Abstract
Judging other people is a common and important task. Every day professionals make decisions that affect the lives of other people when they diagnose medical conditions, grant parole, or hire new employees. To prevent discrimination, professional standards require that decision makers render accurate and unbiased judgments solely based on relevant information. Facial similarity to previously encountered persons can be a potential source of bias. Psychological research suggests that people only rely on similarity-based judgment strategies if the provided information does not allow them to make accurate rule-based judgments. Our study shows, however, that facial similarity to previously encountered persons influences judgment even in situations in which relevant information is available for making accurate rule-based judgments and where similarity is irrelevant for the task and relying on similarity is detrimental. In two experiments in an employment context we show that applicants who looked similar to high-performing former employees were judged as more suitable than applicants who looked similar to low-performing former employees. This similarity effect was found despite the fact that the participants used the relevant résumé information about the applicants by following a rule-based judgment strategy. These findings suggest that similarity-based and rule-based processes simultaneously underlie human judgment.
References
(2010). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in organizational evaluation and decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1151–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.007
(1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105, 442–481. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.442
(2008). Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 935–961. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn064
(1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(1991). Role of specific similarity in a medical diagnostic task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 278–287. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.120.3.278
(2006). Instantiated features and the use of “rules”. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135, 133–151. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.133
(1966). Effect of economic similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 254–258.
(1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711
(1996). Social judgment theory. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 109–140. doi: 10.1080/135467896394474
(1975). Decision making and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 805–821. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.805
(2008). Age of face matters: Age-group differences in ratings of young and old faces. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 130–136.
(1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107–139. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.107
(2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys series. Boston, MA: Springer.
(2013). Guilty by mere similarity: Assimilative effects of facial resemblance on automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 120–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.016
(2012). I like you but I don’t know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 350–353. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.001
(1992). Interviewer decision processes and effectiveness: An experimental policy-capturing investigation. Personnel Psychology, 45, 313–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00852.x
(1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable?. Cognition, 65, 197–230. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00044-9
(2010). Exemplar similarity and rule application. Cognition, 114, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.011
(2009). Featuring familiarity: How a familiar feature instantiation influences categorization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 263–275. doi: 10.1037/a0017919
(2009). The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psychological Science, 20, 231–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02271.x
(
in press ). Blending and choosing within one mind: Should judgments be based on exemplars, rules or both?. In , Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Berlin, Germany: Cognitive Science Society.(2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future – remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631–664. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.631
(2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633.
(2004). Selection criteria and the impact of personality on getting hired. Personnel Review, 33, 521–535. doi: 10.1108/00483480410550134
(2008). Information integration in multiple cue judgment: A division of labor hypothesis. Cognition, 106, 259–298. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.003
(2007). Adaptive changes between cue abstraction and exemplar memory in a multiple-cue judgment task with continuous cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1140–1146. doi: 10.3758/BF03193103
(2010). Facial-feature resemblance elicits the transference effect. Psychological Science, 21, 518–522. doi: 10.1177/0956797610364949
(2004). Combining pattern classifiers: Methods and algorithms. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
(1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563–574. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.563
(2007). The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112–126. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112
(1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39
(2007). Limitations of exemplar models of multi-attribute probabilistic inference. Journal Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 999–1019. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.999
(2008). Do antifat attitudes predict antifat behaviors?. Obesity, 16, 87–92. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.456
(2009). Inferences from memory: Strategy-and exemplar-based judgment models compared. Acta Psychologica, 130, 25–37. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.010
(1998). The FERET database and evaluation procedure for face recognition algorithms. Image and Vision Computing, 16, 295–306. doi: 10.1016/S0262-8856(97)00070-X
(2012). When the rule is ruled out: Exemplar and rules in decisions from memory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1002/bdm.1776
(2001). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 259–275. doi: 10.1023/A:1011113301301
(2006). Exemplar effects in the context of a categorization rule: Featural and holistic influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1403–1415. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1403
(2010). Generalization of affective learning about faces to perceptually similar faces. Psychological Science, 21, 779–785. doi: 10.1177/0956797610371965
(2010). Do children profit from looking beyond looks? From similarity-based to cue abstraction processes in multiple-cue judgment. Developmental Psychology, 46, 220–229. doi: 10.1037/a0016690
(2008). The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 73–96. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.73
(2009). Models of quantitative estimations: Rule-based and exemplar-based processes compared. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 867–889. doi: 10.1037/a0015501
(1996). Social judgement theory and medical judgement. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 175–190. doi: 10.1080/135467896394492
(2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x
