COVID-19 May Worsen Biases During The Hiring Process. Here’s How That Can Be Avoided

COVID-19 has disrupted the lives of millions worldwide. It is estimated that unemployment in the US alone will hit 32% — that’s 47 million recent graduates, experienced professionals, minorities, and overseas professionals.1 There is no doubt companies will start to hire skilled and unskilled labour in substantial numbers as we pull through this crisis. But, the ‘new-normal’ presents new challenges for Human Resource (HR) managers. Ethnicity and race-based biases have become more entrenched — all while marginalized communities are suffering disproportionately from the impacts of the virus itself. 

As we rebuild from COVID-19, individual and group identities will emerge based on one’s experience during the crisis. It might then become far too easy for us to judge others based on their past behavior; for example, compliance with quarantine rules, actual infection status, race,2 and perhaps most importantly, job status during the crisis. Such information could create pitfalls that HR managers may find themselves in when evaluating candidates.

By drawing on behavioral science insights, HR managers can develop a new set of tools that can help their evaluations remain unbiased.

Research shows that person-organization fit and person-job fit are established predictors of performance.3 However, these fits don’t always occur because of large informational asymmetries between organizations and job aspirants.4 For example, job applicants may be influenced by a range of factors including perceived job value, perceptions of interview performance, cultural norms, beliefs and interests, and even the wording of the job posting itself. Conversely, the recruiting team may unconsciously attribute certain qualities to specific demographics, and may have an affinity for people with characteristics similar to those who they are familiar with. From this, applicants may be discriminated against on account of their race, gender, or other demographic factors, including where they live or go to school.5,6

In order to reduce the impact of these biases, HR managers can take the following steps: 

Carefully craft job descriptions to remove bias

The wording of job ads matters. When job ads include more masculine than feminine wording, women find these jobs less appealing.7 For example, job postings that state “we will challenge our employees to be proud of their chosen career” or “you will develop leadership skills and learn business principles” are more likely to attract males when compared to “we nurture and support our employees, expecting that they will become committed to their career” or “you will develop interpersonal skills and understanding of business.” Ad wording can also impact how different demographic groups view the organization.8

Anonymize resumes to remove bias against specific groups of people

A racial gap in labour market outcomes exists – we know that African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs such as getting fewer callbacks for each resume they send out.9, 10 There is evidence to show that East Asians may face discrimination in the coming months as well.11 Research shows that bias can be removed by anonymizing resumes in the job screening process. 

Evaluate candidates jointly to help reduce bias against the marginalized

Gender bias in the evaluation of job candidates exists across business, government, and academia. An “evaluation nudge”, in which candidates are evaluated jointly rather than separately, can stop evaluators from relying on cognitive shortcuts, such as group stereotypes. This will focus evaluators’ attention on what they should be doing — evaluating the ability of candidates. Joint evaluation can help address bias against groups other than women, as evaluators have access to more information than they would if they evaluated candidates separately.12 

Use structured interviews and tests to ensure objectivity and fairness

The unstructured interview as a predictive technique is unreliable because of its lack of validity. Research suggests that structured interviews — in which the questions to be asked are predetermined and are directly related to the job — are far more effective in ensuring objectivity and fairness. HR managers must try and articulate attributes they look for in candidates as objectively measurable criteria.13

HR managers will have their hands full as they start evaluating millions of applicants who wish to re-enter the job market when the economy starts to recover. The financial and time-related costs of unbiasedly evaluating candidates are low, and the benefits can be long-lasting and immense. HR managers just need the will to do so.

How To Fight Fake News With Behavioral Science

There has not been a time in recent history when the truth has mattered more than today. As governments, the medical system, and global citizens grapple with misinformation surrounding the economic and health costs of COVID-19, knowing what information to trust is now a matter of life and death, and helping people separate fact from fiction is critical.

False beliefs can be stubborn, and popular fact correction strategies such as the myth-versus- fact format may actually backfire.1 Take for example the flesh-eating bananas hoax of the year 2000. Stories of bananas causing a flesh-eating disease spread like wildfire via emails, text messages, and word of mouth. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) set up a hotline to counter misinformation and to assure worried Americans that bananas were perfectly safe. While clearly a hoax, the CDC’s efforts, in fact, lent credibility to this crazy story and even increased some people’s acceptance of it, so much so that similar stories were doing rounds even a decade later.2,3

The cognitive sciences suggest that we have information processing blind spots that make us susceptible to believing false information. When we encounter a claim, we evaluate its truth by focusing on a limited number of criteria. We ask ourselves at least one of the following five questions: 3,4

