The Unrealized Potential of Audits: Applicant-Side Inequalities in Effort, Opportunities, and Certainty

Randomized audits and correspondence studies are widely regarded as a “gold standard” for capturing discrimination and bias. However, gatekeepers (e.g., employers) are the analytic unit even though stated implications often center on group-level inequalities. Employing simple rules, we show that audits have the potential to uncover applicant-side inequalities and burdens beyond the gatekeeper biases standardly reported. Specifically, applicants from groups facing lower callback rates must submit more applications to ensure an eventual callback, have fewer opportunities to choose from, and face higher uncertainty regarding how many applications to submit. These results reflect several sequential and cumulative stratification processes “real-world” applicants face that warrant attention in conventional audit reporting. Our approach can be straightforwardly applied and, we show, is particularly pertinent for employment relative to other institutional domains (e.g., education, religion). We discuss the methodological and theoretical relevance of our suggested extensions and the implications for the study of inequality, discrimination, and social closure.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
2025-05-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251338240
Primary Topic
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Unrealized Potential of Audits: Applicant-Side Inequalities in Effort, Opportunities, and Certainty

Shawn D. Bushway, Mike Vuolo, Vincent J. Roscigno, Sadé L. Lindsay
Sociological Methods & Research
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
article

The Unrealized Potential of Audits: Applicant-Side Inequalities in Effort, Opportunities, and Certainty

Shawn D. Bushway, Mike Vuolo, Vincent J. Roscigno, Sadé L. Lindsay
article en

Abstract

Randomized audits and correspondence studies are widely regarded as a “gold standard” for capturing discrimination and bias. However, gatekeepers (e.g., employers) are the analytic unit even though stated implications often center on group-level inequalities. Employing simple rules, we show that audits have the potential to uncover applicant-side inequalities and burdens beyond the gatekeeper biases standardly reported. Specifically, applicants from groups facing lower callback rates must submit more applications to ensure an eventual callback, have fewer opportunities to choose from, and face higher uncertainty regarding how many applications to submit. These results reflect several sequential and cumulative stratification processes “real-world” applicants face that warrant attention in conventional audit reporting. Our approach can be straightforwardly applied and, we show, is particularly pertinent for employment relative to other institutional domains (e.g., education, religion). We discuss the methodological and theoretical relevance of our suggested extensions and the implications for the study of inequality, discrimination, and social closure.

Sociological Methods & Research
Public Policy Institute of California (US), RAND Corporation (US), Cornell University (US), University at Albany, State University of New York (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.