IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05444056.html

“It Feels Wrong”: Understanding Reactions to Artificial Intelligence as a Decision‐Maker in Selection Through the Lens of Moral Foundations Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Agata Mirowska

    (NEOMA - Neoma Business School)

  • Jbid Arsenyan

    (Rennes SB - Rennes School of Business)

Abstract

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making in the workplace poses a moral issue beyond mere technology acceptance, considering the potential consequences of algorithmic management to individuals' professional well-being. In view of its pluralistic approach to human morality, we adopt Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) as our theoretical lens through which to study reactions to AI-led decision-making in selection. Using a qualitative approach, we explore individuals' reactions to the idea of AI-evaluated interviews, mapping these reactions onto moral foundations, identifying novel sub-themes specific to the context of AI in selection. Using 33 interviews with working adults, we find that all six moral foundations -care, fairness, authority, loyalty, sanctity, and liberty -are evoked when discussing the implementation of AI in selection. We discuss how these moral foundations manifest themselves in this AI decision making context, and articulate theoretical and practical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Agata Mirowska & Jbid Arsenyan, 2025. "“It Feels Wrong”: Understanding Reactions to Artificial Intelligence as a Decision‐Maker in Selection Through the Lens of Moral Foundations Theory," Post-Print hal-05444056, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05444056
    DOI: 10.1111/ijsa.70039
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05444056v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05444056v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ijsa.70039?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Libby Bishop & Arja Kuula-Luumi, 2017. "Revisiting Qualitative Data Reuse," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440166, January.
    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. Adam Kadri & Penny Rapaport & Gill Livingston & Claudia Cooper & Sarah Robertson & Paul Higgs, 2018. "Care workers, the unacknowledged persons in person-centred care: A secondary qualitative analysis of UK care home staff interviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Jiang, Kan & Zheng, Junyuan & Luo, Shaohua, 2024. "Green power of virtual influencer: The role of virtual influencer image, emotional appeal, and product involvement," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Mandy Wigdorowitz & Marton Ribary & Andrea Farina & Eleonora Lima & Daniele Borkowski & Paola Marongiu & Amanda H. Sorensen & Christelle Timis & Barbara McGillivray, 2024. "It Takes a Village! Editorship, Advocacy, and Research in Running an Open Access Data Journal," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-10, August.
    4. Mackintosh, Nicola & Gong, Qian (Sarah) & Hadjiconstantinou, Michelle & Verdezoto, Nervo, 2021. "Digital mediation of candidacy in maternity care: Managing boundaries between physiology and pathology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    5. Kahryn Hughes & Jason Hughes & Anna Tarrant, 2022. "Working at a remove: continuous, collective, and configurative approaches to qualitative secondary analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 375-394, April.
    6. Anneke Zuiderwijk, 2024. "Researchers’ Willingness and Ability to Openly Share Their Research Data: A Survey of COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Factors," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, March.
    7. Doris Bambey & Louise Corti & Michael Diepenbroek & Heidemarie Hanekop & Betina Hollstein & Sabine Imeri & Hubert Knoblauch & Susanne Kretzer & Christian Meier zu Verl & Christian Meyer & Alexia Meyer, 2018. "Archivierung und Zugang zu Qualitativen Daten," RatSWD Working Papers 267, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    8. Liu, Fanjue & Lee, Yu-Hao, 2024. "Virtually responsible? Attribution of responsibility toward human vs. virtual influencers and the mediating role of mind perception," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Vigan Raca & Goran Velinov & Stefan Dzalev & Margita Kon-Popovska, 2022. "A Framework for Evaluation and Improvement of Open Government Data Quality: Application to the Western Balkans National Open Data Portals," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    10. Karin Schwiter & Julia Nentwich & Marisol Keller, 2021. "Male privilege revisited: How men in female‐dominated occupations notice and actively reframe privilege," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 2199-2215, November.
    11. Libby Hemphill & Amy Pienta & Sara Lafia & Dharma Akmon & David A. Bleckley, 2022. "How do properties of data, their curation, and their funding relate to reuse?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(10), pages 1432-1444, October.
    12. Catherine Dodds & Peter Keogh & Adam Bourne & Lisa McDaid & Corinne Squire & Peter Weatherburn & Ingrid Young, 2021. "The Long and Winding Road: Archiving and Re-Using Qualitative Data from 12 Research Projects Spanning 16 Years," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(2), pages 269-287, June.
    13. Nate Breznau, 2021. "Does Sociology Need Open Science?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Nushrat Khan & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2021. "Measuring the impact of biodiversity datasets: data reuse, citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3621-3639, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-05444056. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.