Truace
Subscribe
68/100

Moderate evidence

Cite
More
Export CSVExport JSONEmailLinkedInX

Job seekers screened by algorithm felt more dehumanised and less keen to apply, experiments find

Study title: The impact of algorithmic resume screening on applicants’ perceptions: the role of organisational dehumanisation

Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
2 min read
Truvace record
TRV-2026-2562cite or check it

Study title: The impact of algorithmic resume screening on applicants’ perceptions: the role of organisational dehumanisation

Three experiments compared algorithmic and human resume screening and found that algorithmic screening made applicants perceive higher organisational dehumanisation. In Study 1, with 249 participants, that perception was linked to lower intentions to pursue employment, reduced organisational attractiveness and more negative word-of-mouth.

Read the study abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine how algorithmic versus human resume screening shapes applicants’ perceptions of organisational dehumanisation (OD) and its consequences (i.e. intentions to pursue employment, organisational attractiveness and negative word-of-mouth). It explores one potential boundary condition of this relationship (i.e. negative attitudes towards artificial intelligence). Design/methodology/approach Three experimental studies were conducted on social media (Studies 1–2) and prolific academic (…

The problem

In three online experiments with 249, 210 and 392 participants, applicants whose resumes were screened by an algorithm rather than a person felt the employer treated them as less than human, and reported lower interest in the job, lower employer appeal and more negative word-of-mouth.

In brief

Studies 2a (210 participants) and 2b (392 participants) replicated the effects whether the applicant was accepted or rejected, and while controlling for perceptions of justice. The pattern therefore did not depend only on getting a bad outcome or on seeing the process as unfair.

Whether applicants' attitudes toward AI change the effect is less clear. Study 2a found stronger effects among people with negative attitudes toward artificial intelligence, but Study 2b did not replicate that interaction.

Main points

  1. Study 1 was a vignette experiment with 249 participants that varied whether a resume was screened by an algorithm or a human.
  2. Algorithmic screening increased perceived organisational dehumanisation, which was linked to lower intentions to pursue employment.
  3. The same perception was tied to reduced organisational attractiveness and more negative word-of-mouth about the employer.
  4. Studies 2a (n = 210) and 2b (n = 392) used a 2 × 2 design crossing screening type with acceptance or rejection.
  5. The effects held regardless of decision favourability and after controlling for justice perceptions.
  6. Study 2a found stronger effects among applicants with negative attitudes toward AI; Study 2b did not replicate this.
  7. Participants were recruited through social media (Studies 1 and 2) and Prolific Academic (Study 3).

The full story

The research tested how algorithmic versus human resume screening shapes applicants' perceptions of organisational dehumanisation and its downstream consequences. These were intentions to pursue employment, organisational attractiveness and negative word-of-mouth.

Study 1 (n = 249) used a vignette experiment manipulating the type of screening. Studies 2a (n = 210) and 2b (n = 392) used a 2 × 2 between-subjects design crossing screening type with decision favourability, and controlled for justice perceptions.

Across the studies, algorithmic screening raised dehumanisation perceptions and worsened the three employer outcomes, including when applicants were accepted. The role of negative attitudes toward AI as a boundary condition was inconsistent between Studies 2a and 2b.

Sources

1 on file
  1. International Journal of Organizational Analysisdoi:10.1108/ijoa-11-2025-6220
    Peer-reviewed2026-06-23

Talk it over

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

Start with a question

Job seekers screened by algorithm felt more dehumanised and less keen to apply, experiments findhttps://truvace.com/item/the-impact-of-algorithmic-resume-screening-on-applicants-perceptions-the-role-of

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

    The problem In three online experiments with 249, 210 and 392 participants, applicants whose resumes were screened by an algorithm rather than a person felt the employer treated them as less than human, and reported lower interest in the job, lower employer appeal and more negative word-of-mouth.

    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, from International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

    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 The moderating role of negative attitudes toward AI appeared in Study 2a but did not replicate in Study 2b, so that boundary condition remains unresolved.

    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