Inhibition and the validity of the Stroop task for children with autism.
The Stroop can fake good inhibition in children with autism because weak reading lowers color-word conflict, not because their self-control is superior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave children with autism a classic Stroop test. Kids saw color words printed in mismatched ink and had to name the ink color.
They also ran a picture version with no reading. This let them check if reading skill, not inhibition, drove any score gaps.
What they found
On the color-naming Stroop, the autism group showed less interference than typical peers. On the word-reading part, both groups looked the same.
In the picture task with zero reading, the groups again looked the same. The authors say weaker reading comprehension in autism lowered the chance for conflict, not better self-control.
How this fits with other research
Emerson et al. (2007) found worse inhibition in autism on two of three tasks. Bigby et al. (2009) now show the Stroop can hide a weakness when reading is poor. The two papers seem to clash, but the gap vanishes once you see that task choice, not autism severity, sets the result.
Walley et al. (2005) already warned that language skill, not autism itself, predicts inhibition scores. The new data back them up and spell out the mechanism: low reading = low Stroop conflict.
Tonizzi et al. (2022) pooled many studies and still report medium inhibition deficits in autism. Their meta keeps the target paper inside the average, proving the Stroop is an outlier, not a contradiction.
Why it matters
If you test inhibition with the Stroop, a child with poor reading may look stellar while still struggling in daily life. Pick non-reading tasks like stop-signal or go/no-go to avoid this trap. Always check language level before you label a score as true self-control.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap the Stroop for a picture-based stop-signal task when you need a clean read on inhibition.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Findings are mixed concerning inhibition in autism. Using the classic Stroop, children with autism (CWA) often outperform typically developing children (TDC). A classic Stroop and a chimeric animal Stroop were used to explore the validity of the Stroop task as a test of inhibition for CWA. During the classic Stroop, children ignored the word and named the ink colour, then vice versa. Although CWA showed less interference than TDC when colour naming, both groups showed comparable interference when word reading. During the chimeric animal task, children ignored bodies of animals and named heads, and vice versa; the groups performed comparably. Findings confirm that lower reading comprehension affects Stroop interference in CWA, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions concerning inhibition in CWA.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2009 · doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0721-8