If you’re using AI for professional work purposes and are wondering if you’re being judged for it, it might depend on who you are.
The résumés were distributed to two groups, who had been told the documents had been created with the help of artificial intelligence.
Reviewers of Emily’s résumé were 22% more likely to question whether the individual could be trusted compared to James. The female candidate’s CV was also twice as likely to raise doubts about her competence and ability to do her job.
“She can’t even write a CV herself—not sure she has the skills to carry out the job,” read some of the feedback on Emily’s CV. James’s résumé had a different response, with his use of AI justified: “He just needed a bit of help putting it together,” was one response.
“When men use AI, we question their effort. When women use AI, we question their integrity. That difference changes the perceived risk of using AI,” Chatoo said.
Koning identified the concern Chatoo’s study exhibits, saying women are concerned about the perception of their work if they use or rely on AI. Koning, a Professor of Business Administration, explained: “Women face greater penalties in being judged as not having expertise in different fields. They might be worried that someone would think even though they got the answer right, they ‘cheated’ by using ChatGPT.”
A generational divide is also appearing in Chatoo’s study, which surveyed 1,000 British adults: Gen Z men, who have grown up with AI, shared some of the harshest views about Emily’s resume.
Of their responses, 3.5 times the number of Gen Z men described Emily’s résumé as “weak” compared to James’s, whose résumé had a 97% approval rating. By contrast, for the same resume content, Emily’s CV was rated strong by 76% of respondents.
“If people believe they will be judged more harshly for using AI, they are less likely to adopt it—regardless of their capability,” Chatoo added. “Closing the AI adoption gap means addressing not just how people use AI, but how that use is evaluated.”
