Catherine Balfe, Patrick Button, Mary Penn, David J Schwegman
{"title":"审计函证研究中的非频繁身份信号、多重函证和检测风险。","authors":"Catherine Balfe, Patrick Button, Mary Penn, David J Schwegman","doi":"10.1177/1525822x211057623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Audit correspondence studies are field experiments that test for discriminatory behavior in active markets. Researchers measure discrimination by comparing how responsive individuals (\"audited units\") are to correspondences from different types of people. This paper elaborates on the tradeoffs researchers face between sending audited units only one correspondence and sending them multiple correspondences, especially when including less common identity signals in the correspondences. We argue that when researchers use audit correspondence studies to measure discrimination against individuals that infrequently interact with audited units, they raise the risk that these audited units become aware they are being studied or otherwise act differently. We also argue that sending multiple pieces of correspondence can increase detection risk. We present the result of an audit correspondence study that demonstrates how detection can occur for these reasons, leading to significantly attenuated (biased towards zero) estimates of discrimination.</p>","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9928174/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Infrequent Identity Signals, Multiple Correspondence, and Detection Risks in Audit Correspondence Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Balfe, Patrick Button, Mary Penn, David J Schwegman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1525822x211057623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Audit correspondence studies are field experiments that test for discriminatory behavior in active markets. Researchers measure discrimination by comparing how responsive individuals (\\\"audited units\\\") are to correspondences from different types of people. This paper elaborates on the tradeoffs researchers face between sending audited units only one correspondence and sending them multiple correspondences, especially when including less common identity signals in the correspondences. We argue that when researchers use audit correspondence studies to measure discrimination against individuals that infrequently interact with audited units, they raise the risk that these audited units become aware they are being studied or otherwise act differently. We also argue that sending multiple pieces of correspondence can increase detection risk. We present the result of an audit correspondence study that demonstrates how detection can occur for these reasons, leading to significantly attenuated (biased towards zero) estimates of discrimination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Field Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9928174/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Field Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x211057623\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x211057623","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Infrequent Identity Signals, Multiple Correspondence, and Detection Risks in Audit Correspondence Studies.
Audit correspondence studies are field experiments that test for discriminatory behavior in active markets. Researchers measure discrimination by comparing how responsive individuals ("audited units") are to correspondences from different types of people. This paper elaborates on the tradeoffs researchers face between sending audited units only one correspondence and sending them multiple correspondences, especially when including less common identity signals in the correspondences. We argue that when researchers use audit correspondence studies to measure discrimination against individuals that infrequently interact with audited units, they raise the risk that these audited units become aware they are being studied or otherwise act differently. We also argue that sending multiple pieces of correspondence can increase detection risk. We present the result of an audit correspondence study that demonstrates how detection can occur for these reasons, leading to significantly attenuated (biased towards zero) estimates of discrimination.
期刊介绍:
Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.