The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 138 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Toward a comprehensive understanding of executive cognitive function in implicit racial bias.
Open accessAbstract
Although performance on laboratory-based implicit bias tasks often is interpreted strictly in terms of the strength of automatic associations, recent evidence suggests that such tasks are influenced by higher-order cognitive control processes, so-called executive functions (EFs). However, extant work in this area has been limited by failure to account for the unity and diversity of EFs, focus on only a single measure of bias and/or EF, and relatively small sample sizes. The current study sought to comprehensively model the relation between individual differences in EFs and the expression of racial bias in 3 commonly used laboratory measures. Participants (N = 485) completed a battery of EF tasks (Session 1) and 3 racial bias tasks (Session 2), along with numerous individual difference questionnaires. The main findings were as follows: (a) measures of implicit bias were only weakly intercorrelated; (b) EF and estimates of automatic processes both predicted implicit bias and also interacted, such that the relation between automatic processes and bias expression was reduced at higher levels of EF; (c) specific facets of EF were differentially associated with overall task performance and controlled processing estimates across different bias tasks; (d) EF did not moderate associations between implicit and explicit measures of bias; and (e) external, but not internal, motivation to control prejudice depended on EF to reduce bias expression. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of global and specific EF abilities in determining expression of implicit racial bias.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When a higher-order common factor is used to model the correlations among response inhibition, working memory updating, and mental set shifting (see Fig. 3b), that common factor almost perfectly predicts the inhibition factor [37, 38, 157, 158], but there is significant variance in the updating and shifting factors that is not related to the common factor.”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Similarly, when the correlated factors model is re-parameterized into a bifactor model (see Fig. 3c), there are updating-specific and shifting-specific factors, but there is no evidence for a response inhibition-specific factor [37, 38, 157].”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Since that initial study, this psychometric latent variable approach has been used in a large number of studies to show that unity and diversity of CC is evident across samples and ages (e.g., [34–41]), although there are some studies that suggest more unity (higher correlations between factors) in early childhood [35, 42–44].”
From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Self-citationHu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 1×
“…associations that people were increasingly unwilling (or unable) to report, thereby circumventing well documented limitations inthe willingness and ability to accurately introspect on the cognitive processes that produce overt behaviors (Kunda, 1990; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Zajonc, 1980).”
BackgroundMeasuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · Cited by 9,210
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Cohen J Cohen P 1984 Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2 Psychology Press
- Satorra A Bentler PM 2010 Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic Psychometrika 75 243 248 20640194 PMC2905175
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023 · Cited by 1,834
Self-citationThe role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function
Friedman, N. P., & Robbins, T. W. (2022) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0 · Cited by 1,737
“3c), there are updating-specific and shifting-specific factors, but there is no evidence for a response inhibition-specific factor [37, 38, 157].”
BackgroundSelf-citationKarr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., Hofer, S. M., Iverson, G. L., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000160 · Cited by 637
A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks
Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1558-y · Cited by 321
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Altamirano, L. J., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., Rhea, S. A., & Hewitt, J. K. (2016) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000075 · Cited by 294
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ito, T. A., Friedman, N. P., Bartholow, B. D., Correll, J., Loersch, C., Altamirano, L. J., & Miyake, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- University of Missouri (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-218
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- PMC
- PMC4354845
- OpenAlex
- W2158144941
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 137
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 49.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (BCS 0847872)
- National Institutes of Health (MH063207)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- implicit racial bias, executive function, cognitive control, automatic associations, individual differences, explicit bias, controlled processing, extrinsic motivation
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Association, Dangerous Behavior, Female, Humans, Individuality, Inhibition, Psychological, Internal-External Control, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Surveys and Questionnaires, Saccades, Set, Psychology, Black People, White People, Young Adult, Executive Function, Racism
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
