a model based on psychology research to help predict the job interview outcome by creating a job interview identity based on your level of job sector knowledge and experience vs your level of job interview confidence
Showing a lack of knowledge/experience creates a persona of being inexpert.
Knowledge and experience, at this level of job role, include soft skills: communication, teamwork, problem-solving. Voluntary employers may recruit a 2/4 – Inexpert, due to the interviewee’s sufficient level of confidence – as this shows potential, only if the pool of applicants is low.
Employers will be aware of the interviewee’s nervousness and lack of sector experience, which affects the job interview outcome, but some organisations could be willing to spend time to develop the applicant once employed.
Strengths
For voluntary positions interviewers ask, in the main, skill-based questions, “Give me an example of using customer service skills?” When discussing personal experiences (as they often lack job experience) relevant to the required skill(s), the 2/4 – Inexpert’s confidence is sufficient, enabling the interviewee to talk at ease.
Keeping focused on familiar topics, rather than pretending to be more aware about a subject than the applicant actually is, will increase self-belief during the job interview, improving likeability.
Development
When applying for low level positions, interviewers will stay away from challenging questions asked in more senior level roles. With this in mind, applicants need to follow rule 1 for a successful job interview – identifying the job criteria. By understanding which soft skills, the employer requires, the interviewee can create relevant answers highlighting these criteria.
The lack of knowledge/experience is the barrier here; as a result, increasing this slightly can make the difference between rejections and job offers. Knowledge and expertise are gained in two ways: work experience or education.
If voluntary roles (for experience) are hard to gain, the 2/4 – Inexpert needs to take the educational route. This can include entry level courses to GCSEs/BTECs or even specific short courses to gain skills and qualifications: a food-hygiene certificate for a catering role. The course choice will depend on the career goal for each individual.
What is important is that attending education improves knowledge/experience, giving the interviewee something relevant to discuss in the job interview.
Advice for the job interview
Relate answers to the job criteria to avoid going off topic. Replies lacking evidence of how an applicant can complete the job duties won’t score high
Use real-life examples to highlight a particular skill set. Discuss what actions you took, focusing the interview answer on your role within the team task
Generate conversations prior to the start of the interview and highlight commonalities, as this increases rapport
When all applicants have a wealth of experience and are able to confidently communicate their competencies, the interviewer will struggle when forced to choose one of the equally skilled interviewees.
It is often the smallest of things that can change the job interview outcome. Decisions can be made at the emotional level, not logically. It is this reason why the 6/8 – Charismatic applicant can have, in some interviews, an advantage over the 8/6 – Optimistic interviewee. The charismatic medium rather than high level of knowledge/experience, twinned with their high level of confidence creates a charming effect.
A medium knowledge/experience means that not all of the answers will be perfect. This lack of perfection, combined with a natural confident delivery, increases rapport as the illusion of vulnerability and authenticity is created. Interviewers, when making emotional decisions, buy-in to the individual, not the polished, faultless, and often robotic presentation of other high/high applicants.
With an above average competency level, industry knowledge is expressed well with the applicants, due to having the highest levels of confidence, repeatedly alluding to their accomplishments. It is the constant self-praise, used when referencing the job criteria, that concludes in a high-scoring interview.
The barrier is that other more experienced applicants may possess a PhD as an example, or a specialist skill that can only be obtained with 10+ years’ industry experience. To counter this, the often overly confident interviewees may attempt to frame answers in a way that creates the impression of having a knowledge level that they don’t possess.
Applicants have to be careful not to fall into the trap of sticking to their guns when challenged by an expert interviewer on a point they themselves are not an expert in. A lack of expertise, along with an argumentative approach (a common trait for an over-confident applicant) can break the charismatic spell.
Strengths
Few people have the ability to inspire awe in others.
Being charismatic doesn’t require someone to be wholly extroverted. Instead the charisma comes from presence. Interviewers, and people in general, are captivated by the communication style of a charismatic person.
In the job interview, the 6/8 – Charismatic interviewee is able to charm and influence the interview panel with a passionate and enthusiastic approach, gained through self-confidence, along with strong interpersonal skills.
The applicant’s openness and easy manner helps the interview panel to feel relaxed and comfortable. Another trait of charismatics is the ability to focus their whole attention on whoever is speaking, making the speaker feel important and appreciated.
