“Why Always Me?” Rumination and Self-Blame Are Stronger After Human Than Algorithmic Rejection in Job Applications

With artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly integrated into recruitment processes, understanding the emotional impact of rejection by algorithmic versus human agents is crucial. This study examined emotional reactions and coping strategies following online job application rejections from either a human or an algorithmic decision-maker. Quantitative analyses showed no significant immediate differences in positive or negative emotional reactions between conditions, though human rejections produced slightly stronger increase in negative emotions descriptively (p = .070). Crucially, applicants rejected by humans engaged significantly more in maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, namely rumination (p = .004) and self-blame (p = .009), compared to those rejected by algorithms. Positive reappraisal, an adaptive strategy, did not differ significantly between groups. Qualitative analyses revealed nuanced differences in how applicants explained their rejection: algorithmic rejections were more frequently attributed to impersonal mismatch criteria (e.g., to be a better fit for a different task), whereas human rejections often triggered personal inadequacy beliefs (e.g., to have sent a weak application or to be worse than other candidates) that may foster maladaptive strategies such as rumination and self-blame more strongly. These findings suggest that rejection by human recruiters may have greater long-term psychological risks due to maladaptive coping, highlighting the need for considering not only immediate emotional outcomes but also longer-term psychological implications. Practitioners should thus enhance adaptive coping and supportive communication to mitigate the negative long-term effects of social exclusion in human interactions (e.g., depression). Although human rejections may not feel worse at first, they may prompt more harmful self-focused coping over time. Rejection by humans may leave deeper scars than from machines – not because of how it feels in the moment, but because of how we cope with it.