000) and is seen
as automatic in fluent and proficient first and second languages (e.g., Tzelgov, Henig, Sneg, & Baruch, 1996).
Word recognition cannot be deactivated during a language task and has no cognitive control. Language
production has an opposite process to that of word recognition and is driven by top-down processing which is a
lot less automatic and has more cognitive control mechanisms (e.g., Dell & O’Seaghdha, 1992; Levelt, Roelofs,
& Meyer, 1999). As there are greater differences between times of recognition and production in bilinguals it is
possible to say that bilinguals will show activation of non-target language at recognition rather than at
production due to interference than monolinguals. This is important to this current research as it recognises that
bilingual’s production times are varied in a second language when being tested in word recognition tasks.
Researchers have discovered an increased volume of white matter in the brains of simultaneous bilingual
children which were up to 3 years of age and either bilingual, sequential bilingual or monolingual(Mohades et
al., 2012) and also in older adults (Luk, Green, Abutalebi, Grady, 2011). This is the way in which the brains of
bilinguals are helped to be protected from certain cognitive decline such as Alzheimer’s disease. Between the
ages 20-90 the brain shrinks by 5-10 per cent meaning bilinguals have a certain advantage with an increased
volume of white matter. Filley (2005,par.12) states: “This greater loss of white matter, with its special role in

4. connectivity and efficient brain communication, suggests a cause for slowed speed in information processing,
diminished attentional capacity, and forgetfulness-some of the typical cognitive changes of aging.” Research
from Bialystok in 2014 that has studied the effects of bilingualism has seen it be beneficial for older adults and
more specifically demonstrate that being bilingual can reduce the onset of dementia and help in cases of
Alzheimer’s disease showing the effects of bilingualism throughout the lifespan. Recent research (Bialystok,
Craik, Green, Gollan, 2009; Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, Ungerleider, 2010) has seen that bilingual group
differences have resulted in more resilient and robust executive control processes compared to monolinguals
leading to a much better performance. These improved performances were shown in older not younger
participants as previously claimed by other researchers when testing monolinguals (Bialystok, Craik, Klein,
Viswanathan, 2004). It is however very difficult to determine the brain mechanisms which reveal the cognitive
benefits of bilingualism and it may be difficult to ever do so. This is for many reasons, one being that the
phenomenon may not exist; secondly those who have studied bilingual advantages may have studied the wrong
executive function component (executive functioning is goal set and directional thought and involves many
regions of the brain such as the basal ganglia, parietal cortex and prefrontal cortex); third research is
underpowered using risky numbers of participants.
There are several "switching sites" during the production process in language for bilinguals. An element from a
chosen language (such as a phrase or sentence) can be taken from any switching site in the brain and be
purposefully selected (De Bot, 2002). Code-switching might happen at many different levels. However, the
literature primarily supports the theory that CS occurs with syntactic and morphological constraints.
Most adults language is organised into two well-defined cerebral in the left hemisphere. (Wernicke, 1874) The
first one is Wernicke’s area which is the lexical/semantic analysis area while the second is Broca’s area located
in the left posterior frontal lobe (This area deals with grammar and speech automation) (Broca, 1861). Theorists
argue that automaticity when reading and in literature tasks in general cannot be suppressed and cannot be
ignored but is effortless and unconscious (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1979; Posner, 1978; Shiffrin & Schneider,
1977). The colour word Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) asks participants to name the incongruent ink colour
printed (BLUE in green) this incurs a slower response time than if naming a congruent colour. Due to
interference. There are research studies that have Stroop tests with adaptations for sensory modalities in
bilingualism (Christensen, Lockwood, Almryde, & Plante, 2010). The participants heard either a high pitched
or low pitched sounds of words and responded by a key press to say which ear it was heard in and what it was
they heard. The two tones were played in opposite ears and then swapped or mismatched for congruent and
incongruent trials (Roberts & Hall, 2008). The Stroop is strong evidence that word reading is an automatic
process and therefore it takes longer during the tasks for participants to name the colour of the incongruent
stimulus (MacLeod, 1991). These two conflicting signals arise from part of the brain known as the anterior
cingulate (the region between the right and left halves of the frontal brain).When performing a Stroop related
task the anterior cingulate is quite complex and has a lower channel of impulse driven regions and more higher
thought-driven behaviours (Allman, Hakeem, Erwin, Nimchinsky, & Hof, 2001).This part is involved in
cognitive processes and impulse-driven behaviours. It is also responsible for emotional responses and thought
processes (Stroop, J.R 1935).
Abutalebi and Green (2007) used 8-11 year old bilingual and monolingual children put into three groups. They
found that monolinguals used parts of the brain in verbal conflict resolution tasks such as a colour Simon and a
numerical Stroop task. The parts of the brain used were the anterior cingulate cortex, left prefrontal cortex, left
inferior parietal lobe, and caudate which were activated to control interference. It was also seen that bilinguals
used the same network regions to strengthen their control over interference. A mechanism is required to
smoothly switch between the two languages fluently while both language systems aim to compete. This
mechanism is found within the executive control system and is part of a network of processes in the frontal
cortex. Support for this comes from fMRI scanning (Luk, Green, Abutalebi, & Grady, 2012, for a meta-

