Among the challenges of hiring someone new is ensuring that your recruitment process is allowing you to find the best candidate, and not hindering your selection or decision making. Interviewer bias is one such potential area of recruitment risk that should be tackled so as to minimise the risk of impacting the selection process.
The following practical advice for employers and those tasked with interviewing candidates looks at what is meant by interviewer bias, together with examples of the different types of bias that can affect the outcome of interviews.
What is interviewer bias?
Each of us carry certain biases within our subconscious mind, where interviewer bias is no different. Interviewer bias essentially refers to where the expectations or opinions of the person responsible for conducting the interview process can interfere with that person’s objectivity. In some cases, this may have a positive impact in favour of a particular candidate while, in others, this could negatively cloud the interviewer’s judgment. In either scenario, interviewer bias has the potential to seriously interfere with the selection process, encouraging the interviewer to select a less suitable candidate over and above someone better suited to the role or, alternatively, dismissing the best candidate out of hand.
Instead of objectively evaluating a candidate on their skills and competencies, an unspoken and often unconscious set of subjective criteria come into play. For example, an interviewer may feel a sense of affinity with a candidate because they are from a similar background or share a similar outlook, resulting in them either overestimating the candidate’s value or overlooking any red flags. In contrast, the interviewer may reject a candidate because the person failed to make good initial eye contact from the outset or talked with a particular regional accent, causing them to dismiss this candidate and downplay their actual value.
Similar positive or negative biases can also arise from what a candidate looks like and first impressions, where the interviewer may have unintended preferences or prejudices towards a candidate based on their appearance. This could include things like a person’s age, their gender, their ethnicity, and even how attractive they are or if they have a disability.
Finally, the objectivity of the interviewer can be distorted, not just because of what a candidate looks like or how they behave during interview, but because of preconceived ideas formed about a candidate prior to interview. This could be based on information contained within their application, such as their social or educational background. In many cases, the interviewer will make snap judgments about a candidate, automatically responding to them, in either a positive or negative way, before even interacting with that individual or having the opportunity to assess their suitability for a role. This unconscious bias, although unintentional, can distort the interview outcome, where mistaken impressions, either good or bad, can result in the wrong hiring decision.
Examples of interviewer bias
There are several common examples of interviewer bias that can inadvertently arise either prior to or during the course of the interview process. We look at some of these below.
Affinity bias
Often referred to as “like me” bias, affinity bias is where the interviewer favours a particular candidate because they share certain personality traits or even physical characteristics, or because they are from a similar social or educational background and have lots in common.
We all have deep subconscious preferences for people with similar traits or characteristics. As such, an interviewer may automatically favour someone that is the most like them and with whom they share a natural affinity. Equally, affinity bias means that the interviewer may be less likely to develop a positive rapport with a candidate who is in some way different to them, unintentionally rejecting those with whom they have nothing in common.
Anchor bias
This type of bias is where the interviewer subconsciously anchors to the first piece of information revealed about a candidate, typically something set out in the job application or CV. This could be where, for example, an interviewer has high expectations for a candidate, having read that they attended a prestigious university, such that any negative indicators are missed during interview. Equally, it could be where the interviewer has read that the candidate attended an old-style polytechnic, and despite this candidate performing better during interview, they still suffer the prejudice of an initial negative assessment.
Confirmation bias
This is where the interviewer only asks questions designed to elicit responses, and only “hears” the responses, that confirm any preconceived notions about a candidate. This often means that the focus of the interview will be limited to any preconceptions held by the interviewer about the interviewee, either positive or negative, rather than adequately exploring a candidate’s skills and competencies, and their overall suitability for the job role.
In some cases, this may be because of assumptions or associations made prior to interview, based on the contents of a candidate’s application or CV. In other cases, the interviewer may make a snap judgment from the way that a person looks or presents during interview. In either case, confirmation bias can result in key information being missed about a candidate.
Generalisation bias
This type of bias occurs when an interviewer takes how a candidate looks and/or how they behave during their interview, and automatically assumes that this provides a clear and accurate representation of who they are and what they are about.
When it comes to generalisation bias, this often means that the first impressions formed of a candidate can sway the interviewer’s overall perception of that individual. For example, interviewers may construe a nervous candidate as lacking confidence and incapable of meeting the needs of a public-facing job role because of this. In contrast, a highly confident candidate may be seen as more competent and capable, even though their skills and competencies fall significantly short of the less confident candidate on paper. Even where good interpersonal skills are not essential to the job role in question, generalisation bias can still result in the selection of the less capable but more confident candidate.
Social stereotyping
This is a generalised belief about a particular group of people, where the interviewer judges a candidate based on their social category or the characteristics typically held by this group of people, rather than their individual skills and competencies. For example, the interviewer may automatically assume based on gender that a female candidate is likely to have greater caring commitments than her male counterpart, and is therefore less likely to want to work longer hours, or to stay late at or socialise after work. Equally, the interviewer may reject a male candidate for a receptionist’s role because they consider women to be more approachable, even if the successful female candidate did not perform as well in interview.
