pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.09233 · v4 · submitted 2025-07-12 · 💻 cs.CY

Secondary Bounded Rationality: A Theory of How Algorithms Reproduce Structural Inequality in AI Hiring

Jia Xiao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords AI hiringalgorithmic biasstructural inequalitybounded rationalitysocial capitalrecruitment systemssystemic discrimination
0
0 comments X

The pith

AI hiring algorithms convert historical social inequalities into seemingly merit-based decisions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a theory of secondary bounded rationality to show how AI recruitment systems inherit and amplify structural biases. It claims that technical and sociopolitical constraints lead these systems to optimize for legible proxies of competence that reflect elite credentials and network advantages. A sympathetic reader would care because this process masks inequality as objective merit, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion in employment. The argument combines Bourdieusian capital theory with Simon's bounded rationality to analyze multimodal hiring frameworks. The paper also outlines mitigation approaches such as capital-aware auditing to interrupt the cycle.

Core claim

AI-driven recruitment systems inherit and amplify human cognitive and structural biases through technical and sociopolitical constraints, transforming historical inequalities such as elite credential privileging and network homophily into ostensibly meritocratic outcomes by optimizing for legible yet biased proxies of competence.

What carries the argument

Secondary bounded rationality, the process by which AI systems reproduce inequality by optimizing for proxies that encode social and cultural capital under the appearance of objective decision-making.

Load-bearing premise

AI systems necessarily inherit and amplify structural biases through technical and sociopolitical constraints without mechanisms to correct for them in current designs.

What would settle it

An audit finding that an AI hiring tool selects candidates with no measurable correlation to elite university attendance or network connections beyond verifiable skill indicators would challenge the claim of inevitable reproduction.

read the original abstract

AI-driven recruitment systems, while promising efficiency and objectivity, often perpetuate systemic inequalities by encoding cultural and social capital disparities into algorithmic decision making. This article develops and defends a novel theory of secondary bounded rationality, arguing that AI systems, despite their computational power, inherit and amplify human cognitive and structural biases through technical and sociopolitical constraints. Analyzing multimodal recruitment frameworks, we demonstrate how algorithmic processes transform historical inequalities, such as elite credential privileging and network homophily, into ostensibly meritocratic outcomes. Using Bourdieusian capital theory and Simon's bounded rationality, we reveal a recursive cycle where AI entrenches exclusion by optimizing for legible yet biased proxies of competence. We propose mitigation strategies, including counterfactual fairness testing, capital-aware auditing, and regulatory interventions, to disrupt this self-reinforcing inequality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory of secondary bounded rationality, arguing that AI-driven hiring systems inherit and amplify structural inequalities through technical and sociopolitical constraints. Drawing on Bourdieusian capital theory and Simon's bounded rationality, it claims that multimodal recruitment frameworks transform historical biases such as elite credential privileging and network homophily into ostensibly meritocratic algorithmic outcomes via a recursive cycle of optimizing for legible but biased proxies of competence, and proposes mitigations including counterfactual fairness testing and capital-aware auditing.

Significance. If the central theoretical claims receive independent grounding and the recursive cycle is shown to follow from actual optimization objectives rather than reinterpretation alone, the framework could provide a useful conceptual bridge between computational constraints and the reproduction of social inequality in employment contexts. The explicit proposal of mitigation strategies is a constructive element that could inform future design and regulatory work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that algorithmic processes 'transform historical inequalities... into ostensibly meritocratic outcomes' is load-bearing for the central claim yet is advanced without derivation from the loss functions, feature spaces, or training objectives of deployed multimodal recruitment models; the transformation is asserted rather than shown to be necessary given current architectures.
  2. [Theory Development] Theory section (secondary bounded rationality definition): the recursive cycle is constructed by extending Bourdieusian and Simonian frameworks to AI constraints, but lacks an independent formalization or falsifiable prediction that would distinguish it from a re-description of known proxy bias phenomena; this makes the novelty of the 'secondary' qualifier rest on prior definitions without additional grounding.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Mitigation Strategies] The mitigation strategies (counterfactual fairness testing, capital-aware auditing) are listed but would benefit from concrete references to existing implementations or evaluation metrics already in the fairness literature to strengthen the practical contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which identify key areas where the presentation of our theoretical claims can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that algorithmic processes 'transform historical inequalities... into ostensibly meritocratic outcomes' is load-bearing for the central claim yet is advanced without derivation from the loss functions, feature spaces, or training objectives of deployed multimodal recruitment models; the transformation is asserted rather than shown to be necessary given current architectures.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract presents this transformation as a central claim and that a more explicit linkage to the technical properties of multimodal models would strengthen the argument. The theory section grounds the claim in the application of Bourdieusian capital theory and Simon's bounded rationality to the constraints of AI systems, showing how optimization for legible proxies reproduces historical patterns. However, we acknowledge that the connection to specific loss functions and feature spaces is not derived in sufficient detail in the current version. In the revision we will update the abstract to reference this theoretical grounding and add a concise illustrative mapping in the theory section that connects typical recruitment model objectives (such as similarity-based ranking to historical hiring data) to the reproduction of credential and network biases. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theory Development] Theory section (secondary bounded rationality definition): the recursive cycle is constructed by extending Bourdieusian and Simonian frameworks to AI constraints, but lacks an independent formalization or falsifiable prediction that would distinguish it from a re-description of known proxy bias phenomena; this makes the novelty of the 'secondary' qualifier rest on prior definitions without additional grounding.

