Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41262644›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Rejected by an AI? Comparing job applicants' fairness perceptions of artificial intelligence and humans in personnel selection.

Christine Malin, Jürgen Fleiß, Renate Ortlieb, Stefan Thalmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christine MalinBusiness Analytics and Data Science Center, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Jürgen FleißBusiness Analytics and Data Science Center, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Renate OrtliebDepartment of Human Resource Management, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Stefan ThalmannBusiness Analytics and Data Science Center, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceexplanationsfairness perceptionsjob applicantspersonnel selection

Identifiers

PMID41262644
PMCPMC12623313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.