Employers and other decision makers typically use interviews to make their final decision on candidates applying for important positions. The process begins by reviewing resumes, and checking references, before the final and typically most important act, the interview. Within mere minutes, an interviewer can form a strong impression of a candidate. For instance, this may run along the lines of “this person seems confident, articulate, and driven” or “this person does not represent themselves well, and likely won’t be a good fit”. By the end, the interviewer may feel that they truly understand the candidate. But what if that feeling is just an illusion? This is the question tackled by Prof. Jason Dana of Yale University and his colleagues in their research on unstructured interviews. Their findings challenge one of the most common hiring and admissions practices: the belief that sitting down with a candidate and having a free-flowing conversation reveals valuable insight. In reality, their study suggests that unstructured interviews often do more harm than good, leading decision-makers to rely on misleading impressions rather than objective facts. More
Unstructured interviews are conversations where interviewers ask whatever questions come to mind, without a standardized format. They are widely used in job hiring, college admissions, and even medical school selections. Yet, decades of research suggest they are surprisingly ineffective at predicting future performance.
Dana and his colleagues set out to understand why. In a series of experiments, they asked participants to predict students’ future grades based on academic records alone or records combined with an unstructured interview. Strikingly, those who conducted interviews made worse predictions than those who relied solely on past grades. This suggests that interviews can dilute good information rather than enhance it.
One of the biggest reasons unstructured interviews mislead us is what Dana calls “sensemaking.” Our brains are wired to look for patterns and coherence, even in randomness. In one experiment, interviewees were instructed to answer questions randomly, literally picking responses by chance. Even so, interviewers still walked away feeling they had learned something valuable. In other words, even when the data was nonsense, interviewers still felt confident in their judgments.
This is dangerous because it means people form strong opinions based on weak or irrelevant information. If an interviewee happens to give a particularly charming or impressive answer, the interviewer might overestimate their overall abilities. Conversely, a nervous candidate might be unfairly dismissed, even if their qualifications are stellar.
Dana’s study also highlighted how interviewers unintentionally confirm their biases. If an interviewer starts with a positive impression of a candidate, they may unconsciously ask easier or more favorable questions, reinforcing their initial perception. On the other hand, if an interviewer starts with a skeptical view, they might challenge the candidate more aggressively, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another key problem Dana’s research highlights is the dilution effect. In theory, more information should help us to make better decisions. However, when much of that information is irrelevant, it can actually weaken our judgment. A candidate’s prior experience and skills should be the most important factors in a hiring decision, yet interviewers often get distracted by personal anecdotes or how well they “click” with the candidate.
Dana’s experiments showed that when participants had access to both academic records and an interview, their predictions worsened. The interview gave them a false sense of confidence, leading them to rely less on the solid, numerical data that actually predicted future performance. The dilution effect is especially concerning because it suggests that even competent interviewers, armed with strong initial data, can be led astray by excessive, non-diagnostic information. This means that rather than improving the selection process, unstructured interviews may actively hinder it.
Despite mounting evidence against unstructured interviews, they remain a staple in hiring and admissions decisions. Why? Part of the reason is tradition. Interviews feel like a natural way to assess someone. They also give decision-makers a sense of control and personal connection, which can be reassuring. But as Dana’s research shows, this confidence is often misplaced.
People continue to trust their instincts about candidates in unstructured interviews, although those instincts have been shown to be unreliable. This illusion is powerful because it gives decision-makers a sense of certainty, even when their judgments are based on flawed information.
If unstructured interviews are so flawed, what should we do instead? Dana and his colleagues recommend structured interviews, where every candidate is asked the same set of predetermined questions, with responses evaluated using a consistent and unbiased scoring system. Research shows that structured interviews are far more predictive of job and academic performance than their unstructured counterparts.
Structured interviews remove much of the subjectivity that leads to bias. Instead of allowing interviewers to rely on gut feelings, structured interviews focus on job-relevant criteria, ensuring that all candidates are assessed fairly. Studies have shown that structured interviews lead to better hiring decisions and greater diversity in workplaces, as they minimize the impact of unconscious biases.
Even better, organizations should rely on objective data whenever possible. Past performance, standardized tests, and work samples are all stronger indicators of future success than a casual conversation. Some companies have even moved to using AI-driven assessments, which analyze a candidate’s work history and test performance rather than how well they perform in an interview setting.
Prof. Jason Dana’s research reveals an uncomfortable truth: many of the ways we evaluate people feel right but are actually flawed. Unstructured interviews create an illusion of insight, leading us to make decisions based on gut feelings rather than real evidence. If we want to make better hiring and admissions choices, we must be willing to challenge our instincts and embrace methods that truly work.
The next time you find yourself swayed by a charismatic interviewee, remember, what feels like a meaningful connection might just be an illusion. Instead of relying on gut instincts, decision-makers should prioritize structured assessments and objective data. Only then can we ensure that the best candidates are chosen based on merit rather than mere impression.
