Recruiters prefer expert recommendations over digital hiring algorithm: a choice-based conjoint study in a pre-employment screening scenario

Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection

Artificial Intelligence (AI) as decision support for personnel preselection, e.g., in the form of a dashboard, promises a more effective and fairer selection process. However, AI-based decision support systems might prompt decision makers to thoughtlessly accept the system’s recommendation. As this so-called automation bias contradicts ethical and legal requirements of human oversight for the use of AI-based recommendations in personnel preselection, the present study investigates strategies to reduce automation bias and increase decision quality. Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model, we assume that instructing decision makers about the possibility of system errors and their responsibility for the decision, as well as providing an appropriate level of data aggregation should encourage decision makers to process information systematically instead of heuristically. We conducted a 3 (general information, information about system errors, information about responsibility) x 2 (low vs. high aggregated data) experiment to investigate which strategy can reduce automation bias and enhance decision quality. We found that less automation bias in terms of higher scores on verification intensity indicators correlated with higher objective decision quality, i.e., more suitable applicants selected. Decision makers who received information about system errors scored higher on verification intensity indicators and rated subjective decision quality higher, but decision makers who were informed about their responsibility, unexpectedly, did not. Regarding aggregation level of data, decision makers of the highly aggregated data group spent less time on the level of the dashboard where highly aggregated data were presented. Our results show that it is important to inform decision makers who interact with AI-based decision-support systems about potential system errors and provide them with less aggregated data to reduce automation bias and enhance decision quality.

Should I Trust the Artificial Intelligence to Recruit? Recruiters' Perceptions and Behavior When Faced With Algorithm-Based Recommendation Systems During Resume Screening

Resume screening assisted by decision support systems that incorporate artificial intelligence is currently undergoing a strong development in many organizations, raising technical, managerial, legal, and ethical issues. The purpose of the present paper is to better understand the reactions of recruiters when they are offered algorithm-based recommendations during resume screening. Two polarized attitudes have been identified in the literature on users' reactions to algorithm-based recommendations: algorithm aversion, which reflects a general distrust and preference for human recommendations; and automation bias, which corresponds to an overconfidence in the decisions or recommendations made by algorithmic decision support systems (ADSS). Drawing on results obtained in the field of automated decision support areas, we make the general hypothesis that recruiters trust human experts more than ADSS, because they distrust algorithms for subjective decisions such as recruitment. An experiment on resume screening was conducted on a sample of professionals (N = 694) involved in the screening of job applications. They were asked to study a job offer, then evaluate two fictitious resumes in a 2 × 2 factorial design with manipulation of the type of recommendation (no recommendation/algorithmic recommendation/human expert recommendation) and of the consistency of the recommendations (consistent vs. inconsistent recommendation). Our results support the general hypothesis of preference for human recommendations: recruiters exhibit a higher level of trust toward human expert recommendations compared with algorithmic recommendations. However, we also found that recommendation's consistence has a differential and unexpected impact on decisions: in the presence of an inconsistent algorithmic recommendation, recruiters favored the unsuitable over the suitable resume. Our results also show that specific personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, and self-confidence) are associated with a differential use of algorithmic recommendations. Implications for research and HR policies are finally discussed.

People versus machines: introducing the HIRE framework

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the recruitment process is becoming a more common method for organisations to hire new employees. Despite this, there is little consensus on whether AI should have widespread use in the hiring process, and in which contexts. In order to bring more clarity to research findings, we propose the HIRE (Human, (Artificial) Intelligence, Recruitment, Evaluation) framework with the primary aim of evaluating studies which investigate how Artificial Intelligence can be integrated into the recruitment process with respect to gauging whether AI is an adequate, better, or worse substitute for human recruiters. We illustrate the simplicity of this framework by conducting a systematic literature review on the empirical studies assessing AI in the recruitment process, with 22 final papers included. The review shows that AI is equal to or better than human recruiters when it comes to efficiency and performance. We also find that AI is mostly better than humans in improving diversity. Finally, we demonstrate that there is a perception among candidates and recruiters that AI is worse than humans. Overall, we conclude based on the evidence, that AI is equal to or better to humans when utilised in the hiring process, however, humans hold a belief of their own superiority. Our aim is that future authors adopt the HIRE framework when conducting research in this area to allow for easier comparability, and ideally place the HIRE framework outcome of AI being better, equal, worse, or unclear in the abstract.