SynthesisThe British journal of social psychology2026
Measuring prejudice and stereotypes: A systematic review of psychometric quality and conceptual foundations.
Synthesis in The British journal of social psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prejudice and stereotypes are central constructs in social psychology, yet instruments used to measure them vary in conceptual clarity and psychometric evidence. This preregistered systematic review provides a comprehensive, cross-method synthesis of the psychometric properties and theoretical foundations of measures assessing racial and ethnic prejudice and stereotypes. Following PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, we screened 13,363 records and included 263 studies published between 1951 and 2024. We evaluated reliability, validity, factor structure, measurement invariance and conceptual alignment across explicit, implicit and behavioural instruments. Findings indicate a methodologically diverse but psychometrically fragile field. Most measures were developed with US samples, rarely assessed temporal stability or predictive validity, and often provided limited evidence of theoretical-empirical coherence. Only 4% of instruments reached high-quality evidence under the GRADE framework, while most showed substantial inconsistency and risk of bias in the available evidence. Conceptually, only one-third of studies clearly defined prejudice, and most operationalized it narrowly at the cognitive, individual level, with less attention to affective and behavioural dimensions. Overall, conceptual ambiguity and uneven validation evidence complicate cumulative interpretation. We call for clearer definitions, multimethod integration and transparent practices to develop psychometrically rigorous, theoretically coherent and culturally sensitive tools for capturing prejudice as a dynamic, multidimensional phenomenon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.