5. analysis). Bilinguals are therefore likely to perform well on Stroop tasks providing they have no altercating
problems which would hinder their fluent language switch such as dysexecutive function.
The theory of executive function is an umbrella term used to describe the functions of the frontal structure of
the brain such as planning, inhibition and working memory (Rabitt, 1997). It is the unified, higher-level system
known as the domain general (not context specific). It is closely related to fluid intelligence and can succeed in
problem solving and flexible thinking Duncan, (1995).
Potter et al. (1984) discussed and described two hypotheses about the relations between the language-specific
lexicons: I. Concept mediation hypothesis: There are no direct connections between the parallel words in the
different languages. Parallel words (from the different languages) are connected via an amodal conceptual
system (i.e., the semantic level of representation). 2. Word association hypothesis: Here, comprehension of a
word is always mediated by access to units of the more proficient language. That is, access to and from a word
in the less proficient language is always mediated by the activation of the parallel word in the more proficient
language. Studies have been consistent with the mediation hypothesis when a larger within- than between-
language interference effects are evident. An amodal system is used when two languages is needed (between
subjects) to activate the lexicon from one side to the other, in order to create an interference effect. In contrast,
when the task involves only one language (i.e., within-language condition), there is no need for activation using
the amodal system to create an interference. Studies that have presented the influence of proficiency effecting
the size of the interference gives support for the word association hypothesis. For example, Magiste (1984)
reported that the different language interference effect increases with proficiency in a given language. The
current study used behavioural measures to investigate how German–English bilinguals and English
monolinguals process language and the differences between condition group and IV groups. In the study we
collected response times (RT) and error data across single and mixed language blocks to determine the pattern
of within and between language effects for our samples (German–English bilinguals) and (English
Monolinguals) to explore the differences in responses and processing between bilinguals and monolinguals. It
also shows the use of different strategies in mixed versus single language context to manage cross language
interference. Participants who are bilingual in both English and German at High school level and monolinguals
in English will be asked to take part in a Stroop study. Participants will be older than 18 years of age but
younger than 75. The Stroop will have three conditions: control, congruent and incongruent. A control condition
has been used to increase interference reactions and look at different instances and situations where there would
be differences in significant differences in timings between the monolinguals and bilinguals. Therefore by
putting a control group in this increases the likeliness that there will be differences seen between all three group
and that control responses will be quicker than incongruent but slower than congruent. Based on research
provided, a prediction of an interaction: that bilinguals will have faster RT’s on incongruent tasks compared to
monolinguals however monolinguals will have faster RT’s on congruent and control conditions compared to
bilinguals.
1. It’s predicted that bilinguals will have a faster response time than monolinguals.
Previous research suggests that bilinguals are more advanced in their language processing then
monolinguals and use mechanisms in executive function to help them switch smoothly between languages
(Luk, Green, Abutalebi, & Grady, 2012, for a meta-analysis).
2. It’s predicted that response times for congruent are faster than control condition and the control
condition should be faster than the incongruent condition.
Stroop, 1935 research has studied the Stroop effect and the influences of conditions with response times
with congruent having the quickest time and incongruent the slowest.

6. 3. It’s predicted an interaction: that bilinguals will have faster RT’s on incongruent tasks compared to
monolinguals however monolinguals will have faster RT’s on congruent and control conditions
compared to bilinguals
As mentioned previously, bilinguals should outperform monolinguals on incongruent tasks as they are used
to switching between languages and adapt techniques to do so. However monolinguals should respond
quicker on control and congruent tasks as it is in their native language and less processing should need to
take place.
Methodology
Before any data was collected, an ethics sign off had to be completed. This was overseen by a member of staff
from the University of Derby from the Psychology department in order for the study to continue within the
stated guidelines.
Participants: Participants will randomly approached via opportunity sampling which will be carried out by an
online survey www.Qualtrics.com. Participants must be aged 18 years – 75 years old and be monolingual or
bilingual and speak both (GCSE/High school level) German and English (Bilingual). Sample size was 104
participants (52 monolingual vs 52 bilingual). Participants will be from all backgrounds, ethnic groups, race and
religion. Participants must either speak English alone or be able to speak both German and English to take part.
Participants must not have a visual impairment or colour blindness to participate.
Materials
I will be using a Dell laptop and online resources such as Qualtrics to produce an online study. Qualtrics
allows me to deliver an online study such as represent a Stroop task to participants, deliver my informal
consents and debriefs online as well as collect data and prepare for analysing data. Words used were made up at
random using colours and fruit words. Colours used for testing were green, black, blue and red (Orange was not
used as the colour is the same translation in both languages). The study will be delivered by personal e-mail,
through the university website and through social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
Procedure
Using a Stroop method, a series of colours can be produced randomly in English. Participants will be given an
outline and introduction to the study and asked if they would like to participate. They can participate by
following a survey link sent to them through social media, university or e-mail and then they must complete
online consent to continue. The consent asks them to confirm their age and confirm that they understand that the
survey is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time. When the participants have completed this and
filled in their age and ID code they can continue to the study if they do not complete the above they are
redirected to the debriefing page and may not participate. Participants will be asked if they are monolingual or
bilingual. There will be 3 sequences which were 24 words long and requires participants to name the required
ink colours of the words in English but the words will be randomly changed from words of colours to words of
fruit as a further condition (Control condition). Participants are asked to read the words on the screen in each
sequence whether it be words of colours or random words of fruit and they do so as quickly as possible as the
page will be timed for their responses and they will be asked to click a next button in order to move on. All
participants must move on and cannot submit without completion which prevents unfinished tests. Each page

