Methods:
Depending on experimental condition, the same clinical case was presented as a case of female or male patient. Afterwards, several questions addressing severity of patient problems and therapeutic recommendations were asked. Moderators: ambivalent sexism and authoritarianism (RWA). Experimental design: between-subjects ANOVA in 2 (gender of specialist) x 2 (gender of patient) design.

Results:
N 74 (44F and 30M), participants were professionals in psychological help. Female professionals similarly evaluated patients of both sexes, whereas male therapists revealed systematic error - gender bias: despite the same symptoms, they evaluated psychological malfunctioning of a female patient as significantly worse than the male patient, and recommend more intense treatment for the former. The above interactions were not moderated by the ambivalent sexism or right-wing authoritarianism.

Conclusions:
1. Professionals of both sexes share androcentric (agentic) model of mental health. 2. Male professions may tend to perceive similar symptoms of psychological malfunctioning as less serious in men. 3. The fact that the discussed gender bias in clinical judgment was found only among male professions may indicate an existence of ingroup bias. Perhaps, male professionals tend to infer highly positive agentic traits in male patients, because male professionals and male patients belong to the same gender category.