Have you ever met someone who reminded you of yourself maybe they went to the same school, had similar hobbies, or shared your sense of humour? That instant sense of connection is similarity bias at play. It’s natural to feel more comfortable with people who seem familiar, but in hiring, this unconscious preference can lead to missed opportunities and a lack of diversity.
One of the most common biases in recruitment is similarity bias, which occurs when hiring managers or recruiters favour candidates who share common traits, experiences, or backgrounds with them.
A study by Diversity Australia revealed that in 78% of hiring decisions made by its clients, the primary influencing factor was a preference for candidates who shared similarities with the recruiter.
But what happens when such a move is taken?
When companies consistently hire people who think, act, and work alike, they unknowingly limit creativity, innovation, and overall growth. The best teams aren’t built on sameness, they thrive on different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Let’s explore how similarity bias impacts hiring and what companies can do to build stronger, more inclusive teams.
What Is Similarity Bias?
Similarity bias, also known as affinity bias, refers to the tendency to favour individuals who resemble us in some way. This could be based on shared educational backgrounds, similar career paths, personal interests, or even personality traits. It is an unconscious bias, meaning it happens automatically without the recruiter or hiring manager realizing it.
For example, a recruiter might feel more comfortable hiring someone who shares their hobbies or comes from the same hometown. While these similarities create an instant connection, they do not necessarily prove that the candidate is the best fit for the job.
Understanding Assumed Similarity Bias and Its Psychological Roots
Assumed similarity bias occurs when individuals overestimate how much they have in common with someone else, leading to similar perceptions and favouritism. This cognitive bias can subtly influence decision-making in various areas, including hiring, team dynamics, and social interactions.
The concept was first explored by sociologist William Sumner in 1906, when he introduced the idea of “in-group” and “out-group” memberships. He observed that people naturally categorize others into groups based on perceived similarities, leading to favouritism toward those in their "in-group" while being more sceptical or even dismissive of those in the "out-group."
For instance, if a hiring manager graduated from a prestigious university like Harvard, they might unconsciously assume that candidates from the same institution are more competent or better suited for the role, even without assessing their skills objectively. This automatic grouping can result in hiring decisions that prioritize shared backgrounds over actual qualifications.
The Connection Between Assumed Similarity Bias and Ethnocentrism
Sumner also popularized the term "ethnocentrism," which describes the tendency to evaluate other cultures through the lens of one’s own experiences, values, and beliefs. Ethnocentrism is also a foundational element of similarity bias because it leads individuals to judge those who are different from them as inferior or less capable.
For example, in a multinational corporation, a manager from one country may unconsciously favour candidates from their own cultural background, assuming they will align better with the team’s work ethic and communication style. This can prevent companies from using the benefits of diverse perspectives, which are important for a global business to succeed. And by taking such a move in recruiting the manager is unconsciously saying that his culture is better than others.
Other Psychological Factors That Contribute to Similarity Bias
Several cognitive shortcuts and biases play a role in assumed similarity bias. These mental processes help people make quick decisions but often result in unfair judgments:
1. In-Group / Out-Group Bias
This is the tendency to view people within our perceived social group more favourably while seeing those outside of it as less competent or trustworthy. This can manifest in hiring when managers unconsciously prefer candidates who share their alma mater, hometown, or even hobbies.
Example: A hiring manager who loves hiking may connect more easily with a candidate who also enjoys outdoor activities, leading to an unconscious preference, even if another candidate has stronger qualifications.
2. Egocentric Bias
This occurs when people assume that others see the world as they do, failing to recognize different viewpoints or experiences. In hiring, this bias can lead recruiters to believe that candidates with similar career paths or work styles will be the best fit for a role, even if diversity of thought could benefit the team.
For example, a manager thriving in a high-pressure environment may assume that all candidates prefer the same conditions, overlooking those who excel in more methodical settings.
3. Stereotyping
Stereotypes are the most overused, oversimplified and often incorrect assumptions about a particular group of people. When hiring, recruiters may rely on stereotypes whether positive or negative when evaluating candidates, leading to unfair assessments.
Example: A tech recruiter may unconsciously assume that younger candidates are more suited with emerging software than older candidates, leading them to overlook experienced professionals who have strong technical skills.
4. Heuristics (Mental Shortcuts)
Heuristics are quick decision-making strategies that help people process information rapidly. While useful in some situations, they can instate similarity bias by causing individuals to make snap judgments based on surface-level similarities. This is also known as Halo and Horn Effect.
👉 Learn more about Unconscious Bias here along with the examples.
