The neural aspects of cognitive conflict during the Stroop task

The neural aspects of cognitive conflict during the Stroop task


Make sure this is meaningful and reflects the content of the report.

Author details etc.

Abstract. (120 -150 words.)

The abstract summarizes the research paper and must include all the elements of the research report. Enough information should be given so that people who read the report after reading the abstract will not be surprised by what they find in the full report. Even though the Abstract appears first, it is usually written last because it summarizes the work. Although the abstract is short, it is a very important part of a report as it is often the only part that is read, and is often the basis on which readers decide whether or not to proceed to access and read the whole article.

Introduction (1500 -2000 words)

The introduction states the research problem and discusses prior research. It begins with more broad and general information and then narrows the focus to the specific point of interest in this study. It finishes with a clear statement of the research hypotheses, variables etc.  If it is not clear to the reader that these hypotheses etc. flow naturally from the earlier material in the introduction then the introduction is not well focused and does not provide a good rationale for the current study.  It is here that you can make a clear statement of the independent and dependent variables, including number of levels, between/within group status etc. etc. Alternatively, and preferably, you can include that information as a separate Design subsection at the start of the Method.


The purpose of the Method section is to describe how the research was carried out. This includes information about participants, apparatus, materials and procedures where appropriate. Subsections are used for these various aspects of the methodology.


IV, DV, etc


Here describe how participants were selected, demographic characteristics, whether or not they were paid etc. etc.. Also state how participants were assigned to the various experimental conditions. State if any participants dropped out of the study part way through or were rejected by the researcher etc. and give reasons.

There should be enough information to allow a reader to compare the sample with samples from similar research projects.

Apparauts/equipment/materials (or some combination of these terms)

In this subsection all physical aspects of the study are described.


The procedure subsection describes how the study was carried out.  Report everything that the experimenter and the participants did during the course of the study. There should be sufficient detail to allow a reader to replicate the study.


The results section tells the reader what was found.  The results are reported in this section but not discussed – discussion comes in the Discussion section. The usual convention is:

  • clarify any remaining issues pertaining to the raw data so that the reader knows exactly what data were subjected to analysis.
  • descriptive statistics
  • inferential statistics.

In this report, please express the results of the statistical tests in writing – you may include tables etc. if desired but tables/diagrams alone are not sufficient.

Tables and diagrams should be labeled so that their content is interpretable without additional information.

It is not acceptable to simply cut and past diagrams/tables etc. from other sources, particularly not SPSS output. IF you cut and paste tables etc from SPSS output you will be penalized and the report is likely to fail.


Here the results are interpreted and evaluated/discussed. It is useful to begin by stating whether or not the hypotheses have been supported and then proceed to discuss the findings, not just re-state the findings. The discussion should relate the findings back to the theoretical material covered in the introduction.

Weakness in the study should be identified and discussed and recommendations made for future research, if appropriate. This is important. The experiment has been designed with some flaws so it is important that you show that you understand what improvements could be made or perhaps how a different theoretical interpretation could have influenced the design etc.