Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Experience and Adaptation in AI-mediated Hiring Systems: A Combined Analysis of Online Discourse and Interface Design

Md Nazmus Sakib, Naga Manogna Rayasam, Sanorita Dey

TL;DR

The paper addresses the problem of candidate uncertainty in AI-mediated hiring and evaluates how increased familiarity with large language models reshapes expectations. It combines large-scale online discourse analysis with two empirical studies (one exploratory, one design-and-evaluation) to uncover gaps in transparency, accountability, and candidate support. The authors deploy a Self-Determination Theory–inspired interface with response and feedback variants to test autonomy, competence, and relatedness, finding that editing, flexible response options, and combined motivational-evaluative feedback improve user experience, though design details critically affect cognitive load and perceived authenticity. The work advances practical guidelines for transparent, candidate-centered AI interviews and highlights the need to move beyond performance accuracy toward humane, equitable interaction in automated hiring systems.

Abstract

Automated interviewing tools are now widely adopted to manage recruitment at scale, often replacing early human screening with algorithmic assessments. While these systems are promoted as efficient and consistent, they also generate new forms of uncertainty for applicants. Efforts to soften these experiences through human-like design features have only partially addressed underlying concerns. To understand how candidates interpret and cope with such systems, we conducted a mixed empirical investigation that combined analysis of online discussions, responses from more than one hundred and fifty survey participants, and follow-up conversations with seventeen interviewees. The findings point to several recurring problems, including unclear evaluation criteria, limited organizational responsibility for automated outcomes, and a lack of practical support for preparation. Many participants described the technology as far less advanced than advertised, leading them to infer how decisions might be made in the absence of guidance. This speculation often intensified stress and emotional strain. Furthermore, the minimal sense of interpersonal engagement contributed to feelings of detachment and disposability. Based on these observations, we propose design directions aimed at improving clarity, accountability, and candidate support in AI-mediated hiring processes.

Experience and Adaptation in AI-mediated Hiring Systems: A Combined Analysis of Online Discourse and Interface Design

TL;DR

The paper addresses the problem of candidate uncertainty in AI-mediated hiring and evaluates how increased familiarity with large language models reshapes expectations. It combines large-scale online discourse analysis with two empirical studies (one exploratory, one design-and-evaluation) to uncover gaps in transparency, accountability, and candidate support. The authors deploy a Self-Determination Theory–inspired interface with response and feedback variants to test autonomy, competence, and relatedness, finding that editing, flexible response options, and combined motivational-evaluative feedback improve user experience, though design details critically affect cognitive load and perceived authenticity. The work advances practical guidelines for transparent, candidate-centered AI interviews and highlights the need to move beyond performance accuracy toward humane, equitable interaction in automated hiring systems.

Abstract

Automated interviewing tools are now widely adopted to manage recruitment at scale, often replacing early human screening with algorithmic assessments. While these systems are promoted as efficient and consistent, they also generate new forms of uncertainty for applicants. Efforts to soften these experiences through human-like design features have only partially addressed underlying concerns. To understand how candidates interpret and cope with such systems, we conducted a mixed empirical investigation that combined analysis of online discussions, responses from more than one hundred and fifty survey participants, and follow-up conversations with seventeen interviewees. The findings point to several recurring problems, including unclear evaluation criteria, limited organizational responsibility for automated outcomes, and a lack of practical support for preparation. Many participants described the technology as far less advanced than advertised, leading them to infer how decisions might be made in the absence of guidance. This speculation often intensified stress and emotional strain. Furthermore, the minimal sense of interpersonal engagement contributed to feelings of detachment and disposability. Based on these observations, we propose design directions aimed at improving clarity, accountability, and candidate support in AI-mediated hiring processes.
Paper Structure (48 sections, 6 figures, 10 tables)

This paper contains 48 sections, 6 figures, 10 tables.

Figures (6)

  • Figure 1: Flow-diagram of Study-1 aiming to answer RQ1 through a thematic analysis on Reddit discussion and interview data
  • Figure 2: Flow-diagram of Study-2 aiming to answer RQ2 through different variants of two features separately; response type and feedback type followed by a mixed-method analysis
  • Figure 3: Design details of different variants of response interface: RV1 only lets re-record, RV2 only lets edit and RV3 provides both options to choose from
  • Figure 4: An example of motivational and evaluative feedback for a behavioral interview response to "Describe an occasion when you failed at a task. What did you learn from it?". The motivational feedback emphasizes encouragement and personal growth, while the evaluative feedback provides constructive suggestions grounded in the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) framework.
  • Figure 5: Snapshot of our system: Shows the response variant-3 or RV3, where the user can see both options (edit or re-record) after recording their response
  • ...and 1 more figures