|

9. Let’s Practice Identifying & Applying These Three Heuristics

Bykdilkina

Practice Scenario & Questions

Example: Hiring committee

You are sitting on a hiring committee for a leadership position in a local organization. The position requires a specific level of education and a minimum of three years of relevant experience. Three candidates are being considered:

  • James Thompson
    • A Canadian-born Caucasian male
    • Ten years of relevant experience
    • Does not have the education required for the job but is in the process of obtaining it
  • Ray Patel
    • A male Canadian permanent resident originally from India
    • Five years of relevant experience
    • Has the required level of education
  • Naya Hunt
    • An Indigenous female local to the region
    • 20 years of relevant experience and many accreditations
    • Does not have the specific educational degree required

There are four people on the hiring committee. Three of them very quickly make up their minds and cast their votes — one for each of the three candidates. You are the fourth member.

What do you think could have led to their decisions — to choose who they chose and not the other candidates?

Is the representativeness heuristic applicable here? How exactly?

How about the availability heuristic?

How about anchoring?

Analyze this scenario in terms of heuristic reasoning and identify the outcome of such reasoning in terms of thought, emotion, and behaviour.

Then, consider what systematic/effortful processing may look like and what the outcomes may be.[3]

[3] The representativeness heuristic may be used here in multiple ways — by activating a stereotypical representation of someone in a leadership position (may be associated with age, gender, experience, or education) or any number of stereotypes that may be triggered by the descriptions of the candidates (based on ethnicity, gender, education, etc.). In the case of the former, each candidate will be perceived in terms of how representative they are of the stereotype activated about the position in question. In the case of the latter, each candidate will be perceived as representative of the group they belong to, and information may be inferred about them that is not directly present in their application.

The availability heuristic may also come into play in many ways — for example, if the members recently sat on another hiring committee, their decision process may be influenced by the decision process used in that previous context. Similarly, if they activate any other related memory — say, cued by the descriptions of one of the candidates.

Finally, anchoring can also be used in this scenario. For example, the requirement of three years of experience may serve as an anchor, making the last candidate’s 20 years of experience appear very substantial. On the other hand, if the committee members know that the previous person occupying this position started with 25 years of experience, they may perceive all the candidates as inexperienced, especially the second one.

Anchoring can also be used if the years of experience are used to infer the candidates’ ages. This may lead the committee to think that the last candidate is the oldest, which seems sensible but may be incorrect.

Relying on any of these heuristics would facilitate and simplify the decision-making process, leading to a quick choice associated with a feeling of confidence. More effortful processing may take different forms. It could involve listing all the parameters that matter and then systematically evaluating each candidate with respect to them (as opposed to in comparison to each other). It may involve acknowledging that a lot of relevant information is missing and needs to be collected before making a decision. More effortful processing may also mean realizing that none of the candidates are suitable and no one is chosen, or alternatively, that multiple of them are suitable and should be interviewed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Similar Posts