Horn Effect Bias Taints Qualified Candidates

Word Count: 1,581 Estimated Read Time: 6 Min.

Humans have so many biases; the ones that we reluctantly admit to having and the unconscious ones that are hidden even from ourselves.  These hidden ones are unconscious biases that we don’t even know exist.  And, even when we’re made aware of them, we have great trouble overcoming them.  But it is important to minimize the impact of biases.  Nothing good comes from bias because biases distort reality and hide the truth. 

In business, this is particularly problematic during hiring.  It’s hard enough to hire in a tight labor market, but it is even harder if we hire the wrong people due to bias.  Being biased during the hiring process – for example, favoring one person over another simply for how they look or what they like — is bad because you might overlook the best candidate.  That’s the Halo Effect Bias in action (which we looked at last week).  But the same is true in reverse.  Not hiring someone because of an aversion to a particular trait or fact about a person might cause someone less qualified to be hired instead.  That’s called Horn Effect Bias, and it can hurt the hiring process just as much

What is Horn Effect Bias?

Just as Halo Effect causes one person’s perception of another to be positively influenced by a single trait, the Horn Effect causes one person’s perception of another to be unduly influenced by a single trait that is viewed negatively.  We subconsciously allow one negative belief about the person to overshadow others. It’s the Halo Effect in reverse.  Instead of the person being favored because of a single quality or value, with the Horn Effect, the person is disliked and spurned because of a single trait or value. 

In business, this happens often during the hiring process when a hiring manager makes a snap judgment on the basis of one negative trait.  And it is often something physical.  For example, a hiring manager might meet a prospective candidate who, on paper, seems perfect for the job.  But, at the interview, the hiring manager notices that the candidate has a skull and crossbones tattoo on her neck.  The hiring manager dislikes tattoos, in general, and one of a skull and crossbones even more. 

That’s not surprising.  After all, a survey conducted by LinkedIn in 2018 found that 88% of recruiters and HR professionals considered that tattoos limited a candidate’s career prospects, while three quarters said a person’s image played a significant part in the hiring process.  Four out of 10 admitted they had rejected a candidate with suitable experience because they had a visible tattoo.  About 40% said they had rejected a tattooed candidate because of strict employer dress codes.  And just under half (47%) of recruiters said industry intolerance felt that people with tattoos were unsuitable candidates, while 46% thought it showed a lack of professionalism. 

Other elements of appearance were also viewed negatively during the recruitment process.  Over 34% of hiring managers claimed they would feel uncomfortable hiring someone who was wearing casual clothing, 26% would not want to hire someone with visible piercings, and 21% thought a person with brightly-dyed hair would not be the best hire. 

The survey shows just how much Horn Effect Bias infects the hiring process.  It shouldn’t, but it does.  After all, how would a tattoo affect a person’s ability to be an effective architect, accountant or airline pilot?  How would a piercing or a person’s hair color impact an otherwise highly-educated and trained brain surgeon, builder or biomedical engineer?  When put this way, most everyone would agree that a tattoo would have no effect at all in how well the builder constructs an apartment building.  But, in the hiring process, it would have a profound impact on the hiring decision.  Not only would Horn Effect Bias unfavorably sway judgment against anyone with one of those physical attributes, it would likely kill any chance of being hired for a candidate had more than one of these physical traits.

Scientific Evidence of Horn Effect Bias

The Horn Effect Bias was first studied by Edward Thorndike in 1920.  He found high correlations between estimates of traits like intelligence, skill, reliability, physical traits, character, and so on. These traits were considered to be colored by a generalization of people as either good or bad.  People with a low IQ were thought of as bad people… and were therefore seen as bad overall.  When noticing one bad trait about an individual, it was then assumed the person was unsuitable overall.  The person took one trait and made it the ‘horn’ and root all further judgments on that person.

