arbiter
JournalsAccount

More Than Bias Reduction? How Applicants View Anonymous Application Procedures

Julia C. Büttner et al.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment2026https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.70054article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Anonymous application procedures (AAPs), which hide applicants' demographic and other identifying information, aim to reduce discrimination during preselection. However, research about applicants' perceptions of such procedures is scarce. Accordingly, we compared perceptions of traditional resumés, anonymized resumés, and standardized application forms. Potential applicants preferred anonymized resumés followed by standardized forms, with traditional resumés being least favored. Participants' gender and migration background did not emerge as moderators. In a second study, explaining that standardized application forms are used to enhance equal employment opportunities improved perceptions, whereas emphasizing job relatedness or combining both explanations was less effective. Organizations might benefit from adopting AAPs to signal their commitment to diversity and improve applicant reactions. Limitations and potential areas for future research are discussed.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.70054

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{julia2026,
  title        = {{More Than Bias Reduction? How Applicants View Anonymous Application Procedures}},
  author       = {Julia C. Büttner et al.},
  journal      = {International Journal of Selection and Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.70054},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

More Than Bias Reduction? How Applicants View Anonymous Application Procedures

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.