7. will have a timed response for every participant using a built in timer. There will be 24 items in each sequence.
There will be three sequences which have a set condition each. The conditions were congruent, incongruent and
control. Incongruent was shown first and then congruent followed by control. 24 items were chosen as it was
an ample amount to create an average sequence, anymore and the participant could get frustrated or bored, any
less and it would be too easy and may not show any interference. Colours used for testing were green, black,
blue and red (Orange was not used as the colour is the same translation in both languages). The response time
for each participant will act as the (DV) which will be used in the final 2x3 analysis (congruent v control v
incongruent) – (Bilingual v monolingual) –DV=Response Time.
Design
A two-way (2x3) mixed analysis of variance was conducted on a version of the Stroop colour test. The
independent variables included one between group variables, language (monolingual vs bilingual) and one
within subject variable, Stroop condition, with three levels (control, incongruent and congruent). Response
times will be my (DV) in data in analysis.
Ethical Considerations
Consent:
Participants when signing up either on the university RPS website or on an embedded link sent by myself will
be sent to a page which will ask them to confirm their age and whether they understand that the study is
voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time.
Deception: There is no deception, all participants will be aware that they are taking part in a language based
Stroop task for bilinguals to test processing.
Debriefing: All participants were debriefed online at the end of the study by an automatic debriefing
reply.
Withdrawal from the investigation:
Participants were given the right to withdraw at any time.
Protection of participants:
Participants should be provided with contact details for aftercare advisors/university liaison or advised to seek
GP help in cases where the participant is distressed after research.
Observation research: This is not an observational research
Giving advice:
As a student you should never try to give advice and support yourself and seek advice from your supervisor or
module leader who will steer the participant in the right direction.
Research undertaken in public places:
This is an online study and will not affect people in public places.

8. Data protection:
Data is kept for a maximum of one year and is not shared with anyone outside the University Organisation.
Environmental protection:
As the study is an online study it is controlled and measured. There are no extraneous variables that could affect
the environment or its surroundings.
Anonymity is used in this study by using ID codes.
Confidentiality and participants rights to non-intrusion must be obtained by evaluating what information is
relevant to the study and what should be omitted from analysis.
Informing participants of research outcomes.
Analytic Strategy
Results
A two-way (2x3) mixed analysis of variance was conducted on a version of the Stroop colour test. The
independent variables included one between group variables, language (monolingual vs bilingual) and one
within subject variable, Stroop condition, with three levels (control, incongruent and congruent). Overall mean
for monolingual individuals was 62.67 (SD 63.53). Overall mean for bilingual individuals was 46.12 (SD
31.08). The overall means and SD’s for Stroop conditions are as follows: Incongruent mean was 23.99 (SD
20.06), Control mean was 17.95 (SD 16.57), and finally Congruent mean was 12.46 (SD 13.88).
In order to look at differences between conditions a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare response
times in (IV level / condition 1) Congruent and (IV level / condition 2) Incongruent conditions but also in
Congruent and (IV Level/ condition 3) Control, and Control and Incongruent. The aim is to look for a
significant effect of interference between the two language group’s responses and the condition groups. IV’s are
manipulated by condition group and which language they must read the ink colour in. There was a marginal
significant main effect of language (F 1, 102=3.50 MSE=679.80, p<0.064). Overall the Bilinguals performed
better on all three conditions than the Monolingual individuals. The results of these showed a marginal
significant difference. Please see table 1 below showing the means and SD’s of the time submits for each
condition and SPSS output showing sample t-tests performed in appendix 6.
Table 1 Results Tables Including Overall Means and Standard Deviations
Please select whether you are
Monolingual or Bilingual (speak two
languages)
Timing-Page
Submit
Incongruent
Timing-Page
Submit
Control
Timing-Page
Submit
Congruent
MEAN 27.9923 19.9882 14.7072
Monolingual N 52 52 52
SD 25.01473 20.58963 17.92731

9. MEAN 19.9805 15.9118 10.2247
Bilingual N 52 52 52
STD DEVIATION 12.43635 11.06752 7.57136
MEAN 23.9864 17.9500 12.4659
Total N 104 104 104
STD 20.06525 16.57569 13.87770
There was a significant main effect of Stroop conditions (F2, 204=39.93, MSE=3453.41, p<0.001). There were
significant effects between each condition and found more difficult conditions such as incongruent or the
control condition took longer to read and submit. There was no significant interaction between language
groups and conditions (F2, 102=1.445, MSE=161.93, p<0.232; see Table 2&3, appendices). For the given effect
size (0.33), sample size (104) and alpha (0.0125, 2-tailed) power is 0.99. This means that 99% of the study was
expected to yield a significant effect, rejecting the null hypothesis. (Calculated using G Power 3.1.7 software).
The significance of a Levene’s test indicates that the group variances are not all equal or less than the critical
level of the .05 significance level which means we fail to reject the Null hypothesis as the variances are not
equal (see table 4, appendices).
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare response times in (IV level / condition 1) Congruent and (IV
level / condition 2) Incongruent conditions but also in Congruent and (IV Level/ condition 3) Control, and
Control and Incongruent. There was a significant difference in the scores for Incongruent (M=23.99, SD=20.06)
and control conditions (M=17.95, SD=16.57) conditions; t (103) =4.14, = p< 0.001 There was a significant
difference in the scores for Incongruent (M=23.99, SD=20.06) and congruent conditions (M=12.46, SD=13.88)
conditions; t (103) =7.83, = p < 0.001. There was a significant difference in the scores for Congruent (M=12.46,
SD=13.88) and Control conditions (M=17.95, SD=16.57) conditions; t (103) =6.47, = p < 0.001. Due to
significance seen from all three conditions it was shown that the longest times were taken in Incongruent
conditions that in any other condition and that Control conditions took the second longest time to complete by
all participants with congruent conditions taking the shortest time to complete (See table 5,6&7, appendices)
Discussion
As this research was exploratory in nature, investigating to discover whether monolinguals and bilinguals
organise and respond to incoming information processing differently in a Stroop task. Response times were
faster for all bilingual participants on all three conditions compared to monolinguals although the difference in
timings had a marginal significance supporting our first hypothesis. This also supports the previous research by
Luk, Green, Abutalebi, & Grady, 2012, for a meta-analysis whereby they state bilinguals use executive function
to switch more smoothly between languages making language processing easier for them then for monolinguals.
Response times also showed that congruent conditions had faster responses than control conditions and control
conditions had faster responses than incongruent conditions. This supports our second hypothesis which

