“Hi. I’m Molly, Your Virtual Interviewer!” Exploring the Impact of Race and Gender in AI-Powered Virtual Interview Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The persistent issue of human bias in recruitment processes poses a formidable challenge to achieving equitable hiring practices, particularly when influenced by demographic characteristics such as gender and race of both interviewers and candidates. Asynchronous Video Interviews (AVIs), powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI), have emerged as innovative tools aimed at streamlining the application screening process while potentially mitigating the impact of such biases. These AI-driven platforms present an opportunity to customize the demographic features of virtual interviewers to align with diverse applicant preferences, promising a more objective and fair evaluation. Despite their growing adoption, the implications of virtual interviewer identities on candidate experiences within AVIs remain underexplored. We aim to address this research and empirical gap in this paper. To this end, we carried out a comprehensive between-subjects study involving 218 participants across six distinct experimental conditions, manipulating the gender and skin color of an AI virtual interviewer agent. Our empirical analysis revealed that while the demographic attributes of the agents did not significantly influence the overall experience of interviewees, variations in the interviewees' demographics, significantly altered their perception of the AVI process. Further, we uncovered that the mediating roles of Social Presence and Perception of the virtual interviewer critically affect interviewees' Perceptions of Fairness (+), Privacy (-), and Impression management (+).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".