“How do neurodiverse candidates experience Artificial Intelligence (AI) selection methods?”
Please e-mail us at info@gallopexecutive.com for a copy of the report in PDF format.
Purpose of the Study
As AI becomes more common in recruitment—particularly through asynchronous video interviews (AVIs), chatbots, and assessment games—there is little research on how neurodiverse candidates (e.g., autistic, ADHD, dyslexic individuals) experience these methods. This study explores their lived experiences, perceived fairness, and what would make AI-based hiring more inclusive.
Method
- 10 neurodiverse participants (ages 18–25), all employed, with experience of AI hiring tools.
- Semi-structured interviews conducted via Teams.
Key Findings (Themes)
- AI is unnatural and should not be treated like a human interviewer
Participants consistently described AI interviews as:
- “weird,” “unnatural,” “like a game,” “dehumanising”
- Lacking rapport, sincerity, or conversational flow
They felt: - They perform better with a human because humans can adapt, clarify, and show understanding.
- AI systems are not designed for neurodiverse people, who may need more context, flexibility, or recognition of processing differences.
- The recruitment process shapes their view of the organisation
Participants form strong opinions about employers based on the AI interview stage.
What they reported:
- AI gives a poor first impression of an organisation.
- Some refused to apply again after a bad AI interview.
- They believed AI benefits only the organisation (speed, cost savings), not the candidate.
- They sometimes put less effort into AI interviews because they feel less meaningful.
- Difficulties and (few) positives of AI recruitment methods
Reported difficulties:
- High stress, especially from:
- time pressure
- lack of feedback
- not knowing if they were performing “correctly”
- Struggles with:
- Eye contact requirements
- Interpreting facial-emotion or behavioural cues
- Processing delays
- Staying focused
- Strong emotional reactions: many described hating AI interviews.
- Positives (for a minority):
- Some found AVIs less anxiety-inducing than face-to-face interviews.
- A few liked completing the interview at their own pace or in their own environment.
What organisations can do to help neurodiverse candidates
Participants identified clear adjustments:
More time
- Longer response windows
- Removal of countdown timers
Ability to personalise the process
- Option to turn off camera
- Option to respond in writing instead of video
- Ability to replay or hear questions aloud
- Allowing individual accommodations
Clear explanation of the process
- Being told in advance that AI is being used
- Receiving the structure or questions beforehand
- Clear criteria and expectations
Making the process fair
- Standardisation still needed
- But fairness should focus on equity, not identical treatment
- Organisations must follow through on promised accommodations
Overall Conclusions
Neurodiverse candidates generally experience AI selection methods as:
- Impersonal, stressful, unnatural, and poorly suited to their communication and processing styles.
- Damaging to their confidence and perceptions of the employer.
- Often discouraging enough that they avoid companies using AI tools.
If organisations want to hire neurodiverse talent fairly, they must:
- Increase transparency
- Offer flexibility and accommodations
- Keep humans involved in key stages
- Redesign AI systems to account for diverse neurocognitive profiles.
AI tools, as currently implemented, risk excluding neurodiverse candidates and harming employer reputation.
MSc Thesis paper written by Elizabeth Morrell:
- MSc at Northumbria University in Occupational and Organisational Psychology
- BSc Behaviourial Science at Durham
