Experiments (to show) that in selecting personnel for a job, interviewing (to be) at best a hindrance, and may even (to cause) harm. These studies (to disclose) that the judgments of interviewers (to differ) markedly and (to bear) little or no relationship to the adequacy of job applicants. Of the many reasons why this should (to be) the case, three in particular (to stand out) . The first reason (to relate) to an error of judgment known as the halo effect. If a person (to have) one noticeable good trait, their other characteristics will (to judge) as better than they really (to be) . Thus, an individual who (to dress) smartly and (to show) self-confidence (to be likely) (to judge) capable of doing a job well regardless of his or her real ability.

Interviewers (to prejudice also) by an effect called the primacy effect. This error (to occur) when interpretation of later information (to distort) by earlier connected information. Hence, in an interview situation, the interviewer (to spend) most of the interview trying to confirm the impression given by the candidate in the first few moments. Studies (to demonstrate repeatedly) that such an impression (to be) unrelated to the aptitude of the applicant.
The phenomenon known as the contrast effect also (to skew) the judgment of interviewers. A suitable candidate may (to underestimate) because he or she (to contrast) with a previous one who (to appear) exceptionally intelligent. Likewise, an average candidate who (to precede) by one who (to give) a weak showing may (to judge) as more suitable than he or she really (to be) .
Since interviews as a form of personnel selection (to show) (to be) inadequate, other selection procedures (to devise) which more accurately (to predict) candidate suitability. Of the various tests devised, the predictor which (to appear) (to do) this most successfully (to be) cognitive ability as measured by a variety of verbal and spatial tests.