IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2205.09649.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Type of Explanation Do Rejected Job Applicants Want? Implications for Explainable AI

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Olckers
  • Alicia Vidler
  • Toby Walsh

Abstract

Rejected job applicants seldom receive explanations from employers. Techniques from Explainable AI (XAI) could provide explanations at scale. Although XAI researchers have developed many different types of explanations, we know little about the type of explanations job applicants want. We use a survey of recent job applicants to fill this gap. Our survey generates three main insights. First, the current norm of, at most, generic feedback frustrates applicants. Second, applicants feel the employer has an obligation to provide an explanation. Third, job applicants want to know why they were unsuccessful and how to improve.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Olckers & Alicia Vidler & Toby Walsh, 2022. "What Type of Explanation Do Rejected Job Applicants Want? Implications for Explainable AI," Papers 2205.09649, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.09649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.09649
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2011. "Rewarding Altruism? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Peter Coles & John Cawley & Phillip B. Levine & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth & John J. Siegfried, 2010. "The Job Market for New Economists: A Market Design Perspective," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(4), pages 187-206, Fall.
    3. Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "The Effects of a Centralized Clearinghouse on Job Placement, Wages, and Hiring Practices," NBER Chapters, in: Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, pages 235-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Avraham Stoler & Judd B. Kessler & Tamar Ashkenazi & Alvin E. Roth & Jacob Lavee, 2017. "Incentivizing Organ Donor Registrations with Organ Allocation Priority," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 500-510, April.
    6. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    7. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    8. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2023. "Prioritized organ allocation rules under compatibility constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 403-427.
    9. Kanbur, Ravi & Fleurbaey, Marc & Viney, Brody, 2020. "Social Externalities and Economic Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 15179, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Richard A. Epstein, 2008. "The Human and Economic Dimensions of Altruism: The Case of Organ Transplantation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 459-501, June.
    11. Victor M. Bennett & Robert Seamans & Feng Zhu, 2015. "Cannibalization and option value effects of secondary markets: Evidence from the US concert industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1599-1614, November.
    12. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.
    13. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    14. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2015. "Size versus fairness in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-127.
    15. Robert J. Shiller, 2013. "Reflections on Finance and the Good Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 402-405, May.
    16. Chian Jones Ritten & Christopher Bastian & Owen Phillips, 2021. "The relative effectiveness of law enforcement policies aimed at reducing illegal trade: Evidence from laboratory markets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    17. Mark Braverman & Sylvain Chassang, 2016. "Data-Driven Incentive Alignment in Capitation Schemes," Working Papers 073_2015, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Econometric Research Program..
    18. Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "Market Culture: How Rules Governing Exploding Offers Affect Market Performance," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 199-219, August.
    19. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    20. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Paola Salardi, 2017. "Economic Development and the Regulation of Morally Contentious Activities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 76-80, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.09649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.