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

Abstract

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