Last Name Selection in Audit Studies

Crabtree, Charles; Chykina, Volha

doi:10.15195/v5.a2

Cited by 44 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we still have limited information about the signaling power of names. Although existing work has not focused explicitly on the perceptions of decision makers, scholars have found that racialethnic perceptions from names vary by a host of demographic characteristics and geographic location (Crabtree and Chykina 2018;Gaddis 2017aGaddis , 2017b. Decision makers, like human resources professionals, likely are exposed to a larger quantity and wider variety of names.…”

Section: Understanding the "How" Aspect Of Racial-ethnic Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the “How” and “Why” Aspects of Racial-Ethnic Discrimination: A Multimethod Approach to Audit Studies

Gaddis

2019

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have used audit studies to provide causal evidence of racial discrimination for nearly 60 years. Although audits are an excellent methodological tool to investigate the “what,” “where,” and “when” aspects of racial-ethnic discrimination, audits are less appropriate, by themselves, to investigate the “how” and “why” aspects of racial-ethnic discrimination. In this article, I review why audit studies are necessary to study racial-ethnic discrimination, the evidence from audit studies, and their limitations. I then argue that scholars should adopt a multimethod approach to audit studies to move from documenting the existence of racial-ethnic discrimination to examining how and why racial-ethnic discrimination occurs. Adoption of this multimethod approach will result in a deeper understanding of racial-ethnic discrimination with the potential to shape both opinions and policy surrounding discrimination.

show abstract

Section: Understanding the "How" Aspect Of Racial-ethnic Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the “How” and “Why” Aspects of Racial-Ethnic Discrimination: A Multimethod Approach to Audit Studies

Gaddis

2019

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Census Bureau, 2012). Crabtree and Chykina (2018) examined the last names from Gaddis (2017) to identify geographically robust racially distinct last names. Frequency data from the Census was used to show that these last names were predominately used by one race.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of a Multiple Conviction Record on Hiring Outcomes

Leasure

Kaminski

2020

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of a multiple conviction criminal record with varying crime types on hiring outcomes. An experimental correspondence audit was used to achieve this objective. The results showed that those with multiple conviction records and varying crime types received significantly fewer callbacks for interviews than those with no record. While the callback point estimates for those with this type of criminal history were not as low as expected, their statistically significant differences from those with no record were consistent with the bulk of previous research. The results also indicated the continued presence of racial discrimination in hiring practices as equally qualified African American applicants received significantly fewer callbacks than White applicants.

show abstract

“…To increase our confidence that the official received the treatment, we also included a gendered partner synonym. In addition, we chose surnames that have consistent interpretation as white across regions, to prevent variation in attitudes about race and ethnicity from influencing our findings (Crabtree and Chykina ). These were Anderson, Nielson, and Walsh.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans

Lowande

Proctor

2019

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marriage rights were extended to same‐sex couples in the United States in 2015. However, anecdotes of bureaucratic noncompliance (in the form of bias or denial of license issuance) raise the possibility that de jure marriage equality has not led to equality in practice. We investigate this by conducting a nationwide audit experiment of local‐level marriage license–granting officials in the United States. These officials vary in the constituencies they serve, as well as how they are selected, allowing us to evaluate long‐standing hypotheses about bureaucratic responsiveness. Overall, we find no evidence of systematic discrimination against same‐sex couples—regardless of responsiveness measure, institutions, ideology, or prior state legal history. We find, however, that among same‐sex couples, officials tended to be more responsive to lesbian couples. In contrast to evidence in other areas of service provision, such as policing and federal assistance programs, we find bureaucrats tasked with provision of marriage services show little evidence of discrimination.

show abstract

Last Name Selection in Audit Studies

Cited by 44 publications

References 20 publications

Understanding the “How” and “Why” Aspects of Racial-Ethnic Discrimination: A Multimethod Approach to Audit Studies

Understanding the “How” and “Why” Aspects of Racial-Ethnic Discrimination: A Multimethod Approach to Audit Studies

The Impact of a Multiple Conviction Record on Hiring Outcomes

Bureaucratic Responsiveness to LGBT Americans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About