Abstract:Governments are increasingly turning to algorithmic risk assessments when making important decisions, such as whether to release criminal defendants before trial. Policymakers assert that providing public servants with algorithmic advice will improve human risk predictions and thereby lead to better (e.g., fairer) decisions. Yet because many policy decisions require balancing risk-reduction with competing goals, improving the accuracy of predictions may not necessarily improve the quality of decisions. If risk assessments make people more attentive to reducing risk at the expense of other values, these algorithms would diminish the implementation of public policy even as they lead to more accurate predictions. Through an experiment with 2,140 lay participants simulating two high-stakes government contexts, we provide the first direct evidence that risk assessments can systematically alter how people factor risk into their decisions. These shifts counteracted the potential benefits of improved prediction accuracy. In the pretrial setting of our experiment, the risk assessment made participants more sensitive to increases in perceived risk; this shift increased the racial disparity in pretrial detention by 1.9%. In the government loans setting of our experiment, the risk assessment made participants more risk-averse; this shift reduced government aid by 8.3%. These results demonstrate the potential limits and harms of attempts to improve public policy by incorporating predictive algorithms into multifaceted policy decisions. If these observed behaviors occur in practice, presenting risk assessments to public servants would generate unexpected and unjust shifts in public policy without being subject to democratic deliberation or oversight.

Can political gridlock undermine checks and balances? A lab experiment

Pork barrel politics, voter turnout, and inequality: An experimental study

Policy rules and political polarization

Abuse of power

Political Decentralization and Policy Experimentation

The dynamics of strategic voting: pathways to consensus and gridlock

Do Rights to Resistance Discipline the Elites? An Experiment on the Threat of Overthrow

The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences

2 policies in different regions , and they do so all the time ( Brennan and Buchanan 1980 , Breton 1996

Who Controls the Agenda Controls the Polity

Judging Judicial Review in the American States

Political Accountability and the Distortion of Law Enforcement

Decision-makers are resilient in the face of social exclusion

The Unelected Hand? Bureaucratic Influence and Electoral Accountability

Expectation Violation in Political Decision Making: A Psychological Case Study

Public Confidence in the Judiciary and the Police – Does Respondents Internalize Montesquieu’s Ideas?

Trust and accountability in times of crisis

Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts

Does expenditure in public governance guarantee less corruption? Non-linearities and complementarities of the rule of law

Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making

It Is Easy For Multi-Issue Bundles To Advance Anti-Democratic Agendas