IN A LABORATORY SETTING, PARENTS OF FEMALE-ONLY OR MALE-ONLY CHILDREN JUDGED DEFENDANTS IN AN ALLEGED RAPE, OCCURRING EITHER IN A LIBRARY, WHERE THE VICTIM HAD ENGAGED IN NORMAL ROUTINE, OR ON THE STREET, UNDER UNUSUAL AND RISKY CONDITIONS. PARENTS OF FEMALE-ONLY CHILDREN WERE MORE CONVICTION-PRONE AND PUNITIVE THAN PARENTS OF MALE-ONLY CHILDREN ONLY FOR THE LIBRARY CASE, SUPPORTING THE RESEARCHERS' PREDICTION THAT THE VICTIM'S GENDER WOULD BIAS JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ONLY WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRIME WERE LIKELY TO BE ENCOUNTERED IN THE DAILY LIFE OF THE JUROR OR OF A POTENTIAL VICTIM RELATED TO THE JUROR. THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THEORIES OF DEFENSIVE ATTRIBUTION AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS, BUT NOT WITH A VARIANT OF DEFENSE ATTRIBUTION, BASED ON DENIAL OF CHANCE OCCURRENCE OF THREATENED HARM. THE PRACTICE OF SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDING JURORS WITH CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS FROM PARTICULAR CASES IS QUESTIONED. TWO DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESERACH ARE SUGGESTED: DISCOVERING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BIASES ARE OR ARE NOT MANIFESTED AND DEVELOPING MEANS OF REDUCING BIAS EFFECTS IN IMPANELED JURORS. SUPPORTING DATA AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)