1. Do Others Believe It?

We tend to turn to social consensus to evaluate what is likely to be correct. Research shows that we are more confident in our beliefs if others share them, and we trust our memories more if others remember events the same way.5 In order to gauge consensus, we turn to external resources, or we simply ask ourselves how often we have heard this belief. Chances are that we are more frequently exposed to widely shared beliefs than to beliefs that are held by few people.6 The popularity of a belief is actually quite a poor measure of veracity, and, to complicate this, we tend to do a poor job at tracking how often we have heard something and from whom. So, we end up relying on messages that feel familiar. Small but vocal groups can take great advantage of this situation by employing the illusory truth effect: the more they repeat their message, the more familiar it feels, giving the impression that there is wide social acceptance — when really there isn’t any at all.

2. Is There Much Evidence to Substantiate It?

It is not surprising that we are more likely to believe something when there is evidence to support it. Often, we look for evidence in peer-reviewed scientific articles, news reports, and other sources we trust. More often though, we take a far less taxing and speedier approach by making a judgment on the basis of how easy it is to retrieve or obtain some pieces of evidence. For example, when recalling evidence feels difficult, we often conclude that there is less of it, regardless of how much evidence is actually out there.8 This is an example of the availability heuristic bias, which can have a profound impact on human decision making.5

3. Is It Compatible with What I Believe?7

We are inclined to believe things that are consistent with our own beliefs and knowledge. When something is inconsistent with our existing beliefs, we stumble. This shows up even in simple tasks — we take longer to read a text that we disagree with, and experience negative feelings while doing so. So, it is possible that we believe in false facts simply because they are more compatible with what we already believe.9,10 This is a particular case of cognitive dissonance, where we might try to rationalize our belief of what is known to be false by changing our other beliefs and cognitions.

4. Does It Tell a Good Story?

Who doesn’t like a coherent story? When details are presented as part of a narrative, and individual elements fit together in a coherent frame, we are more likely to think that they are true.8  Research suggests that we react positively to efforts that help improve the coherence of the information we get.11

5. Does It Come from a Credible Source?

Indeed, we are more likely to accept information from what we believe to be a more credible source.12 People evaluate credibility by looking at the source’s expertise, past statements, and likely motives. And as expected, the ‘familiarity’ of the source matters. Even repeatedly seeing a face is enough to significantly increase perceptions of honesty, sincerity, and general agreement with what that person says. What is more surprising is that even the ease of pronouncing the speaker’s name influences credibility. A study in 2010 demonstrated that people are more likely to believe statements when they are made in a familiar and easy-to-understand accent compared to one that is difficult-to-understand.13

How fake news takes hold

We know that we humans process information imperfectly, so it isn’t a surprise that fake news takes hold so easily. The myth-versus-fact format we most often adopt to combat fake news isn’t working. A growing number of studies show that this strategy can have unintended consequences, namely increasing the acceptance of false beliefs, spreading them to new segments of the population, and creating the perception that these false beliefs are widely shared.14 As seen in the case of the terror bananas, just knowing that there might be some controversy about a fact seems to undermine people’s beliefs about the truth. 

The perfect example of this is the debate on the efficacy of vaccines.15 The anti-vaccine movement owes much of its origin to a paper published in The Lancet, a highly prestigious peer-reviewed general medical journal. This paper, which linked the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism, managed to ignite fierce debate about the supposed relationship between vaccines and autism, all despite the eventual retraction of the paper in 2010. Even though several scientists have since debunked the study — in addition to the author being charged with misconduct and barred from practicing medicine in the UK — some still subscribe to the belief that vaccines cause autism to this day.16

Takeaways

How then can we fight the uptake of false information? Recent research suggests that some simple ploys can be effective:17

  • Ideally, ignore false information, and repeat the correct information.
  • Remove anecdotes and photos from communication on false information, as they only further serve to capture attention, boost comprehension, and enhance the acceptance of the false claim.
  • Make communication as clear and as simple as possible.
  • Make information accessible through clear, step-by-step exposition and avoidance of jargon.
  • Keep the public informed — one of the most powerful strategies for avoiding misinformation is knowing that it is coming.

It is true that our era is not the first age of widespread falsehoods. These are early days in the war against fake news and false information; and we will find effective ways to fight them — such as the use of technology and artificial intelligence. While we may never fully quash the scourge of false information and fake news, we will surely find new ways to put up a solid fight.

