Study finds the sound of a name can affect hiring choices

Researchers at Carleton University in Canada found that the sound of a person's name can influence hiring choices, with names described as "smoother" being more likely to be selected than those judged to sound harsher.

In an experiment, participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical job candidates when the only information provided was each candidate's name. The research team reported that names with softer phonetic qualities—such as Anne, Luna, Lewis, Miles and Warren—were more likely to be chosen, while names perceived as harsher, including Rita, Katie, Eric, Chris and Zach, were less likely to be selected.

"These results show the sound of a name might be one additional source of bias in hiring decisions," the study authors, Dr. David Dishu and Professor Mark Pexman, wrote in The Conversation. "When people don't have a lot of details about a candidate, it seems that there is much in a name."

The study focused on decisions made under limited information, a setting in which cues such as a name can carry disproportionate weight. The authors framed the results as evidence that phonetic qualities — the perceived smoothness or harshness of a name's sounds — may contribute to implicit biases during initial screening or when little other candidate information is available.

The findings received media attention, including a piece that listed 36 names said to be least likely to succeed in hiring contexts. The researchers' experiment did not assess hiring outcomes in real-world recruitment processes, where résumés, interviews and credentials provide additional data, but it highlights a potential mechanism by which names can affect first impressions.

Scholars have long examined how names can shape perceptions in social and professional contexts. The Carleton study adds a phonetics-focused dimension to that literature by isolating auditory qualities of names as a variable in choice tasks. The authors emphasized that their results represent one possible source of bias among many that can shape employment decisions.

The study's design—presenting only names and asking for a select-one choice—was tailored to reveal whether sound alone influences preference. The authors suggested the effect could be most relevant in early-stage evaluations or informal discussions where detailed information about candidates is lacking.

The researchers recommended awareness of subtle sources of bias when designing recruitment and screening procedures. They argued that practices reducing reliance on quick impressions or minimal cues could help mitigate the influence of factors unrelated to qualifications.

The work underscores how seemingly minor attributes can shape social judgments and adds to evidence that names can affect outcomes beyond personal identity, including in economic and professional domains. Further research will be needed to measure how phonetic name effects operate alongside standard hiring information in applied settings.