    Authors: We maintain that the 'secondary' qualifier captures a distinct phenomenon: the additional layer of bounded rationality introduced when algorithmic systems must optimize under constraints of data legibility and feature availability, thereby generating a self-reinforcing cycle that goes beyond the initial proxy biases. This is not merely a re-description because it identifies the recursion as arising specifically from the sociotechnical mediation of AI rather than from human decision-making alone. That said, we recognize the value of greater formalization to make this distinction sharper. We will revise the theory section to include a structured conceptual model of the recursive cycle with explicit stages and will derive one or more falsifiable implications regarding differential bias persistence in AI-mediated versus traditional hiring processes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: interpretive theory extends priors without reducing claims to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper develops a novel theoretical lens called secondary bounded rationality by applying Bourdieusian capital theory and Simon's bounded rationality to multimodal AI recruitment systems. The abstract describes this as revealing a recursive cycle in which algorithms optimize for legible yet biased proxies. This constitutes an interpretive extension to a new domain rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation that forces the result. No equations, data fits, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that would make the central claims equivalent to their inputs by construction. The proposed mitigations are presented as forward suggestions, not derived outputs. The derivation therefore remains self-contained as conceptual analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions drawn from existing social theories applied to AI without new empirical validation, formal derivations, or independent evidence for the recursive cycle mechanism.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bourdieusian capital theory applies directly to encoding of disparities in algorithmic hiring decisions
    Invoked to explain how cultural and social capital become legible proxies in AI systems.
  • domain assumption Simon's bounded rationality extends to AI via technical and sociopolitical constraints
    Forms the basis for defining secondary bounded rationality as an inherited limitation.
invented entities (1)
  • secondary bounded rationality no independent evidence
    purpose: To name and explain the recursive amplification of bias in AI hiring
    New conceptual entity introduced to unify the application of prior theories to algorithmic processes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5657 in / 1458 out tokens · 87343 ms · 2026-05-19T04:43:21.588656+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’ s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104 (3), 671–732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31

    work page doi:10.15779/z38bg31 2016

  2. [2]

    Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT press

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Birzhandi, P., & Cho, Y . (2023). Application of fairness to healthcare, organizational justice, and finance: A survey. Expert Systems With Applications , 216, 119465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119465

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119465 2023

  4. [4]

    Bogen, M., & Rieke, A. (2018). Help wanted: Examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias (Technical report). Upturn. https://www.upturn.org

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Burt, R. S. (2017). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 31–56). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457-2

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315129457-2 2017

  7. [7]

    Cho, W., Choi, S., & Choi, H. (2023). Human Resources Analytics for Public Personnel Management: Concepts, cases, and caveats. Administrative Sciences , 13(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020041

    work page doi:10.3390/admsci13020041 2023

  8. [8]

    Chohlas-Wood, A., Coots, M., Goel, S., & Nyarko, J. (2023). Designing equitable algorithms. Nature Computational Science , 3, 601 - 610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00485-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00485-4 2023

  9. [9]

    Chouldechova, A. (2017). Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0047

    work page doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 2017

  10. [10]

    (2020, July)

    Cowgill, B., Dell'Acqua, F., Deng, S., Hsu, D., Verma, N., & Chaintreau, A. (2020, July). Biased programmers? Or biased data? A field experiment in operationalizing AI ethics. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (pp. 679-681)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Cyert, R., & March, J. (2015). Behavioral theory of the firm. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp. 60-77). Routledge

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Dastin, J. (2022). Amazon Scraps Secret AI Recruiting Tool that Showed Bias against Women *. In Auerbach Publications eBooks (pp. 296–299). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003278290-44

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003278290-44 2022

  14. [15]

