Random answers. Yet interviewers thought they had learned something.

A candidate gives random answers. There is no hidden strategy and no coherent personal story. Yet the interviewer leaves feeling that they understand the candidate better.

It sounds odd. But it points to a familiar risk: people are remarkably good at finding patterns, even when the information carries little meaning.

What the research found

Jason Dana, Robyn Dawes and Nathanial Peterson examined this in “Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion”, published in Judgment and Decision Making in 2013. The paper reports three studies involving 76, 64 and 169 students respectively.

In part of the research, interviewees were instructed to answer questions randomly. Interviewers still formed impressions and expressed confidence in their conclusions. They appeared to find coherence in answers that were deliberately not designed to reveal genuine information about the person.

The authors discuss sensemaking as one explanation. When we hear separate answers, we naturally try to turn them into a logical narrative. A pause becomes caution. An energetic answer becomes ambition. An unusual example becomes creativity. The resulting story can feel compelling even when the underlying information has little diagnostic value.

The paper also discusses dilution. When valid background information was combined with non-diagnostic interview information, the additional material could weaken participants’ use of the relevant background evidence. More information did not automatically produce a better judgment.

That conclusion needs careful boundaries. These were student studies, and they do not show that every interview is useless. Nor do they support a universal claim about the predictive validity of all selection interviews. They do show how confidence in an impression can develop without the available evidence necessarily justifying that confidence.

Turn impressions into hypotheses

The practical lesson is not to stop talking to candidates. Interviews can provide context, clarify expectations and give candidates a proper opportunity to ask questions. They can also help recruiters explore specific experiences, decisions and motivations.

But an initial impression should be treated as a hypothesis, not as automatic final proof.

Do you think someone stays careful under pressure? Ask for a specific example, follow up on the details and look for other observations that support or challenge the idea. Do you suspect that someone works well with others? Define the behaviour you mean and explore relevant situations rather than accepting a broad, polished story.

Recruiters can reduce the risk of sensemaking by setting criteria in advance, asking candidates comparable core questions and separating observations from interpretations. “The candidate asked for clarification twice” is an observation. “The candidate lacks confidence” is an interpretation.

Be cautious with information that is vivid but irrelevant. An engaging topic, shared hobby or charming anecdote may be memorable without saying anything about the behaviour needed for the role. Keep asking: which criterion does this information actually help us assess?

Another source, not a crystal ball

Game-based assessment can add bounded behavioural observations to this process. It can show how someone responds, makes choices or adapts an approach within specific tasks. Those observations are not a complete portrait of a candidate, and they do not create an automatic decision.

One useful role is to support more targeted follow-up questions. If an observation stands out, a recruiter can explore what might sit behind it. Does the candidate recognise the behaviour? Does it appear in work settings too? Which circumstances change their approach? The interview then becomes a place to test hypotheses rather than a machine for producing instant certainty.

Humans retain judgment. Assess4me does not automatically hire or reject candidates, and it is not a crystal ball. It provides additional, bounded information that can help recruiters ask more focused, consistent and candidate-friendly questions.

A convincing story is easy to create. A careful decision requires checking what that story is actually built on.