Counter-balance interview biases and ineffective hiring
Bias in the interview process can significantly affect hiring decisions, often leading to unfair or suboptimal outcomes. Below are some common problems that contribute to bias during interviews. Addressing these biases requires standardized evaluation criteria and the use of assessments to reduce the impact of personal biases.
To counterbalance these biases and ineffective hiring as an expert or employer, join our app. Together, we can improve job equity, reduce inequality, and improve health security, starting in the Pacific Northwest. Read our vision.
1. Confirmation Bias
Description: The tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs or stereotypes.
Impact: Interviewers may selectively focus on responses that align with their expectations or ignore information that contradicts their assumptions.
2. Halo Effect
Description: Allowing one positive attribute (e.g., prestigious school, appearance) to influence the overall perception of the candidate.
Impact: A candidate's other skills or weaknesses may be overlooked due to a strong initial positive impression.
3. Horns Effect
Description: Opposite of the halo effect, where one negative trait overly influences the overall evaluation of the candidate.
Impact: A candidate may be unfairly judged based on a minor flaw or a single poor response.
4. Similarity Bias
Description: Preferring candidates who share similar backgrounds, interests, or characteristics with the interviewer.
Impact: This can lead to a lack of diversity in hiring, as interviewers may favor candidates who are like themselves.
5. Affinity Bias
Description: Favoring candidates with whom the interviewer feels a personal connection.
Impact: The decision may be based on personal likability rather than qualifications or fit for the role.
6. Anchoring Bias
Description: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information received (e.g., the first impression or an initial answer).
Impact: Early impressions can disproportionately influence the rest of the interview, skewing the evaluation.
7. Stereotyping
Description: Making assumptions about candidates based on group characteristics such as gender, race, and age discrimination.
Impact: Stereotyping can lead to unfair assessments and discrimination against certain groups.
8. First Impression Bias
Description: Allowing initial judgments, whether positive or negative, to dominate the overall assessment.
Impact: Subsequent performance or answers may not adequately adjust the interviewer's initial impression.
9. Nonverbal Bias
Description: Judging candidates based on nonverbal cues (e.g., appearance, body language, accent).
Impact: Decisions may be influenced more by a candidate’s presentation rather than their actual qualifications.
10. Cultural Bias
Description: Favoring candidates who are familiar with the dominant culture of the interviewer or organization.
Impact: Diverse candidates may be unfairly judged if their cultural norms differ from the interviewer’s expectations.
11. Recency Bias
Description: Giving undue weight to the most recent candidate interviewed or the most recent answers provided.
Impact: Earlier candidates or responses may be unfairly overshadowed by those who were interviewed last.
12. Overconfidence Bias
Description: The interviewer’s belief that they are immune to bias and can objectively assess candidates.
Impact: This can prevent interviewers from recognizing their own biases, leading to skewed judgments.
13. Status Quo Bias
Description: Preferring candidates who maintain the status quo rather than those who may bring change or challenge norms.
Impact: This can stifle innovation and limit diversity in thought and background.
14. Attribution Bias
Description: Misattributing a candidate’s successes or failures to their inherent qualities rather than external factors.
Impact: An interviewer might attribute success to a candidate's abilities but blame failures on their personality, rather than considering situational factors.
Join our app to work together to improve job equity, reduce inequality, and improve health security — starting in the Pacific Northwest 🌎
REFERENCES + EVIDENCE-BASED RESOURCES
Confirmation Bias - Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 (Explore Harvard Business Review for "The Neuroscience of Decision Making and the Role of Bias.")
Halo Effect - Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250 (Explore Journal of Applied Psychology for "Halo Effect and its Impact on Employee Performance Evaluations.")
Horns Effect - Forgas, J. P. (2011). Affective influences on interpersonal behavior: Towards understanding the role of affect in everyday interactions. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2011.627187 (Explore Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) for "Understanding the Horns Effect: Implications for Interviewer Training.")
Similarity Bias - Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. (Explore McKinsey & Company for "Similarity Bias in Hiring: How it Harms Diversity and How to Address It.")
Affinity Bias - Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999-1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213 (Explore SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) for "Affinity Bias and Its Impact on Workforce Diversity.")
Anchoring Bias - Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 (Explore Journal of Behavioral Decision Making for "The Anchoring Effect in Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis.")
Stereotyping - Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 (Explore American Psychological Association (APA) for "Reducing Stereotype Threat in Hiring: Evidence-Based Strategies.")
First Impression Bias - Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431 (Explore Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology for "The Impact of First Impressions on Hiring Decisions.")
Nonverbal Bias - DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview cues can affect interviewers' judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 986-993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.986 (Explore Journal of Applied Social Psychology for "Nonverbal Cues and Their Influence on Job Interview Outcomes.")
Cultural Bias - Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559 (Explore Harvard Business School Working Knowledge for "Cultural Bias in Recruitment and How to Minimize It.")
Recency Bias - Hermann, A. D., & Nadkarni, S. (2005). Recency bias in subjective performance evaluations: The impact of time horizon and objective measures. Management Science, 51(7), 1052-1065. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0375 (Explore Academy of Management Journal for "Recency Bias in Performance Appraisals and Interview Evaluations.")
Overconfidence Bias - Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502-517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502 (Explore Journal of Economic Psychology for "The Dangers of Overconfidence in Hiring Decisions.")
Status Quo Bias - Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564 (Explore Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes for "Challenging the Status Quo Bias in Hiring: Strategies for Change.")
Attribution Bias -Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. McGraw-Hill. (Explore Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice for "Attribution Bias in Hiring: How to Recognize and Counteract It.")
