Structured interviews standardize the interview process by using predetermined, job-related questions asked consistently of all candidates, with responses evaluated against anchored rating scales. This contrasts with unstructured interviews, where questions vary across candidates and evaluation is impressionistic. Meta-analyses consistently show that structured interviews are substantially more valid (r ≈ .44-.57) than unstructured interviews (r ≈ .20-.33) for predicting job performance. The two main formats — behavioral description interviews (asking about past behavior) and situational interviews (asking about hypothetical future behavior) — both outperform unstructured approaches because structure reduces the cognitive biases, irrelevant information processing, and inconsistency that plague unstructured evaluation.
The employment interview is the most widely used selection method in the world, yet for decades it was also one of the least valid. Early meta-analyses found that traditional unstructured interviews predicted job performance only modestly, leading some researchers to question whether interviews should be used at all. The solution was not to abandon interviews but to impose structure — and the difference this makes is dramatic.
Structure in interviews means standardization at multiple levels. First, questions are developed from a job analysis so they target specific, job-relevant competencies. Second, all candidates receive the same questions in the same order, eliminating the variability that comes from interviewers pursuing different topics with different candidates. Third, responses are evaluated using behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) that define what constitutes a poor, adequate, and excellent response. Fourth, interviewers are trained on the system and on common rating biases. Each of these components reduces a specific source of measurement error.
The two dominant formats each rest on a different psychological principle. Behavioral description interviews (BDIs) ask candidates to describe specific past situations: "Tell me about a time when you had to meet a deadline under extreme pressure." The underlying principle is behavioral consistency — past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Situational interviews (SIs) present hypothetical job-related scenarios: "Imagine a customer becomes increasingly hostile. What would you do?" These are based on goal-setting theory — the intentions people express predict their subsequent behavior. Meta-analyses show both formats are substantially valid, with some evidence that BDIs have a slight edge for experienced candidates while SIs may be better for entry-level positions where candidates lack relevant past experience.
The validity gap between structured and unstructured interviews reflects fundamental differences in how information is processed. In unstructured interviews, interviewers are prone to a host of cognitive biases: primacy effects (first impressions dominate), confirmation bias (seeking information that confirms the initial impression), similar-to-me bias (favoring candidates who share the interviewer's background or interests), and halo effects (letting one positive attribute color the entire evaluation). Structure mitigates all of these by constraining what information is collected and how it is evaluated. The interviewer's role shifts from intuitive judge to systematic assessor.
Despite the clear evidence favoring structured interviews, many organizations resist adopting them. Interviewers often prefer unstructured formats because they feel more natural and give the interviewer a sense of autonomy and insight. Research on interviewer reactions shows that many interviewers believe they can "read people" better without the constraints of structure — a belief that is empirically unfounded. This gap between what works and what feels right is one of the persistent challenges in translating I-O psychology research into practice.
No topics depend on this one yet.