Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-86qbt Total loading time: 0.233 Render date: 2022-07-07T14:51:09.239Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Scott Highhouse*
Bowling Green State University
E-mail:, Address: Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403


The focus of this article is on implicit beliefs that inhibit adoption of selection decision aids (e.g., paper-and-pencil tests, structured interviews, mechanical combination of predictors). Understanding these beliefs is just as important as understanding organizational constraints to the adoption of selection technologies and may be more useful for informing the design of successful interventions. One of these is the implicit belief that it is theoretically possible to achieve near-perfect precision in predicting performance on the job. That is, people have an inherent resistance to analytical approaches to selection because they fail to view selection as probabilistic and subject to error. Another is the implicit belief that prediction of human behavior is improved through experience. This myth of expertise results in an overreliance on intuition and a reluctance to undermine one’s own credibility by using a selection decision aid.

Focal Article
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 128132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. (2005). Relationship between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing? In Evers, A., Anderson, N., & Voskuijl, O. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 124). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arkes, H., Shaffer, V. A., & Medow, M. A. (2007). Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Medical Decision Making, 27, 189202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayers, I. (2007). Super crunchers: Why thinking-by-numbers is the new way to be smart. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Borneman, M. J., Cooper, S. R., Klieger, D. M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2007, April). The efficacy of the admissions interview: A meta-analysis. In Kuncel, N. R. (Chair), Alternative predictors of academic performance: The glass is half empty. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Buckley, M. R., Norris, A. C., & Wiese, D. S. (2000). A brief history of the selection interview: May the next 100 years be more fruitful. Journal of Management History, 6, 113126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 195217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Colbert, A. E., Rynes, S. L., & Brown, K. G. (2005). Who believes us? Understanding managers’ agreement with human resource findings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 304325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T. H. (2006, January). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84, 99107.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1971). A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist, 26, 180188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 16681774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einhorn, H. J. (1986). Accepting error to make less error. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 387395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finlay, W., & Coverdill, J. E. (1999). The search game: Organizational conflicts and the use of headhunters. Sociological Quarterly, 40, 1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyd, M. (1926). The statistical viewpoint in vocational selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10, 349356.Google Scholar
Gigerzenger, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).Google Scholar
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1994). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction. Psychological Assessment, 12, 1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guion, R. M. (1965). Industrial psychology as an academic discipline. American Psychologist, 20, 815821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S. (1997). Understanding and improving job-finalist choice: The relevance of behavioral decision research. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 449470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2001). Judgment and decision making research: Relevance to industrial and organizational psychology. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 314332). Thousand Oaks, Sage.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2002). Assessing the candidate as a whole: A historical and critical analysis of individual psychological assessment for personnel decision making. Personnel Psychology, 55, 363396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 242257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffcutt, A. L., & Arthur, W (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huse, E. F. (1962). Assessments of higher level personnel IV: The validity of assessment techniques based on systematically varied information. Personnel Psychology, 15, 195205.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01861.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. (1998). An overview of psychological assessment. In Jeanneret, R. & Silzer, R. (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organizational settings (pp. 326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (1993). Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, B. (2001). Evaluating informatics applications: Clinical decision support systems literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64, 1537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, K. (1997). Communicating uncertainty: Framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 5583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., Highhouse, S., & De Corte, W. (2005). The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors’ hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,78, 453470.10.1348/096317905X26093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, H. H. (1956). An evaluation of a supervisory selection program. Personnel Psychology, 9, 499513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (2004). When the psychometrics of test development meets organizational realities: A conceptual framework for organizational change, examples, and recommendations. Personnel Psychology, 57, 175209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. (1990). From gatekeeper to gateway: Transforming testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, Boston College.Google Scholar
Panel criticizes standard testing. (1990, May 24). The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Phelan, J., & Smith, G. W. (1958). To select executives—combine interviews, tests, horse sense. Personnel Journal, 36, 417421.Google Scholar
Prien, E. P., Schippmann, J. S., & Prien, K. O. (2003). Individual assessment: As practiced in industry and consulting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Whitney, D., & Smith, M. (1996). Individual differences in interviewer ratings: The impact of standardization, consensus discussion, and sampling error on the validity of a structured interview. Personnel Psychology, 49, 85102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundquist, E. A. (1969). The prediction ceiling. Personnel Psychology, 22, 109116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruscio, J. (2003). Holistic judgment in clinical practice: Utility or futility? Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2, 3848.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resources Management, 41, 149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 545556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarbin, T. L. (1943). A contribution to the study of actuarial and individual methods of prediction. American Journal of Sociology, 48, 598602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherden, W. (1998). The fortune sellers: The big business of buying and selling predictions. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Sindelar, S. (2002, October). Executive assessment. Executive Excellence, 19, 1314.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Probability neglect: Emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law Journal, 112, 61107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terpstra, D. E. (1996, May). The search for effective methods. HR Focus, 73, 1617.Google Scholar
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozelle, J. (1997). Why some potentially effective staffing practices are seldom used. Public Personnel Management, 26, 483495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely used in personnel selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 176184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586597.10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viteles, M. S. (1925). The clinical viewpoint in vocational selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 131138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vondersmith, J. (2001, December 11). Bellotti sounds off, favors playoffs. The Portland Tribune. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Google Scholar
Whyte, G., & Latham, G. (1997). The futility of utility analysis revisited: When even an expert fails. Personnel Psychology, 50, 601610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *