91¶ÌÊÓƵ

The 91¶ÌÊÓƵ Search Advocate Program and materials are adapted from the Oregon State University Search Advocate Program and Training. The research below helped inform 91¶ÌÊÓƵ’s decision to adapt that program to 91¶ÌÊÓƵ's needs. The research includes studies on the importance of these programs, as well as best practices for implementation and longevity.

These materials talk through how we form decisions, including some of the ways we might jump to conclusions or take shortcuts, sometimes unfairly. For example, the article : Harver, (2020, November 13), lists several types of natural cognitive thought patterns that might make decision-making unfair toward a candidate. A couple of examples:

• "Affect heuristic" bias suggests that search committees may judge a candidate based on superficial factors that may not indicate their true qualifications for a position. They use the example that you may have an automatic dislike for somone called Pete if your ex-boyfriend is also named Pete.
• Another type of thought pattern that can lead to an unfair bias includes the "halo anchor" bias - when something positive grabs our attention about a candidate and our judgment is clouded by the one positive factor. For example, we may identify with the school the person attended and then refuse to acknowledge other red flags because of the one positive piece.

We encourage you to read through these materials thoughtfully to see if there are any patterns of thinking you might be in the habit of using.