When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

This study examined whether professional recruiters revise their hiring decisions after receiving external advice under cognitive conflict, that is, when advice contradicts their initial evaluation. In a between‐subjects experiment, 1,208 recruitment professionals evaluated two candidates, made an initial hiring decision, and then received advice whose source (human expert vs. algorithmic recruitment system, ARS), accuracy (accurate vs. inaccurate), and number of advisors (one vs. two) were manipulated across eight conditions. Results revealed widespread egocentric advice discounting. Although trust predicted advice utilization, a trust–reliance paradox emerged: recruiters reported lower trust in the ARS yet were behaviorally more influenced by it. Convergent advice was most influential, and exploratory analyses suggested that inaccurate advice degraded decision quality more than accurate advice improved it. Findings underscore the need for calibrated reliance in AI‐assisted selection.