Behavioral Strategies to Stay Productive during COVID Isolation

We are in the middle of an unprecedented global health pandemic. As more and more people across the world practice social distancing, sanitizing, stockpiling, and quarantining, it almost feels like we are preparing to face an impending apocalypse. Amidst the chaos, older people remain the most vulnerable to the deadly coronavirus, requiring extra precaution and care from their families and societies. But, though their physical risk may be lower, young people will also bear a heavy emotional, psychological, and economic cost from the fallout.

Every summer, as graduates transition into a lifestyle that is quite arduous in comparison with the bubble-enclosed, fun-filled college experience, they are forced to learn how to face the challenges of the “real world,” without a myriad of friends and mentors around to comfort and guide them. Students of the graduating class of 2020 are unexpectedly making this transition in March, without even getting a chance to say their goodbyes. Their spring semester plans have gone down the drain, those who have missed on-campus recruitment opportunities are fearing joblessness, and the majority have been forced to return home for an indefinite period of time. Meanwhile, recent graduates (myself included) are suddenly navigating travel-less work in travel-heavy professions, contemplating the visa and immigration challenges associated with going home, dealing with online meetings at ungodly hours, and wondering if our career plans for the foreseeable future now hold any water.

This sudden unpredictability is perhaps the greatest long-term existential concern for young people. Though the economic dislocations will hit every demographic, a potentially protracted recession would likely have a disproportionate effect on younger people. This was the case in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that led to the highest rates of unemployment for young adults [1]. That in turn, had lasting negative effects on their mental health [2]. While our physiological immunity to the coronavirus may be strong, our emotional immunity to its effects might be lower than what our parents, employers, and institutions would like to believe.

The good news is that insights from Behavioral Science can help equip the young to become better at dealing with these tough times. With the right approach and intent, we can implement practices that help enhance our own well-being and also allow us to care for others in need. Here are a few behavioral nuggets to chew over:

Stay curious & avoid operating from your Defensive Mode:

Unfortunately, our brains do not always distinguish between indignities and genuine physical threats. We might not be living on ancestral savannahs anymore but our survival circuits are still wired to protect us on a daily basis. When we feel challenged, our freeze/flight/fight responses can be triggered, and we might find ourselves behaving in ways that are self-damaging (e.g. getting scared stiff in the middle of a meeting, disengaging and zoning out, or worse, snapping at our coworkers). We operate in one of two modes: discovery or defense [3]. While our discovery system helps us scan our environment for potential rewards (like praise or money), our defensive system is constantly looking out for threats to our safety. Operating from the defensive mode negatively impacts our intellect and prevents us from thinking expansively. Unfortunately, in the present circumstances, we seem to be using our defensive mode by default, constantly stressing about getting infected by the dreaded virus.

Snapping out of the defensive mode and into the discovery mode requires conscious effort and practice — we need to train ourselves to look for potential rewards in all situations, even those we feel stuck in. As more and more universities begin online classes and workplaces implement “work-from-home” policies, we can practice operating from our discovery mode more often.

Activities that help make this switch include: finding humor in a less-than-ideal situation and sharing it with classmates or team members (which triggers a social sense of belonging and recognition [4]); learning new information, getting answers to our questions and gaining new work-related knowledge (all of which have been shown to activate the brain’s reward system [5],[6]); and developing competence and autonomy e.g. by setting and meeting daily goals & taking responsibility for our deliverables (which spurs intrinsic motivation and in turn, helps enhance our performance [7]).

Do not neglect your SNEM: Sleep, Nutrition, Exercise, and Mindfulness

The way we treat our bodies impacts both our cognitive and emotional functioning. The current circumstances require us to stay at home and maintain social distance. While these are precautionary measures we must comply with for our own and others’ safety, they can arouse upset, especially among school and college seniors who just wanted to have fun in their last couple of months on campus. What still lies in our control, however, is how we choose to deal with the given circumstances. The first (and perhaps the hardest) step is to acknowledge that our health and safety supersede our fantastical ideas of what could have been.

The reality is that we will be expected to be productive even while working from home, and for that to happen, we will have to plan out new daily schedules. As we do so, we must prioritize making time for a good night’s sleep, eating well, exercising, and practicing mindfulness. These additions to our routine can help us feel more productive and support us in achieving our goals. We must not be quick in blaming the closing down of our local gyms and salad shops as events that are discouraging us from taking care of ourselves. We would serve ourselves better if we instead choose to find and implement new ways of prioritizing our well-being, even in the confines of less-than-ideal spaces. We live in a world with tons of information at our disposal. Some ideas I am personally incorporating into my daily house arrest are: doing guided meditations right as I wake up, recreating healthy recipes for my meals, and following along home-friendly workout videos on YouTube.

