Bias in the background? The role of background information in asynchronous video interviews

Abstract

Asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) have become popular tools for applicant selection. Although AVIs are standardized, extant research remains silent on whether this novel interview format could introduce new forms of bias. Because many applicants complete AVIs from their homes, their video background could provide evaluators with information about stigmatizing features that (a) are usually "invisible" in traditional selection contexts but become observable in AVIs, (b) are not always legally protected, and (c) can impact evaluators' judgments. Across three experimental studies, we examined how cues indicating parental status (Study 1), sexual orientation (Study 2), and political affiliation (Study 3) can impact perceptions of applicant warmth and competence and ratings of interview performance and potential work performance. The effect of background information varied by stigmatized feature.Applicants depicted as parents were perceived to be higher on warmth and received higher interview performance ratings but were not evaluated more negatively on competence or potential work performance. There was no effect of sexual orientation on any outcome variables. However, applicants who supported the same political party as the evaluator were viewed as warmer and received higher ratings of interview performance and potential work performance. Thus, organizations should encourage applicants to use neutral backgrounds.

Politics speak louder than skills: Political similarity effects in hireability judgments in multiparty contexts and the role of political interest.

“…Although the PAM provides a theoretical underpinning for why and how information on applicants’ political affiliation might affect recruiters’ cybervetting judgments and bias their decisions, it was developed and tested against the backdrop of the U.S. political system (Roth et al, 2020; Roulin et al, 2023; Wade et al, 2020). Given its two-party and polarized political landscape (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2014), the United States is a unique context for testing theories on political similarity.…”

“…The PAM also suggests that these similarity perceptions influence hireability decisions more than jobrelated individuating information, thus leading to bias. Lately, Roth et al (2020), Roulin et al (2023), and Wade et al (2020) found support for many of the PAM's propositions.…”

Diversity and technology—Challenges for the next decade in personnel selection

“…Recent work in the context of video interviews—an increasingly popular prescreening tool—also illustrates the importance of research at the intersection of diversity and technology. For instance, Roulin et al (2023) examined how video interviews create unique opportunities for traditionally invisible applicants’ characteristics (such as parental status, sexual orientation, or political preferences) to become available to hiring managers via background elements observable in video recordings, and thus possibly bias decisions. Arseneault and Roulin (2023) described how the flexibility of AVIs might help organizations attract more culturally diverse applicants (i.e., breaking barriers associated with time zones and availability), yet showed that AVI raters might still evaluate applicants more positively when they are more culturally similar to them.…”

Examining discrimination in asynchronous video interviews: Does cultural distance based on country‐of‐origin matter?

“…For example, visible elements like race, ethnicity, or non‐native accents could also influence performance evaluations in AVIs. In addition, technologically related elements (i.e., background in video‐recordings, internet connection, and audio quality) may trigger bias unique to AVIs (Lukacik et al, 2022; Roulin et al, 2022). Such biases could prevent organizations from reaching diversity objectives or subject them to discrimination lawsuits.…”

“…Research focused on the interviewer/rater side of AVIs is scarce and limited to general reactions about the practicality or usefulness of the technology (e.g., Basch & Melchers, 2021; Mejia & Torres, 2018). Only two studies have examined biases but focused on aesthetical features like attractiveness (Torres & Gregory, 2018) or video background (Roulin et al, 2022). Research examining how cross‐cultural differences could impact evaluations in AVIs is lacking and warrants investigation given the increase in AVI use in practice (and accelerated by the COVID pandemic) and its value in facilitating the selection of a broader (e.g., international or cross‐cultural) population of job applicants.…”