Exclusively from Cambridge: The importance of being last

Is winning in competitions or job interviews down to sheer ability of the contestants or does the order in which contestants perform also play a significant role? Lionel Page and Katie Page, the researchers from the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge and the Heythrop College at the University of London respectively, seem to have an answer to this somehow intriguing question.

The analysis of data from over 150 shows worldwide in the X-Factor and Idol series led the researchers to suggest that irrespective of ability contestants performing in the later positions are less likely to be eliminated in the following rounds. While, contestants that performed in the early and intermediary positions are more likely to be subject to elimination. It also appears that the first performer is less likely to be eliminated than either the second or third placed contestants.

According to Dr Lionel Page, one of this study’s authors, “in a job interview process a very good applicant who is the second or third interviewee seen, may be less likely to get the job because he/she is less likely to be remembered than the later candidates. This is both unfair for the candidate and inefficient for the organisation which may not select the best candidate for the post. It really does appear that the last shall be first”.

The results of this study show that two mechanisms, memory and direct comparison, both play a significant role in the evaluation of people’s performance. Memory-wise both primacy and recency effects are implicated when sequentially evaluating performance. With respect to the primacy effect, people who perform first are more likely to be positively evaluated than those who come in second and third positions. Whereas, a strong recency effect is implied in that people who perform in last positions have the largest advantage with respect to positive evaluations. Also, the authors of this study provide compelling evidence on the importance of a direct comparison effect with the previous contestant. More specifically, the evaluation of one participant’s performance is influenced by the evaluation of the previous participant’s performance. For example, a person performing after a weak contestant is more likely to be evaluated less favourably than a person performing after a strong contestant. There is also strong evidence that people put more effort and motivation into their performance after having witnessed the previous performance and this in turn results in the evolution in contestants’ actual performance rather than the change in the judges’ criteria.

While more research in this subject remains to be done, it raises important questions about the fairness of any competition’s evaluation process and the efficiency of the judges.

More detailed information about this interesting research can be found in the Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation.