THE FUTURE IS HERE

Cognitive Bias Psychology Hindi

Cognitive Bias Psychology Hindi

cognitive Bias hindi
psychology hindi
psychology lecture hindi
IGNOU MAPC lecture hindi

12 Cognitive Biases That Can Impact Search Committee Decisions
1. Anchoring Bias
Over-relying on the first
piece of information
obtained and using it as
the baseline for
comparison.
For example, if the first applicant has an
unusually high test score, it might set the
bar so high that applicants with more
normal scores seem less qualified than
they otherwise would.
PsychCentral: The Anchoring Effect and How
it Impacts Your Everyday Life
2. Availability Bias
Making decisions based on
immediate information or
examples that come to
mind.
If search committee members hear
about a candidate from Georgia who
accepted a job and then quit because of
the cold weather, they might be more
likely to assume that all candidates from
the southern U.S. would dislike living in
Minnesota.
VerywellMind: Availability Heuristic and
Making Decisions
3. Bandwagon Effect
A person is more likely
to go along with a belief
if there are many others
who hold that belief.
Other names for this
are “herd mentality” or
“group think.”
In a search, it may be difficult for
minority opinions to be heard if the
majority of the group holds a strong
contrary view.
WiseGEEK: What is a Bandwagon Effect?
Psychology Today: The Bandwagon Effect
4. Choice-supportive Bias
Once a decision is made,
people tend to over-focus
on its benefits and
minimize its flaws.
Search committee members may
emphasize rationale that supports
decisions they have made in the past.
“We hired someone from a prestigious
university last time and it worked out
really well.”
Plexxi: On Choice-Supportive Bias and the
Need for Paranoid Optimism
5. Confirmation Bias
Paying more attention
to information that
reinforces previously
held beliefs and
ignoring evidence to the contrary.
A search committee member who
believes that women are more intelligent
might selectively focus on aspects of
resumes that highlight the intelligence of
female applicants.
Psychology Today: What is Confirmation Bias?
VerywellMind: Confirmation Bias
6. Fundamental
Attribution Error
Overemphasizing
personal factors and
under-estimating
situational factors when
explaining other people’s behavior.
For example, if an applicant is late to an
interview the committee might conclude
he is irresponsible or lazy, rather than
remember that a major campus access
road was closed unexpectedly.
Ethics Unwrapped: Fundamental Attribution
Error
7. Halo Effect
Judging 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.
During a search, if a candidate has
strong educational credentials the
committee might conclude that she is
also a strong leader.
The Economist: The Halo Effect
Robert Half: Hiring and the Halo-Effect
Trap
8. Ingroup Preference
Bias
People tend to divide
themselves into
groups, and then
attribute positive attributes to their own
group.
Search committee members who
perceive commonalities with applicants
are more likely to view them favorably.
Explore Psychology: What is the Ingroup Bias?
Understanding Prejudice: Ingroup Favoritism
9. The “Jerk” Factor
It’s not a cognitive bias,
but research has shown
an academic tendency to
over-value individuals
who display “brilliant but
cruel” behavior and to
attribute less intelligence to people with
“nice” behavior.
Search committee members can be
unduly impressed by an academic star
that builds himself up at the cost of
behaving disrespectfully toward others.
WorkMatters: Brilliant but Cruel
10. Ostrich Effect
Avoiding bad news about a
decision by ignoring data
that might be negative.
For example, a committee
may choose not to pay attention to data
about how their choice affects diversity
goals or minority employment rates.
99u: The Ostrich Problem and the Danger of
Not Tracking Your Progress
Effectiviology: The Ostrich Effect-On the
Danger of Burying Your Head in the Sand
11. Recency Effect
Recent events are easier to
remember, and can be
weighed more heavily than
past events or potential
future events.
In a search, candidates that were
interviewed early in the process may be
evaluated less favorably. A similar bias is
the proximity effect, in which candidates
interviewed in person are viewed more
favorably than those interviewed via
distance technology.
SKYbrary: Recency Bias
12. Zero-risk Bias
Preferring the choice
that provides certainty
of a smaller benefit as
opposed to an
alternative with more risk and greater
potential benefit.
Search committees may seek to avoid
risk by hiring a “safer” candidate with a
greater perceived likelihood of success
rather than taking a reasonable amount
of risk.