{"id":159,"date":"2026-07-18T22:48:13","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T05:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wliu.com\/?page_id=159"},"modified":"2026-07-18T22:48:13","modified_gmt":"2026-07-19T05:48:13","slug":"future-research","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wliu.com\/en\/research\/future-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Future Research"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Dissertation research agenda<\/p>\n

Trust and identification in AI-enabled selection<\/h1>\n

A multi-study, cross-cultural research program examining how applicants determine whether an organization\u2014and the technology acting on its behalf\u2014is worthy of trust and organizational identification.<\/p>\n

The model<\/a>Six constructs<\/a>Three studies<\/a>Research questions<\/a>References<\/a><\/div>\n<\/section>\n
\n
\n

Proposed theoretical model<\/p>\n

From an experience to a relationship<\/h2>\n

Selection encounters generate justice judgments. Those judgments communicate relational value and organizational character, shaping trust and identification\u2014and ultimately behavior.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
Experience<\/span>Applicant reactions<\/strong>What happened\u2014and how did it feel?<\/small><\/div>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

Evaluation<\/span>Justice perceptions<\/strong>Was the process, outcome, and treatment fair?<\/small><\/div>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

\n
Relationship A<\/span>Organizational trust<\/strong>Can I accept vulnerability?<\/small><\/div>\n
Relationship B<\/span>Organizational identification<\/strong>Could this organization be \u201cus\u201d?<\/small><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

Consequences<\/span>Applicant outcomes<\/strong>Accept \u00b7 withdraw \u00b7 advocate \u00b7 reapply<\/small><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Selection agent Human \u00b7 AI \u00b7 Hybrid<\/b><\/span>National context Japan \u00b7 United States<\/b><\/span>Decision stage Pre-decision \u00b7 Decision \u00b7 Post-decision<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n
\n
\n

Bibliometric foundation<\/p>\n

The map of the field leads to the dissertation<\/h2>\n

The bibliographic-coupling study identified 410 documents and mapped the 100 most strongly connected papers. Its three research communities show where applicant-reactions scholarship began, how it explains psychological meaning, and where AI is pushing the field next.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/path><\/path><\/svg>Cluster 01 \u00b7 41 papers<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice foundations<\/h3>\n

Selection fairness, job relatedness, opportunity to perform, explanations, treatment, and outcomes.<\/p>\n

Gilliland (1993) \u2197<\/a>Hausknecht et al. (2004) \u2197<\/a><\/article>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/circle><\/circle><\/circle><\/circle><\/svg>Cluster 02 \u00b7 31 papers<\/span><\/p>\n

Psychological mechanisms<\/h3>\n

Attribution, uncertainty reduction, signaling, social identity, organizational identification, and trust.<\/p>\n

Herriot (2004) \u2197<\/a>Jones & Gavin (2013) \u2197<\/a><\/article>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/rect><\/rect><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/svg>Cluster 03 \u00b7 28 papers<\/span><\/p>\n

AI and digital selection<\/h3>\n

Automation, opacity, privacy, innovativeness, reduced human contact, and applicant agency.<\/p>\n

Woods et al. (2020) \u2197<\/a>Acikgoz et al. (2021) \u2197<\/a><\/article>\n

\u2192<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/path><\/circle><\/svg>Research frontier<\/span><\/p>\n

Trust \u00d7 identification<\/h3>\n

Human, AI, and hybrid selection across time\u2014and compared between Japan and the United States.<\/p>\n

Full bibliometric study \u2192<\/a><\/article>\n<\/div>\n

\n
410<\/strong>documents found<\/span><\/div>\n
100<\/strong>papers mapped<\/span><\/div>\n
3<\/strong>clusters connected<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/rect><\/rect><\/rect><\/path><\/path><\/svg>Bibliographic coupling<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/rect><\/rect><\/rect><\/path><\/path><\/svg><\/p>\n
\n

The missing connection<\/p>\n

Justice evaluates the encounter. Trust interprets vulnerability. Organizational identification converts treatment into an identity-based relationship.<\/h3>\n

The mapping suggests that these mechanisms are adjacent but not yet sufficiently integrated\u2014particularly when an AI system acts as the organization\u2019s representative. This gap provides the field-level rationale for the proposed longitudinal, experimental, and cross-cultural studies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n

Construct library<\/p>\n

What each construct means\u2014and how it enters the research<\/h2>\n

Each dossier separates the formal definition, core dimensions, dissertation role, and representative scholarship. Linked citations lead to the original paper or publisher record.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
01<\/span><\/path><\/circle><\/path><\/path><\/svg><\/p>\n
\n

Applicant reactions<\/h3>\n

The applicant\u2019s interpretation of the selection process<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Working definition<\/h4>\n

Applicant reactions are the attitudes, perceptions, emotions, intentions, and behaviors that applicants develop before, during, and after the selection process. The construct shifts the unit of analysis from organizational actions to how applicants experience and interpret selection procedures.<\/p>\n

Role in the proposed dissertation<\/h4>\n

The dissertation treats applicant reactions as the starting point in the selection process. Reactions should be measured at multiple stages\u2014not reconstructed only after the selection decision\u2014because interpretations of an assessment, interview, delay, or rejection can change over time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Core dimensions and boundaries<\/h4>\n