Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study of Potential Job Candidates' Perceptions of an AI Recruiter and a Human Recruiter

인공지능 인사담당자와 인간 인사담당자에 대한 잠재적 입사지원자들의 인식 비교 연구

  • Received : 2018.03.07
  • Accepted : 2018.05.20
  • Published : 2018.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already being utilized in certain personnel selection processes in organizations; AI will eventually make even final decisions for personnel selection. The present study investigated potential job candidates' perceptions of an AI recruiter by comparing the selection procedures carried out by an AI recruiter to those carried out by a human recruiter. For this study college students in South Korea were recruited. They were each shown one of two recruitment scenarios (human recruiter vs. AI recruiter; between-subject design) followed by questionnaires measuring their satisfaction with the selection procedures and procedural justice, their trust in the recruiter, and their belief in a just world. Results show that potential job candidates were more satisfied with the selection procedures used by the AI recruiter than the human recruiter; they perceived the procedures as fairer than those used by the human recruiter. In addition, potential job candidates' trust in the AI recruiter was significantly higher than their trust in the human recruiter. This study also explored whether potential job candidates' perceptions of the AI and human recruiter were contingent upon their beliefs in a just world. The present study suggests a direction for future research.

최근 들어 인공지능이 인사선발 업무에서 활용되고 있으며, 인공지능이 인사선발 결정을 할 것으로 예측되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 인간이 채용하는 절차와 인공지능이 채용하는 절차를 비교하여 인공지능 인사담당자에 대한 잠재적 입사지원자들의 인식을 파악하였다. 대한민국의 대학생들을 대상으로 연구를 진행하였으며, 집단 간 설계(between-group design) 방식으로 2가지 시나리오(인간 인사담당자 vs 인공지능 인사담당자)를 제시하고 채용 절차에 대한 만족도, 절차공정성, 인사담당자에 대한 신뢰, 그리고 정당세상믿음을 측정하였다. 그 결과 잠재적 입사지원자들은 인공지능이 채용하는 절차를 인간이 채용하는 절차보다 더 만족했고, 더 공정하다고 인식하였으며, 인공지능 인사담당자를 인간 인사담당자보다 더 신뢰하였다. 또한 세상이 정당하다고 믿는 정도에 따라 인간과 인공지능에 대한 인식에 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과를 토대로 향후 연구 방향성을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. A. S. Kay. (2000). Recruiters embrace the Internet. Informationweek, 778, 72-72.
  2. W. Choi. (2017, July 10). [Worldreport] How do Japan's AI evaluate job applicants? . SBS News. Retrieved from http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1004287424&plink=ORI&cooper=NAVER#openPrintPopup
  3. Weeklytechreport (2017). IITP. 43-44.
  4. Bartlett, M. S., Littlewort, G. C., Frank, M. G., & Lee, K. (2014). Automatic decoding of facial movements reveals deceptive pain expressions. Current Biology, 24(7), 738-743. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.009
  5. Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), 1036-1040. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418680112
  6. D. Brougham & J. Haar. (2017). Smart Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Algorithms (STARA): Employees' perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-19. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.55
  7. M. Yoon, J. Lee & J. Baek. (2016). Topophilia convergence science education for enhancing learning capabilities in the age of artificial intelligence based on the case of challenge match lee sedol and AlphaGo. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 7(4), 123-131. doi: 10.15207/JKCS.2016.7.4.123
  8. D. Kim, H. Kwon & J. Lim. (2017). Measures to minimize the side effects of the increased use of Artificial Intelligence Robo-Advisor. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 8(10), 67-73. doi: 10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.10.067
  9. K. C. Shin & J. Han. (2017). Qualitative exploration on children's interactions in telepresence robot assisted language learning. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 8(3), 177-184. doi: 10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.3.177
  10. C. Edwards, A. Edwards, P. R. Spence & A. K. Shelton. (2014). Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and a bot agent on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 372-376. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.013
  11. C. Nass & Y. Moon. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00153
  12. C. Nass & K. M. Lee. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistencyattraction. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 7(3), 171. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.171
  13. T. Kanda, T. Miyashita, T. Osada, Y. Haikawa & H. Ishiguro. (2008). Analysis of humanoid appearances in human-robot interaction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(3), 725-735. DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2008.921566
  14. H. Glejser & B. Heyndels. (2001). Efficiency and inefficiency in the ranking in competitions: The case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest. Journal of cultural Economics, 25(2), 109-129. doi: 10.1023/A:1007659804416
  15. J. L. Farr. (1973). Response requirements and primacy-recency effects in a simulated selection interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 228. doi: 10.1037/h0034708
  16. L. Page, & K. Page. (2010). Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series. Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization, 73(2), 186-198. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.08.012
