Rabinovitch, H. et al. (2025, May 27).
Abstract
Blindfolding—selecting candidates based on objective selection tests while avoiding personal information about their race and gender— is commonly used to mitigate bias in selection. Selection tests, however, often benefit people of a certain race or gender. In such cases, selecting the best candidates requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, the biasing factor. We examined people's preference for avoiding candidates’ race and gender, even when fully aware that these factors bias the selection test. We put forward a novel prediction suggesting that paradoxically, due to their fear of appearing partial, people would choose not to reveal race and gender information, even when doing so means making suboptimal decisions. Across three experiments (N = 3,621), hiring professionals (and laypeople) were tasked with selecting the best candidate for a position when they could reveal the candidate’s race and gender or avoid it. We further measured how fear for their social image corresponds with their decision, as well as how job applicants perceive such actions. The results supported our predictions, showing that more than 50% did not reveal gender and race information, compared to only 30% who did not reveal situational biasing information, such as the time of day in which the interview was held. Those who did not reveal information expressed higher concerns for their social and self-image than those who decided to reveal. We conclude that decision-makers avoid personal biasing information to maintain a positive image, yet by doing so, they compromise fairness and accuracy alike.
Public significance statements
Blindfolding—ignoring one’s gender and race in selection processes—is a widespread strategy aimed at reducing bias and increasing diversity. Selection tests, however, often unjustly benefit members of certain groups, such as men and white people. In such cases, correcting the bias requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, information about the candidates’ gender and race. The current research shows that decision-makers are reluctant to reveal such information due to their fear of appearing partial. Paradoxically, decision-makers avoid such information, even when fully aware that doing so may perpetuate bias, in order to protect their social image as impartial, but miss out on the opportunity to advance fairness and choose the best candidates.
Here are some thoughts:
This research is critically important to practicing psychologists because it sheds light on the complex interplay between bias, decision-making, and social image concerns in hiring processes. The study demonstrates how well-intentioned practices like "blindfolding"—omitting race or gender information to reduce discrimination—can paradoxically perpetuate systemic biases when selection tools themselves are flawed. Practicing psychologists must understand that ignoring personal attributes does not eliminate bias but can instead obscure its effects, leading to suboptimal and unfair outcomes. By revealing how decision-makers avoid sensitive information out of fear of appearing partial, the research highlights the psychological mechanisms—such as social and self-image concerns—that drive this avoidance. This insight is crucial for psychologists involved in organizational consulting, personnel training, or policy development, as it underscores the need for more nuanced strategies that address bias directly rather than avoiding it.
Additionally, the findings inform interventions aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion by showing that transparency and informed adjustments based on demographic factors may be necessary to achieve fairer outcomes. Ultimately, the research challenges traditional assumptions about neutrality in selection decisions and urges psychologists to advocate for evidence-based approaches that actively correct for bias while considering the broader implications of perceived fairness and merit.
