Study finds reviewers judge women's use of AI in job applications more harshly than men's, questioning integrity rather than effort

Zehra Chatoo, a former Meta strategist and founder of Code For Good Now, distributed identical AI-generated résumés to 1,000 British adults with one key difference: one attributed to a female candidate named Emily Clarke, the other to a male candidate named James Clarke. Reviewers of Emily's résumé were 22% more likely to question whether the candidate could be trusted, and her CV was twice as likely to raise doubts about competence compared to James's.

Gen Z men in the study were 3.5 times more likely to describe Emily's résumé as 'weak' compared to James's, whose résumé received a 97% approval rating. For the same resume content, Emily's CV was rated strong by 76% of respondents. Chatoo attributed this to a perception gap: 'When men use AI, we question their effort. When women use AI, we question their integrity.'

A Harvard Business School working paper by Rembrand Koning found an adoption rate gap between men and women at about 25%, noting women worry AI use might signal they 'cheated' rather than earned their work. A Brookings Institute study this year found that of roles with high AI exposure but low capacity to adapt, 86% were held by women.