Previous research shows that men overall, in contrast to women, do not show a typical implicit in-group preference. One proposed explanation is greater interest in sex among males. If so, then gay males should show an implicit preference for males whereas straight males should prefer females. We tested this hypothesis using a modified version of the Brief Implicit Association Test on 38 gay and 65 straight males. The hypothesis was supported. As the majority of participants in previous studies on implicit gender attitudes are expected to be straight, this could contribute to the low implicit in-group bias among males.

This study confronted the classical idea that generalized prejudice is rooted in a cognitive tendency to sort reality into rigid and simple categories with the more recent idea that prejudice is shaped by moral intuitions. In a diverse Swedish sample (N = 430), moral absolutism was more strongly associated with generalized prejudice against derogated and dissident (but not dangerous) groups than were other aspects of intolerance of ambiguity. But there was little direct association between any aspect of intolerance of ambiguity and generalized prejudice once indirect relations through binding moral intuitions (which elevated prejudice) and individualizing moral intuitions (which decreased prejudice) had been taken into account. These findings suggest that intolerance of ambiguity is associated with generalized prejudice mainly insofar as it leads to a distinctly moral dichotomization of persons into categories such as insiders and outsiders, law-abiding citizens and deviants, and the righteous and the impure.

Tests like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the Sorting Paired Features task (SPF) and the Brief IAT (BIAT), all to some degree contrast positively and negatively valenced categories against each other, in the task itself and/or in the scoring procedure. This makes it difficult to truly disentangle positive and negative associations, something that is important when measuring attitudes. A different approach was explored in a series of studies using a method similar to SPF and BIAT, but using a neutral category as a contrast against positive and negative associations. The method was tested using gender SPFs and gender BIATs, as well as various ethnicity SPFs. The results show support for the validity of the positive-neutral tests, but the results for the negative-neutral tests are less clear, and questions remain concerning reliability when using the latter test. Results on positive-netrual tests, on the other hand, showed some support for its validity, for instance was scores on a gender BIAT related to the level of appreciation of sexist jokes. Further studies using large samples are needed to determine the psychometric of this method.

Många människor förespråkar en egalitär norm. I detta ingår att man ska bemöta människor på lika villkor och inte låta sig påverkas av irrelevanta faktorer som människors etniska ursprung, sexuella läggning eller norska brytning. Forskning visar dock att vi människor tenderar att tänka i termer av kategorier, och detta gäller även hur vi uppfattar andra människor. Vi är inte minst snabba med att skilja mellan personer som vi identifierar oss med (så kallade ingruppsmedlemmar) och personer som vi inte identifierar oss med (så kallade utgruppsmedlemmar). Våra förväntningar och upplevelser av en person påverkas av huruvida vi anser personen tillhöra ”vi” eller ”dom”. Vi tenderar generellt att ha en mer positiv uppfattning av andra ingruppsmedlemmar än av utgruppsmedlemmar, och vi är många gånger även benägna att behandla ingruppsmedlemmar bättre än utgruppsmedlemmar. Detta fenomen kallas ingruppsbias. I detta begrepp ingår också att man har en orealistiskt positiv syn på ingruppen.

Diskriminering och fördomsfulla yttringar är inte längre accepterat i många kretsar, och forskning visar att det är vanligt att människor försöker att undvika att tänka eller bete sig fördomsfullt mot personer från utgruppen. Studier visar att i situationer där särbehandling inte rimligen kan tillskrivas något annat än diskriminering så undviker många att bete sig orättvist mot utgruppen. Detta verkar bero på att man har ett ideal om att inte vara fördomsfull, eller på att man inte vill framstå som fördomsfull inför andra människor (som skulle kunna reagera negativt på detta). Samtidigt tyder forskning på att skillnaden mellan hur man värderar av in- och utgrupper ofta kan kopplas till att vi har en mycket positiv attityd till ingruppen snarare än att vi har en negativ attityd till utgruppen (Brewer, 1999). Detta kan låta trivialt, men har betydelsefulla konsekvenser för hur man skal förstå och studera fördomar och diskriminering.

A measure of individual differences in the motivation to control in-group bias ( favouritism) was created. As in Plant and Devine’s (1998) measure of out-group bias, one subscale referred to an internal motivational source and the other to an external motivational source. The psychometric properties of the measure were tested across four samples. The results indicate that the measure reliably captures individual differences in the motivation to control in-group bias, and that a distinction between internal and external motivational sources of control can be made. However, the convergent and discriminant validity of both subscalesneeds to be examined further before the measure can be considered launchable. Implications for research on intergroup bias are discussed.

Correction of judgments of people of different ethnicities and sexes was exploredby exposing participants to cues to the risk of making biased judgments (from explicitwarnings to subtle hints). In three experiments, a three-way interaction was revealed, wherethe effect of a cue to bias varied as a function of both the ethnicity and sex of the targetperson. Some targets (White males) were generally rated less favorably when judges werereminded of bias, whereas other targets (Black males, Middle Eastern males and Whitefemales) were generally rated more favorably, indicating bidirectional correction. Finally, anormative account of the results was explored. In a pattern consistent with the experimentalresults, it was considered more important to avoid overrating White men than all othergroups, and more important to avoid underrating all other groups than White men. Theresults are discussed in relation to theories of correction and intergroup bias.

Much of what we know concerning impression formation is based on experimental methods where the participant receives a list of traits or behaviors and is asked to make trait judgments or meta-cognitive judgments. The present study aimed to put some well-known effects from the impression formation literature to a test in a more dynamic computerized environment, more akin to many real world impression formation scenarios. In three studies participants were introduced to multiple target persons. They were given information about the target persons' behavior, one at a time, while making ratings of their warmth and competence, and their probability of performing related behaviors in the future. In neither of the studies the negativity effect of warmth or the positivity effect of competence were reproduced.