  17. M. T. Dzindolet, S. A. Peterson, R. A. Pomranky, L. G. Pierce & H. P. Beck. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International journal of human-computer studies, 58(6), 697-718. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
  18. W. Wood & S. J. Karten. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(2), 341. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.341
  19. B. Tay, Y. Jung & T. Park. (2014). When stereotypes meet robots: the double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human-robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014
  20. M. L. Walters, K. Dautenhahn, R. Te Boekhorst, K. L. Koay, C. Kaouri, S. Woods & I. Werry. (2005). The influence of subjects' personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human-robot interaction experiment. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005. ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 347-352). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513803
  21. K. A. Hoff & M. Bashir. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434. doi: 10.1177/0018720814547570
  22. J. Tomaka & J. Blascovich. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 732. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.732
  23. C. T. Liang & A. Borders. (2012). Beliefs in an unjust world mediate the associations between perceived ethnic discrimination and psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 528-533. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.022
  24. M. Zuckerman & K. C. Gerbasi. (1977). Belief in a just world and trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 306-317. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(77)90039-3
  25. L. Begue. (2002). Beliefs in justice and faith in people: Just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 375-382. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00224-5
  26. I. M. Lipkus & V. L. Bissonnette. (1996). Relationships among belief in a just world, willingness to accommodate, and marital well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1043-1056. doi: 10.1177/01461672962210008
  27. Z. Rubin & L. A. Peplau. (1975). Who believes in a just world?. Journal of social issues, 31(3), 65-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x
  28. D, De Cremer & T. R. Tyler. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639
  29. R. Folger. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(2), 108. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.108
  30. K. Van den Bos. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental social psychology, 35(6), 560-577. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1393
  31. T. Lucas, T, L. Zhdanova & S. Alexander. (2011). Procedural and distributive justice beliefs for self and others: Assessment of a four-factor individual differences model. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(1), 14. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000032
  32. E. Kim, E, D. Kim., H. Park, S. Kim & J. Kim. (2017). Validation of the Korean Version of the Belief in a Just World Scale (K-BJWS). The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 29(3), 689-710. doi: 10.23844/kjcp.2017.08.29.3.689
  33. T. H. Macan, M. J. Avedon, M. Paese, & D. E. Smith. (1994). The effects of applicants' reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 715-738. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01573.x
  34. J. A. Colquitt. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
  35. S. M. Merritt. (2011). Affective processes in human- automation interactions. Human Factors, 53(4), 356-370. doi: 10.1177/0018720811411912
  36. L. S. Aiken, S. G. West & R. R. Reno. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
  37. H. R. Arkes, V. A. Shaffer & M. A. Medow. (2008). The influence of a physician's use of a diagnostic decision aid on the malpractice verdicts of mock jurors. Medical Decision Making, 28(2), 201-208. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07313280
  38. E. Park, K. J. Kim & A. P. Del Pobil. (2011). The effects of a robot instructor's positive vs. negative feedbacks on attraction and acceptance towards the robot in classroom. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 135-141). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_14
  39. S. Woods, M. Walters, K. L. Koay & K. Dautenhahn. (2006, March). Comparing human robot interaction scenarios using live and video based methods: towards a novel methodological approach. In Advanced Motion Control, 2006. 9th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 750-755). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/AMC.2006.1631754
  40. Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3), 355. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.3.355
  41. T. N. Bauer, C. P. Jr. Maertz, M. R. Dolen & M. A. Campion. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of applied Psychology, 83(6), 892. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.892
  42. C. P. Maertz, D. C. Mosley. T. N. Bauer, R. A. Posthuma & M. A. Campion. (2004). Do procedural justice perceptions in a selection testing context predict applicant attraction and intention toward the organization?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 125-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02540.x