Resume Screening, Fast and Slow: (Biased) AI Recommendations' Influence on Human Decision Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22213v1
• Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2026 20:22:04 GMT
• Title: Resume Screening, Fast and Slow: (Biased) AI Recommendations' Influence on Human Decision Making
• Abstract summary: We analyzed the time people spend viewing candidate resumes from an experiment investigating biased AI resume screening.<n>We found that spending more time viewing resumes corresponds to candidates' selection chance increasing by 3-4% if they are not recommended.<n>These results demonstrate how people's decision-making processes can be insufficient for overseeing AI in high-stakes domains.
• Score: 8.112078916511516
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: AI is increasingly being used collaboratively with people to make decisions in high-stakes domains, but this new paradigm is still not well-understood in many respects -- particularly regarding how AI that replicates human social biases influences people's decision making processes and how that can influence outcomes. In this study, we analyzed the time people spend viewing candidate resumes from an experiment investigating biased AI resume screening to evaluate decision-making fairness and cognitive processes underlying human-AI collaboration. We found that spending more time viewing resumes corresponds to candidates' selection chance increasing by 3-4% if they are not recommended, and people may spend up to 55.6% longer viewing resumes when no AI recommendations are given. Furthermore, people who completed an implicit association test (IAT) before resume screening were significantly more likely to evaluate candidates of different races for the same amount of time, and their IAT scores were also predictive of the time spent in human-AI collaboration. These results demonstrate how people's decision-making processes can be insufficient for overseeing AI in high-stakes domains.

Related papers

• Characterizing initial human-AI proof formalization workflows [66.06866890889131]
  Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs.<n>We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization.<n>A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T22:58:19Z)
• Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions [9.578382668831988]
  Human-AI collaboration increasingly drives decision-making across industries, from medical diagnosis to content moderation.<n>We know little about the psychological factors that determine when these collaborations succeed or fail.<n>We conducted a randomized experiment with 2,784 participants to examine how task design and individual characteristics shape human responses to AI-generated suggestions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T11:43:29Z)
• No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy [8.423021413553464]
  People collaborate with simulated AI models exhibiting race-based preferences (bias) to evaluate candidates for 16 high and low status occupations.<n>Simulated AI bias approximates factual and counterfactual estimates of racial bias in real-world AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T17:16:26Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Effects of AI Feedback on Learning, the Skill Gap, and Intellectual Diversity [4.8342038441006805]
  We investigate how AI use affects three interrelated long-term outcomes: learning, skill gap, and diversity of decision strategies. We show that individuals are far more likely to seek AI feedback in situations in which they experienced success rather than failure. As a result, access to AI feedback increases, rather than decreases, the skill gap between high- and low-skilled individuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T11:44:03Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The Impact of User Expertise and Algorithmic Tuning on Joint Decision Making [10.890854857970488]
  Many factors can impact success of Human-AI teams, including a user's domain expertise, mental models of an AI system, trust in recommendations, and more. Our study examined user performance in a non-trivial blood vessel labeling task where participants indicated whether a given blood vessel was flowing or stalled. Our results show that while recommendations from an AI-Assistant can aid user decision making, factors such as users' baseline performance relative to the AI and complementary tuning of AI error types significantly impact overall team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T21:39:58Z)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.