Unconscious Biases in the Appointment Process

Unconscious biases describe thought patterns that influence our perceptions and decisions without us being aware of them (3). Originally, these universal and instinctive processes helped us to assess the environment quickly and efficiently - an evolutionary defense mechanism (4). Even today, given the amount of information we process every day, we often fall back on such automatic patterns (5). However, if they are not consciously reflected upon, unconscious biases can lead to discriminatory behavior and jeopardize equal opportunities (4). They occur in various forms, for example:

• affinity bias: the tendency to prefer people who are similar to us (e.g. gender, interests; 3).
• confirmation bias: information is interpreted in such a way that it confirms existing assumptions (3, 6).
• halo/horn effect: a single positive / negative characteristic influences the overall perception of a person (3).
• stereotyping: the assumption that a person has certain characteristics because they belong to a certain group (e.g. gender, origin; 6).
• attribution bias: people's success is explained differently depending on gender, age or other characteristics (6).

Studies show the effects of unconscious biases, here are a few examples:

• Applications from female scientists with identical content are assessed as less competent and suitable for an academic position, even by female faculty members involved in the assessment (7).
• Mentoring requests from white male applicants are also significantly more likely to receive a positive response, particularly in higher-paying departments and at private institutions (8).
• Greater representation of women and minorities in institutions is not associated with a reduction of discriminatory behavior (8).
• Women often experience a negative evaluation for status-enhancing behavior that is simultaneously evaluated as positive for men (9). This shows a perceived conflict between gender, influence and required leadership, which makes equality more difficult (10).

Appointment procedures at universities aim to recruit the most qualified researchers for professorships. The University of Würzburg emphasizes that the commitment of all those involved to recognize diversity and equal opportunities as standards in appointment procedures is of great importance for the quality of appointment decisions (2). However, unconscious biases can reduce diversity at universities and thus have effects that go far beyond individual procedures (1). These biases jeopardize equal opportunities and can lead to highly qualified applicants being unconsciously disadvantaged (7). At the same time, the goal of a balanced representation of professors requires a balance between academic quality standards, efficient administrative processes and diversity measures (1). The different requirements lead to conflicts of objectives that become apparent during appointment procedures, for example:

• Interdisciplinarity: Women are more likely to dedicate their research to interdisciplinary fields, which are often perceived as less focused than disciplinary specializations (11), which negatively affects their evaluation in appointment procedures.
• Quantitative indicators: Seemingly objective criteria such as publication figures or the h-index disadvantage researchers with unconventional careers (e.g. due to refugee experiences or family obligations, 12). To compensate for this, not only research, but also performance in teaching and administrative areas should be given greater recognition (12).
• Age-related perceptions: Young female scientists are often judged as inexperienced, while male colleagues of the same age are seen as having potential (1).
• Co-authorship: In collaborative publications, female scientists tend to be perceived as less independent, while men are seen as having the ability to work in a team (1).

A conscious approach ensures fair and transparent appointment procedures, strengthens equal opportunities, the quality of decisions and diversity in science. An active effort to minimize unconscious biases benefits both the applicants and the university (13).

Important measures are:

• self-reflection and action-oriented knowledge: Reflect on your own thought patterns and find out about the development, effects and appropriate ways of dealing with unconscious bias.
• open exchange: Address potential unconscious biases in the committee and examine assessments critically. Clear criteria and a common understanding create a binding commitment for fair conduct.
• education and training: Further educational training on unconscious biases provides expertise and action- and results-oriented strategies for recognizing and minimizing unconscious biases.

No one is completely free from prejudice. However, these influences can be reduced through conscious reflection and the use of effective strategies (3). This involves not only personal views, but also recognizing unconscious biases in the social reality of appointment procedures and training communicative practices (1). This helps to create transparent and objective procedures. We would therefore like to encourage all those involved in the appointment process to actively engage with these issues to ensure high-quality appointment decisions.

1. Witzig, V., & Seyfarth, F. C. (2020). Exzellenz, Diversität oder Effizienz? „Implicit bias“ in Berufungsverfahren als Zielkonflikte sozialer Praktiken. doi.org/10.3217/ZFHE-15-03/24
2. Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg. (2024). Merkblatt 6 für die vorsitzende Person des Berufungsausschusses: Gendergerechtigkeit. In Berufungsleitfaden der Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (pp. 40–42): Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg.
3. Kagetsu, N., & Gunderman, R. B. (2017). Unconscious Bias. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 14(9), 1253–1255. doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.050
4. Maxfield, C. M., Thorpe, M. P., Koontz, N. A., & Grimm, L. J. (2021). You're Biased! Deal With It. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 18(1), 161–165. doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.06.028
5. Suveren, Y. (2022). Unconscious Bias: Definition and significance. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 14(3), 414–426. doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1026607
6. Salowski, C. (2022). Quick Guide Unconcious Bias: Wie Sie unbewusste Verzerrungen verstehen, erkennen und verändern. SpringerGabler. file:///C:/Users/frm53gu/Downloads/978-3-662-65654-9.pdf
7. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
8. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1678–1712. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022
9. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn't be, are Allowed to be, and don't Have to Be: The Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
10. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
11. Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56–75. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001
12. van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524. doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414293
13. Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious Efforts to End Unconscious Bias: Why Women Leave Academic Research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73. eric.ed.gov