12 Cognitive Biases That Can Impact Search Committee Decisions

Home , Cognitive bias, Confirmation bias, Halo effect

1. Anchoring Bias 2. Availability Bias 3. Bandwagon Effect Over-relying on the first Making decisions based on A person is more likely piece of information immediate information or to go along with a belief obtained and using it as examples that come to if there are many others the baseline for mind. who hold that belief. comparison. Other names for this If search committee members hear are “herd mentality” or For example, if the first applicant has an about a candidate from Georgia who “group think.” unusually high test score, it might set the accepted a job and then quit because of bar so high that applicants with more the cold weather, they might be more In a search, it may be difficult for normal scores seem less qualified than likely to assume that all candidates from minority opinions to be heard if the they otherwise would. the southern U.S. would dislike living in majority of the group holds a strong Minnesota. contrary view. PsychCentral: The Anchoring Effect and How it Impacts Your Everyday Life VerywellMind: Availability Heuristic and WiseGEEK: What is a Bandwagon Effect? Making Decisions Psychology Today: The Bandwagon Effect

4. Choice-supportive Bias 5. Confirmation Bias 6. Fundamental Once a decision is made, Paying more attention Attribution Error people tend to over-focus to information that Overemphasizing on its benefits and reinforces previously personal factors and minimize its flaws. held beliefs and under-estimating ignoring evidence to the contrary. situational factors when Search committee members may explaining other people’s behavior. emphasize rationale that supports A search committee member who decisions they have made in the past. believes that women are more intelligent For example, if an applicant is late to an “We hired someone from a prestigious might selectively focus on aspects of interview the committee might conclude university last time and it worked out resumes that highlight the intelligence of he is irresponsible or lazy, rather than really well.” female applicants. remember that a major campus access road was closed unexpectedly. Plexxi: On Choice-Supportive Bias and the Psychology Today: What is Confirmation Bias? Need for Paranoid Optimism Ethics Unwrapped: Fundamental Attribution VerywellMind: Confirmation Bias Error

7. Halo Effect 8. Ingroup Preference 9. The “Jerk” Factor Judging others similarly on Bias It’s not a cognitive bias, all traits, assuming that People tend to divide but research has shown because someone is good or themselves into an academic tendency to bad at one thing they will be groups, and then over-value individuals equally good or bad at attribute positive attributes to their own who display “brilliant but another. group. cruel” behavior and to attribute less intelligence to people with During a search, if a candidate has Search committee members who “nice” behavior. strong educational credentials the perceive commonalities with applicants committee might conclude that she is are more likely to view them favorably. Search committee members can be also a strong leader. unduly impressed by an academic star Explore Psychology: What is the Ingroup Bias? that builds himself up at the cost of The Economist: The Halo Effect Understanding Prejudice: Ingroup Favoritism behaving disrespectfully toward others. Robert Half: Hiring and the Halo-Effect WorkMatters: Brilliant but Cruel Trap

10. Ostrich Effect 11. Recency Effect 12. Zero-risk Bias Avoiding bad news about a Recent events are easier to Preferring the choice decision by ignoring data remember, and can be that provides certainty that might be negative. weighed more heavily than of a smaller benefit as past events or potential opposed to an future events. alternative with more risk and greater For example, a committee potential benefit. may choose not to pay attention to data In a search, candidates that were about how their choice affects diversity interviewed early in the process may be Search committees may seek to avoid goals or minority employment rates. evaluated less favorably. A similar bias is risk by hiring a “safer” candidate with a the proximity effect, in which candidates greater perceived likelihood of success 99u: The Ostrich Problem and the Danger of interviewed in person are viewed more rather than taking a reasonable amount Not Tracking Your Progress favorably than those interviewed via of risk. Effectiviology: The Ostrich Effect-On the distance technology. Danger of Burying Your Head in the Sand Decision Lab: Zero Risk Bias SKYbrary: Recency Bias