What’s more is that the Horn Effect Bias was found to be much stronger and more overarching than the Halo Effect Bias.  When a person made a negative character assessment about someone else, they also tended to overlook or underplay any and all positive traits.  That negative impression was much stronger than the positive one.  It didn’t take much to muddy the waters when judging a candidate, and once muddy, it is was nearly impossible to see beyond the mud to view objectively any possible redeeming qualities. 

Horn Effect Bias has been confirmed in many studies since Thorndike.  One study conducted in 1979 showed that overweight people were graded more negatively on job performance. In hiring situations, overweight applicants and those of average weight were compared. Despite demonstrating identical performance, the former were found to be less preferred. As a result, people were unfairly denied opportunities because of a negative horn created by their physical appearance, ethnicity, gender, values or trait that is viewed in a negative way.

Societal and personal stereotypes often bleed into Horn Effect Bias, skewing how recruiters interpret a candidate’s profile.  Companies can talk a good game about diversity and inclusion, but according to Harvard Business Review the level of gender and race discrimination encountered by underrepresented groups during the hiring process over the past 50 years has remained unchanged.  For example, the total number of women leading Fortune 500 companies in 2022 is 44 — just 8.8% of Fortune 500 companies – even though women account for 41% of all MBA candidates nationwide, and they comprised 51.8% of all workers employed in management, professional and related occupations in 2019.  And a 2019 McKinsey & Company survey of 329 companies — employing more than 13 million people – found that women only made up 21% of executives.  Those numbers point not just to the existence of gender bias (open, overt discrimination), but to the existence of Horn Effect Bias (subliminal unconscious bias). 

Cancelling Horn Effect Bias

It’s not that easy to eliminate Horn Effect Bias, even when the hiring manager is aware it exists.  So how does a company avoid having Halos and Horns hijack the hiring process?

1. Acknowledge Horn Effect Bias — Remember people are complex.  A person cannot be defined by a single trait, no matter how noticeable or significant that trait is.
2. Training – Since unconscious biases ae learned over time, they need to be ‘un-learned.’  The best way to do this is through training. There are many sources for unconscious bias training both online and in person. Training should be part of every company’s onboarding process – whether it is a small, medium or large organization — and should be provided to all employees on a regular basis, at least annually.
3. Purge Biasing Information – Anonymize the selection process prior to the interview stage.  Have the application leave out as much personal information about the individual as possible such as their gender; name (as it might reveal race or ethnicity); age (and dates of when graduating from college); address (as it might indicate race or ethnicity based on living in particular part of town); etc.  Have them only provide relevant experience dating back 15 years.  Since Horn Effect Bias attaches to one single piece of information, focusing the application only on information relevant to the position is best.
4. Team Interviews — Interviews should be handled by groups, not individuals.  By having a panel manage the interview process, more perspectives are included and horn bias can be identified if spotted.  It helps if the interview panel is diverse. 
5. Use Skills Testing — Provide skills testing to determine qualifications.  This eliminates horn effect bias related to what university the candidate attended.
6. Use Objective Scoring System — Score the candidate based on specific criteria and have each interviewer back up the score with examples mentioned in the interview.  This keeps one single negative trait from bleeding into an assessment of every other aspect of the candidate.

Ultimately, companies must decide if what matters most is hiring the person that best fits their idea of what the perfect candidate looks like or if what matters most is hiring the best person for the job. 

People have a marked tendency to be overly influenced by characteristics and behaviors that create a shortcut we use to judge people. It’s one thing to let this influence those with whom we interact in our personal lives.  But it is far more serious to allow this to influence hiring decisions.  Being overly focused on one aspect of a person’s broader skill set, experience, and fit is unfair to candidates and to the company.  It is also lazy. It is important to look past a personality or behavioral trait that generates a negative impression, and make a fair hiring decision that ensures the best candidate available is hired. 

Quote of the Week

“What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear the words you are saying.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

© 2022, Keren Peters-Atkinson. All rights reserved.