Expecting Too Much, Getting Too Little: Exploring the Challenges and Design Opportunities of Asynchronous AI Interviewers
Md Nazmus Sakib, Naga Manogna Rayasam, Sanorita Dey
Abstract
Organizations use asynchronous AI interview systems to efficiently manage large applicant pools, enabling quick and uniform evaluations. However, concerns remain about their impact on user agency and the lack of personalization applicants experience with these systems. Although efforts have been made to humanize the interview process, users' expectations are often unmet, especially when compared to the promises made by these systems. To examine how applicants perceive and experience these tools, particularly in the context of their growing familiarity with large language models (LLMs), we conducted a two-phase study. The first phase involved an analysis of 11 subreddit discussions on interview experiences with asynchronous AI interviewers, followed by a semi-structured interview study with 17 participants. Qualitative analysis revealed key issues such as mismatched expectations, amplified by organizational rhetoric and applicant expectations shaped by experiences with LLMs. These factors shaped participants' sense of agency and trust, often leading to workarounds and deceptive practices. In the follow-up study, we designed an interface with two features, response variants and feedback variants, and evaluated it across six groups (N = 180, 30 participants each) to assess whether these features support users' sense of agency, competence, and relatedness. Our analysis suggests that even subtle design changes can enhance user autonomy and that carefully designed feedback can provide meaningful support in high-stakes interview contexts.
CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing; User studies.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext b5a53444-acf6-480d-bf49-a5ab1d82889aBuilds on39
- Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' ViewsMaurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson et al.CHI 2023 · 249 citations
- Designing AI for Trust and Collaboration in Time-Constrained Medical Decisions: A Sociotechnical LensMaia L. Jacobs, Jeffrey He, Melanie F. Pradier, Barbara D. Lam et al.CHI 2021 · 171 citations
- Adaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing PlatformsMichael Ann DeVitoCSCW 2021 · 143 citations
- Emotion AI at Work: Implications for Workplace Surveillance, Emotional Labor, and Emotional PrivacyKat Roemmich, Florian Schaub, Nazanin AndalibiCHI 2023 · 123 citations
- Human-AI Interaction in Human Resource Management: Understanding Why Employees Resist Algorithmic Evaluation at Workplaces and How to Mitigate BurdensHyanghee Park, Daehwan Ahn, Kartik Hosanagar, Joonhwan LeeCHI 2021 · 117 citations
Related papers
- From Text to Self: Users' Perception of AIMC Tools on Interpersonal Communication and SelfYue Fu, Sami Foell, Xuhai Xu, Alexis HinikerCHI 2024 · 61 citations
- Interview-Informed Generative Agents for Product Discovery: A Validation StudyZichao Wang, Alexa F. SiuCHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Be Friendly, Not Friends: How LLM Sycophancy Shapes User TrustYuan Sun, Ting WangCHI 2026 · 15 citations
- Expectation Alignment of Language Models for Real-World User ExpectationsMiaomiao Li, Yang Wang, Bin Liang, Shudong Liu et al.ICML 2026
- Campus AI vs. Commercial AI: Comparing How Students and Employees Perceive their University's LLM Chatbot vs. ChatGPTLeon Hannig, Annika Bush, Meltem Aksoy, Tim Trappen et al.CHI 2026
