The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Right or Wrong?: The Brain's Fast Response to Morally Objectionable Statements
Open accessAbstract
How does the brain respond to statements that clash with a person's value system? We recorded event-related brain potentials while respondents from contrasting political-ethical backgrounds completed an attitude survey on drugs, medical ethics, social conduct, and other issues. Our results show that value-based disagreement is unlocked by language extremely rapidly, within 200 to 250 ms after the first word that indicates a clash with the reader's value system (e.g., “I think euthanasia is an acceptable/unacceptable…”). Furthermore, strong disagreement rapidly influences the ongoing analysis of meaning, which indicates that even very early processes in language comprehension are sensitive to a person's value system. Our results testify to rapid reciprocal links between neural systems for language and for valuation.
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.
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
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
Clark, H. H. (1996) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511620539 · Cited by 5,123
Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7350657 · Cited by 4,888
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2 · Cited by 4,342
Using language: Communicative acts
Clark, H. H. (1996) · Cited by 2,721
Using language: Index of names
Clark, H. H. (1996) · Cited by 2,720
Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984) · Nature · doi:10.1038/307161a0 · Cited by 2,218
A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2532 · Cited by 1,700
Cited by
Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2014.877340 · Cited by 632
Hilbert, M. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0025940 · Cited by 391
Predictability, plausibility, and two late ERP positivities during written sentence comprehension
DeLong, K. A., Quante, L., & Kutas, M. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.016 · Cited by 289
Hasson, U., Egidi, G., Marelli, M., & Willems, R. M. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.018 · Cited by 157
Engaged listeners: shared neural processing of powerful political speeches
Schmälzle, R., Häcker, F. E. K., Honey, C. J., & Hasson, U. (2015) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsu168 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Berkum, J. J. A., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1092-1099
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2100303150
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Right or Wrong?: The Brain's Fast Response to Morally Objectionable Statements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02411.x
- The paper
- Van Berkum, J. J. A., Holleman, B., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J. (2009). Right or Wrong?: The Brain's Fast Response to Morally Objectionable Statements. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02411.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
