How Psychology Affects Hiring. What Really Goes On When We Choose People

Hiring the right person for a job might seem like a logical, step-by-step process.

You check qualifications, ask interview questions, and pick the best candidate.

Simple, right? Not quite.

Behind the scenes, our brains are doing a lot more than we think. This article explores the hidden psychological processes that influence how we select people for jobs. These include non-verbal cues, stereotypes, personal biases, and the way we combine bits of information to make big decisions.

Let’s unpack how psychology shapes hiring—and what we can do about it.

What We See Affects What We Think

We start judging people long before they say a word. Their appearance, body language, posture, facial expressions, and even the way they walk can shape our opinions instantly.

Researchers have found that people often believe physical features are linked to personality traits. For example, someone with a round face and big smile might be seen as warm and friendly. Even if we don’t know anything else about them.

A famous study by Secord (1958) showed that people imagined someone’s looks just from reading a description. A kind person was imagined as average-looking, while a rude person was imagined to look odd or unpleasant.

Another study by Watkins and Johnston (2000) found that attractive applicants were more likely to be offered interviews, especially if their application was average.

This shows how looks can tip the scale when a candidate is on the edge.

We may not realize it, but physical appearance often sneaks into our decision-making.

Stereotypes. The Shortcuts That Can Lead Us Astray

We use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world, and one of those shortcuts is categorizing people into groups. These categories come with assumptions called stereotypes.

Think about job titles: CEO, cleaner, engineer, nurse. You probably imagined certain traits, gender, or personality types for each. That’s a stereotype in action.

Stereotypes can be helpful when they’re accurate, but often they’re not. For example, if someone wrongly believes that women aren’t good at making tough business decisions, they may unfairly judge female applicants.

Studies show that stereotypes based on gender, age, race, and ethnicity still influence hiring decisions. In one study, job applicants who matched the stereotype for a role were more likely to be hired, even when male and female candidates were equally qualified.

Stereotypes can cloud our judgment and lead to unfair decisions.

Attribution is How We Explain Success and Failure

Imagine a candidate who got average exam results. You might think: “They’re not very bright.” Or you might think: “Maybe they went to a bad school.”

These two thoughts reflect different types of attribution.

Internal attribution blames the person (e.g., low ability).
External attribution blames the situation (e.g., poor schooling).

Weiner’s (1979) attribution theory shows that we judge performance based on two things:

Locus: Was it the person or the situation?
Stability: Is it a one-time event or something that always happens?

If we think someone succeeded because they are smart (internal and stable), we trust them. But if we think they got lucky (external and unstable), we might not.

Interestingly, stereotypes affect attributions too. Studies show people often explain men’s success as ability and women’s success as luck or effort. That bias can shape who gets hired.

Attribution Errors are deadly. We Often Get It Wrong

Even when we try to be fair, our brains make mistakes. Two common errors can creep into hiring:

Fundamental attribution error: We blame people’s personalities more than the situation. For example, if someone mumbles in an interview, we may think they’re bad communicators—rather than just nervous.
False consensus effect: We assume others think like us. If a candidate shares your opinion, you might assume that opinion is common and “right.” If they disagree, you might view them negatively—even unfairly.

Both of these errors can distort our decisions during interviews and assessments.

How We Combine Information to Make Judgments

Hiring is not just about evaluating one trait. We gather lots of information. Some good, some not too good, and try to piece together an overall picture of a candidate.

Psychologists Asch and Anderson studied how we form impressions of people.

Asch found that certain traits (like “warm” or “cold”) carry more weight than others. He also discovered the primacy effect—first impressions matter most. The first traits we hear shape how we interpret everything else.
Anderson, on the other hand, believed that we average out traits. In his view, each piece of information has a weight, and we mentally calculate a final “score.”

Both views are true in different situations, as Pavelchak (1989) later confirmed. Sometimes we use simple shortcuts, and other times we think more deeply.

Stereotypes vs. Unique Impressions

Fiske and Neuberg’s continuum model explains when we rely on stereotypes and when we dig deeper.

Here’s how it works:

We quickly place someone in a category (e.g., “middle-aged accountant”).
If we don’t care much, we stop there.
If the person is important (say, a job applicant), we gather more info.
If the info doesn’t fit the category, we either re-categorize them or form a unique impression.

This model reminds us that hiring decisions depend on how motivated we are to understand the person—not just the facts on paper.

Prototypes. Our Mental Ideal of the “Perfect Candidate”

According to prototype theory, we all have mental images of the “ideal” person for a job. A prototype for a teacher might include someone who is patient, organized, and articulate.

When reviewing candidates, we compare them to this prototype. If someone matches the core traits, we rate them higher. Research shows that even age and appearance matter more when they are part of our mental picture of the ideal candidate.

Stringency and Leniency. Some People Are Tougher Than Others

Some assessors are like hawks—tough and critical. Others are like doves—gentle and forgiving. These tendencies are called leniency-stringency effects, and they matter.

Studies show that up to 12% of score differences can come from who’s doing the judging—not the actual ability of the candidate.

And here’s the kicker: this isn’t easy to train away. It’s linked to personality. For instance, raters who are warm-hearted tend to be more lenient. Those low in conscientiousness might be less strict.

To make hiring fairer, companies can:

Use multiple assessors with different styles.
Adjust scores based on rater tendencies.
Avoid letting any one person make the final call alone.

Final Thoughts. Hiring Is Never Just Objective

Despite our best efforts, hiring is not a perfect science. It’s a human process filled with judgment, emotion, and bias. Psychological processes shape who we like, who we trust, and who we choose.

Understanding these hidden forces can help us make better, fairer decisions.

If we want to improve hiring:

Train people to recognize biases.
Design structured interviews that focus on job-relevant information.
Use diverse panels to balance out individual leniency or strictness.
Be aware that even unconscious thoughts—like a smile or an accent—can sway our choices.

Selection is not just about resumes and references. It’s about psychology.

And the more we understand it, the better decisions we can make.