10. provides further support for Stroop, 1935 research into influences of conditions within the Stroop paradigm
where incongruent conditions produced the longest response time and congruent conditions the shortest
response time. The third hypothesis that was stated was not significant where bilinguals were in fact quicker in
responding on incongruent tasks than monolinguals but monolinguals did not outperform bilinguals on control
or congruent conditions. The results have supported previous research and have shown that bilinguals are able
to process and switch between different languages and/or conditions quicker than a monolingual person. 30
participant’s data had to be removed during data screening as some response times were too high or incomplete
(times had passed over 6 minutes). This was due to participant’s looking at the survey when accessed through
social media and half way through opting out. When having feedback from other participants it was found that
even though they were bilingual or monolingual they still took long to process the first initial instructions. In
future when conducting this type of research looking at simplifying the instructions is a possibility, however
many participants struggled over giving consent and gave up on this page and this cannot be altered for research
but can be worded that the participant does not think that they are being put into a study that they will be
hassled for life. There are various implications and applications from the outcomes of this study some of which
are: There is an importance of dealing with the problems of literacy and the acquisition of mechanical skills
(being proficient in the language)—in English as well as foreign languages. According to ACTFL language
proficiency is a serious concern for politics and research into this can only help show what improvements can
be done in education. The encouragement of code switching should benefit and promote development of second
language fluency which has only gained attention in recent linguistic research. The cognitive advantages of
bilingualism such as increased performance and less interference issues on language tasks (Lambert, 1975).
Second language acquisition can help with learning and increase white matter volume, decreasing Alzheimer
and other brain disease risk. English language learners and English speakers do not learn to speak the language
the same way and use English cognates and some use little lexical similarity to English. Students own
knowledge and prior schooling will also have an impact on the status of their language learning (Garcia, 2000).
Ecological research is needed to understand specific cognitive, linguistic and sociocultural factors that promote
or inhibit performance. Having teachers focus on various levels of written and oral literacy for improvements to
help students attain a higher level and help focus on general criteria for language proficiency. The recognition
of the value of linguistic and cultural pluralism in society is important. For future research it would be possible
to look at multiple languages and also age and how age effects the way we process information and at what
speed. This would be more of a complex study and take a lot longer time to complete as a large sample would
be needed to get valid results.

11. References
Abutalebi, J., & Green∗, D. W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence
from language switching studies. Language and cognitive processes, 23(4), 557-582.
Adesope O. O., Lavin T., Thompson T., Ungerleider C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the
cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Rev. Educ. Res. 80, 207–245 10.3102/0034654310368803
Allman, J.M., Hakeem, A., Erwin, J.M., Nimchinsky, E., and Hof, P. (2001). The anterior cingulate cortex - The
evolution of an interface between emotion and cognition. Unity of Knowledge: The Convergence of Natural and
Human Science 935, 107-117.
Baddeley, A., & Wilson, B. (1988). "Frontal amnesia and the dysexecutive syndrome." Brain and Cognition, 7,
212-230.
Bamgbose, A. (1994). Nigeria’s choice. UNESCO Courier. 22–31.
Bialystok, E., & Senman, L. (2004). Executive processes in appearance-reality tasks: The role of inhibition of
attention and symbolic representation. Child Development, 75, 562–579
Bialystok E., Craik F. I. M., Klein R., Viswanathan M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging and cognitive control:
evidence from the Simon task. Psychol. Aging 19, 290–303 10.1037
Bialystok E., Craik F. I. M., Green D. W., Gollan T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest
10, 89–129 10.1177
Bialystok E., Craik F. I., Binns M. A., Ossher L., Freedman M. (2014). Effects of bilingualism on the age of
onset and progression of MCI and AD: evidence from executive function tests. Neuropsychology 28, 290–304
10.1037
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A. & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word
recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 447-457.
Broca, P. P. (1861) “Loss of Speech, Chronic Softening and Partial Destruction of the Left Anterior Lobe of the
Brain“, Translation of: Perte de la parole, ramollissement chronique et destructionpatielle du lobe anterieur
gauche du cerveau. Bulletins de la Societe d’ Anthropologie 2:235-238, 1861
Christensen, T. A., Lockwood, J. L., Almryde, K. R., & Plante, E. (2010). Neural Substrates of Attentive
Listening Assessed with a Novel Auditory Stroop Task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 236.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00236
Chen, H. C., & Leung, Y. S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in non-native language. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learn- ing, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 316-325.
Colome, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: language-specific or language-
independent? Journal of Memory and Language 45.721–36.
Costa, A., M. Miozzo, and A. Caramazza. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: do words in the bilingual’s
two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language 41.365–97.
Dell, G. S. & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287-
314.

12. Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual visual word recognition system:
From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197.
Dijkstra, A., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Grainger, J. (1998). Simulating cross-language competition with the
Bilingual Interactive Activation model. Psychologica Belgica, 38, 177-196.
Duncan J. Attention, intelligence, and the frontal lobes. In: Gazzaniga MS, editor. The cognitive neurosciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. pp. 721–733.
Fabbro, F. (2010). The Neurolinguistics of Bilingualism. Hove : Psychology Press.
Filley C.M. (2012) The behavioral neurology of white matter. 2nd ed Oxford University Press: New York
Fox, E. (1996).Cross-language priming from ignored words: evidence for a common representational system in
bilinguals.Journal of Memory and Language 35.353–70.
Francis, N. (1999). Bilingualism, writing and metalinguistic awareness: oral-literate interactions between first
and second languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20 (4), 533-562.
Francis, N. (2005). Research findings on early first language attrition: Implications for the discussion on critical
periods in language acquisition. Language Learning, 55, 491-531.
Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gerard, L D., & Scarborough, D. L. (1989). Language-specific lexical access of homographs by bilinguals.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 303-315.
Grainger, J., & Beauvillain, C. (1989). Associative priming in bilin- guals: Some limits of interlingual
facilitation effect. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 261-273.
Groot, A. M. B., de, & Nas, G. (1989). The bilingual lexicon: Some within- and between-language connections
between lexical representations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. Cognitive processing in bilinguals, ed. by R. Harris, 51–
62.Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 108, 356-388.
Heaton, R.K. (1981) A Manual for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Psychological Assessment Services,
Odessa, FL.
Hoffman, C. (1991). Individual Bilingualism. London; New York: Longman.
Jared, D., and J. F. Kroll. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their
languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language 44.2–31.
Lambert, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factor in learning and education in A.Wolgang (Ed.).
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production.
Behavioral & Brain Sciences 22, 1-75.

13. Luk, Gigi, David W. Green, Jubin Abutalebi, and Cheryl Grady. 2012. “Cognitive Control for Language
Switching in Bilinguals: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies.” Language and
Cognitive Processes 27 (10) (December): 1479–1488. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.613209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.613209.
Luk G, Green DW, Abutalebi J, Grady CL. (2011). Cognitive control for language switching in bilinguals: a
quantitative meta-analysis on functional neuroimaging studies. Lang Cogn Process. 2011 in press.
MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrated review. Psychological
Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
Magiste, E. (1984). Stroop tasks and dichotic translation: The devel- opment of interference patterns in
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 304- 315.
Mohades, S. G., Struys, E., Van Schuerbeek, P., Mondt, K., Van De Craen, P., & Luypaert, R. DTI reveals
structural differences in white matter tracts between bilinguals and monolingual children. BRAIN RESEARCH,
1435; 72-80 (2012).
Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Hiilsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Spivey, M. & Marian, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an
irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10, 281-284.
Norris, G. & Tate, R.L. (2000). The Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS):
Ecological, concurrent and construct validity. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10, 33–45.
Marian, V. & Spivey, M. (2003). Comparing Bilingual and Monolingual Processing of Competing Lexical
Items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24 (2).
Marian, V., M. Spivey, and J. Hirsch. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language processing:
converging evidence from eye tracking and brain imaging. Brain and Language 86.70–82.
McClelland, J. L., and D. E. Rumelhart. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter
perception: an account of basic findings. Psychological Review 88.375–407.
Mechelli A, Crinion JT, Noppeney U, O’Doherty, Ashburner, Frackowiak, (2004). Neurolinguistics: structural
plasticity in the bilingual brain; 431:757
Ozonoff, S., & Jensen, J. (1999). Brief report: Specific executive function profiles in three neurodevelopmental
disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 171177.
Pennington BF, Ozonoff S, (1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry; 37:51–87.
Rabbitt, P. (1997). Methodology of frontal and executive function. Hove: Psychology Press.
Roberts KL, Hall DA (June 2008). "Examining a supramodal network for conflict processing: a systematic
review and novel functional magnetic resonance imaging data for related visual and auditory stroop tasks".
Journal of cognitive neuroscience 20 (6): 1063–78.
Rumsey JM. (1985). Conceptual problem-solving in highly verbal, nonretarded autistic men. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders; 15:23–36.
Obler, L. K. (1982). Neurolinguistic aspects of language loss as they pertain to second language acquisition. In
R. D. Lambert, & B. F. Freed (Eds.).The Loss of Language Skills (pp. 60–79). Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.

14. Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J.A. (1998). Response inhibition and response re-engagement in attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disruptive, anxious and normal children. Behavioral Brain Research, 94, 33–43.
STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
18, 643-661.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II.
Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127- 190.
Schwartz, A. I., and J. F. Kroll. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and
Language 55.197–212.
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., Sneg, R., & Baruch, O. (1996). Unintentional word reading via the phonological route:
The Stroop effect with cross-script homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 22, 336–349.
Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1989). The insensitivity of the semantic relatedness effect to surface differences and
its implications. Paper presented at the 1st European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam.
Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2000). Visual word recognition in monolingual and bilingual readers: Experiments and
computational modelling. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nijmegen.
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T. & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word
recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458-483.
Wernicke, C. (1874). Der aphasiche Symptomenkomplex. Breslau: Cohn and Weigert.
Republished as: The aphasia symptom complex: A psychological study on an
anatomical basis. Wernicke's works on aphasia. The Hague: Mouton
Appendices
Appendix 1: Informed Consent
Dear Participant,
I am a student at the University of Derby. I am conducting a research project on Bilingual and
monolingual individuals who speak both English and German. I would like to invite you to participate in a short
test lasting no longer than 5 minutes. The purpose of the study is to find out whether bilinguals respond
quicker than monolinguals on conditioning tasks. You will be given a list of words and asked to read the words
ink colour during this task. It is advised that people with colour blindness or visual impairment do not take
part. Participants must be aged 18 or over to take part and will be asked to confirm their age and create an ID
code for identification of results. All results are kept confidential and are not shared with anyone else and only
while ID codes and results are used for analysis and if participants wish to withdraw. Data will be shown to a
governing board upon marking of work and results and data destroyed one year after.
You will be asked to give consent before the start of this study. If you wish to withdraw from the study you
may do so at any time and can contact me on the e-mail below.
Please click the link below to indicate whether you would participate in this research.
Participation is entirely voluntary, and all information obtained will be used for research purposes only. If you
have any questions about the research, please feel free to contact Jane
McDonnell (100192349@unimail.derby.ac.uk). If you want to know more about the rights as a research
participant, please contact Sigrid Lipka, s.lipka@derby.ac.uk tel:01332 - 593052

15. University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB.
Yours sincerely,
Jane McDonnell
The University of Derby
Please follow the link below
https://derby.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8BKd8ZYo3Mb8pI9
Appendix 2: Consent
Please State your age in the box below
Please create an ID code using the first two letters of your mother's maiden name and the year you
were born. For example, John Smith 1983 would be SM83
If consent question is not answered or is not consented to then participant will be directed to
the end debrief page and may not participate.
Please press on each of the following statements to show you understand and agree to the
requirements of this study and then go to the next button. You must confirm these before continuing.
 You are 18 years or older and are fully consenting.
 You may withdraw from the study at any time.
 You understand Participation of this study is voluntary.
Appendix 3: Debrief
DEBRIEFING FORM
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. I am able to share a bit more information about the
research with you about the full aims of this research.
The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between processing in monolingual and bilingual
participants during interference tasks. Times of monolinguals and bilinguals responses were recorded when
given a series of Stroop related sequences which had different conditions (congruent, incongruent and

16. control). Loraine Obler (2014) researched first language attrition and discovered that when a second language
is used, lexical retrieval and word choice becomes vulnerable and can contradict the first grammatical
construction.
The test used in the study was the Stroop test and was devised by John Ridley Stroop in 1935 to test
interference in serial verbal reactions.
Stroop, John Ridley (1935). "Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions". Journal of Experimental
Psychology 18 (6): 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
I am required to remind you of the following:
• Your participation in this study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw from now until 2 weeks
following your participation. If you wish to withdraw your consent please contact me by email
100192349@unimail.derby.ac.uk and provide your unique participant number. This number is the first two
letters of your mothers maiden name and the last two digits of your year of birth.
• Your responses are confidential and anonymous. Your responses will only be identified alongside your
unique participation code in order to ensure your anonymity.
It is not envisaged that participation in this study will be detrimental to you, however in the event that you do
have any issues or concerns, please contact either your General Practitioner (GP), an appropriate support
group or, for students, the Student Support Centre.
If you have other questions regarding the study or would like to know your results please contact me on the e-
mail given above or for any further information or queries please contact my supervisor Sigrid Lipka, University
Of Derby, Keddleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB, s.lipka@derby.ac.uk . Telephone: 01332 - 593052
Thanks For your Participation
Jane McDonnell
University Of Derby
Appendix 4: Tables of Results
Table 2
Test of BetweenSubject Effects
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Intercept 102599.887 1 102599.887 150.925 .000 .597
Q5 2379.767 1 2379.767 3.501 .064 .033
Error 69340.116 102 679.805
Table 3
Tests Of within subjects Contrasts

17. Source
factor1
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
factor1
Linear
Quadratic
factor1 * Q5
Linear
6901.551 1 6901.551 61.582 .000 .376
5.288 1 5.288 .087 .769 .001
161.926 1 161.926 1.445 .232 .014
Quadratic 81.675 1 81.675 1.341 .250 .013
Error(factor1) Linear 11431.172 102 112.070
Quadratic 6211.039 102 60.893
Table 4
Levenes Test of Equality of Error of Variances
F df1 df2 Sig.
Timing-Page Submit 5.450 1 102 .022
Timing-Page Submit 1.113 1 102 .294
Timing-Page Submit 4.831 1 102 .030
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups
Table 5
Within Subjects Design: factor1
Paired Differences t df Sig
(2-
tail
ed)
Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Upper lower
Pair
1
Incongr
uent/co
ntrol
6.03641 14.87418 1.45853 3.14376 8.92907 4.139 103 .00
0
Pair
2
Incongr
uent/co
ngruen
t
-
11.52051
15.00362 1.47123 -
14.43834
-
8.60268
-
7.831
103 .00
0

18. Pair
3
Congru
ent/con
trol
5.48410 8.63690 .84692 3.80443 7.16376 6.475 103 .00
0
Table 6
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair1
Incongruent/Control
104 .686 .000
Pair2
Incongruent/Congruent
104 .665 .000
Pair3
Control/Congruent
104 .854 .000
Table 7
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std.Deviation Std.Error Mean
Pair1
Incongruent/Control
23.9864 104 20.06525 1.97
17.9500 104 16.57569 1.62
Pair2 23.9864 104 20.06525 1.36
Incongruent/Congruent 12.4659 104 13.87770 1.97
Pair3 17.9500 104 16.57569 1.62
Congruent/Control 12.4659 104 13.87770 1.36
Appendix 5: Survey materials

