1 In 3 Workers Rejected AI Interview Jobs: Use.AI Report
Across the US, the UK, Canada, the EU countries and Latin America, most job seekers are likely to reject jobs with AI interviews.
Candidates who are currently employed are more likely to reject jobs with AI interviews as part of the recruitment process, according to new research by Use.AI.
Among 6,731 Use.AI users in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union and Latin America who had looked for a job in the past 12 months, 29% of those in work said they had declined or withdrawn from a hiring process because it included an AI interview. The figure was 14% among respondents without work. The pattern was consistent across all five regions.
The difference was also visible among candidates who proceeded with an AI interview despite their reservations. Around 46% of respondents without work said they had completed an AI interview they would rather have avoided. Among those in work, the figure was 21%.
Of the 2,114 respondents who had gone ahead with an interview despite their reservations, 58% said they would have refused if they had a job or other offers lined up.
The findings highlight a potential challenge for employers using automated interviews to screen applicants. While completion rates can show how many candidates move through a recruitment process, they do not necessarily explain why applicants participate or withdraw.
The reasons candidates gave for declining an AI interview also point to the role of financial circumstances. Among the 1,532 respondents who had declined, 56% said having a job, other offers or savings made it easier to refuse. Others objected to recorded interviews without human interaction or questioned what the format indicated about an employer’s approach to recruitment.
The survey does not establish whether candidates who withdraw are more capable or better suited to particular roles. However, it indicates that the decision to participate can be influenced by factors beyond professional qualifications, including a candidate’s financial ability to turn down an opportunity.
“Employers spend considerable effort checking whether their screening systems evaluate candidates fairly. They should be equally interested in who decides to enter those systems in the first place,” said Matthew Freire, Managing Director of Use.AI. “Offering applicants an alternative route to a human interviewer would allow companies to examine whether the format itself is influencing who remains available for consideration.”
As employers increasingly use automated systems in the initial stages of recruitment, candidate participation is only one measure of their effectiveness. Applicants who withdraw leave the process before employers can assess their suitability for a role.
The findings raise questions about whether recruitment teams are accounting for candidates who opt out of AI interviews when evaluating the effectiveness of automated screening.