Truace
Subscribe
68/100

Moderate evidence

Cite
More
Export CSVExport JSONEmailLinkedInX

In a 232-person experiment, generic AI rejection emails left applicants feeling less respected

Study title: How rejection letters from AI recruiters shape recruiter's prestige and experienced respect

Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sample
n = 232
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
2 min read
Truvace record
TRV-2026-2526cite or check it

Study title: How rejection letters from AI recruiters shape recruiter's prestige and experienced respect

Two online experiments tested what happens when an AI recruiter turns down a job applicant. Participants imagined applying for a Project Coordinator job and then received either a short generic rejection email or a longer one with personalization and an explanation. In the second study, with 232 adults, the generic email led people to see the recruiter as colder and more machine-like, which was tied to lower perceived prestige and less felt respect.

Read the study abstract

Introduction Organizations increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) in recruitment, yet little is known about how AI systems should communicate unfavorable outcomes such as rejection. The present research examined how type of rejection letters of an AI recruiter shape applicants' perceptions of the recruiter and their experienced respect. Methods Two experiments were conducted. In Study 1, the type of AI-generated rejection letter (considerate vs. typified) and applicants' employment status (unemployed…

The problem

In a scenario experiment with 232 adults, a generic AI rejection email made the recruiter seem more machine-like than a personalized, explained one, and that perception was linked to lower recruiter prestige and less felt respect.

In brief

The first study, with 197 adults, gave a narrower result. Generic letters made the recruiter seem more machine-like only among participants who were told their application showed a 2-year unemployment gap. Among those without a gap, letter type did not change how mechanical the recruiter seemed.

The second study tried to replicate this with real employment status: 150 employed people and 82 unemployed job seekers. Unemployment status did not change the effect of letter type there. Exploratory analyses suggested attitudes toward unemployed people played a role, so who feels the sting of a generic AI rejection is still unsettled.

Main points

  1. Study 2 included 232 adults from the UK, US and elsewhere: 150 employed and 82 unemployed and actively seeking a job.
  2. Study 1 included 197 adults and used a 2 (unemployed gap vs. control) by 2 (generic vs. considerate letter) design.
  3. A pilot of 80 employed UK adults confirmed the letters differed as intended; the full letter was rated most considerate (mean 5.10) and the mandatory-only letter least (mean 3.16).
  4. The considerate letter added personalization and an explanation to the standard thanks, decision, refusal and best wishes.
  5. In Study 1, generic letters raised perceived machine-likeness among participants framed as unemployed (effect 0.66, p = 0.01) but not among controls.
  6. In Study 2, generic letters raised machine-like ratings of the recruiter, and that rating was tied to lower recruiter prestige and lower experienced respect.
  7. In Study 2, the direct and total effects of letter type on experienced respect were both significant.

The full story

Participants recruited through Prolific in October and November 2025 imagined applying to a fictitious firm, IntraCOM UK, and were told an AI recruiter reviewed applications, assessed the interview and sent the decision. The vignette named no specific AI system, and the researchers did not measure participants' AI literacy.

The considerate letter used in the main studies added personalization and explanation to the standard components. Measures covered how machine-like the recruiter seemed (six items), perceived recruiter prestige (three items) and experienced respect (ten items). Study 1 also controlled for attitudes toward AI, belief that decision-making is uniquely human, and organizational conspiracy beliefs.

In Study 1, letter type alone did not significantly predict how machine-like the recruiter seemed. The interaction with employment status was significant (p = 0.04). Among participants framed as unemployed, the indirect effects of letter type on prestige (−0.35) and respect (−0.45) through machine-likeness were significant. Among controls they were not.

Study 2 was preregistered and recruited actual employed and unemployed participants. Letter type affected machine-likeness, and the indirect path to prestige and respect was significant. Employment status did not moderate the effect, which was an unexpected result. Exploratory analyses suggested attitudes toward unemployment shaped the interaction between letter type and employment status.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Frontiers in Organizational Psychologydoi:10.3389/forgp.2026.1933320
    Peer-reviewed2026-09-07

Talk it over

Four questions to start onWho carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?

Start with a question

In a 232-person experiment, generic AI rejection emails left applicants feeling less respectedhttps://truvace.com/item/how-rejection-letters-from-ai-recruiters-shape-recruiters-prestige-and-experienc

  1. Who carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?

    The problem In a scenario experiment with 232 adults, a generic AI rejection email made the recruiter seem more machine-like than a personalized, explained one, and that perception was linked to lower recruiter prestige and less felt respect.

    Answer in the thread

  2. How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?

    The evidence This rests on a controlled comparison with a sample of 232, from Frontiers in Organizational Psychology.

    Answer in the thread

  3. What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?

    The record’s own caveat Both studies were scenario-based experiments in which participants imagined being rejected, and the vignette did not specify any particular AI system, so real applicants' reactions may differ.

    Answer in the thread

  4. Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?

    Answer in the thread

The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.

What readers say

More from Labor