The Impact of Ambiguity-induced Error in Offender Decision-making: Evidence from the Field

Abstract

Objectives: To invoke behavioral economics theories of ambiguity in the context of offender decision-making, and to test the impact of ambiguity in punishment certainty on offender decisions. Methods: We leverage a quasi-experimental condition among a sample of drunk driving arrestees that are tested for alcohol use and subject to mandatory brief incarceration for a violation. The treatment condition relaxes a zero-tolerance alcohol rule, thereby introducing design-based ambiguity surrounding the certainty of punishment. We use Mahalanobis matching and propensity score weighting methods to estimate the impact of ambiguity on violations. We then interrogate this finding with complementary sensitivity analyses. Results: When facing the ambiguity condition participants are 27–28 percentage points (84–93 percent) more likely to violate program conditions after 30 days of supervision. We demonstrate that a statistical difference in violations due to ambiguity is still detectible at 90 and 180 days of supervision. These results are robust to alternative specifications and falsification tests. Conclusions: This study is the first to examine the impact of ambiguity on criminal justice program compliance using a quasi-experiment from the field. We further demonstrate the unintended costs to persons under supervision and jurisdictions of laxity in program design, which are applicable across criminal justice domains.

Can novel ‘swift‐certain‐fair’ programs work outside of pioneering jurisdictions? An analysis of 24/7 Sobriety in Montana, USA

“…This suggests that a significant proportion of a high‐risk population in the community reduces their alcohol consumption, but these rates are notably lower than the rate observed among comparable DUI‐2 participants in South Dakota. This difference has been attributed to ambiguity introduced by requiring participants to pass a test with a failure threshold of 0.02 BAC compared to zero [26], and is consistent with lower program fidelity under an identical rule in North Dakota [27]. While we caution comparisons of re‐arrest rates across states due to differences in enforcement and potential repercussions of arrest and conviction, the estimated impact on DUI re‐arrest is large and is not statistically different from the impact of the program found in South Dakota [10].…”

Radicalized Environmental Extremism and Situational Decision Making

“…This ambiguity can serve as a deterrent net of sanction risk as people tend to be ambiguity adverse (Pickett and Bushway 2015). Further, and central to the processes outlined here, ambiguity around probabilities on the lower end of the probability spectrum can increase the deterrent effect of ambiguity Loughran et al 2011;Midgette et al 2021). Such approaches may make situations that are otherwise perceived to be defined as low risk appear riskier, ultimately reducing the vulnerability of a previously desirable target.…”

“…Such targets, however, are typically accompanied by high levels of risk for detection and arrest. This underscores the importance of careful planning, skilled execution, and quick situational decision-making to ensure the success of an attack and, in turn, advance the intended political message (Robinson, Marchment, and Gill 2019). The accounts offered by the extremists in our sample provide support for RCT and SCP processes highlighted in prior works and contribute to evolving conversations about the complexities of displacement and adaptation (e.g., Freilich et al 2019), while underscoring the importance of sanction risk perceptions in extremists’ decision-making and strategic behaviors (Gibbs 1975; Jacobs 2010).…”

Random drug testing in prisons: Does a little testing go a long way?

“…Ideally, increasing the frequency of drug testing would increase incarcerated persons' perceptions of the certainty of detection (being tested and failing a drug test after use), and thereby increasing expected sanctions and preventing drug use in prisons (Hawken, 2016). While in community correctional settings drug testing with clearly communicated probabilities of detection has been associated with reductions in substance use (Hawken, 2018a;Kilmer & Midgette, 2020;Midgette et al, 2021), evidence of the efficacy of U/A in institutional corrections is sparse.…”