Another social stereotype that often interferes with the interview process is age, where the interviewer may favour an older candidate over their younger counterpart for a public-facing role because they believe older people look more knowledgable and experienced. Equally, the interviewer may favour a younger over an older person for a tech role, where they wrongly assume that Millennials are far more tech-savvy than say Generation Xers.
The halo or horn effect
This refers to when a single characteristic creates an overly-weighted positive or negative impression of a candidate where, in some ways, the halo or horn effect closely resembles generalisation bias. For example, if a candidate does well in their interview assessment or delivers an impressive presentation, the interviewer may automatically form the view that this person will be good at everything. This is described as the halo effect.
In contrast, the horn effect is where a negative aspect about a candidate, such as spelling mistakes in their written application or misuse of phrases during interview, can result in automatic assumptions on the part of the interviewer that mistakes are likely in their work. As with generalisation bias, even where good spelling is not essential to the job role in question, the horn effect can still result in disregarding an otherwise capable candidate.
Why should interviewer bias be avoided?
Most people responsible for conducting interviews would consider themselves fair and impartial, with no hidden stereotypes, intolerances or prejudices. However, this is rarely the case, where people make automatic assumptions or associations all the time through unconscious bias. This takes place outside of a person’s awareness, and can therefore influence what someone thinks or how they perceive others without even realising it. This can have a significant impact on the recruitment process, where it is not uncommon for interviewer bias, despite best intentions, to result in the wrong hiring decision.
Interviewer bias can have a number of negative consequences for a business, including high turnover rates and increased recruitment costs. It can also result in a lack of diversity in the workplace, not least in smaller organisations where the same person or people are responsible for conducting interviews, each time doing so with the same kinds of bias.
In some cases, interviewer bias can even expose the employer to a risk of unlawful discrimination, where all employers are under a duty not to discriminate against job applicants during the recruitment process, including when selecting the successful candidate following interview. This includes discrimination against a particular candidate by reason of either age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It is also worth noting that discrimination can occur, even if unintentional, where any hidden prejudices or social stereotypes adopted by the interviewer can lead to unlawful discrimination.
How should interviewer bias be tackled?
Fortunately, there are various ways in which interviewer bias can be tackled by an employer, even where the interviewer is not aware of the assumptions or associations that may be impacting their decision-making. Some of the key ways to help avoid interviewer bias, in this way creating a fair and objective selection process, can include:
- Structuring interviews: interviews can be structured using a pre-designed assessment matrix, with agreed weight to be given to each criterion as part of that assessment. This will help to ensure that every hiring decision is based on a person’s ability to do the job role, rather than any interviewer bias, and that all applicants are assessed objectively. This can be especially helpful to avoid affinity or anchor bias, as well as social stereotyping.
- Using standardised questions: by adopting the same or similar questions for all candidates during the interview process, this can help interviewers to avoid asking questions designed to elicit responses that confirm any preconceived notions about a candidate in the context of confirmation bias. It can also help to prevent an interviewer from asking any potentially discriminatory questions based on social stereotyping, such as asking whether a female candidate plans to get married or to have a family any time soon.
- Training interviewers to recognise any hidden stereotypes, intolerances and prejudices: to be able to break down interviewer bias and find ways to avoid this, it is important for those responsible for conducting interviews to understand all the different types of bias that can interfere with the selection process and how these can manifest themselves in practice. Additionally, training should cover the different types of techniques that can be used to help avoid interviewer bias, such as keeping an impartial and open mind, and not allowing first impressions based on things like looks or body language to get in the way.
- Using a panel of interviewers: where the size and resources of a business permit more than one person to conduct workplace interviews, this can help to dilute any possible bias from just one individual. We are all naturally biased in certain ways, where widening the panel of interviewers will mean that the hidden stereotypes, intolerances and prejudices of one person are far less likely to have an impact on the overall selection process.
- Retaining written records: by keeping records when making any hiring decisions, clearly setting out the criterion considered and the reason for each decision, can be useful in the event of any allegations of unfairness. This will provide the employer with a paper trail of their decision-making, objectively justifying their choices. This decision-making data can also be used to analyse the types of people being hired and to take steps moving forward to further diversify the workforce if a pattern emerges of potentially biased decisions.
Need assistance?
For expert advice on how to optimise your organisation’s recruitment practices and avoid issues such as interviewer bias, contact us.
Interviewer bias FAQs
What is an example of interviewer bias?
A common example of interviewer bias is affinity bias. This is where the person conducting the interview favours a particular candidate because they share the same opinions or sentiments, or if they are both from a similar social background.
What are the common biases in interviewing?
There are several common biases when conducting interviews, both positive and negative. These can include affinity bias, confirmation bias, anchor bias and generalisation bias, as well as the halo or horn effect and social stereotyping.
What are the biases in recruitment?
There are numerous types of bias that can inadvertently arise during the recruitment process, some conscious and some unconscious. These includes affinity bias, confirmation bias, anchor bias, generalisation bias, stereotyping, and the halo or horn effect.
Last updated: 3 February 2024
Author
Founder and Managing Director Anne Morris is a fully qualified solicitor and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.
She is a recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers as a legal expert and delivers Board-level advice on business migration and compliance risk management as well as overseeing the firm’s development of new client propositions and delivery of cost and time efficient processing of applications.
Anne is an active public speaker, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals
