  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.
