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

• DOI: 10.1177/00224278211000088
• Date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Greg Midgette,Thomas A. Loughran,Sarah Tahamont
• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Impact of

Ambiguity-induced

Error in Offender

Decision-making:

Evidence from

the Field

Greg Midgette

1

, Thomas A. Loughran

2

,

and Sarah Tahamont

1

Abstract

Objectives: To invoke behavioral economi cs 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.

1

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

2

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Greg Midgette, Unive rsity of Maryland, Co llege Park, 2220 Samu el J. LeFrak Hall,

7251 Preinkert Driv e, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

Email: gem@umd.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00224278211000088

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

2021, Vol. 58(6) 635–665

Results: When facing the ambiguity condition participants are 27–28 percent-

age 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 super-

vision. 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 applica-

ble across criminal justice domains.

Keywords

rational choice, offender decision-making, community corrections,

substance abuse, deterrence

Drawing on both theoretical tradition (see, e.g., Beccaria 1764; Nagin 2013;

Paternoster 2010) and empirical evidence (Durlauf and Nagin 2011;

Kleiman 2009; Nagin, Solow, and Lum 2015) scholars have long advocated

for policies designed to deter crime by increasing the certainty of detection

rather than increasing the severity of punishment.

1

The empirical literature

that demonstrates a link between perceived risk of detection and subsequent

criminal behavior (Loughran et al. 2016; Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga

2006; Paternoster et al. 1985; Thomas, Loughran, and Hamilton 2020)

spans multiple decades. This line of research is primarily rooted in tradi-

tional rational choice theory (Becker 1968), notably applied to explain

crime displacement through a criminal opportunities framework (Cornish

and Clarke 1986) and situational crime prevention (Clarke 1995).

Classical rational choice is predicated on the concept of expected utility

theory (Rubinstein et al. 2007), which theorizes individual decisions to be

the output of a rational calculus weighing the expected costs and benefits of

potential actions. However, much of what we know about the influence of

sanction certainty on offender decision-making comports with the beha-

vioral science perspective that departures from rational behavior observed

among individuals often manifest in predictable ways (Loughran 2019;

Pogarsky, Roche, and Pickett 2018). In particular, scholars have demon-

strated that misjudgments about probabilities, specifically in terms of how

humans judge and act on them, are numerous (Camerer 1998; Kahneman

and Tversky 1979). Cook (2016:1159) argued this point explicitly in

636 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 58(6)