They themselves are excellent orators, able to build trust through their unique positive communication style. Sentences are hypnotic, intriguing, interesting and informative. Listening to a charismatic speaker feels like you are watching a show.
Everything about a charismatic individual oozes likeability: warm smile, natural use of gestures, confident body language, eye contact, the ability to make small talk, storytelling, and detailing the job criteria.
When asked challenging questions, designed to put an interview on the backfoot, the charismatic interviewee doesn’t hesitate. The reply details the job criteria and is delivered in an entertaining way. Even questions on weaknesses are reframed with the focus being on what the applicant learnt from the situation, not the mistake itself.
This openness to share mistakes makes them seem more ‘human’ increasing their perceived employability potential. When in their element the 6/8 – Charismatic applicant won’t pretend to know all sector-related information. Instead, they use their gift as a conversationalist to uncover what details the employer was expecting and to frame the most relevant experiences to best meet the criteria.
Development
The medium rather high level of knowledge/experience is often the result of either a long duration in the industry while possessing a Level 4-5 qualification or a higher-level qualification but with only a few years’ sector experience.
Even with a charismatic personality, a lack of sector knowledge when compared to a more experienced applicant can be their undoing. An analytical expert interviewer may give a lower score when experiences are challenged and cross referenced against the scoring criteria on the interview scorecard.
Possessing a high confidence level leads to a natural ability to utilise rule 2 of a successful interview – self-promotion. By increasing knowledge on sector models and theories through a higher-level qualification or via direct experience, the 6/8 – Charismatic candidate can use any new learning to create higher scoring answers. But this option requires time.
Gaining an understanding of non-sector related models and theories that are relevant to the advertised position will benefit the applicant. An example of this could include a competent understanding of project planning, strategic thinking and commercial acumen for senior management roles.
Charismatic individuals are liked, even admired. The employer wants them to do well. With this in mind, an applicant can embed key phrases gained from identifying the job criteria throughout the job interview. The regular referencing of criteria can result in a positive assumption of the applicant’s suitability by the employer.
This is a dangerous game when challenged on any areas of low expertise. Better to gain the required skills and experience needed for a senior level position.
Advice for the job interview
Highlight a wealth of knowledge by explaining how models from another job sector can be utilised within the position being applied for. Presenting new information helps an applicant stand out as most interviewees state similar experiences to each other
Know the job criteria inside and out; in one answer reference one criteria while talking in detail about another. In the second answer, detail another criteria while referencing a previous criteria. This multiple referencing of criteria approach creates the perspective of someone highly knowledgeable
Discuss future industry changes, new opportunities and sector threats, or industry risk, to show a strategic viewpoint
Understanding how one’s level of knowledge and experience is perceived by an interviewer is often misunderstood.
The unconscious bias created the first impression when the interviewer and interviewee were both introduced to each other. As the first interview question is asked the interviewee’s level of knowledge and experience can alter (or reinforce) the initial assessment.
The schema, fired by the initial meeting, subconsciously creates a prediction that the interviewer will be expecting (cause and effect) on how an applicant will react to a question. When this pattern is interrupted via a confident self-promoting answer, for a perceived nervous candidate, the interviewer’s mind becomes fully alert. It’s the same process when you are walking through a busy town center, minding your own business when a car backfires – you become instantly alert (your conscious mind kicks into action – in this case looking for danger) because something isn’t as it is expected to be; the pattern of walking from A to B was interrupted. In the job interview, the interruption of a pattern (initial impression = unsuitable for this position) creates a second chance for an applicant to redeem themselves.
The interview environment is an analytical process whereas the original opinion of an applicant is subconscious. Because interviewers are forced to be highly conscious, in the interview environment, analysing the interviewee’s answers, a new funnel can be created through the creation of an interview identity.
Within a structured interview process, the interviewers will be making notes that they later reference against the score criteria. An applicant who is referencing the high scoring criteria, especially when delivered in a confident manner, can be seen in a new light overriding the pre-interview assessment.
Therefore the perceived level of knowledge and experience is, in the main, a logical process; the interviewee states or doesn’t state the criteria on the scorecard. The initial bias, though, can still influence the logical decision, potentially giving a point higher or lower than a similarly skilled candidate, delivering an identical answer who didn’t create the same bias at the interview start.