    Eradication of Difference

    Drage, E., & Mackereth, K. (2022). Does AI debias recruitment? Race, gender, and AI’s “Eradication of Difference.” Philosophy & Technology, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00543-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00543-1 2022

  15. [16]

    Eubanks, V . (2018). Automating inequality: How high -tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press

    work page 2018

  16. [17]

    J., Graus, D., Hacker, P., Saldivar, J., Borgesius, F

    Fabris, A., Baranowska, N., Dennis, M. J., Graus, D., Hacker, P., Saldivar, J., Borgesius, F. Z., & Biega, A. J. (2024). Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696457

    work page doi:10.1145/3696457 2024

  17. [18]

    França, T. J. F., Mamede, H. S., Barroso, J. M. P., & Santos, V . M. P. D. D. (2023). Artificial intelligence applied to potential assessment and talent identification in an organisational context. Heliyon, 9(4), e14694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14694

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14694 2023

  18. [19]

    Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

    work page doi:10.1086/225469 1973

  19. [20]

    Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Turini, F., Pedreschi, D., & Giannotti, F. (2018). A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 51, 1 - 42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236009

    work page doi:10.1145/3236009 2018

  20. [21]

    Gupta, S., & Ranjan, R. (2024). Evaluation of LLMs Biases Towards Elite Universities: A Persona-Based Exploration. ArXiv, abs/2407.12801. https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.006

    work page doi:10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.006 2024

  21. [22]

    Harirchian, M., Amin, F., Rouhani, S., Aligholipour, A., & Lord, V . A. (2022, December 14). AI-enabled exploration of Instagram profiles predicts soft skills and personality traits to empower hiring decisions. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07069

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    L., & Luetge, C

    Hunkenschroer, A. L., & Luetge, C. (2022). Ethics of AI -Enabled Recruiting and Selection: A Review and Research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics , 178(4), 977 –1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05049-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05049-6 2022

  23. [24]

    J., Ma, R., & McNally, R

    Jones, P. J., Ma, R., & McNally, R. J. (2019). Bridge Centrality: A network approach to understanding Comorbidity. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 56(2), 353 –367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898

    work page doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898 2019

  24. [25]

    G., Noble, S

    Joyce, K., Smith -Doerr, L., Alegria, S., Bell, S., Cruz, T., Hoffman, S. G., Noble, S. U., & Shestakofsky, B. (2021). Toward a Sociology of Artificial Intelligence: A call for research on inequalities and Structural change. Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World , 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121999581

    work page doi:10.1177/2378023121999581 2021

  25. [26]

    Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment . Hachette UK

    work page 2021

  26. [27]

    Kaibel, C., Koch-Bayram, I., Biemann, T., & Mühlenbock, M. (2019). Applicant perceptions of hiring algorithms —Uniqueness and discrimination experiences as moderators. In Academy of Management Proceedings. Academy of Management

    work page 2019

  27. [28]

    Kantarci, A. (2021). Bias in AI: What it is, types & examples, how and tools to fix it. AIMultiple. Retrieved from https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-bias/#amazon%e2%80%99s-bias-recruiting-tool

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2018). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004 2018

  29. [30]

    Kelan, E. K. (2021). Algorithmic inclusion: Shaping artificial intelligence in hiring. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2021(1), 11338. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2021.11338abstract

    work page doi:10.5465/ambpp.2021.11338abstract 2021

  30. [31]

    Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016). Inherent Trade -Offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [32]

    Lamjid, A., Anass, A., Ennejjai, I., Mabrouki, J., & Soumia, Z. (2024). Enhancing the hiring process: A predictive system for soft skills assessment. Data & Metadata , 3. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2024.387

    work page doi:10.56294/dm2024.387 2024

  32. [33]

    Leicht-Deobald, U., Busch, T., Schank, C., Weibel, A., Schafheitle, S., Wildhaber, I., & Kasper, G. (2019). The challenges of Algorithm -Based HR Decision -Making for Personal Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04204-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04204-w 2019

  33. [34]

    Li, L., Lassiter, T., Oh, J., & Lee, M. K. (2021). Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and HR Professional's perspectives on AI use in hiring. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 166-176)

    work page 2021

  34. [35]

    Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (V ol. 19). Cambridge university press

    work page 2002

  35. [36]

    Liu, S., Li, G., & Xia, H. (2021). Analysis of talent management in the Artificial Intelligence Era. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research/Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210218.007

    work page doi:10.2991/aebmr.k.210218.007 2021

  36. [37]

    G., & Simon, H

    March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. John wiley & sons

    work page 1993

  37. [38]

