Overview
The purpose of this resource is to help search committees understand and recognize individual unconscious bias as it pertains to faculty and staff recruitment so that we may improve hiring practices at UW-Madison.
It is recommended that search committee members review the common screener/interviewer biases and discuss as a group before scoring applications, interviews, and other assessments.
Common screener/interviewer biases
- Anchoring bias is over-relying on the first piece of information obtained and using it as the baseline for comparison.
- Example: If the first applicant has an unusually high test score, the screener might use that applicant’s score as an anchor for reviewing the others.
- Confirmation bias involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases.
- Example: A hiring manger prefers hiring candidates who have graduated from a specific college or university.
- Contrast effect occurs when candidates are evaluated in contrast to one another, rather than against the job qualifications.
- Example: A candidate whose interview demonstrated poor competency in the required skills may make the next candidate's competency appear higher than it is.
- First impression error occurs when a committee member's first impression of a candidate informs subsequent interactions with that candidate. The committee member may look for evidence to confirm their initial impression or decision.
- Example: A candidate scores high in the phone screen round of interviews, and all panel members are impressed. The candidate's responses don't warrant as high a score in the second round of interviews, but the panel members may try to find reasons to score the candidate high again based on the phone screen.
- Halo effect is the tendency to judge others similarly on all traits, assuming that because someone is good or bad at one thing they will be equally good or bad at another.
- Example: If a candidate has strong educational credentials the committee might conclude that they are also a strong leader.
- In-group or similar-to-me effect can make us more comfortable with those who we unconsciously feel are like us and in our group.
- Example: Search committee members who perceive commonalities with applicants are more likely to view them favorably.
- Leniency is the tendency to evaluate all candidates as outstanding and to give inflated scores rather than assessing against the job qualifications. This can make it difficult to differentiate between strong and average candidates.
- Stereotype bias is attributing assumed or learned characteristics of a group to individual members of the group, whether or not they share the characteristic.
- Example: A search committee member judges a job candidate by their physical appearance (e.g., age, gender, race, physical traits, etc.)
- Strictness is the tendency to evaluate all candidates overly critically rather than assessing against the job qualifications.