Imagine, as an example, that an interviewer doesn’t believe a female should perform a traditionally masculine role. The initial bias is a negative one. As the female candidate states her skills, knowledge and expertise with a confident and charismatic delivery style, the interviewer is swayed and the limiting belief is first interrupted then changed – this female is suitable for a traditionally masculine role. The next candidate has the same experience, skills and qualifications as the female applicant, but is male. Even if both the female and male applicants possessed the same experiences, gained working for the same employer, and, word-for-word, gave the same answer, it is likely that the interviewer will score the male candidate higher due to their initial schema.
It is very common for employers to be torn between two similar scoring applicants. While reviewing the allocated points against the job criteria, it is often the intuitive ‘gut’ feeling (affected easily by bais) that makes the difference between an applicant being offered the position over another equally suited candidate.
Do you know the difference between successful career professionals and those who get left behind?
“Career success comes from interview success“
To develop your interview skills research explains that you need to follow 3 interview rules
Rule 1 – Identify the Job Criteria
Rule 2 – Be a Self-Promoter
Rule 3 – Communciate with Confidence
To improve your interview ability use the 10 interview reflection questions
Interview Reflection Question 1 How did you showcase your strengths?
Interview Reflection Question 2 Which question(s) did you answer well?
Interview Reflection Question 3 Which job criteria did your answers reference?
Interview Reflection Question 4 In what way did you actively promote yourself?
Interview Reflection Question 5 How did you portray confidence?
Interview Reflection Question 6 What do you need to do differently?
Interview Reflection Question 7 Which question(s) were you less confident in answering?
Interview Reflection Question 8 In which way did you show nervousness?
Interview Reflection Question 9 How did you self-disclose weaknesses?
Interview Reflection Question 10 What do you need to do to improve your interview performance?
By reflecting on your job interview process you can review what you need to develop in terms of increasing job offers. When answering these 10 job interview reflection questions for several of your previous job interviews, not just one. This collated data will allow you to understand in your job interview performance meets the 3 interview success rules
During the job interview and in generic social interactions, humans want to be ‘accepted’ and will avoid situations that draw negative attention towards them.
Being seen as weak or vulnerable is perceived to be negative. This ‘weakness’ rule is prevalent in the job interview, not only with an interviewee but with an interviewer.
If a candidate states they have expertise in an industry sub-niche that the employer isn’t familiar with, many interviewers, depending on their level of self-esteem, will make reference to the sub-niche but wont specifically question the interviewee on their knowledge level.
The belief is, if the applicant knows more about the sub-niche then the interviewer, the interviewer will look weak. An ‘expert’ interviewer, an interviewer with the highest levels of knowledge and experience, or a highly confident interviewer, will happily challenge the candidate to test the levels of expertise to help predict the applicant’s job performance levels.
When being interviewed by an interviewer with a low level of knowledge/experience within a sub-niche, a self-promoter (possessing high levels of confidence) recognising a lack of employer expertise, is likely to increase self-promotion during the answer to this specific question to create authority.
A confident applicant attempting to trick an ‘expert’ interviewer into thinking that they possess a higher level of knowledge/experience than is true, will do so to their detriment. Interestingly, the applicants at the extreme end of high levels of confidence (the extremist being a narcissist), will argue a point with an ‘expert’ interviewer who is an authority on the subject, even when evidence contrary to their statements has been presented.
The goal of an interview, for the employer, is to assess an applicant’s job performance not provoke that applicant’s behaviour, but as each cause has an effect, all actions influence the interviewee’s behaviour.
One reason why many interview processes start with asking non-job-related questions “did you find us OK?” or explaining the organisations history, is to help to relax the candidate so they can, ideally, be ‘themselves.’ As explained, this ideal is impossible, as each applicant is affected by the behaviour of the interviewer.
Understanding how the subconscious cause and effect influences the recruitment process explains why the job interview process isn’t as fair people believe it is.
Recognising their interview identity allows an applicant to develop aspects of their persona within the interview environment to create a more positive perspective from the employer’s viewpoint.
A psychological barrier to a successful interview outcome is ‘projection’. When an interviewer has a strong dislike, based on a prejudice, that makes them uncomfortable – “I don’t think females should work in masculine jobs but I know I shouldn’t be thinking this” they will deflect their own emotional turmoil by projecting their emotions onto the applicant.
