审计函证研究中的非频繁身份信号、多重函证和检测风险。

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Field Methods Pub Date : 2023-02-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-12 DOI:10.1177/1525822x211057623
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

审计对应研究是一种实地实验,用于测试活跃市场中的歧视行为。研究人员通过比较个人("被审计单位")对来自不同类型人群的信件的反应程度来衡量歧视行为。本文详细阐述了研究人员在只向被审核单位发送一封信函和向他们发送多封信函之间所面临的权衡,尤其是在信函中包含不太常见的身份信号时。我们认为,当研究人员使用审计通信研究来衡量与被审计单位互动不频繁的个人所受到的歧视时,就会增加这些被审计单位意识到他们正在被研究或采取其他不同行为的风险。我们还认为,发送多份函文会增加检测风险。我们介绍了一项审计函证研究的结果,该结果表明,由于上述原因,可能会出现被发现的情况,从而导致对歧视的估计值显著减弱(偏向于零)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
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.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting What predicts willingness to participate in a follow-up panel study among respondents to a national web/mail survey? Invited Review: Collecting Data through Dyadic Interviews: A Systematic Review Offering Web Response as a Refusal Conversion Technique in a Mixed-mode Survey Network of Categories: A Method to Aggregate Egocentric Network Survey Data into a Whole Network Structure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1