Examining discrimination in asynchronous video interviews: Does cultural distance based on country‐of‐origin matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We conducted two studies to investigate how cultural differences based on country of origin influence the selection process in an asynchronous video interview (AVI) context. We drew upon the GLOBE cultural value dimensions and individual measures of prejudice to examine if raters evaluate job applicants who are more culturally dissimilar to them more negatively than culturally similar applicants. Professionals with hiring experience from the United Kingdom were recruited via the Prolific platform and asked to watch and evaluate pre‐recorded video responses from five culturally diverse applicants. Results across both studies were only somewhat consistent with the GLOBE framework. For instance, raters did demonstrate a strong preference for Canadian and South African interviewees over other countries. Right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were non‐significant in moderating how evaluations were assigned; however, ethnocentrism levels did modestly impact evaluations in Study 2. This research is the first to investigate how cultural factors can impact the selection process in an AVI context. As the number of organizations that rely on virtual interviews increases and globalization makes it likely for applicants and interviewers to be from different cultural backgrounds, our research is highly relevant in understanding the impact of these elements on hiring decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it