The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control.
Abstract
Low-prejudice people vary considerably in their ability to regulate intergroup responses. The authors hypothesized that this variability arises from a neural mechanism for monitoring conflict between automatic race-biased tendencies and egalitarian intentions. In Study 1, they found that low-prejudice participants whose nonprejudiced responses are motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did participants motivated by a combination of internal and external factors. This difference was associated with greater conflict-monitoring activity, measured by event-related potentials, when responses required stereotype inhibition. Study 2 demonstrated that group differences were specific to response control in the domain of prejudice. Results indicate that conflict monitoring, a preconscious component of response control, accounts for variability in intergroup bias among low-prejudice participants.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“CRN amplitude enhancement has also been shown in response to successful stereotype control related to ethnic group membership (Amodio, 2008;Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones, 2008).”
From Interplay of self-other distinction and cognitive control mechanisms in a social automatic imitation task: An ERP study (2021) · cites this paper as Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones, 2008
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,870
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. B
Press, H. (1886) · Cited by 10,087
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03203267 · Cited by 7,230
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping
Amodio, D. M. (2014) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3800 · Cited by 618
Self-citationEmotional foundations of cognitive control
Inzlicht, M., Bartholow, B. D., & Hirsh, J. B. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.004 · Cited by 542
Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations
Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon‐Jones, E. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002 · Cited by 432
Self-citationJost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001 · Cited by 353
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010) · Handbook of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002029 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 60-74
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2154504519
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 64.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2008-02-18)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (BCS-9910702; BCS 0350435)
- National Institutes of Health (T32-MH18931)
- APA
- University of Wisconsin
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- intergroup bias, prejudice, conflict monitoring, response control, individual differences, motivation, event-related potentials
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Black or African American, Cognition, Conflict, Psychological, Evoked Potentials, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Neuropsychology, Prejudice, United States, White People
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