This reaction, which is common in all areas of life, is a self-defense mechanism. Humans are more comfortable observing negative qualities in others then confronting a negative trait that detracts from the identity they are portraying to the world.
Projecting emotions or beliefs onto others, that they themselves are struggling to come to terms with, is just easier.
But projection has a secondary implication: If the interviewer dislikes someone (because of a deep-rooted prejudice) and projects this feeling on to the candidate, they can then come to believe that the candidate themselves dislikes them, the interviewer.
Evidence shows that people like other people more if they believe that said person likes them first. If the interviewer presumes that the candidate dislikes them, there will be a decrease in rapport.
Dyadic social interaction research shows that individuals will reciprocate the behavior that is projected by another person. If, for example, an interviewer has good eye contact and smiles at the applicant, the applicant will reciprocate the behaviour.
The reaction to these nonverbal cues can alter the applicant’s level of confidence. A ‘warm’ interviewer, offering encouragement with smiles and nods of the head, will increase the interviewee’s confidence levels. In contrast, a ‘cold’ interviewer, frowning and tutting, will reduce the candidate’s confidence and self-esteem.
Applicants with low self-esteem perform as well as high self-esteem candidates when interviewed by a ‘warm’ interviewer (both interviewee types will discuss their knowledge/experience) but when interviewed by a cold interviewer, the low self-esteem applicant is more likely to withdraw.
The employer, perceiving the lack of communication as an indication of a low level of knowledge/experience, can also withdraw becoming more ‘cold.’ This ‘cold cycle’ process rarely allows the interviewee to promote their skill set, resulting in a distorted version of the applicant, as an inaccurate and unfair assessment of the candidate has been created.
As mentioned earlier highly confident interviewees, through their ability to externalise the interviewer’s behaviour, are rarely affected by a ‘cold’ interview.
An interviewer’s temperament, beliefs and actions within a job interview can create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If, for instance, an interviewer has a subconscious negative bias towards an applicant, due to any number of characteristics, their behaviour towards the candidate will be influenced. This behaviour indirectly affects how the applicant acts.
The applicant, now (potentially) acting out of character, confirms the interviewer’s initial negative assessment, resulting in a less than favourable scoring, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This process is more persistent with low confidence candidates who are more inclined to internalize the negative behaviour of an interviewer, believing they, the interviewee, have given cause for the interviewer to act in this way. This belief further decreases the candidates confidence levels.
For high self-esteem applicants, this initial assessment, and therefore the interviewer’s behaviour, rarely impacts the interview performance.
High level of confidence candidates will take a similar approach to the interview regardless of the interviewer’s behaviour due to the ability to externalize the interviewer’s actions, believing the actions are in no way a reflection of them, the applicant. The result of which is continuous self-promotion, delivered with conviction.
This contrast between the initial impression of a candidate and the observation of the interviewee not conforming to type, can be a powerful ‘pattern interrupt’ that results in a subconscious change of assessment.
Even with blatant evidence contradicting a schema, some interviewers with a strong belief, based as an example, on ethnicity or sex, will be ‘blind’ to the reality presented to them.
Evidence shows that the way an interviewee perceives the interviewer, positive or negative, will be, in most cases, the same view the interviewer has of the applicant.
One way humans understand other people’s actions is through mirror-neurons. When an interviewer frowns, smiles or, as an example, shows disgust via a fleeting micro-expression, the applicant’s mind, using mirror-neurons duplicates the expression, accessing the same emotional response the interviewer is feeling.
Using the interview prediction grid, a career professional can gain an insight into how an employer will view them in the job interview and improve any areas of weakness.
Bias, prejudice and stereotypes create an initial impression (a filter) that interview answers are processed through. As this interview perception process is automatic, interviewers are often unaware of how their opinion of an applicant is influenced.
Not all biases are negative; the ‘affinity’ bias shows that it is advantageous to have shared experiences or beliefs with the interviewer, even when the similarity is minimal – both the interviewee and interviewer attended the same university.
Similarity is so powerful that believing an applicant has the same opinions (gained from the candidate’s social media feed, application form or from hearsay – the comments of other department team leaders for an internal vacancy), the interviewer will create a positive pre-interview opinion of the applicant affecting the job interview outcome. And in the interview itself, if the interviewer subconsciously believes the interviewee ‘likes’ them, through reciprocal liking, they will favour the applicant more, even if there is an absence of similarity.
