The Opening Two Minutes: How First Impressions Shape Interview Outcomes

The Interview Might Be Decided Before the First Question Is Finished

Here's a statistic that should make every hiring team pause: roughly one in three hiring managers say they know whether they'd hire a candidate within the first 90 seconds of meeting them. Some studies go even further, suggesting that many hiring decisions are largely shaped within the first ten minutes, with the remainder of the interview often serving to reinforce an opinion that's already taking shape.

That doesn't mean interviewers are being careless. It's simply how the human brain works.

Psychologists refer to this as thin-slicing, our ability to form quick judgments based on very limited information. In one well-known study, people who watched just 12 seconds of silent footage of a candidate made hiring recommendations that closely matched those of people who had watched the entire interview.

The challenge is that while these rapid judgments feel convincing, they aren't necessarily good predictors of job performance. A candidate's posture, handshake, or speaking style in the opening moments tells you very little about how well they'll perform once they're in the role.

That's the heart of first impression bias in hiring. Recognising it is the first step toward creating interviews that evaluate ability rather than initial confidence.

Why We Make Snap Judgments

Thin slicing isn't unique to interviews. We rely on it when meeting new people, deciding whether someone seems trustworthy, or making split-second social decisions. It's an efficient mental shortcut, but one that comes with trade-offs.

Once an interviewer forms an initial opinion, other cognitive biases often reinforce it.

• Confirmation bias encourages interviewers to notice information that supports their first impression while overlooking evidence that contradicts it.

  
  

• The halo (or horns) effect allows one standout trait, such as confidence, charisma, or nervousness, to influence perceptions of unrelated qualities like competence or technical ability.

  
  

• Appearance and similarity bias can also play a role. Research consistently shows that candidates who appear more polished or who remind interviewers of themselves often receive more favourable first impressions, even when those traits have little connection to actual job performance.

  
  

That said, recent research adds important nuance. A study examining more than 600 real interviews found that the popular claim that hiring decisions are fully made in the first 90 seconds is overstated. Strong answers throughout the interview still influence outcomes.

The takeaway isn't that first impressions determine everything, but they do shape the lens through which the rest of the conversation is interpreted.

The Hidden Cost of First Impression Bias

When first impressions go unchecked, they don't just lead to occasional hiring mistakes. They can gradually distort an entire recruitment process. Strong candidates may be overlooked because they're nervous, unfamiliar with the interview format, or simply need a few minutes to settle into the conversation. Meanwhile, highly charismatic candidates can leave a positive impression that outweighs weaknesses in experience or technical capability.

Over time, these patterns can also reduce diversity. Characteristics commonly interpreted as "professional" or "confident" often reflect familiarity with the interviewer's own communication style rather than genuine job readiness.

The consequences become visible later through poor hiring decisions, inconsistent interview outcomes, higher turnover, and recruitment processes that are difficult to justify with objective evidence.

Practical Ways to Reduce First Impression Bias

The goal isn't to eliminate first impressions; they're inevitable. The goal is to stop them from becoming the deciding factor.

Here are several proven ways to build more objective interviews:

• Use structured interviews. Ask every candidate the same core questions and evaluate responses using a consistent scoring rubric. Structured interviews consistently outperform unstructured conversations in predicting job success because they keep the focus on evidence rather than intuition.

  
  

• Separate early screening from visual impressions. Phone interviews or asynchronous screening can help assess experience and qualifications before appearance or body language influence perceptions.

  
  

• Include multiple interviewers. Diverse interview panels reduce the impact of any single person's snap judgment and create more balanced hiring decisions.

  
  

• Incorporate work samples or practical assessments. Having candidates complete job-related tasks provides direct evidence of their capabilities, making it much harder for first impressions to overshadow actual performance.

  
  

• Review interviews when appropriate. Recording interviews allows hiring teams to revisit responses with greater objectivity and compare evaluations more consistently.

  
  

• Be intentional about scheduling. Interviewer fatigue can lead to quicker, less thoughtful decisions later in the day. Planning interview schedules carefully helps maintain consistency across candidates.

  
  

First impressions will always influence interviews. That's simply part of human psychology.

The difference between a fair hiring process and a biased one isn't whether first impressions happen; it's whether your process prevents those impressions from quietly driving the final decision.

Structured interviews, standardised scorecards, diverse interview panels, and work-based assessments all help ensure candidates are evaluated on what matters most: their ability to succeed in the role.

When hiring decisions are grounded in evidence instead of instinct, organisations make better hires, improve consistency, and give every candidate a fair opportunity to demonstrate their strengths.