Check your assumptions:

Most of us have a tendency to only see what we are looking for, noticing what we have decided merits our attention and blindly ignoring the rest. This kind of selective attention is known as inattentional blindness. When we encounter situations or behaviors in line with our beliefs, our automatic system [8] will make sure we are aware of it. On the contrary, when we encounter something that runs counter to our expectations, our automatic system will probably discard it. This well-known phenomenon of confirmation bias can indeed prove useful in times when we need to conserve precious mental energy, but it can also stop us from developing new mental models about the world. It can even cause us to distort what we hear and see to match our expectations.

The next time you feel strongly attached to a negative expectation about a situation or person or event, try to recognize that you might be filtering out countervailing evidence. Make sure you are self-aware enough to become more open to new information. You can practice this by actually listening to what that person in your class (whom you’ve always found annoying) has to say in your Zoom course discussion, or paying closer attention to the feedback a reserved coworker may be trying to give you. They might not be as wrong or indifferent as your bias probably has you thinking.

As an example, consider this: If you’re feeling particularly annoyed about having to spend all day in front of your computer and taking meeting calls online, you might catch yourself expecting a terrible day full of technical glitches. Check your assumption right there and bring to your awareness any thoughts that may challenge your opinion, e.g. “video conferences are now easier to conduct than they used to be as recent technological advancements will ensure a smooth live lecture/conference.” Then, challenge yourself with more open-mindedness, for instance, by setting a goal that forces you to get rid of your assumptions, e.g. “I will choose to notice the strengths of this setup. If any glitches arise, I will do my best to resolve them and bring the meeting/discussion back on track.” Further, make notes of when your negative expectations do not actually happen — rather than just noting when they do play out.

Set implementation intentions:

Have you ever found yourself having positive intentions but failing to act on them? You’re not alone, as most of us often find it hard to act on our positive intentions [9]. With final exams to take and papers (or worse, theses) to submit, students might be struggling to motivate themselves to get everything done on time, having to work harder to create simulated work environments at home. Office workers might also be struggling with the sudden environment shift and the lapses in productivity that follow. It is thus of prime importance to ensure we are able to set realistic and achievable goals for ourselves as we continue to work from home.

One behavioral hack is to create implementation intentions. When setting goals, think about not just what you want to do but also when and how. This is probably news for all my fellow planner-addicts. Most of us only jot down our to-do tasks in long list formats complete with checkboxes, but with no action plan for the when and the how. Take your organization game one step ahead by setting implementation intentions, which usually take the form of “if X then Y” e.g. “if I find myself getting distracted by my phone, then I will put it away for 30 minutes and work on a pressing task” or “if I find myself getting anxious, then I will reorganize my environment into one that helps me power through my coursework.”

Mapping out exactly what behavior you want to engage in (e.g. “writing a paper”) at what time (e.g. “2:30 to 5:30pm”) and how (e.g. “creating an outline, writing the introduction, writing 3 paragraphs, writing the conclusion section”) will help make the task feel more concrete and give you the confidence to complete it.

Take happy breaks:

  • Express gratitude: take a moment to think about 3 good things that happened to you today. Here are mine: I spent some quality play time with my adorable dog, I caught up with two close friends from college via Facetime (now that we are all at home, it was easy to find a mutually suitable time), & I relished a delicious home cooked lunch.
  • Perform a random act of kindness: I came across this postcard bid [10] that a woman in the UK has designed to help neighbors who are self-isolating. Offer help to your neighbors — they might really need it. Plus, you’ll feel like a million bucks afterward too!
  • Make time for healthy human connection: many families are experiencing sudden reunions as workers travel to their homes. As you socially isolate together, make the most of the time you have with each other. Look after the elderly members of your family, help with household chores, and be generous with your expressions of love & gratitude. Those who are not around their families, who are living abroad or alone, can still find ways to stay in healthy contact with the world. Try to find local nonprofits that could use your help as a volunteer (provided you work in safe conditions), give ‘digital dinners’ a go, tune into live concerts or host an online happy hour! Even as we rev up our self-preservation efforts, let us not forget to lift each other up. Ultimately, it is through caring about one another, and not through avoidance and neglect, that we will successfully overcome this epidemic.

Making use of what we know

As I conclude, I want to briefly reflect on the GI Joe fallacy [11] — the idea that “knowing is” actually not “half the battle,” but much lesser. Just knowing about our biases will not prevent us from overcoming them, but the knowledge is still powerful. Changing our behavior for the better will require deliberate practice. The unique situation of dealing with a global pandemic is providing us with a chance to focus on our own and our loved ones’ health and behavior. I hope that we, the young around the world, will make the most of this opportunity to develop skills and behaviors that empower us to care for our emotional and mental well-being. These times may be tough, but we are tougher.

