ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Rejected by an AI? Comparing job applicants' fairness perceptions of artificial intelligence and humans in personnel selection.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceived AI interview design and organizational attractiveness: the roles of social presence, telepresence, and AI literacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) transforms personnel selection, but the application of AI raises fairness concerns and aversion towards AI. Although job applicants may perceive the selection process as fairer when they receive an explanation for the decision, scientific knowledge about AI-related fairness perceptions in this setting is limited. This paper investigates how job applicants perceive fairness of an AI-based personnel selection process considering explanations provided. Methods: The hypotheses are based on a theoretical framework about fairness and literature on algorithm aversion. Data were collected through a vignette-style method focusing on four personnel selection scenarios ( Results: We show that provided explanations increase job applicants' perceptions of outcome fairness, process fairness, interpersonal treatment, and recommendation intention, irrespective of the decision being made by an AI or human. Discussion: We provide conclusions for algorithmic decision-making and discuss factors that need to be considered when adopting and designing AI so that AI is perceived as fair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.