https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317723532 Personality and Social Psychology Review 2018, Vol. 22(3) 199–227 © 2017 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1088868317723532 journals.sagepub.com/home/pspr Article Psychological interest in stereotype measurement has spanned nearly a century. In an early study, participants more accu- rately matched occupations and pictures when the appearance of an individual in a picture was stereotypical of their occupa- tion, than when their appearance was not stereotypical of their occupation (Rice, 1926). Since then, the measurement of ste- reotypes has diversified. Currently, stereotype measures fall into two major categories—explicit and implicit (Fazio & Olson, 2003). Explicit measures directly ask participants for information regarding the target construct with little effort to be indirect or covert. Generally, explicit stereotype measures ask participants to report their level of agreement toward items of a stereotypic nature. For example, a study of occupa- tional gender stereotypes asked participants to rate their agreements with statements such as “Men are better suited to certain occupations” (Yu, Yang, Lu, & Yan, 2014, p. 148). Although explicit measures have been very useful, they have limitations. Because participants are aware of what these measures aim to capture, participants have the opportunity to change their responses to portray themselves more favorably (Orne, 1962). In addition, explicit measures may fail to prop- erly capture some of the more subtle and automatic forms of social cognition (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). These limita- tions have led researchers to develop and use implicit mea- sures to complement explicit measures. Implicit measures attempt to measure target constructs indirectly by engaging participants in a task where the target construct affects responses in a relatively “automatic” way (De, Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009). Many implicit measures were developed specifically to explore mental associations between concepts that might be quickly activated and influence subsequent thoughts and behaviors (for review, see Gawronski, 2009). These implicit measures generally look at reaction times and/or errors that occur when people make quick judgments about stimuli that are presented in different contexts. Researchers vary the context in which stimuli are presented to see if context acti- vation influences the speed or accuracy of participants’ responses to stimuli. Implicit measures became important and popular because they provided a basis for developing and exploring dual- process theories about stereotypes and other constructs, espe- cially when used in conjunction with explicit measures. These theories outline conditions when behavior is driven by more “automatic” processes versus more controlled, deliberate pro- cesses and are now widely used to explain how stereotypes 723532PSR XX X 10.1177/1088868317723532Personality and Social Psychology ReviewKidder et al. research-article 2017 1 University of Texas at El Paso, USA 2 Columbus State University GA, USA Corresponding Author: Ciara K. Kidder, Department of Psychology, Marian University, 45 S. National Avenue, Fond du Lac, WI, 54935, USA. Email: ckkidder08@marianuniversity.edu Sequential Stereotype Priming: A Meta-Analysis Ciara K. Kidder 1 , Katherine R. White 2 , Michelle R. Hinojos 1 , Mayra Sandoval 1 , and Stephen L. Crites Jr. 1 Abstract Psychological interest in stereotype measurement has spanned nearly a century, with researchers adopting implicit measures in the 1980s to complement explicit measures. One of the most frequently used implicit measures of stereotypes is the sequential priming paradigm. The current meta-analysis examines stereotype priming, focusing specifically on this paradigm. To contribute to ongoing discussions regarding methodological rigor in social psychology, one primary goal was to identify methodological moderators of the stereotype priming effect—whether priming is due to a relation between the prime and target stimuli, the prime and target response, participant task, stereotype dimension, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and stimuli type. Data from 39 studies yielded 87 individual effect sizes from 5,497 participants. Analyses revealed that stereotype priming is significantly moderated by the presence of prime–response relations, participant task, stereotype dimension, target stimulus type, SOA, and prime repetition. These results carry both practical and theoretical implications for future research on stereotype priming. Keywords prejudice/stereotyping, priming, automatic/implicit processes, meta-analysis