19. I am a student at the University of Derby. I am conducting a research project on monolingual and Bilingual individuals who speak both English and
German. I would like to invite you to participatein a short test lasting no longer than 5 minutes. You will be given a list of words and asked to say
the ink colour of each word which is written during this task. There will be 3 sequences of 24 items to identify. It is advised that peoplewith colour
blindness or visual impairment do not take part. Bilinguals taking part must be able to speak both good GCSE/high school level English and German
and be between theages of 18 and 75. Monolinguals must be English speaking between theages of 18 and 75. If you comply to all of theabove then
please continue to thenext arrow. All results are kept confidential and are not shared with anyone else and only participant's ID codes and results are
used for analysis and for circumstances of withdrawal from study. Datawill be shown to a governing board upon marking of work and results and
data destroyed one year after.
You will be asked to give consent before the start of this study. If you wish to withdraw from thestudy you may do so at any time and can contact
me on thee-mail below. Participants must be aged 18 or over to take part and will be asked to confirm their age and create an ID code for
identification of results.
Participation is entirely voluntary, and all information obtained will be used for research purposes only. If you have any questions about the research,
please feel free to contact Jane McDonnell 100192349@unimail.derby.ac.uk. If you want to know more about the rights as a research participant,
please contact my supervisor Sigrid Lipka, s.lipka@derby.ac.uk tel:01332 - 593052
Please State your age in thebox below
If Please State yourage in th... Is Less Than 18, Then Skip To End of SurveySkipLogic
Please create an ID code using the first two letters of your mother's maiden name and the year you were born. For example, John Smith 1983 would
be SM83
If consent question is not answered or is not consented to then participant will be directed to
the end debrief page and may not participate.
Please press on each of the following statements to show you understand and agree to the requirements of this study and then go to the next button.
You must confirm these before continuing.
 You are 18 years or older and are fully consenting.
 You may withdraw from the study at any time.
 You understand Participation of this study is voluntary.

If You are 18 years or oldera... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey SkipLogic
If You may withdraw from the s... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of SurveySkipLogic
If You understand Participatio... Is Not Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey SkipLogic
Page Break
Q5
Please select whether you are Monolingual or Bilingual (speak two languages)
 Monolingual
 Bilingual
Page Break
Q22
Please name the colour ink of the words as fast you can and press next button
Page Break

20. This question lets you record and manage how long a participant spends on this page. This question will not be displayed to the participant.
GREEN BLUE BLACK BLUE GREEN RED BLACK RED RED GREEN BLU
E RED BLACK BLUE BLUE GREEN BLACK RED GREEN GREEN BLUE R
ED GREEN BLUE
Timing
Page Break
This question lets you record and manage how long a participant spends on this page. This question will not be displayed to the participant.
APPLE BANANA BLUEBERRY CARROT CHERRY GRAPES LEEK
PEAR NUT LEMON PEACH VEGETABLES TOMATO KIWI POTATO
PINEAPPLE RASPBERRY STRAWBERRY GRAPEFRUIT PLUM
SQUASH ARTICHOKE GOOSEBERRY SPINACH
Timing
Page Break
This question lets you record and manage how long a participant spends on this page. This question will not be displayed to the participant.
BLACK RED GREEN BLUE BLACK RED
BLUE GREEN RED BLACK RED GREEN RED GREEN BLUE GREEN
RED BLACK BLUE BLUE BLUE GREEN BLACK RED
Timing
Appendix 6: SPSS Output
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
factor1 Sphericity Assumed 6906.839 2 3453.419 39.932 .000 .281

21. Greenhouse-Geisser 6906.839 1.516 4555.630 39.932 .000 .281
Huynh-Feldt 6906.839 1.549 4458.158 39.932 .000 .281
Lower-bound 6906.839 1.000 6906.839 39.932 .000 .281
factor1 * Q5
Sphericity Assumed 243.602 2 121.801 1.408 .247 .014
Greenhouse-Geisser 243.602 1.516 160.675 1.408 .246 .014
Huynh-Feldt 243.602 1.549 157.238 1.408 .247 .014
Lower-bound 243.602 1.000 243.602 1.408 .238 .014
Error(factor1)
Sphericity Assumed 17642.211 204 86.481
Greenhouse-Geisser 17642.211 154.643 114.083
Huynh-Feldt 17642.211 158.024 111.642
Lower-bound 17642.211 102.000 172.963
Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source factor1 Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
factor1
Linear 6901.551 1 6901.551 61.582 .000 .376
Quadratic 5.288 1 5.288 .087 .769 .001
factor1 * Q5
Linear 161.926 1 161.926 1.445 .232 .014
Quadratic 81.675 1 81.675 1.341 .250 .013
Error(factor1)
Linear 11431.172 102 112.070
Quadratic 6211.039 102 60.893
Grand Mean
Measure: MEASURE_1
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
18.134 1.476 15.206 21.062
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Timing-Page Submit 5.450 1 102 .022
Timing-Page Submit 1.113 1 102 .294
Timing-Page Submit 4.831 1 102 .030
Tests the null hypothesis thatthe error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:Intercept+ Q5
Within Subjects Design:factor1

22. Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
tailed)Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair
1
Timing-Page Submit - Timing-
Page Submit
6.03641 14.87418 1.45853 3.14376 8.92907 4.139 103 .000
Pair
2
Timing-Page Submit - Timing-
Page Submit
-
11.52051
15.00362 1.47123 -14.43834 -8.60268 -7.831 103 .000
Pair
3
Timing-Page Submit - Timing-
Page Submit
5.48410 8.63690 .84692 3.80443 7.16376 6.475 103 .000
Pair
4
Timing-Page Submit - Timing-
Page Submit
-5.48410 8.63690 .84692 -7.16376 -3.80443 -6.475 103 .000
Monolingual One sample T-test
Bootstrap for One-Sample Test
Mean
Difference
Bootstrapa
Bias Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Timing-Page Submit 19.98821 -.16410 3.22102 .019 14.13772 28.04754
Timing-Page Submit 14.70715 -.05196 2.80913 .038 9.10154 21.59813
Timing-Page Submit 27.99231 -.76911 3.66662 .019 21.31465 34.82136
a. Unless otherwise noted,bootstrap results are based on 52 bootstrap samples
Bilingual One sample t-test
Bootstrap for One-Sample Test
Bootstrapa

23. Mean
Difference
Bias Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
VAR00011 19.98052 -.22269 1.47054 .019 16.58416 22.79372
VAR00014 15.91179 .17283 1.44219 .019 13.23463 19.04404
VAR00017 10.22465 -.05267 .94693 .019 8.17443 12.07238
a. Unless otherwise noted,bootstrap results are based on 52 bootstrap samples
PDP Letter
University of Derby headquarters
Kedleston Road,
Derby,
East Midlands
DE22 1GB
Dear Sir/Madam
I am applying for a place on your FdSc Rehabilitation work (Visual Impairment) course with the hope of doing
the 3rd year BSc add on. As I am preparing to finish off my current BSc honours degree in Psychology in
summer 2015 it has given me great insight into special needs, brain functioning abilities and special needs.
From my current degree I have developed much needed communication skills and academic writing skills as
well as being able to initiate self-directed and independent learning. I have gained much confidence in my
abilities as a person and to be able to adapt and work with other people not only on projects that I have done or
done together but within my work and degree as a whole through discussion and collaboration. During my
degree, I have been able to develop an understanding of human behaviour. I am able to use critical
understanding or psychological theory and research methods and apply it to human behaviour. The programme
has enabled me to discuss research and specialist areas with other students whilst improving my knowledge in
psychology.
The scientific aspects of the degree such as manipulation of data and problem solving allow me to enter into
careers in healthcare and research. The skills I’ve experienced and need to go on and maintain and achieve my
career goals are literacy, Numeracy: - Am able to compile organise and analyse data sets as well as able to
interpret statistical information. Computer literacy, Communication skills, Group work/ Leadership: - I have

24. been able to show that I’m capable of working within a group of unknown people on a research study and am
able to negotiate whilst having a specific goal and resolving conflicts. Independence: - The majority of the
degree has relied upon my own resourcefulness, time management skills and self-motivation in order to
complete individual projects and research own topic areas, titles and goals. Critical thinking: - I’m able to
evaluate essays and research from different points of view. Identifying strengths and weaknesses and how they
could be tackled. Problem solving skills: - I am able to problem solve which is essential, whether it’s a difficult
essay title or modifying an experimental design. Having different strategies is a key skill. Information finding
skills and Research skills. I understand the importance of psychological measures being valid and reliable and
have experience using questionnaires and psychometric tests. It has been important to look back at previous
work notes, and modules to refresh my memory on the above topics in order for me to be able to practice these
in the future. More time is needed when writing up papers. Take the time to proofread work properly so not to
make silly language and grammatical mistakes. It may help to seek some language software to help improve
grammar and practice more.
It has been relevant to have voluntary work whilst I have been studying. Choosing the right areas of voluntary
work that will help me develop my skills is important.
When it comes to disability and people’s needs I’m quite knowledgeable about what is available to people with
any specific special needs in terms of adapting within schools. As I currently volunteer for RNIB and am
registered blind myself I am aware of technology and services available even if this includes social groups and
cane mobility or working with the independent living officer. I usually work and talk to many partially sighted
and blind individuals daily. This includes going out bowling and socialising in general and for general chat on
the phone if there are any worries. I understand the role of a Rehabilitation worker to be someone who goes and
visits an individual and makes sure that their surroundings such as their home are working to their needs. For
instance if the individual is sight impaired or blind they may need a talking clock or kitchen equipment that
helps them work more smoothly. Other things to consider are steps outside and whether the council should
install a rail, benefit forms can be helped to fill in and mobility training with the correct size cane for the height
of the person. I understand from working with other people with disabilities and from doing research within my
psychology degree that discrimination should not be stood for and that all people should be treated with the
same equality, consideration and understanding as anyone else. We have broad range of different communities
and within that we have different types of people with different capabilities which creates diversity. It is
essential to have diversity to learn from different aspects and create a new educational experience and broaden
our understanding of the world. I feel that I have good prior skills because of my own experience and am quite
confident as a person. Because of this I can input my experience while learning things I didn’t know along the
way. When I speak to people with any difficulties they like to be able to relate to someone and I feel I can add

25. this experience to the course. In general I want to be able to further my education and skills in the job that I do
so that I can do rehabilitation work with blind and partially sighted people like myself. I hope I can make a
difference on your course and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours Sincerely
Jane McDonnell