Therefore what an interviewer reads, views or believes has a powerful effect on how they initially view each candidate and if they will be predisposed to ‘like’ them or not.
Recruitment professionals are aware that prejudices are subconscious and many will disagree with the negative stereotype. Organsiations even go to the trouble of training HR staff to understand the effect of unconscious bias in the recruitment process.
Even with awareness, automatic processing happens. Within milliseconds of meeting a candidate an impression, a prejudice, is formed through that interviewer’s experiences (an interviewer may have lived in a household where the stereotype was regularly expressed).
Because the bias is automatic it can’t be stopped, it simply pops into one’s mind. For example, the stereotype “women can’t perform male roles” can be the initial thought as an interviewer meets a new applicant, even if the interviewer doesn’t consciously believe the stereotype to be true. The automatic response to seeing a stimuli is just too powerful, the (stereotype) appears without warning.
To counter this automatic process an interviewer can consciously override it, by searching for evidence that disproves the belief “Janis our best performer is female and works in a stereotypical male role.” This is the conscious mind (the slow thinking analytical part of the brain) in play.
This conscious overriding of automatic thinking is harder to complete when stressed or tired – towards the end of a full day of interviewing candidates.
If the interviewer believes the prejudice, they are more likely to go with their schema rather than to challenge it, making it harder for the applicant with that (characteristic) to create a positive impression.
A racist or sexist interviewer, as an example, will be predisposed to conform to their bias even when the applicant has high levels of knowledge/experience and high levels of confidence. The interviewer’s beliefs are simply too powerful to alter their perspective, even when evidence is presented proving the value of hiring said candidate.
There are, of course, people who do not have an automatic process for (stimuli = stereotype) and won’t be affected by the (prejudice). At the interview start, even though an initial opinion will be formed (possibly from a second schema), the said interviewer won’t be affected by the first stereotypical belief.
Legislation is helping to create a fair recruitment campaign. Non-job related factors; age, race, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc that can be used to discriminate against certain applicants are no longer allowed to be considered as part of the application process.
An example of this is organisations no longer being allowed to advertise for a job role that requires the applicant to have ‘a number of industry years experience’ (age discrimination).
Even though, in this example, an older applicant can be offered a job interview based on their application form without their age being taken into consideration, in the interview itself a prejudice based on how old they appear to be, can be created subconsciously, affecting the older applicants interview scores.
Interestingly there is no legislation around physical attractiveness in a recruitment campaign even though the evidence is proving the ‘beautiful is good’ schema to be true. One answer to this would be job interviews based on the TV show ‘the voice,’ where singing auditions are judged blindly and judges can only ‘turn their chair around’ once they pick an auditionee, based on their skill set alone (in this case their voice.)
The evidence states that it is impossible for each applicant to receive a ‘fair’ interview, as candidates are judged differently by the interviewer(s) at an unconscious level.
This could be the difference between an interviewer, who sees commonality with themselves and the interviewee, subconsciously encouraging a candidate, due to high levels of likeability, to give a higher scoring answer or, due to an interviewers negative projection, will hear the applicant answers less favourable then the evidence suggest they actually are, resulting in a lower score.
Or due to a schema based on, as an example, physical appearance, or a stereotype, or a long-held belief, an interviewers bias can affect the applicant’s ability to showcase their predicted job performance.
To override an initial negative prejudice, an applicant, by highlighting their high-level sector knowledge/experience and high level of confidence during the first interview questions can create an ‘interview identity’ that becomes the interviewer’s new filter, often bypassing the initial cynical impression, unless the said answers show a low level of knowledge/experience and low level of confidence which, instead of helping an applicants cause, reinforces the primary bias.
A common bias in play is gender stereotypes; males are often viewed as strong and dominant and women as emotional and caring, which can, unconsciously, create a job interview bias.
Not only that, evidence indicates that equally qualified males and females are not viewed as equals and, once employed, can receive varying salaries. In 2017 the UKs equality act came into force, making organisations with 250+ employees to report their gender pay gap figures.
