"A new study found that applicants interviewed by an AI voice agent were 12% more likely to get a job offer than those screened by human recruiters. They were also more likely to actually start work and stick around after 30 days. The professional recruiters had bet on themselves in this hiring experiment. The AI proved them wrong. The study also found that when given the choice, 78% of applicants picked the AI interviewer over a human recruiter. Brian Jabarian, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and Luca Henkel, a behavioral economist at Erasmus University Rotterdam, partnered with global recruitment firm PSG Global Solutions to pit AI against human recruiters in a large-scale hiring experiment."
"Applicants were randomly assigned to one of three interview conditions: a human recruiter, an AI recruiter, or a choice between the two. In all cases, human recruiters ultimately made the hiring decision after reviewing transcripts and a standardized test of language and analytical skills. That design allowed the researchers to isolate one variable: the interview conversation. Both humans and the AI followed the same interview guide. It started with eligibility questions, moved into career goals and work experience, and ended with job details. But the outcomes diverged."
Applicants interviewed by an AI voice agent were 12% more likely to receive job offers and more likely to start work and remain after 30 days. When given a choice, 78% of applicants selected the AI interviewer. The experiment covered more than 70,000 applicants for entry-level customer service roles across dozens of job postings in the Philippines for Fortune 500 and European firms. Applicants were randomly assigned to human, AI, or choice interview conditions. Human recruiters made final hiring decisions after reviewing transcripts and a standardized test of language and analytical skills, isolating the interview conversation as the variable.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]