IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i9p3840-d1388053.html

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Making Human Resource Management Decisions on Fairness: A Case of Resume Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Fei Cai

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Jiashu Zhang

    (Department of Construction and Real Estate, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Lei Zhang

    (Research Center of Smart City, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China)

Abstract

A growing number of organizations have used artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions to replace human resource (HR) workers; yet, the fairness perceptions of the people affected by the decision are still unclear. Given that an organization’s sustainability is significantly influenced by individuals’ perceptions of fairness, this study takes a resume-screening scenario as an example to explore the impact of AI replacing humans on applicants’ perceptions of fairness. This study adopts the method of the online scenario experiment and uses SPSS to analyze the experimental data: 189 and 214 people, respectively, participated in two online scenarios, with two independent variables of decision makers (AI and humans), two dependent variables of procedural and distributive fairness, and two moderating variables of outcome favorability and the expertise of AI. The results show that the applicants tend to view AI screening resumes as less fair than humans. Furthermore, moderating effects exist between the outcome favorability and the expertise of AI. This study reveals the impact of AI substituting for humans in decision-making on fairness. The proposed model can help organizations use AI to screen resumes more effectively. And future research can explore the collaboration between humans and AI to make human resource management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fei Cai & Jiashu Zhang & Lei Zhang, 2024. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Making Human Resource Management Decisions on Fairness: A Case of Resume Screening," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3840-:d:1388053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3840/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3840/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    2. Augustyn, Megan Bears & Ward, Jeffrey T., 2015. "Exploring the sanction–crime relationship through a lens of procedural justice," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 470-479.
    3. Brockner, Joel & Wiesenfeld, Batia M. & Martin, Christopher L., 1995. "Decision Frame, Procedural Justice, and Survivors' Reactions to Job Layoffs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 59-68, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    2. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    3. Siliang Tong & Nan Jia & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang, 2021. "The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(9), pages 1600-1631, September.
    4. Shengyu Cao & Ming Hu, 2026. "Collusive Pricing Under LLM," Papers 2601.01279, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    5. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    6. Maya Balakrishnan & Kris Johnson Ferreira & Jordan Tong, 2026. "Human-Algorithm Collaboration with Private Information: Naïve Advice-Weighting Behavior and Mitigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 265-284, January.
    7. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    8. Moshe Glickman & Tali Sharot, 2025. "How human–AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 345-359, February.
    9. Gómez de Ágreda, Ángel, 2020. "Ethics of autonomous weapons systems and its applicability to any AI systems," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    10. Yao, Xintong & Xi, Yipeng, 2024. "Pathways linking expectations for AI chatbots to loyalty: A moderated mediation analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    11. Liu, Yiming & Wang, Tianhong, 2025. "Treating differently or equally: A study exploring attitudes towards AI moral advisors," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. Chacon, Alvaro & Kausel, Edgar E. & Reyes, Tomas & Trautmann, Stefan, 2025. "Preventing algorithm aversion: People are willing to use algorithms with a learning label," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    14. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    15. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    16. Wang, Xun & Rodrigues, Vasco Sanchez & Demir, Emrah & Sarkis, Joseph, 2024. "Algorithm aversion during disruptions: The case of safety stock," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    17. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    18. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    19. Kim, Jeong Hyun & Kim, Jungkeun & Baek, Tae Hyun & Kim, Changju, 2025. "ChatGPT personalized and humorous recommendations," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    20. Chen, Yaqi & Wang, Haizhong & Rao Hill, Sally & Li, Binglian, 2024. "Consumer attitudes toward AI-generated ads: Appeal types, self-efficacy and AI’s social role," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3840-:d:1388053. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.