    Mehta, R., Pravalika, P., Sai, B., P, K., Bhattacharyya, R., & Depuru, B. (2024). Advancing Virtual Interviews: AI-Driven Facial Emotion Recognition for Better Recruitment. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT) . https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/ijisrt24jul721

    work page doi:10.38124/ijisrt/ijisrt24jul721 2024

  38. [39]

    Milovanović, S., Bogdanović, Z., Labus, A., Despotović -Zrakić, M., & Mitrović, S. (2022). Social recruiting: an application of social network analysis for preselection of candidates. Data Technologies and Applications, 56(4), 536–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/dta-01-2021-0021

    work page doi:10.1108/dta-01-2021-0021 2022

  39. [40]

    Morse, L., Teodorescu, M. H. M., Awwad, Y ., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04939-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04939-5 2021

  40. [41]

    Nabi, S. (2023). Comparative analysis of AI Vs Human based hiring process: A Survey. 2023 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Knowledge Economy (ICCIKE) , 432-437. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIKE58312.2023.10131710

    work page doi:10.1109/iccike58312.2023.10131710 2023

  41. [42]

    Nayak, S., Gupta, M., Suri, H., Kaushik, S., & Kumar, S. (2024). Personality Traits Prediction using DISC. 2024 3rd International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC), 1041-1046. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAAIC60222.2024.10575728

    work page doi:10.1109/icaaic60222.2024.10575728 2024

  42. [43]

    New York City Council. (2021). A local law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to automated employment decision tools. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4344524&GUID=B051915D- A9AC-451E-81F8-6596032FA3F9

    work page 2021

  43. [44]

    Nishant, R., Schneckenberg, D., & Ravishankar, M. (2023). The formal rationality of artificial intelligence-based algorithms and the problem of bias. Journal of Information Technology, 39(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231176842

    work page doi:10.1177/02683962231176842 2023

  44. [45]

    Outeda, C. (2024). The EU's AI act: A framework for collaborative governance. Internet Things, 27, 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101291

    work page doi:10.1016/j.iot.2024.101291 2024

  45. [46]

    Peña, A., Serna, I., Morales, A., & Fierrez, J. (2020). Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW50498.2020.00022

    work page doi:10.1109/cvprw50498.2020.00022 2020

  46. [47]

    Peña, A., Serna, I., Morales, A., Fierrez, J., Ortega, A., Herrarte, A., Alcantara, M., & Ortega-Garcia, J. (2023). Human -Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: recent advances and testbed on AI -Based recruitment. SN Computer Science , 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-01733-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s42979-023-01733-0 2023

  47. [48]

    Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 469-481)

    work page 2020

  48. [49]

    (2020, January)

    Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020, January). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 469-481)

    work page 2020

  49. [50]

    Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2024). Combining human and Artificial intelligence: Hybrid Problem-Solving in Organizations. Academy of Management Review . https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0421

    work page doi:10.5465/amr.2021.0421 2024

  50. [51]

    Rajkumar, K., Saint-Jacques, G., Bojinov, I., Brynjolfsson, E., & Aral, S. (2022). A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science, 377, 1304 - 1310. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4476

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl4476 2022

  51. [52]

    (2020, January)

    Sánchez-Monedero, J., Dencik, L., & Edwards, L. (2020, January). What does it mean to'solve'the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 458-468)

    work page 2020

  52. [53]

    (2020, May)

    Schumann, C., Foster, J., Mattei, N., & Dickerson, J. (2020, May). We need fairness and explainability in algorithmic hiring. In International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS)

    work page 2020

  53. [54]

    Seppälä, P., & Małecka, M. (2024). AI and discriminative decisions in recruitment: Challenging the core assumptions. Big Data & Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241235872

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517241235872 2024

  54. [55]

    Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138

    work page 1956

  55. [56]

    Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374

    work page 1973

  56. [57]

    Van Esch, P., & Black, J. S. (2019). Factors that influence new generation candidates to engage with and complete digital, AI -enabled recruiting. Business Horizons , 62(6), 729 –739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.004 2019

  57. [58]

    & Polli, F

    Wilson, C., Ghosh, A., Jiang, S., Mislove, A., Baker, L., Szary, J., ... & Polli, F. (2021). Building and auditing fair algorithms: A case study in candidate screening. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 666-677)

    work page 2021

  58. [59]

    A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A

    Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R. (2019). Personnel selection in the digital age: a review of validity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 29(1), 64 –77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401

    work page doi:10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401 2019

  59. [60]

    Yam, J., & Skorburg, J. (2021). From human resources to human rights: Impact assessments for hiring algorithms. Ethics and Information Technology , 23, 611 - 623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09599-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-021-09599-7 2021