Base Rate Neglect Bias: Can it be Observed in HRM Decisions and Can it be Decreased by Visually Presenting the Base Rates in HRM Decisions?




base rate neglect, cognitive bias, HRM, decision-making, ecological rationality


The aim of this experimental research was to explore if the future HR managers are susceptible to the base rate neglect (BRN) bias and if the visual presentation of the base rates improves their reasoning. The BRN bias is a tendency to disregard a priori probabilities that are explicitly given for the class of observed objects. In this study, BRN is seen as the case of decision-making bias in the work-related context. Although it is inevitable part of the decision-making processes concerning employees`, the topic is not sufficiently studied. A total of 65 participants, enrolled in the master studies of HRM, were subjected to 4 different types of BRN tasks, in which five different HR activities were described. They were varied within subjects, representativeness of description, and format of base rate. Within each task there were five different situations that make 20 tasks in total. The two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the proportion of biased answers was significantly higher on the representative tasks when the tasks presented visually, with no interaction between representativeness and format of task. Results are in line with previous studies that observed an effect of BRN on decision-making process. Yet, unexpectedly, visual presentation of base rates did not facilitate unbiased reasoning implying that some other form of presentation might be more appropriate for the task.


Download data is not yet available.


Ajzen, I. (1977). Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(5), 303–314. DOI:

Anderson, S. L., Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2008). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: The importance of attractiveness in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 352–368. DOI:

Argote, L., Devadas, R., & Melone, N. (1990). The base-rate fallacy: Contrasting processes and outcomes of group and individual judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46(2), 296-310. DOI:

Argote, L., Seabright, M. A., & Dyer, L. (1986). Individual versus group use of base-rate and individuating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 65-75. DOI:

Auster, E. R., & Prasad, A. (2016). Why do women still not make it to the top? Dominant organizational ideologies and biases by promotion committees limit opportunities to destination positions. Sex Roles, 75, 177-196. DOI:

Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 241-254. DOI:

Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211-233. DOI:

Battaglio Jr, R. P., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320. DOI:

Bellé, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2017). Cognitive biases in performance appraisal: Experimental evidence on anchoring and halo effects with public sector managers and employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), 275-294. DOI:

Betsch, T., Biel, G. M., Eddelbüttel, C., & Mock, A. (1998). Natural sampling and base-rate neglect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 269-273.<269::AID-EJSP872>3.0.CO;2-U DOI:<269::AID-EJSP872>3.0.CO;2-U

Cantarelli, P., Belle, N., & Belardinelli, P. (2020). Behavioral public HR: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases and debiasing interventions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 56-81. DOI:

Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., Sartori, R., Weller, J., & Di Fabio, A. (2019). Dimensions of decision-making: An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 188-200. DOI:

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. cognition, 58(1), 1-73. DOI:

Dagger, T. S., Danaher, P. J., Sweeney, J. C., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2013). Selective halo effects arising from improving the interpersonal skills of frontline employees. Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 488-502. DOI:

Dahlman, C., Zenker, F., & Sarwar, F. (2016). Miss rate neglect in legal evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 15(4), 239-250. DOI:

Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32(2), 93-99. DOI:

De Neys, W., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current directions in psychological science, 28(5), 503-509. DOI:

Derous, E., & Ryan, A. M. (2019). When your resume is (not) turning you down: Modelling ethnic bias in resume screening. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(2), 113-130. DOI:

Dundon, N. M., Colas, J. T., Garrett, N., Babenko, V., Rizor, E., Yang, D., ... & Grafton, S. T. (2023). Decision heuristics in contexts integrating action selection and execution. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6486. DOI:

Erlandsson, A. (2019). Do men favor men in recruitment? A field experiment in the Swedish labor market. Work and Occupations, 46(3), 239-264. DOI:

Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on psychological science, 3(1), 20-29. DOI:

Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychological review, 102(4), 684-704. DOI:

Goodie, A. S., & Fantino, E. (1999). What does and does not alleviate base-rate neglect under direct experience. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 307-335.<307::AID-BDM324>3.0.CO;2-H DOI:<307::AID-BDM324>3.0.CO;2-H

Guillén, L., Mayo, M., & Karelaia, N. (2018). Appearing self-confident and getting credit for it: Why it may be easier for men than women to gain influence at work. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 839-854. DOI:

Hafenbrädl, S., Waeger, D., Marewski, J. N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2016). Applied decision making with fast-and-frugal heuristics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 215-231. DOI:

Hoffrage, U., Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Martignon, L. (2002). Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 84(3), 343-352. DOI:

Hu, Z., & Wang, X. T. (2014). Trust or not: Heuristics for making trust-based choices in HR management. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1710-1716. DOI:

Huffcutt, A. I., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Roth, P. L. (2011). Understanding applicant behavior in employment interviews: A theoretical model of interviewee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 353-367. DOI:

John Bernardin, H., Thomason, S., Ronald Buckley, M., & Kane, J. S. (2016). Rater rating-level bias and accuracy in performance appraisals: The impact of rater personality, performance management competence, and rater accountability. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 321-340. DOI:

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. macmillan. Retrieved from

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237-251. DOI:

Kang, M., & Park, M. J. (2019). Employees’ judgment and decision making in the banking industry: The perspective of heuristics and biases. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(1), 382-400. DOI:

Karunarathna, M. M. C. M., Perera, H. K. D. H., Perera, M. A. R. S., Wijerathne, R. H. D., Nawagamuwa, N. M. T., & Cooray, P. J. P. (2010). Interview Mistakes Job Applicants’ Perspective.

Korteling, J. E., Gerritsma, J. Y., & Toet, A. (2021). Retention and transfer of cognitive bias mitigation interventions: a systematic literature study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 629354. DOI:

Krabuanrat, K., & Phelps, R. (1998). Heuristics and rationality in strategic decision making: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 83-93. DOI:

Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Gentry, W. A., & Baranik, L. E. (2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 223-232. DOI:

Ludolph, R., & Schulz, P. J. (2018). Debiasing health-related judgments and decision making: a systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 38(1), 3-13. DOI:

Marsh, B. (2002). Heuristics as social tools. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(1), 49-57. DOI:

Molenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201-218. DOI:

Nagtegaal, R., Tummers, L., Noordegraaf, M., & Bekkers, V. (2020). Designing to debias: Measuring and reducing public managers’ anchoring bias. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 565-576. DOI:

Neys, W. D. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological science, 17(5), 428-433. DOI:

Ohlert, C. R., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2015). Beating the base-rate fallacy: An experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats. Journal of Management Control, 26(1), 51-80. DOI:

Ordoyan, N. N. (2021). The Effects of Bias on Performance Appraisals in Human Resources (Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Northridge). Retrieved from

Palmer, J. K., & Loveland, J. M. (2008). The influence of group discussion on performance judgments: Rating accuracy, contrast effects, and halo. The Journal of Psychology, 142(2), 117-130. DOI:

Palmucci, D. N. (2023). Decision making in human resources standard practices and change management innovation initiatives: the common destiny of being affected by biases. EuroMed Journal of Business. DOI:

Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., & Thompson, V. A. (2014). Base rates: Both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 544-554. DOI:

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and individual Differences, 7(1), 1-75. DOI:

Sartori, R., Costantini, A., & Ceschi, A. (2020). Psychological assessment in human resource management: discrepancies between theory and practice and two examples of integration. Personnel Review, 51(1), 284-298. DOI:

Singh, H. (2013). Diagnostic errors: moving beyond ‘no respect’and getting ready for prime time. BMJ quality & safety, 22(10), 789-792. DOI:

Stengård, E., Juslin, P., Hahn, U., & Van den Berg, R. (2022). On the generality and cognitive basis of base-rate neglect. Cognition, 226, 105160. DOI:

Storm, K. I. L., Reiss, L. K., Günther, E., Clar-Novak, M., & Muhr, S. L. (2023). Unconscious bias in the HRM literature: Towards a critical-reflexive approach. Human Resource Management Review, 33(3), 100969. DOI:

Swider, B. W., Harris, T. B., & Gong, Q. (2022). First impression effects in organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(3), 346-369. DOI:

Teovanović, P. R. (2013). Sklonost kognitivnim pristrasnostima. Универзитет у Београду.

Tuffaha, M. (2023). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Bias on Human Resource Management Functions: Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 11(4), 35-58. DOI:

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. DOI:

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5, 297-323. DOI:

Vanderpal, G., & Brazie, R. (2022). The impact of underlying stress and trauma on HRM recruitment and selection bias in employee interviews. Journal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics Vol, 19(2), 89. DOI:

Vassilopoulou, J., Kyriakidou, O., Ozbilgin, M. F., & Groutsis, D. (2022). Scientism as illusio in HR algorithms: Towards a framework for algorithmic hygiene for bias proofing. Human Resource Management Journal. DOI:

Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 48(1), 70-88. DOI:

Whyte, G., & Sue-Chan, C. (2002). The neglect of base rate data by human resources managers in employee selection. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 19(1), 1-10. DOI:

Wolfe, C. R., & Fisher, C. R. (2013). Individual differences in base rate neglect: A fuzzy processing preference index. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 1-11. DOI:




How to Cite

Kovačević, I., & Manojlović, M. (2024). Base Rate Neglect Bias: Can it be Observed in HRM Decisions and Can it be Decreased by Visually Presenting the Base Rates in HRM Decisions?. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 119–132.



Received 2023-12-06
Accepted 2024-02-01
Published 2024-04-24