IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v179y2022ics0040162522001731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Employers’ and applicants’ fairness perceptions in job interviews: using a teleoperated robot as a fair proxy

Author

Listed:
  • Nørskov, Sladjana
  • Damholdt, Malene F.
  • Ulhøi, John P.
  • Jensen, Morten Berg
  • Mathiasen, Mia Krogager
  • Ess, Charles M.
  • Seibt, Johanna

Abstract

This research examines the perceived fairness of two types of job interviews: robot-mediated and face-to-face interviews. The robot-mediated interview tests the concept of a fair proxy in the shape of a teleoperated social robot. In Study 1, a mini-public (n=53) revealed four factors that influence fairness perceptions of the robot-mediated interview and showed how HR professionals’ perception of fair personnel selection is influenced by moral pragmatism despite clear moral awareness of discriminative biases in interviews. In Study 2, an experimental survey (n=242) conducted at an unemployment center showed that the respondents perceived the robot-mediated interview as fairer than the face-to-face interview. Overall, the studies suggest that HR professionals and jobseekers exhibit diverging fairness perceptions and that the business case for the robot-mediated interview undermines its social case (i.e., reducing discrimination). The paper concludes by addressing key implications and avenues for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nørskov, Sladjana & Damholdt, Malene F. & Ulhøi, John P. & Jensen, Morten Berg & Mathiasen, Mia Krogager & Ess, Charles M. & Seibt, Johanna, 2022. "Employers’ and applicants’ fairness perceptions in job interviews: using a teleoperated robot as a fair proxy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:179:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522001731
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522001731
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121641?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.
    2. Ritu Agarwal & Jayesh Prasad, 1998. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 204-215, June.
    3. Gaddis, S. Michael, 2015. "Discrimination in the Credential Society: An Audit Study of Race and College Selectivity in the Labor Market," SocArXiv 6qjue, Center for Open Science.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:512-520 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Gregory Hancock, 2001. "Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and mimic approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 373-388, September.
    6. Roehrich, Gilles, 2004. "Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 671-677, June.
    7. Bradley J. Ruffle & Ze'ev Shtudiner, 2015. "Are Good-Looking People More Employable?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1760-1776, August.
    8. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    9. Kouchaki, Maryam & Smith-Crowe, Kristin & Brief, Arthur P. & Sousa, Carlos, 2013. "Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 53-61.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 991-1013, September.
    11. Bas Hofstra & Vivek V. Kulkarni & Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez & Bryan He & Dan Jurafsky & Daniel A. McFarland, 2020. "The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(17), pages 9284-9291, April.
    12. Ledyard Tucker & Charles Lewis, 1973. "A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(1), pages 1-10, March.
    13. Goldin, Claudia D. & Rouse, Cecilia, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind†Auditions on Female Musicians," Scholarly Articles 30703974, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    14. Highhouse, Scott, 2008. "Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 333-342, September.
    15. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Madrid, Hector P., 2016. "Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-44.
    16. Segrest Purkiss, Sharon L. & Perrewe, Pamela L. & Gillespie, Treena L. & Mayes, Bronston T. & Ferris, Gerald R., 2006. "Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 152-167, November.
    17. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.
    18. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    19. Jennifer J. Roberts & Ruth Lightbody & Ragne Low & Stephen Elstub, 2020. "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 3-32, March.
    20. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E M & Baumgartner, Hans, 1998. "Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 78-90, June.
    21. Matej Drašček & Adriana Rejc Buhovac & Dana Mesner Andolšek, 2021. "Moral Pragmatism as a Bridge Between Duty, Utility, and Virtue in Managers’ Ethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(4), pages 803-819, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arsenyan, Jbid & Mirowska, Agata & Piepenbrink, Anke, 2023. "Close encounters with the virtual kind: Defining a human-virtual agent coexistence framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Fosso Wamba, Samuel & Queiroz, Maciel M. & Hamzi, Lotfi, 2023. "A bibliometric and multi-disciplinary quasi-systematic analysis of social robots: Past, future, and insights of human-robot interaction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adnan, Wifag & Arin, K. Peren & Charness, Gary & Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco, 2022. "Which social categories matter to people: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 125-145.
    2. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    3. Giovanni Busetta & Fabio Fiorillo & Giulio Palomba, 2021. "The impact of attractiveness on job opportunities in Italy: a gender field experiment," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(1), pages 171-201, April.
    4. Tito Boeri & Jan van Ours, 2013. "The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets: Second Edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10142.
    5. Dominique Meurs & Patrick A. Puhani, 2021. "Culture as a Hiring Criterion: Systemic Discrimination in a Procedurally Fair Hiring Process," RF Berlin - CReAM Discussion Paper Series 2106, Rockwool Foundation Berlin (RF Berlin) - Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).
    6. Chen, Yiu Por (Vincent) & Zhang, Yuan, 2018. "A decomposition method on employment and wage discrimination and its application in urban China (2002–2013)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Ulf Rinne, 2018. "Anonymous job applications and hiring discrimination," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-11, October.
    8. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Baert, Stijn, 2017. "Hiring Discrimination: An Overview of (Almost) All Correspondence Experiments Since 2005," GLO Discussion Paper Series 61, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    10. Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2018. "Do Equal Employment Opportunity Statements Backfire? Evidence From A Natural Field Experiment On Job-Entry Decisions," NBER Working Papers 25035, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Hamish Low & Luigi Pistaferri, 2019. "Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences," Economics Series Working Papers 889, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Dalton, Michael & Landry, Peter, 2020. "‘Overattention’ to first-hand experience in hiring decisions: Evidence from professional basketball," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 98-113.
    13. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    14. Solomon W. Polachek, 2019. "Equal pay legislation and the gender wage gap," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Seok Chan Jeong & Beom-Jin Choi, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Consumers’ Personal Innovativeness on the Adoption and Purchase Intention of Wearable Devices," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    16. J. Aislinn Bohren & Alex Imas & Michael Rosenberg, 2019. "The Dynamics of Discrimination: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(10), pages 3395-3436, October.
    17. Nikoloz Kudashvili & Philipp Lergetporer, 2019. "Do Minorities Misrepresent Their Ethnicity to Avoid Discrimination?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7861, CESifo.
    18. Fisman, Raymond & Paravisini, Daniel & Vig, Vikrant, 2016. "Cultural proximity and loan outcomes," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118974, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Xinlei (Jack) Chen & Xiaohua Zeng & Cheng Zhang, 2023. "Does Concealing Gender Identity Help Women Win the Competition? An Empirical Investigation into Online Video Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 551-568, May.
    20. Ian Ayres & Mahzarin Banaji & Christine Jolls, 2015. "Race effects on eBay," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 891-917, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:179:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522001731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.