方法对比

	Audit Experiment	现场实验
领域	Political Science	实验设计
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2011	1920s–1930s (agriculture); 1990s–2000s (social sciences)
提出者	Butler & Broockman (political responsiveness audits); Bertrand & Mullainathan (correspondence-audit lineage)	Formalized by R. A. Fisher (1935); systematized in social sciences by Harrison & List (2004)
类型	Randomized field experiment using matched fictitious requests	Experimental design
开创性文献	Butler, D. M., & Broockman, D. E. (2011). Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 463–477.	Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.
别名	Correspondence study, Field audit study, Discrimination audit, Responsiveness audit	field trial, natural field experiment, randomized field experiment, field RCT
相关	4	5
摘要	An audit experiment, also called a correspondence or field audit study, sends matched but fictitious requests to real-world targets — such as legislators, landlords, or employers — while randomizing a single treatment cue, then compares the rate and quality of responses. In political science the canonical design follows Butler and Broockman's 2011 study of U.S. state legislators, which varied the putative race signaled by a constituent's name to measure discrimination in responsiveness.	A field experiment applies the logic of a randomized controlled trial in a naturally occurring, real-world environment rather than an artificial laboratory. Participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions while going about everyday activities, allowing researchers to estimate causal effects with high internal validity while preserving a level of ecological realism that laboratory settings cannot offer. The design is especially prominent in economics, public health, political science, and development research.