CYAICLHCSep 4, 2025

No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy

arXiv:2509.04404v213 citationsh-index: 3Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Originality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

This research highlights a critical problem for organizations and regulators in AI-human collaboration, showing that AI bias can significantly alter human decision-making and limit autonomy in hiring, with implications for policy and system design.

The study conducted a resume-screening experiment with 528 participants to examine how biased AI recommendations influence human hiring decisions, finding that people favor candidates aligned with AI bias up to 90% of the time, but this can be reduced by 13% with implicit association tests.

In this study, we conduct a resume-screening experiment (N=528) where people collaborate with simulated AI models exhibiting race-based preferences (bias) to evaluate candidates for 16 high and low status occupations. Simulated AI bias approximates factual and counterfactual estimates of racial bias in real-world AI systems. We investigate people's preferences for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian candidates (represented through names and affinity groups on quality-controlled resumes) across 1,526 scenarios and measure their unconscious associations between race and status using implicit association tests (IATs), which predict discriminatory hiring decisions but have not been investigated in human-AI collaboration. When making decisions without AI or with AI that exhibits no race-based preferences, people select all candidates at equal rates. However, when interacting with AI favoring a particular group, people also favor those candidates up to 90% of the time, indicating a significant behavioral shift. The likelihood of selecting candidates whose identities do not align with common race-status stereotypes can increase by 13% if people complete an IAT before conducting resume screening. Finally, even if people think AI recommendations are low quality or not important, their decisions are still vulnerable to AI bias under certain circumstances. This work has implications for people's autonomy in AI-HITL scenarios, AI and work, design and evaluation of AI hiring systems, and strategies for mitigating bias in collaborative decision-making tasks. In particular, organizational and regulatory policy should acknowledge the complex nature of AI-HITL decision making when implementing these systems, educating people who use them, and determining which are subject to oversight.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes