AI Hiring Tools Show Racial Bias Against Black and Asian Applicants, Stanford Study Finds

About 90 percent of employers use AI to some extent in hiring, yet research on how this is impacting job seekers is virtually nonexistent.

Image: GenAI. For illustration purposes.

In one of the first studies to analyze AI hiring tools, Stanford researchers discovered that, for many job applications, the algorithms were making racially biased decisions. “A lot of prior studies had shown racial bias in hiring, when people are making the decisions,” said co-author Dan Jurafsky, the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor in Humanities in the School of Humanities and Sciences and a professor of computer science in the School of Engineering. “It was surprising that AI systems that use game-based assessment to rank people were still biased against Black and Asian applicants.”

The team also found evidence that some candidates were repeatedly turned away from multiple jobs – a sign that companies’ reliance on algorithms all produced by the same vendor could shut out some candidates. The researchers presented their results at the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT) in Montréal on June 27.

The rise of AI tools in hiring

While job listing websites and the expansion of remote roles have made it easier to apply for more jobs, it’s also hard for candidates to stand out among growing heaps of applications. In 2024, for instance, Google received more than 3 million job applications for about 20,000 roles.

Many employers have contracted with third-party AI vendors to help screen candidates. In addition to managing the flood of applications, AI-based tools often promise to reduce the human biases that can hurt some job seekers. But this shift also means that screening decisions at numerous companies have been turned over to a relatively small number of AIs.

The authors of this study wondered what effect this “algorithmic monoculture” could be having on the application process. “Many different employers use hiring AI tools, sometimes the exact same tools or tools built by the same vendor, and we were interested in what the consequences of that are,” said lead author Rishi Bommasani, senior research scholar at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

To find out, the research team tapped a dataset from the company Pymetrics. The dataset consisted of more than 4 million applications submitted between 2018 and 2022 to nearly 2,000 positions. After initially applying for a job, the applicants were redirected to Pymetrics’ game-based assessments, which aim to measure soft skills such as risk tolerance, focus, and generosity. Based on their scores, algorithms then sort candidates into “recommend” and “do not recommend” categories.

Using applications for which demographic information was included, the researchers searched for evidence of racial bias. They used a threshold set by the U.S. government called the “four-fifths rule.” If one group is recommended for a position at less than 80 percent of the rate of the most-recommended group, it’s a red flag for potential discrimination.

When the researchers first investigated the data, they asked whether the applications, as a whole, were within this standard. They found that they were, overall. “There might be some bias, but not rising to the levels of legal concern,” said Bommasani.

But a new picture emerged when they calculated the rate at which groups were recommended for each individual job opening. They found that 15 percent of Asian applicants and 26 percent of Black applicants applied to jobs where the AI tool appeared to be biased against their racial group. The screening algorithms for those jobs were recommending Asian and Black candidates at a rate less than 80 percent of the leading group, often white candidates. The researchers calculated that if racial groups had been selected at the same rate, 40,000 more applications from Asian and Black candidates would have been recommended.

“We definitely didn’t expect this,” said Bommasani, especially since prior analyses of the aggregate applications didn’t show very much bias. “Some companies think that AI will help them be more fair in their decision-making,” he added. “That’s not necessarily what our results suggest.”

The researchers also considered, for applicants submitting to multiple positions, how often they would be rejected by all – an outcome they called “systemic rejection.” They found that 4 percent of applicants who applied to 10 positions using the games-based assessment were given a “do not recommend” by the AIs for all positions. This rate was higher than what would be expected if companies were making independent decisions about whether to move an application forward.

“The AI algorithms we studied were much more likely to act identically, leading a person to be universally rejected, than if the companies were acting independently,” said Jurafsky. “That suggests that this kind of monoculture, in which every algorithm is identical, can cause problems.”

The study found that 15% of Asian applicants and 26% of Black applicants applied to jobs where the AI tool appeared to be biased.

Making hiring tools fair and transparent

It’s no secret that human hiring managers can introduce bias into job decisions, which studies have shown for decades. The new study shows that AIs, too, can make biased decisions even when they are judging seemingly neutral criteria such as the gameplay scores.

“We don’t yet understand which kinds of algorithms exhibit these differential impacts for different applicant groups and we don’t know what is causing these disparities,” said Jurafsky. “The most important thing we need is continued study. We can’t fix a disparity if we don’t know what’s causing it.”

The results reveal how only looking at the average rates at which applicants are moving forward across all jobs can hide disparities. “One lesson from doing this work is that it is important to always disaggregate, for there could be a lot of complexity that’s covered up by averages,” said co-author Percy Liang, a professor of computer science.

The findings also underscore the need for independent research of such third-party tools. But hiring data like the team used tends to be kept private by companies, preventing such scrutiny. New policies requiring AI companies to share their data could help hiring processes be more transparent. “Absent policy, it’s incredibly unlikely we’ll see more research into the effects of AI and hiring,” said Bommasani. “There’s just not really any way to get data.”

The results also show that employers, who ultimately bear the responsibility of preventing discrimination, should question the vendors they hire for AI-based screening to see if they have verified that their algorithms are not discriminating, said Bommasani. “There is a clear incentive for firms to internalize this and make more sophisticated procurement decisions.”

—

Jurafsky is also a professor of linguistics. The study’s authors also included Sarah Bana, a digital fellow at Stanford’s Digital Economy Lab and an assistant professor of management science at Chapman University; and Kathleen Creel, an assistant professor of philosophy and of computer science at Northeastern University.

Funding sources for the research included the National Science Foundation and the Stanford Lieberman fellowship.

This post was originally published on Stanford News and republished here with permission.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: AI can’t replace mental health therapists. But here’s where it might make a difference
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

AI can’t replace mental health therapists. But here’s where it might make a difference

Dushanthi Madhushika Manamalage, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Frederick Sundram, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Partha Roop, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Reza Shahamiri, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Image: @nguy-n-ti-n-th-nh-2150376175 - pexels

A person wakes in the middle of the night, overwhelmed and needing someone to talk to. But instead of calling a loved one or booking a counselling session, they open ChatGPT.

Around the world, artificial intelligence chatbots are becoming companions, coaches, sounding boards, and, for a rising number of people, unofficial therapists.

Studies have found that many users turn to AI to discuss personal struggles, seek emotional support, reflect on their feelings, and better understand their mental health.

The appeal is easy to understand. Chatbots don’t judge. Unlike stretched mental health services in countries such as New Zealand and Australia, they don’t keep people on lengthy waiting lists.

But as AI tools become more involved in mental health, it is becoming increasingly important to understand where the technology can genuinely help – and where its limits lie.

Can AI recognise depression?

Today’s chatbots can seemingly do everything – from answering complex questions to offering relationship advice – all while sounding remarkably human and empathetic.

With mental health specifically, research has shown that AI systems can provide helpful information, encourage self-reflection, and offer emotional support in some situations.

Some studies even suggest that AI-based mental health tools can help reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression when carefully designed and used appropriately. AI is also beginning to show promise in helping people practise cognitive reframing by encouraging them to consider alternative ways of interpreting difficult situations.

At the same time, researchers, clinicians and regulators have raised serious concerns.

AI systems can generate inaccurate advice – sometimes agreeing with or reinforcing harmful beliefs instead of encouraging people to seek appropriate help – and miss signs of crisis.

An AI system may sound understanding, but it cannot truly understand the person behind the conversation. Unlike mental health professionals, AI is not held to the same professional or regulatory standards if something goes wrong.

More than just providing information, mental health care relies on trust, empathy, clinical judgement and human connection.

All of this is why many experts see AI as a tool to support mental health care, rather than something that can or should replace it.

So, where exactly might it have a useful role?

We in the University of Auckland’s 2DN research group have been investigating one interesting application: spotting signs of depression earlier.

Depression often affects how people communicate. Changes in speaking rate, pauses, tone of voice, word choice and emotional expression can provide clues about a person’s mental state.

These are examples of what researchers call “digital biomarkers” – measurable patterns in our behaviour or physiology that can provide clues about our health. Researchers are also investigating many others, including facial expressions, sleep patterns and physical activity.

Our work explores whether AI can learn to recognise patterns from both speech and text.

Rather than diagnosing people or replacing clinicians, the goal is to develop tools that support screening and monitoring, helping flag people who may benefit from further assessment.

This is similar to how wearable devices can detect unusual heart activity without replacing a cardiologist. Instead, they provide clinicians with another piece of information to help inform decisions.

AI’s promise and pitfalls

AI might support mental health care in many other ways.

It has the potential to expand access to services, support underserved communities, identify problems earlier, help people better understand and manage their own mental wellbeing.

It can also reduce barriers to seeking help – and even personalise therapies by adapting support to an individual’s needs when sufficient high-quality data are available.

But with these opportunities come obvious challenges.

Mental health data is among the most sensitive information a person can share. Privacy, security and informed consent must be carefully protected. AI systems can also inherit biases from the data used to train them, potentially affecting how well they work for different populations.

There is also the risk of over-reliance. Recent research suggests that people may place too much trust in AI systems, even when the technology is wrong.

Because AI often responds in ways that feel supportive or validating, users may accept its advice without questioning it or seeking professional help. In mental health settings, that trust can have serious consequences.

Still, it is inevitable that AI’s role in mental health – as with all other areas of life – will only grow in coming years.

Its greatest value may lie in helping people better understand their mental wellbeing and support clinicians to identify risks earlier.

Technology can recognise patterns. People provide empathy, trust and clinical judgement. The future of mental health care may likely depend on combining the strengths of both.

Dushanthi Madhushika Manamalage, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Engineering and Design, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Frederick Sundram, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Partha Roop, Professor of Electrical and Computer and Software Engineering, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Reza Shahamiri, Senior Lecturer in Software Engineering, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• 86% of U.S. GenAI Chatbot Users Regularly Use One App, New Apptopia Data Shows

• What will AI do for us? Young adults in lower‑income countries feel more positive about its potential – new survey

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Mobile Learning Research Expanded Sharply From 2017 to 2026, Study Finds

A bibliometric analysis of mobile learning research published between 2017 and 2026 shows a sharp expansion in output. There was a big surge between 2020 and 2022 associated with pandemic-driven shifts in higher education. Mobile learning (m-learning), defined as the use of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets to support educational activity, has grown alongside global device penetration and intensive daily usage among students, according to the study published in the International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation.

Image: Tima Miroshnichenko - Pexels

The researchers looked at more than 2,500 papers indexed in Web of Science, using bibliometric spreadsheet techniques and the network-mapping tool VOSviewer. This allowed them to identify patterns in authorship, citations, and research themes through statistical analysis of the academic publications.

China, Taiwan, and the USA emerged as the most active contributors, with the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology identified as the leading institution. Influential work in the field is strongly associated with scholars such as Gwo-Jen Hwang.

The team's thematic mapping indicates a shift away from early emphasis on technology adoption towards more integrated approaches to teaching. It focuses on how mobile tools can shape teaching and learning design. The analysis also highlights increasing collaboration across regions, with growing scholarly influence from East Asia and Latin America.

The team suggests that future research might take into account the advent of readily available artificial intelligence (AI) tools for learning support as well as immersive technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). They suggest that these developments are expected to expand interactive and contextual learning experiences in higher education.

Shambare, B. and Jita, T. (2026) 'Charting the landscape of mobile learning in higher education: a bibliometric mapping of research trends and organisational contexts', Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.1–27. DOI: 10.1504/IJMLO.2026.154394.

This post was originally published by Inderscience Publishers and is republished here with permission.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

•  When managing your money, take a chatbot’s ‘confidence’ with a grain of salt

• Americans Are Losing 2 Months a Year to Scrolling... Here Are 5 Ways to Fix This
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

When managing your money, take a chatbot’s ‘confidence’ with a grain of salt

Pawan Jain, University of Michigan

Consider the following scenario. Suzy is 63, recently retired, and trying to decide when to start receiving Social Security and how to manage her retirement savings to minimize the tax hit.

She opens an AI chatbot, types in the details and gets a calm, well-organized and confident answer: Claim now, convert this much, here is the reasoning.

The chatbot sounds authoritative and even shows its work. So Suzy follows its guidance and never calls a financial planner. Maybe the advice was fine. But maybe it quietly ignored the fact that Suzy’s spouse is younger and in poor health, which can flip the Social Security math. It also may have overlooked that the retirement savings plan conversion it suggested would push Suzy into paying higher Medicare premiums two years later.

Suzy won’t find out for a long time, if ever, whether this guidance was right for her. And the AI will never call back to say it was unsure.

Suzy isn’t an exception. AI chatbots have entered everyday life with remarkable speed: A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 34% of U.S. adults and 58% of those under 30 have used ChatGPT, roughly double the share two years earlier.

A growing number are asking AI about money, and some are getting burned. According to a 2025 survey of 2,000 U.S. adults by Pearl.com, a professional services platform, 19% said they lost more than $100 by following financial advice from an AI chatbot. Among Gen Z investors, that figure rose to 27%.

These aren’t hypothetical risks. People are already paying for answers about their money that are confident – and wrong.

As a finance professor who has been closely watching the spread of AI into personal finance, this is the part of the AI story that worries me most. And it’s not the part you usually hear about.

We argue about AI the wrong way

There are two seemingly opposite complaints about AI. One is that people trust it too much, treating a chatbot like an oracle, a tendency researchers call algorithm appreciation. The other is that people don’t trust it enough and dismiss its useful tools, a tendency known as algorithm aversion.

I argue these are actually two sides of the same coin, and what decides which side you see is whether you can tell when the AI is wrong.

When an AI fails in an obvious way, you notice and lose confidence. So you’re more likely to seek a professional or another human you trust sooner than you otherwise would. That is the safe failure.

The dangerous failure is the opposite. The answer is fluent, confident – and wrong. You have no way to catch it, so you keep managing the problem yourself long past when you should have asked for help.

The trouble is that with money, the second kind of failure is the common kind.

Typical users of chatbots for financial advice tend to be younger, with men outnumbering women. Tim Gouw on Upslash, CC BY

When you mistake fluency for accuracy

Three things make financial advice especially treacherous for AI.

First, fluency is not accuracy. People naturally read a confident and well-articulated answer as competent. But how polished an answer sounds tells you almost nothing about whether it fits your situation or the accuracy of the proposed solution. A chatbot can be word-perfect and still be wrong about your taxes, because your taxes depend on details it never asked about.

Second, AI is least reliable exactly where the stakes are highest. AI tools are good at routine and general topics: what a Roth IRA is, how compound interest works, the difference between a stock and a bond.

But financial life is full of rare, complicated, one-time decisions: exercising stock options, understanding the alternative minimum tax, making required, minimum 401(k) distributions, deciding on a Social Security strategy as a couple, drawing up a divorce settlement.

I made a similar argument three years ago about AI trading on Wall Street. Because market crashes are rare, there’s little data for AI to learn from, so it can be most confident exactly where it is least informed.

That worry hasn’t faded. Market watchers now caution that AI trading bots are creating fresh financial risks, and that same blind spot applies to your personal finances. Researchers call this uneven competence a “jagged frontier” – reliable with common cases but unreliable for unusual ones. And in finance, the unusual cases tend to be the expensive ones.

Third, you often can’t check the work. Financial advice is what economists call a “credence good,” like a mechanic’s diagnosis or a doctor’s recommendation. You often can’t tell whether the advice was good, sometimes for years. A mistaken tax move may not surface until an audit. A bad 401(k) drawdown plan may not bite until the stock market slumps. Without quick feedback, the wrong-but-confident answer never gets corrected.

This is why the Pearl numbers above are probably an undercount, since they capture only losses people noticed.

The quiet failure is the one to watch

Notice that the real harm in Suzy’s story isn’t a single dramatic mistake. It’s that a confident answer made Suzy feel no need to call a professional, so the call never happened.

The danger is not so much that you act on bad advice but that you never seek good advice. The smoother and more reassuring the tool, the easier it is to stay in do-it-yourself mode past the point when you need outside help.

Who’s most at risk? In a study of a large robo-advising platform in India, co-author Vishaal Baulkaran and I found that its users skew young, are predominantly male and tend to be smaller retail investors and professionals. And new account sign-ups rise during periods of high market volatility.

In other words, the people leaning hardest on automated advice match that 27% figure among those Gen Zers who lost more than $100 while using a chatbot for financial advice. They reach for it just when markets turn turbulent and a wrong move is most costly.

There’s also an incentive worth naming. In my new analysis, I argue that a tool that earns its revenue by holding your attention has a reason to sound confident and helpful: Confidence keeps you on the platform. The catch is that the user it retains that way is sometimes the one who should have been handed off to a human.

A system tuned to keep you engaged isn’t the same as one tuned to protect your financial future, and the two can point in different directions. The disruption is already underway, as wealth managers face what Bloomberg has called a chatbot reckoning. A single, new AI tax tool recently sent wealth management stocks sliding as investors bet that automated advice will eat into the business.

How to be smart about using AI

These findings don’t mean that people should avoid AI for money advice. Used well, these tools are a valuable and free financial educator.

This is also not to say that a financial adviser always has the right answers. As with finding any kind of specialist, it’s important to do research first and make sure they meet the kind of criteria laid out by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Fee transparency is also crucial.

But if you do turn to AI, the skill is knowing where to draw the line.

Treat AI as a starting point, not a verdict. It’s excellent for learning concepts, drafting questions and getting oriented before a meeting. It can teach people the vocabulary to have a smarter conversation with an expert.

But watch out for the signals that you have left its comfort zone and entered the territory where AI is weakest and a confident answer is least trustworthy. The red flags are large dollar amounts, tax consequences, anything irreversible and anything that turns on the specifics of your situation rather than a general rule.

Estate questions, the drawdown of retirement savings, strategies for claiming Social Security benefits, business structure and major one-time transactions all belong in this category. Those are the decisions that call for bringing in a human, such as a certified financial planner.

And remember, confidence isn’t competence. When the answer about your money sounds most polished and most certain, that’s not a reason to relax. On the hardest questions, that smooth confidence is exactly the signal that you should pick up the phone and talk to an expert.

Pawan Jain, Associate Professor of Finance, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Americans Are Losing 2 Months a Year to Scrolling... Here Are 5 Ways to Fix This

• How AI Answers Questions Where No Universal Religious Consensus Exists

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Americans Are Losing 2 Months a Year to Scrolling... Here Are 5 Ways to Fix This

By Rachel Perez

Smartphones give humans an infinite amount of connection, whether it be through calling or FaceTime, texts, or messaging via social media apps. While being able to connect with people hundreds or even thousands of miles away is quite the superpower, it can also lead to some brain-damaging habits that affect people’s ability to focus or remain emotionally stable.

According to this recent study by Solitiared, Americans spend 1,460 hours a year scrolling on their phone, which amounts to 61 days or two months out of the year. Imagine the amount of free time people would have if they put their phones down and focused on something else! And it’s not for lack of trying, as this study points out that 70% of Americans surveyed have tried to reduce their screen time recently. It’s just very difficult to get rid of scrolling habits that are so ingrained in the brain.

Yet hope is not lost, as it’s entirely possible to break these habits and build new ones if you have a good strategy. So in this post, you can check out five different ways to reduce screen time with tips and tricks to keep you from reaching for your phone and doomscrolling.

Charts: Solitaired

1. Start Small

Try to set a small screen time goal, whether it’s staying off of one social media app for a whole day or only trying to reduce screen time by a specific increment of time, such as 30 minutes per day. You can adjust to more limits each week so that what starts as something small can make significant change in just weeks.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and screen time certainly can’t be reduced in a day either. While small goals might seem pointless, they can help make the screen time problem seem a little less daunting, and meeting smaller goals can boost confidence and keep you on track to reduce your screen time.

2. Track Screen Time

Many smartphones allow you to track their screen time in your settings app, mapping out usage over a day, week, or month. By looking at your screen time, you can see which apps are being used the most each day and determine whether your screen time is high because you send tons of emails per day for work on your phone or because you’re spending large chunks of time doomscrolling on Instagram and TikTok. If you find yourself spending too much time on one app (or two or three!), you can target those for reduction.

Tracking screen time also offers a tangible way to hold you accountable for the smaller goals you’ve set. For example, if you decide to spend one less hour on Facebook each day, looking at your screen time for that particular app can help you stay on track. Watching your progress over time can be rewarding as you see yourself reducing the time you spend on the app over weeks or months.

3. Schedule an “Unplugging”

Most people seem tied to their phones these days because much of what we do can be filtered through our phones. You might be switching between scrolling on social media apps, texting with friends and family, or using your device for work or school. While not all screen time is a waste of time, however, being tethered to the beck and call of an incoming message or notification can make you a little too dependent on that device.

To combat this, consider an “unplugging.” It can be as simple as putting the phone away in a drawer for an hour or two or staying off your device for an entire day. Unplugging gives you a chance to spend some time off your device completely, not just off a single app. Use this time to connect with the real world in a purposeful, meaningful way. Whether you meet someone for a coffee, pick up a new hobby, relax outdoors, or just work on that to-do list that keeps growing, giving yourself a break from your phone can help you relax and begin new habits that don’t keep you attached to your phone.

4. Social Media Cleanse

One of the most talked-about approaches to reducing screen time is a cleanse. By permanently deleting social media or locking those apps so access is restricted throughout the day, you can finally resist the urge to doomscroll and focus on other things besides social media because you don’t have access to it.

There are other benefits to taking a break from social media. Social media has long been a source of depression and anxiety, with people focused on generating likes and perfect looks rather than things that truly generate joy and fulfillment. By reducing time on those apps or getting rid of the apps altogether, you can free yourself from that cycle.

5. Take on a Brain Workout

For some, scrolling on their phones is simply a way to pass the time while waiting on that email response form work or taking a lunch break. But you can still be on your phone and put your brain to work by doing a brain workout instead of doomscrolling. It can be as simple as trying a word game or playing a quick game of Solitaire. While it’s tempting to get sucked into your phone and scroll mindlessly, you can choose to engage your brain with some mental gymnastics.

Bad habits are always difficult to break, no matter what they are, and creating new habits is even harder. Thankfully, you don’t need to break the scrolling habit immediately. Starting with a small goal makes adjusting to less time on the phone a lot easier. Plus, there are other things to fill time with, such as games that work the brain or just putting the phone away and going outside. By finding the trick that works best for you, you can help yourself by scrolling less and getting that screen time down!

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• What everyone gets wrong about the modern job search — and what actually works

• New study explores rise of 'ragebait' and its impact on online accountability
by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

What everyone gets wrong about the modern job search — and what actually works

Leda Stawnychko, Mount Royal University and Mehnaz Rafi, University of Calgary

Image: Swello - Unsplash

Job searching has never been more accessible — or more confusing. Platforms like LinkedIn, Indeed and employer career pages let candidates submit applications with just a few clicks. What happens after they click “submit,” however, has become fertile ground for misinformation.

Social media is filled with “career influencers,” resume writers, recruiters and companies promising insider knowledge of how hiring really works. Much of this advice focuses on misinformed claims about applicant-tracking systems (ATS) and artificial intelligence.

These services profit from job seekers’ uncertainty and convincing people they need specialized services, tools and products to “beat” the ATS and secure interviews.

The result is that many job seekers spend time and money following advice that has no basis in evidence. Here are four common myths about the job application process, and what the research actually says.

Myth 1: 75 per cent of resumes are rejected

Perhaps the most widely repeated claim online is that 75 per cent of resumes are automatically rejected by an ATS before a human recruiter ever sees them.

The statistic originated from a 2012 sales pitch by Preptel, a resume optimization company that went out of business the following year. No methodology was ever published, yet the figure has spread widely.

In reality, an ATS is software that helps employers manage applications, and its capabilities vary widely. Some systems function as digital filing cabinets, simply storing and organizing applications.

Others automatically screen for basic requirements, such as mandatory eligibility questions. At the most sophisticated end, systems use AI to rank applicants, recommend candidates and analyze asynchronous video interviews.

The advanced AI-powered tools are typically found in large organizations, including many Fortune 500 companies, which receive enormous volumes of applications. In Canada, most employers do not use AI in hiring, and small businesses — which employ more than 60 per cent of the workforce — are especially unlikely to rely on ATS.

Small businesses typically lack both the application volumes that make ATS worthwhile and the procurement infrastructure to adopt and maintain them.

For most Canadian job seekers, the better strategy is to focus on clearly communicating how their skills and experience match the role, and on building relationships within their profession.

Myth 2: AI can write a winning resume

A common message from career influencers is that AI can generate a tailored resume or cover letter that dramatically improves your chances of getting hired. While AI can help candidates prepare application materials more efficiently, it is not a shortcut to a stronger application.

As more candidates rely on the same tools and prompts, applications increasingly sound similar and recruiters take notice.

Far from providing a competitive advantage, AI-generated applications may have the opposite effect. Seventy-four per cent of hiring managers report identifying them, and 80 per cent view them unfavourably.

The best approach is to use AI to augment your own voice. That means using it to refine and sharpen your draft, not replace its substance.

Research on Canadian hiring suggests candidates secure more interviews when their applications contain more detail, clarity and structure. Since today’s recruiters review a myriad of applications that look and sound the same, they tend to respond to the ones that stand out by communicating qualifications in an authentic voice.

Myth 3: Use ‘ATS-friendly’ resume templates

Resume writers and career influencers claim that using an “ATS-friendly” template is essential for “beating” the ATS. Some even sell templates that promise to “optimize” your resume to secure interviews.

In reality, there is no universal ATS-friendly resume because the software employers use varies widely from one company to another. Additionally, modern ATS can extract information from common resume layouts, including columns or tables.

Their main limitation is that they are designed to process text, not images, graphics or icons. That means a clean, readable resume should be the actual target, not a template bought online.

If ATS doesn’t automatically reject resumes the way the influencer economy claims, then optimizing for a system that largely doesn’t work that way is solving the wrong problem. The real audience for your resume is a person, not an algorithm.

The better approach is to write for both systems and people. Use clear headings, relevant keywords and concrete examples that show how your experience matches the role.

Myth 4: More applications, more interviews

Another myth is that, with the right prompts, the job search can be fully automated, allowing candidates to submit hundreds of applications with little effort. More applications should lead to more interviews, the logic goes.

In practice, this approach often comes at the expense of thoughtful job-seeking, such as identifying positions and employers that genuinely match your skills and interests, and crafting applications that reflect that fit.

AI is most effective when it enhances, rather than replaces, a candidate’s work, helping to avoid what has become known as “workslop” — a term for generic, AI-generated content.

Candidates are best served by using AI for brainstorming and polishing while ensuring the final version accurately and authentically reflects your experiences, accomplishments and voice.

The fundamentals haven’t changed

Today’s labour market may look different, but the fundamentals of a successful job search haven’t changed much. In that sense, the best thing job seekers can do may be to ignore most of what they’re being sold.

The strongest applications are those that clearly connect a candidate’s experiences to the role, provide concrete evidence of their abilities and communicate in an authentic voice.

Technology may help employers manage applications, but hiring decisions are ultimately made by people. That makes professional networks, trusted referrals, strong communication and leadership skills more valuable than ever.

Put the time you’d spend on template optimization into one good conversation with someone in your field. The research suggests it’ll go further.

Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University and Mehnaz Rafi, PhD Candidate, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: New study explores rise of 'ragebait' and its impact on online accountability

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

New study explores rise of 'ragebait' and its impact on online accountability

By Joe Stafford, The University of Manchester

A new study has revealed how social media creators are turning anger into entertainment, and what that means for public debate.

Image: Hendrik Kespohl - Unsplash

Research by Dr Nicholas John from The University of Manchester and Dr CJ Reynolds from the University of Copenhagen has explored the rise of ‘ragebait’ - content deliberately designed to provoke anger - and how it is reshaping the way audiences engage with morality, accountability and online behaviour.

Key insights:

• ‘Ragebait’ is an increasingly popular strategy for generating attention online
  
  
• Content creators are engineering confrontations to provoke emotional reactions
  
  
• Audiences are drawn to feelings of moral superiority and catharsis
  
  
• Online ‘accountability’ is often reduced to spectacle rather than real change
  
  
• The trend reflects a shift in how public shaming operates in digital culture

Why this matters

From callout videos to viral confrontations in public spaces, outrage has become a powerful currency in today’s attention economy.

Dr John’s research examines the widely viewed ‘Cart Narcs’ video series, where members of the public are confronted - and often provoked - for failing to return their shopping trolleys to storage bays in supermarket car parks.

While such content appears to promote accountability, the study argues that its real appeal lies in carefully staged conflict.

“Ragebait works because it blurs the line between entertainment and morality,” says Dr John. “It invites viewers to feel they are witnessing justice being done, while actually consuming a highly controlled and repeatable form of provoked outrage.”

Entertainment disguised as accountability

The study identifies a formula behind successful ragebait content - creators construct predictable scenarios, provoke emotional reactions, and then frame themselves as morally justified.

This allows audiences to experience what researchers describe as ‘accountability entertainment’ which stages wrongdoing and its punishment, but without any meaningful consequences beyond the screen.

Rather than encouraging broader social change, the research suggests this format focuses attention on individuals instead of systems.

“Viewers are encouraged to judge and condemn, but not to engage with the wider social conditions that shape people’s behaviour,” Dr John explains. “Accountability becomes something you watch - not something you do.”

The politics of outrage

The research also highlights how ragebait repurposes elements of callout culture – something which is originally rooted in social justice activism - into monetised entertainment.
In doing so, it shifts power dynamics - instead of challenging powerful figures, creators often target ordinary individuals, amplifying their mistakes for mass audiences.

This creates what the study describes as a form of ‘atomised politics’, where collective action is replaced by individual judgement and fleeting moments of online outrage.

What needs to change

The study calls for greater awareness of how emotionally provocative content is produced and consumed, particularly as platforms continue to reward engagement-driven formats.

Understanding the mechanics behind ragebait, says Dr John, is key to recognising its broader social impact.

“Not all outrage is meaningful - if we want healthier public discourse, we need to question content that turns anger into spectacle and ask who benefits from it.” — Dr Nicholas John.

Publication details:

The research is published in Information, Communication & Society.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2026.2665797.

This post was originally published on The University of Manchester and republished here with permission. The title has been edited for clarity.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Study Finds 70% of Smartphone Photos Are Never Looked at Again - Citing Overload and Emotional Avoidance

• Google updates Chrome Web Store rules on extension data collection and AI safeguards
by External Contributor via Digital Information World