Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{208157,
        author = {Suhana Aafreen Kareem Nawaz},
        title = {Between Consistency and Context: Public Perceptions of AI and Human Interview Evaluation},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {13},
        number = {4},
        pages = {521-529},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=208157},
        abstract = {Artificial intelligence is increasingly being considered for interview-based tasks like assessing and screening people. This study focuses on discovering how people perceive the features and functions of AI and humans in assessment procedures. A cross-sectional survey with 65 participants located in Qatar have completed a 26- question questionnaire on familiarity with AI, interview experience, as well as views on strengths and weaknesses, comfort, accountability, and opinions on AI vs. human evaluators. According to respondents, AI is correlated with consistency; factual evaluation; structured assessment; speed; and identifying patterns. Also, humans were more strongly associated with emotional understanding, contextual understanding, creativity, and personal interaction. Although respondents recognized possible benefits of AI (e.g., less personal bias and analytical help), concerns about privacy, algorithmic bias, incorrect evaluations, and limited contextual understanding remained common. Besides, mixed feelings about AI-assisted interviews were present, with discomfort more than comfort. In addition, most respondents preferred humans, shared responsibility, or situation-dependent responsibility for final evaluations rather than Al acting as the sole authority. Overall, the findings suggest that AI is viewed mainly as a supporting technology rather than a replacement for human judgment, highlighting the importance of human oversight and human-centered design. These results describe perceptions and associations in one cross-sectional sample; they do not establish that Al or humans perform better and do not demonstrate causal relationships.},
        keywords = {Artificial intelligence; Human–AI interaction; Interview evaluation; Algorithmic decision-making; Public perception; Human judgment},
        month = {September},
        }