CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 913Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind.

Open access
Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Tugade, Michele M., Engle, Randall W.·2004·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553PMC PMC1351135
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Dual-process theories of the mind are ubiquitous in psychology. A central principle of these theories is that behavior is determined by the interplay of automatic and controlled processing. In this article, the authors examine individual differences in the capacity to control attention as a major contributor to differences in working memory capacity (WMC). The authors discuss the enormous implications of this individual difference for a host of dual-process theories in social, personality, cognitive, and clinical psychology. In addition, the authors propose several new areas of investigation that derive directly from applying the concept of WMC to dual-process theories of the mind.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553

Cites

297 of 297 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Executive attention need not be volitional or effortful and can operate well before subjective experience is generated.

    “Importantly, executive attention need not be volitional or effortful and can operate well before subjective experience is generated (Barrett et al. 2004).”

    From The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review (2012) · cites this paper as Barrett et al. 2004

  • Executive attention is the fourth operation specific to our psychological constructionist approach.

    “Executive attention is the fourth operation that is particular to our psychological constructionist approach (Barrett 2009a; Barrett et al. 2004).”

    From The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review (2012) · cites this paper as Barrett et al. 2004

  • WM capacity is closely correlated with other higher-order cognitive functions such as fluid intelligence, abstract reasoning, and reading comprehension.

    “WM capacity is closely correlated with other higher-order cognitive functions such as fluid intelligence, abstract reasoning, and reading comprehension [3].”

    From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

  • In humans, actual executive control and the experience of feeling in control are not synonymous.

    “I am saying that in humans, actual executive control (e.g. via the frontoparietal control network in primates) and the experience of feeling in control are not synonymous (Barrett et al., 2004).”

    From The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization (2016) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2004

  • The dual-process model of emotion regulation involves top-down prefrontal controlled processes and bottom-up automatic limbic activation.

    “These findings align with a dual-process model of emotion regulation with top-down prefrontal controlled processes and bottom-up, automatic limbic activation (Barrett et al., 2004).”

    From Meta-analyses of the neural mechanisms and predictors of response to psychotherapy in depression and anxiety (2018) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2004

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  2. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology New York: Guilford Press.
  3. Descartes, R. (1931). Meditations on first philosophy: The Philosophical works of Rene Descartes (E. S. Haldane & G. R. T. Ross, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641)
  4. Fiske, S. T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and prejudice. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 253–283). New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition New York: McGraw-Hill.
  6. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of the mind Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
  7. LaBerge D. Attention as the intensification of cortical activity. Revue de Neuropsychologie. 1998;8:53–81. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nelson, J. B., & Bouton, M. E. (2002). Extinction, inhibition, and emotional intelligence. In L. Feldman Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom of feeling New York: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Boston College (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2004
Volume
130
Issue
4
Pages
553-573
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553
PMC
PMC1351135
OpenAlex
W2133991911
Cited by
913
References
297
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 48
FWCI
34.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH064267, K02MH001981, F32-MH64267)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
working memory capacity, dual-process theory, individual differences, automatic and controlled processing, attentional control, cognitive control, personality psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology
MeSH terms
Humans, Memory, Motivation, Psychological Theory

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