In the Stroop task, congruency effects (i.e., the color-naming latency difference between incongruent stimuli, e.g., the word BLUE written in the color red, and congruent stimuli, e.g., RED in red) are smaller in a list in which incongruent trials are frequent than in a list in which incongruent trials are infrequent. The traditional explanation for this pattern is that a conflict-monitoring mechanism adjusts attention to task-relevant versus task-irrelevant information in a proactive fashion based on list-wide conflict frequency. More recently, however, multiple alternative explanations have been advanced that could explain the pattern without invoking this form of proactive control: Individuals might only adapt to conflict frequency specific to individual items (as opposed to list-wide conflict frequency), they could learn word-color contingencies (e.g., how often a particular word and color are paired), or they could adapt attention based on whether the words are informative of the color (even if many word-color pairings are incongruent) in the list as a whole. To examine this issue, we designed a new paradigm that should eliminate any impact of these alternative mechanisms. In that paradigm, the proportion of neutral (e.g., XXX in red) and incongruent stimuli was manipulated across lists. Paralleling the results in the original paradigm, there was a smaller latency difference between incongruent and neutral stimuli in a list in which incongruent trials were frequent than in a list in which incongruent trials were infrequent, suggesting that proactive control in response to list-wide conflict frequency is a process humans can and do use.