Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Four experiments investigated the effects of romantic goals on task and social impression formation. The clouded judgment hypothesis holds that romantic goals encourage positive biases on less relationship-relevant dimensions (e.g., task competence). The default positivity hypothesis holds that romantic goals encourage positivity biases on relationship-relevant dimensions in the absence of relevant information. The selective accuracy hypothesis posits that romantic goals encourage accuracy regarding relationship-relevant attributes (e.g., social competence) when relevant information is available. In four studies, male and female perceivers evaluated opposite-sex targets whom they expected to date (romantic goals) or to meet for nonromantic interaction (baseline). Videotaped targets displayed competence or incompetence on task (Experiments 1 and 2) or social (Experiments 3 and 4) dimensions. All three hypotheses were supported.

A model is proposed that describes interpersonal phenomena that maintain inter‐group hierarchies and conflict. Situational control and interpersonal dominance are identified as conditions that promote motives to stereotype, leading to cognitive and judgment biases that cumulatively reinforce the status quo. Three general hypotheses are derived from the model. First, powerholders are predicted to use attention strategies that favor stereotype maintenance, stereotyping subordinates by default (ignoring counterstereotypic information) and by design (increasing attention to stereotypic information). Second, high‐dominance perceivers are predicted to respond with the same cognitive biases as people with situational power. Finally, power and dominance are predicted independently to facilitate bias in explicit judgments. Results from our research program support the hypotheses. Implications for future change are discussed.