Cover Photo: Berlin, “Keep your distance” (source: New York Times)

What Does China Approaching Epidemic Peak Mean for Us? Communicating Risk in the Age of Social Media.

I listen to the radio everyday on my drive to work and I’ve been hearing a lot about COVID-19 (Coronavirus). Tales of its spread across the globe, proposed plans for preventative action, and tips for staying busy in self-quarantine are now mainstays of my commute. All this despite the risk of infection where I live in Canada remaining low, at the time of writing.

Yet, the level of risk doesn’t seem to correlate with the behavior of many Canadians. 

We’ve all seen social media posts or news reports of shelves across the country empty of hand sanitizer and facemasks, pasta and toilet paper. A friend shared on Twitter that her hair salon has cancelled her appointment, citing risk of coronavirus as the reason for this self-imposed shutdown (despite only 2 reported cases in the entire province at the time). 

What is driving this seemingly disproportionate response? 

It is well established that the response to the threat of disease is driven by people’s perception of risk (1). That is, however great or small we personally believe our risk to be is often a better predictor of our behavior than is an objective metric of that risk (2). In turn, our perceptions of risk are influenced by information we encounter in the media (1). Yet, as mentioned, the broadcasters here have consistently drawn attention to the relatively low risk at present. What then can explain the disparity? 

At the start of an epidemic (or now, a pandemic) information received about the crisis by the media greatly influences our behavior (3), which in turn affects the efficacy of societal responses necessary to contain the spread. However, the information we receive is no longer like what it once was: dependent on geography (4). Most of us regularly use social media — I personally am on Twitter and Instagram multiple times a day — and receive much of our information and news headlines from both friends and strangers, at home and across the globe. This information can be consumed by anyone, and although it is accessed within a cluster of ‘followers’, these ‘followers’ are not close in physical proximity (4). Though a pandemic is a global struggle, the transmission risk across different countries is not equal, and so the perception of risk and the corresponding responses should not be either. For those of us on social media, we are constantly exposed to information that does not necessarily pertain to our local communities, and therefore our reactions may not correlate to local disease risk (4). 

In a pandemic, information on the risk of infection is often coupled with information on prevention behaviors — and the former can impact the uptake of the latter. Both types of information have been visible on social media in recent weeks. More recently, social media posts have encouraged social distancing by deeming those who continue going out to bars and restaurants as “irresponsible”. My exposure over the past few days to this content resulted in feelings of guilt that led me to cancel a little getaway to a neighbouring community. 

Whether it was aligned with actual risk or not, the quantity of the information being shared, and who is sharing this information, has undoubtedly influenced my uptake of preventative measures. Research suggests that such promotion of disease prevention behaviors on social media is actually quite effective (4,5). This is thought to be due to both ‘homophily’ in and ‘clustering’ of our virtual social networks (5). Homophily is “the tendency of people to associate with those who resemble them” (5), while clustering is the “tendency for people’s friends to be connected to each other through redundant ties” (5). In other words, we are more likely to adopt a health behavior if we know someone similar to us has done so, too (5). 

What is the problem if people in low-risk environments start washing their hands more frequently and practicing social distancing? Other than the economic impact, the potential issue on public health is that the influence of media on our uptake of preventative behavior is not uniform across the duration of an epidemic. A study by Xiao and co-authors from 2015 illustrates this point. Therein, the authors investigate the media impact of infectious disease transmission during the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza, or swine flu, outbreak. The analysis shows that media coverage significantly decreased the severity of the outbreak (3) — however, the effect was not uniform. Media coverage had the greatest effect during the early stage of the outbreak, but had no significant impact at the peak (3). This is because uptake of behavior change is most influenced by the “rate of change of case numbers” rather than the absolute number of cases (3). This means that knowing how fast the disease is spreading, influences our uptake of preventive behavior more so than knowing how many people are sick. At the onset of an epidemic, the spread of disease is rapid, but at the peak, the number of new cases is relatively the same and so the rate of change is (by definition) zero. Consequently, how and when we receive information about an epidemic influences our individual response. 

Early preventative measures can be seen as mostly positive, even if they are not directly correlated with risk levels. However, if we are both exposed to and affected by information from across the globe, will our responses also be affected by conditions elsewhere? Specifically, as countries and communities approach the epidemic peak (and thus the lower rate of change) at different times, will the uptake of necessary preventive behavior be sustained in areas where disease spread is still rapid? This is the underlying challenge posed by the ubiquity of social media during a pandemic. The best advice is to follow globally but react locally.

Featured image source: Reuters/Stringer