How Similarity Bias Affects Hiring Decisions
1. Limits Workplace Diversity
When hiring managers consistently choose candidates who share similar backgrounds, the company loses out on diverse perspectives and ideas. A team made up of people with nearly identical experiences may not be able to solve problems from different angles, leading to stagnant creativity and limited problem-solving capabilities.
For example, a marketing team which is made up entirely of employees with the same educational background may struggle to connect with diverse customer groups, leading to campaigns that fail to resonate with a broader audience.
2. Creates an Unfair Hiring Process
Similarity bias leads to hiring decisions based on personal connections rather than standard qualifications. This means highly skilled candidates from different backgrounds may be overlooked simply because they don’t share common traits with the hiring manager.
For example, a recruiter might choose a candidate because they both played the same college sport, despite another candidate having stronger skills and more relevant experience.
3. Less DEI
When Diversity, Equality and Inclusivity are key principles in today’s job environment, with 35% companies more likely to outperform their competitors when diverse, a company hiring candidates based on similarity rather than skill tends to create a workplace culture that lacks diversity.
This can make it harder for individuals from different backgrounds to feel welcomed or included, which in turn affects employee retention and job satisfaction.
For example, if a company mainly hires employees from a particular social background, new hires who don’t fit that crowd might feel excluded, leading to employee dissatisfaction.
4. Reduces Problem-Solving
Diverse teams perform better because they bring a variety of perspectives to the table. When similarity bias leads to polarisation of the workforce and companies miss out on fresh ideas and creative solutions that arise from different ways of thinking. For example, if a company is wishing to expand its precedence to more places, a team lacking diversity or similar- thinking people, might not be able to provide insights over other nations and their market.
Why Addressing Assumed Similarity Bias Matters
Unchecked similarity bias can lead to homogenous workplaces with polarisation and discrimination that could lack diverse perspectives. Companies that actively work to reduce bias in hiring and team management create more inclusive, dynamic, and high-performing organizations.
By understanding these psychological factors, recruiters and managers can make more objective decisions that prioritize talent and potential over perceived similarities.
How to Identify Similarity Bias in Recruitment?
1. Reviewing Past Hiring Decisions
Looking at the profiles of past hires can reveal patterns that could suggest similarity bias. If most new hires share the same background, education, or interests as the hiring managers, it may give out that bias is influencing decisions.
2. Noticing Gut Reactions in Interviews
Recruiters should be mindful of their initial impressions of candidates. If a strong preference for a candidate is based on personal connection rather than skills or experience, it may be a sign of similarity bias. Some other managers or employers may also push the HR or the recruiting manager for certain candidates which again is a sign of connection.
3. Checking the Diversity of Final Candidates
If the final shortlist of candidates all come from similar backgrounds, it could indicate that bias has influenced the selection process. Companies should aim for a diverse pool of finalists to ensure fair consideration of all qualified applicants.
Best Ways to Avoid Similarity Bias in Hiring
Similarity bias happens when hiring managers unconsciously favor candidates who share similar traits, backgrounds, or interests. This often leads to a lack of diversity and missed opportunities for innovation. To create a more inclusive hiring process, companies need structured, skill-focused, and data-driven practices. Here are the best ways to reduce similarity bias in hiring:
1. Use Blind Recruitment Methods
Blind recruitment involves removing identifiable information such as names, addresses, and educational institutions from resumes during the first round of screening. This helps recruiters make decisions based only on skills and experience instead of personal details.
A company using WeCP can integrate blind screening into its assessment process, where the platform hides personal information and evaluates candidates based purely on their test performance. This ensures every applicant is judged fairly on their demonstrated skills.
Pro Tip: Combine blind hiring with WeCP’s automated skill assessments to make hiring decisions based on objective, verifiable data.
2. Use Standardized Interview Questions
Unstructured interviews often drift into personal topics that can unintentionally favor candidates who seem “similar” to the interviewer. Structured interviews, where every candidate is asked the same job-related questions, keep the process objective and fair.
A hiring manager could use a standardized interview guide built around specific competencies like leadership, teamwork, and technical ability. Instead of asking “Tell me about yourself,” which invites personal connections, they could ask “Can you describe a time you overcame a major challenge at work?” and score answers consistently.
3. Conduct Skills-Based Assessments
Skills-based hiring ensures that decisions are driven by a candidate’s ability to perform the job rather than their background or educational pedigree. By using structured assessments, companies can collect objective performance data before interviews even begin.
Instead of giving preference to graduates from certain universities, a tech company might use WeCP’s coding assessments to evaluate programming proficiency. The scores highlight the most capable candidates regardless of where they studied or worked previously.
Use WeCP’s wide range of assessments such as technical tests, case studies, and real-world simulations to measure core competencies directly linked to job performance.
4. Train Hiring Teams on Unconscious Bias
Unconscious bias training helps recruiters and hiring managers identify hidden preferences that might influence decisions. Awareness is the first step toward minimizing bias during candidate evaluation.
A company can organize workshops where hiring managers review common bias scenarios and learn practical ways to make fairer judgments. They can even analyze anonymized hiring data to identify patterns that may indicate bias in previous selection rounds.
Regular refresher sessions and role-play exercises help teams internalize these principles and apply them during interviews and evaluations.
5. Diversify Hiring Panels
A diverse interview panel helps counter individual biases and ensures a more well-rounded evaluation. Different perspectives help balance subjective judgments and improve decision quality.
A company can create hiring panels that include people from various departments, gender identities, and seniority levels. This diversity ensures that candidate assessments are comprehensive and equitable.
Rotate panel members regularly to bring in fresh perspectives and prevent groupthink.
6. Use AI and Data-Driven Hiring Tools
Modern recruitment platforms powered by can analyze candidate data objectively, reducing the influence of human bias. However, these tools must be built and monitored carefully to ensure they promote fairness and do not perpetuate existing bias patterns from historical data.
An AI-based screening tool will analyze candidate responses to identify competencies such as problem-solving and collaboration while ignoring irrelevant personal details. Continuous auditing of such systems ensures they remain unbiased and transparent.
Partner with vendors like WeCP who prioritize explainable AI, diversity fairness metrics, and ethical model design.
7. Set Clear Diversity Hiring Goals
Setting measurable diversity and inclusion goals creates accountability and helps track progress over time. These goals should go beyond quotas and focus on creating a culture of equity and opportunity.
A company might aim to increase representation of women in leadership roles by 20% over two years. Regular data reviews and transparent reporting help ensure that progress is being made and sustained.
Integrate these goals into annual HR OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) to make diversity an ongoing business priority, not a one-time initiative.
8. Encourage Culture Add, Not Culture Fit
Hiring for “culture fit” often reinforces similarity bias because it subconsciously favors candidates who resemble existing team members. Instead, focus on “culture add” seeking individuals who bring new perspectives, experiences, and problem-solving approaches.
A marketing agency that traditionally hired only extroverted team members realized it was missing out on diverse thinking styles. By embracing a “culture add” mindset, they began hiring both analytical strategists and expressive presenters leading to richer creativity and balanced teamwork.
During interviews, ask candidates how they might challenge or enhance current ways of working, not just how they’d blend in.
Reducing similarity bias is about making hiring decisions more objective, transparent, and inclusive. By using structured interviews, skill-based assessments, and AI-powered platforms like WeCP, organizations can ensure that every candidate is evaluated fairly and based on merit. The result is a more diverse, high-performing workforce that thrives on fresh ideas and balanced perspectives.
Conclusion
Similarity bias is an unconscious preference that can significantly impact hiring decisions, leading to a lack of diversity, reduced innovation, and an unfair recruitment process. By recognizing its presence and taking steps to mitigate it, recruiters can have a bias- free process.
Better to prevent than cure. So, by having processes such as blind hiring, structured interviews, skills assessments, and bias training, companies can create a more inclusive hiring process.
Eliminating similarity bias doesn’t mean ignoring cultural fit or personal compatibility. Instead, it’s about balancing both soft skills and hard skills to make the best hiring decisions.
- Technical Roles: In technical roles like software development, engineering, and data science, hard skills are the foundation. Employees in these fields need specialized expertise, such as coding in Java or Python, understanding complex algorithms, or working with data analysis tools. Without these skills, they wouldn’t be able to perform their core tasks, no matter how strong their soft skills are. It does not mean their communication is neglected; it is just of lesser importance.
- Leadership Positions: For leadership roles, soft skills are more important because these positions require managing teams, making strategic decisions, and solving conflicts. Strong communication, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving abilities help leaders inspire their teams and drive company success. And again, the soft skills would be of no use if the leader is not good at his job, the core skill. So, even here, hard skills are necessary.
- Customer-Facing Roles: In customer-facing roles like sales, customer support, and client relations, a mix of soft and hard skills is necessary. Employees need technical knowledge of the company’s products or services but must also be able to explain them clearly, build relationships, and handle customer concerns.
The goal is to ensure that hiring decisions are made based on what a candidate brings to the table professionally, rather than how much they resemble the hiring manager.
The best hiring decisions are those that focus on competence, potential, and diverse perspectives, rather than unconscious preferences. In doing so, organizations not only improve fairness but also position themselves for long-term success with stronger, more dynamic teams.
.png)
.svg){kind=logo}