The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Different samples, different results? How sampling techniques affect the results of field experiments on ethnic discrimination
Abstract
Abstract This paper explores a possible sampling bias in field experiments through a unique combination of a large-scale field experiment on ethnic discrimination in the German rental housing market (N = 2,992 tested apartments) and data on the internet housing market where the apartments were sampled from (observation of the whole platform for about one year). Up to now, most field experiments sampled on the level of suppliers (not apartments) and selected the tested suppliers within a short field period (point sampling). This probably led to an over-representation of small suppliers and apartments that had already been advertised for a long time, resulting in an under-representation of large suppliers and new vacancies. We analyze how both issues affect the measurement of ethnic discrimination and its underlying mechanisms. With our case study on the German housing market, we first observed the expected sampling bias: There was a strong over-sampling of small suppliers and apartments already offered for a long time. Second, this bias was found to have only little impact on the descriptive result of substantial discrimination against Turkish applicants. There was only a slight tendency that discrimination was higher for small suppliers and offers advertised for a relatively short time (i.e. new vacancies). Overall, we conclude that evidence on ethnic discrimination and its underlying risk factors is remarkably robust to the used sampling technique. Although there were no indications of a severe bias, our market data illustrate opportunities to test the effects of market conditions that often remained unnoticed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, a recent study by Auspurg et al. (2020) compares results of field experiments of racial discrimination in housing drawn from different sources and finds results change little, showing that, at least in this case, field experimental knowledge is not sensitive to sampling method.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Auspurg et al. (2020)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots
Cleveland, W. S. (1979) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 · Cited by 11,594
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 · Cited by 5,815
The Economics of Discrimination.
Collard, D. A., & Becker, G. S. (1972) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2230052 · Cited by 3,648
The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism.
Phelps, E. S. (1972) · American Economic Review · Cited by 3,412
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740 · Cited by 2,064
Arrow, K. J. (2015) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400867066-003 · Cited by 1,897
Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models
Norton, E. C., Wang, H., & Ai, C. (2004) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0400400206 · Cited by 1,761
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Fernandez, 2014, Does competition drive out discrimination?, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association
- Pager, 2008, The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets, Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181, 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-090420-035144 · Cited by 180
Verhaeghe, P.-P. (2022) · Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_306-1 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Auspurg, K., Schneck, A., & Thiel, F.
- Venue
- Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 65
- Pages
- 100444
- ISSN
- 0276-5624
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 72
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- Funders
- Wolfgang and Anita Bürkle foundation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.