Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:26:47.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moving Beyond Measurement: Adapting Audit Studies to Test Bias-Reducing Interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Daniel M. Butler  and
Charles Crabtree
Daniel M. Butler
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0521, La Jolla, CA 92093-0521, e-mail: [email protected]
Charles Crabtree
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, University of Michigan, 5700 Haven Hall, 505 S. State, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses how audit studies can be adapted to test the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing discrimination. We conducted an adapted audit experiment to test whether making officials aware of bias could reduce levels of racial bias. While the limitations of our design make it difficult to assess where information alone can reduce bias, our study makes two important contributions. First, we replicate prior studies by showing that white, local elected officials are less responsive to black constituents. That local officials exhibit biased behavior is particularly worrisome, as local government is often the level that most directly affects citizens’ daily lives. Second, we provide several suggestions for future audit studies that draw from the strengths and weaknesses of our own design. We hope that they will help improve future work on identifying and reducing discrimination.

Keywords

audit studiesracial biaslocal politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adida, Claire L., Laitin, David D., and Valfort, Marie-Anne. 2010. “Identifying Barriers to Muslim Integration in France.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (52): 384–90.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal: A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review 94 (4): 991–1013.Google Scholar
Burgess, Diana, van Ryn, Michelle, Dovidio, John, and Saha, Somnath. 2007. “Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (6): 882–7.Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M. 2014. Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M. and Broockman, David E.. 2011. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 463–77.Google Scholar
Costa, Mia. 2016. “How Responsive are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Devine, Patricia G. and Monteith, Margo J.. 1999. “Automaticity and Control in Stereotyping.” In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, eds. Chaiken and Trope, Y. (pp. 339–360). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dovidio, John F., Kawakami, Kerry and Gaertner, Samuel L.. 2002 “Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (1): 62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Findley, Michael and Nielson, Daniel. 2015. “Obligated to Deceive? Aliases, Confederates, and the Common Rule in International Field Experiments.? In Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals, ed. Desposato, Scott. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., Kaplan, Edward H., and Kern, Holger L.. 2010. “Baseline, Placebo, and Treatment: Efficient Estimation for Three-Group Experiments.” Political Analysis 18 (3): 297–315.Google Scholar
Gaddis, S. Michael. 2014. “Discrimination in the Credential Society: An Audit Study of Race and College Selectivity in the Labor Market.” Social Forces 93 (4): 1451–79.Google Scholar
Griffin, John D. and Newman, Brian. 2008. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClendon, Gwyneth. 2016. “Race and Responsiveness: A Field Experiment with South African Politicians.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 3 (1): 60–74.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Scalable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments.” Political Analysis 13 (3): 233–52.Google Scholar
Pager, Devah. 2007. “The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 609 (1): 104–33.Google Scholar
Pope, Devin G., Price, Joseph, and Wolfers, Justin. 2013. “Awareness Reduces Racial Bias.” National Bureau of Economic Research No. w19765.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., Ashmore, Richard D., and Gary, Melvin L.. 2001. “Unlearning” Automatic Biases: The Malleability of Implicit Prejudice and Stereotypes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (5): 856–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulman, Kevin A., et al. 1999. “The Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians’ Recommendations for Cardiac Catheterization.” New England Journal of Medicine 340 (8): 618–26.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Green, Donald P.. (2012). “Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 1055–69.Google Scholar
Turner, Margery A., Ross, Stephen, Galster, George C., and Yinger, John. 2002. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS) (No. 2002-16).Google Scholar
Vuolo, Mike, Uggen, Christopher, and Lageson, Sarah. 2015. “Statistical Power in Experimental Audit Studies: Cautions and Calculations for Matched Tests with Nominal Outcomes.” Sociological Research & Methods. DOI: 10.1177/0049124115570066.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Butler and Crabtree supplementary material 1

Appendix

Download Butler and Crabtree supplementary material 1(PDF)
PDF 605.9 KB