The BBC, one of the largest UK organisations, in 2017, became embroiled in controversy when it published a list of its highest earning presenters. The report showed that around two-thirds of presenters earning +£150,000 annually were male presenters, with all the top 7 biggest earners being men.
Job gender stereotypes and attraction are linked. The ‘beauty is beastly’ stereotype shows how an ‘attractive’ female applying for a ‘masculine’ job role can be rated lower than an ‘unattractive’ female with the same skill set.
For masculine or feminine roles, if the applicant fits within the job gender stereotypical (IE males applying for masculine positions and females for feminine roles), and are viewed as an ‘attractive’ applicant, they will be perceived to be more qualified then less attractive counterparts. Additional research shows how overweight females are viewed less favourably than overweight males.
Currently, much of the ‘beauty is beastly’ stereotype experiments have been conducted in the laboratory not in the field, meaning more research is required to fully understand the subconscious decision based on job gender stereotypes and perception.
What we are learning from this research is how the career/gender schema affects the interviewers’ view of each candidate and how bias has an underlying, often inaccurate, cause-effect; ‘obese’ employees are less worthy then a ‘healthy’ applicant or that an ‘attractive’ applicant possesses certain positive characteristics.
Where does this leave applicants? We know stereotypes exist. It is clear that schemas affect the recruitment process. Does this mean that all obese or unattractive applicants fail to gain employment? Clearly not. As discussed in earlier articles, commonality increases likability and for high skilled roles, an applicant’s level of knowledge/experience, when communicated confidently, is one of the key factors for a successful interview outcome and can override the ‘beauty is good’ stereotype.
To understand how your level of knowledge/experience and level confidence changes the employers perspective of you in a job interview read the Interview Prediction Grid article.
A job interview bias found to influence the selection process is ‘attractiveness.’
Much evidence confirms that most people have a “what is beautiful is good” stereotype; the more physically attractive an applicant is, the more they are perceived to be job worthy – even for job roles that don’t require a ‘beautiful’ employee (manufacturing, administration, etc.)
To test the attractiveness bias, the same ‘average’ level CVs were graded for a potential job role. Half of the CVs had attached to them a photograph of an ‘attractive’ applicant and the other half was sent without a picture.
The experiment concluded that the additional ‘attractive’ photograph assisted those candidates in gaining a job interview invitation. Interestingly, for different levels of skill sets, one applicant meeting the job criteria more than another, the lack of ‘attractive’ image for the more skilled applicant did not hinder their chances.
Also with high-skilled jobs, attractiveness of a candidate was mainly insignificant. This shows that ‘attractiveness’ creates a positive bias, but having a high level of knowledge/experience when applying for a professional position trumps this schema.
Being physically attractive strengthens the interviewers likability of the applicant and increases sympathy towards them, improving the interviewees overall chances of being hired. The schema – ‘what is beautiful is good’, and for all other prejudices, creates the initial bias that proceeding answers are filtered through.
For positions that would benefit from an ‘attractive’ employee (customer service roles, TV presents, etc) the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype has a stronger preference or filter, increasing how an ‘attractive’ interviewee is viewed by a recruiter.
This is because attractiveness has an association with other positive traits – we subconsciously believe attractive people to be mature, sociable, friendly, well-adjusted and happy. But attractiveness alone isn’t enough to secure job offers, rather it just creates a positive bias at the interview start.
Interestingly though, recent research showed that recruitment decisions were influenced more by ‘attractiveness’ for unstructured job interviews compared to structured interviews. Structured interviews use a score system based on job criteria, and even though ‘good looking’ applicants have increased likability, they are still required to have a certain set of skills, showing the importance of self-promotion in the job interview for candidates with high levels of knowledge/experience.
The interviewer listening to the self-promotion of a strong candidate is consciously analysing the answer against the job criteria. During an informal job interview, the interviewer does ask questions but each question is spontaneous, based on the conversation created in the moment, rather than the pre-set questions of a structured interview.
The theory of the free-flowing style of the unstructured job interview is that it allows the interviewee to relax, and therefore open-up more, showing their true self, allowing the interviewer to gauge an accurate view of the interviewee and their potential job performance.
Without a scoring system, though, it is hard to compare one candidate against another creating a logical hiring decision. Instead, the conversational style interview results in a ‘gut’ instinct decision making process. For an emotional decision making process, schemas such as ‘beauty is good’, are more prevalent.
