The Auditing Audit Studies Team investigates the scholarly knowledge of discrimination based on correspondence audit studies.

Our team includes:

Edvard Nergård Larsen, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Social Research

Charles Crabtree, Assistant Professor of Government, Dartmouth College

John B. Holbein, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Virginia

Natasha Quadlin, Associate Professor of Sociology, UCLA

S. Michael Gaddis, Senior Research Scientist, NWEA

Please see below for some updated information on what we’ve been working on.

Part 1: Heterogeneity in Correspondence Audits of Racial Discrimination: A Meta-Analysis

Updated working paper coming summer 2025.

To what extent does racial/ethnic discrimination in America differ across contexts? In this paper, we provide the largest and most comprehensive review of racial/ethnic discrimination research to date. We conducted a meta-analysis of 78 correspondence audits in the United States, representing over half a million applications, emails, and other forms of correspondence that occur in all aspects of modern society, including the hiring, housing, medical, public services, and education sectors. We find that racial/ethnic discrimination in the United States continues to be a large problem, but discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities simultaneously exhibits a substantial amount of contextual heterogeneity not recognized in previous discrimination research. Discrimination against Black Americans is most common in hiring, followed by the rental housing context. Discrimination against Hispanic Americans is highest in hiring, but discrimination in other contexts is considerably lower. Although discrimination occurs in education, medical, and public services contexts, it is far less common in these sectors.

Working paper available here.

Figure 1. Forest Plot of Correspondence Audits Examining Discrimination Against Black Americans by Type of Study

Figure 2. Box Plot of White/Black Discrimination Ratio by Type of Correspondence Audit Study

Part 2: Missing Results of Discrimination: A Systematically Comparative Meta-Analysis and Re-Examinations of Racial, Gender, and Intersectional Discrimination using Correspondence Audits

New paper uploaded April 2025.

Intersectionality theory argues that race and gender cannot be fully understood in isolation or through an additive approach. However, field experiments frequently examine aggregate racial or gender discrimination without accounting for within-category differences (e.g., gendered variations in racial discrimination) or intersectionality. Building on theoretical perspectives of intersectionality, we introduce a systematically comparative analytic framework designed to (a) identify missing results of correspondence audits and (b) provide recommendations to help scholars conduct more holistic analyses. We conduct a meta-analysis of 52 correspondence audits, encompassing nearly 330,000 tests for discrimination, and a re-examination of each study using seven discrimination ratios. The meta-analysis reveals a previously overlooked pattern in rental housing discrimination: compared to White men, Black men experience discrimination, Black women’s outcomes are statistically similar, and White women receive preferential treatment. Additionally, our re-examination uncovers ten ways scholars may unintentionally miss key findings when failing to adopt a systematically comparative intersectional approach. We conclude with best-practice recommendations to guide scholars in designing, analyzing, and citing correspondence audits, helping them avoid these problematic scenarios. Importantly, our framework extends beyond field experiments focused on race and gender and can be broadly applied to research on disparities, enabling more comprehensive analyses across numerous dimensions.

Working paper available here.

Figure 1. Systematically Comparative Scatter Plot of Discrimination Ratios