Overconfidence and Public Intoxication Arrest: Evidence from a University Town Police Log
-
Elizabeth Hoffman
Abstract
We show that overconfident individuals are likely to be arrested for public intoxication by using arrest records from a university town police log. This relationship is robust to various control variables such as risk aversion, time discounting, present bias, self-control, selfishness, loss aversion, and socializing with peers arrested for public intoxication. However, this relationship is no longer significant using only self-reported arrest data. We hypothesize that overconfident individuals are likely to underreport their arrests. This result has important implications for the use of self-reported data on public intoxication arrests rather than actual arrest records.
Funding source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Bureau of Business Research at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for funding. The authors would also like to thank Tim Salmon and Kip Viscusi for their comments on earlier drafts and Lucy Dougherty, Hoffmann Kim, and Taylor Weidman for their experimental assistance. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.
Appendix A: Logit and Linear Probability Model Regressions
Determinants of public intoxication arrest: police-reported arrest data.
| Dependent variable: publicintoxication arrest (=1) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overconfidence | 0.58 (0.19)*** | 0.59 (0.20)*** | 0.61 (0.23)*** | 0.62 (0.24)*** |
| Risk aversion | – | 0.02 (0.13) | – | 0.15 (0.16) |
| Discount rate | – | 0.02 (0.17) | – | 0.09 (0.19) |
| Present bias | – | 0.13 (0.20) | – | 0.08 (0.22) |
| Self-control | – | 0.05 (0.03) | – | 0.07 (0.03)** |
| Selfishness | – | – | 0.02 (0.08) | 0.07 (0.08) |
| Loss aversion | – | – | 0.06 (0.23) | 0.05 (0.27) |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | – | – | 1.32 (0.50)*** | 1.44 (0.51)*** |
| Log-likelihood | 71.20 | 69.38 | 61.92 | 59.35 |
-
N = 124. Logit estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***p-value <0.01, **<0.05.
Robustness tests.
| Dependent variable: public intoxication arrest (=1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction: correct answers in cognitive reflection test ≤3 | Adding cognitive reflection test score | Including only binge drinkers in the control group | |
| Overconfidence | 0.80 (0.23)*** | 0.64 (0.32)** | 0.50 (0.23)** |
| Risk aversion | 0.20 (0.17) | 0.11 (0.15) | 0.19 (0.20) |
| Discount rate | 0.09 (0.22) | 0.10 (0.19) | 0.08 (0.22) |
| Present bias | 0.14 (0.25) | 0.09 (0.22) | 0.04 (0.25) |
| Self-control | 0.06 (0.04) | 0.07 (0.03)** | 0.06 (0.05) |
| Selfishness | 0.00 (0.11) | 0.07 (0.08) | 0.05 (0.09) |
| Loss aversion | 0.07 (0.30) | 0.01 (0.26) | 0.20 (0.29) |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | 1.63 (0.66)** | 1.45 (0.53)*** | 1.39 (0.65)** |
| Cognitive reflection test score | – | 0.02 (0.28) | – |
| Log-likelihood | 49.38 | 59.55 | 47.86 |
| Observations | 107 | 124 | 91 |
-
Logit estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***p-value <0.01, **<0.05.
Determinants of public intoxication arrest and underreporting: self-reported arrest data
| Dependent variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public intoxication arrest (=1) | Underreporting (=1) | ||||||||
| Overconfidence | 0.27 (0.19) | 1.43 (0.48)*** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Risk aversion | 0.01 (0.14) | – | 0.32 (0.23) | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Discount rate | 0.17 (0.19) | – | – | 0.09 (0.31) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Present bias | 0.17 (0.21) | – | – | – | 0.11 (0.23) | – | – | – | – |
| Self-control | 0.08 (0.03)** | – | – | – | – | 0.08 (0.08) | – | – | – |
| Selfishness | 0.11 (0.08) | – | – | – | – | – | 0.18 (0.16) | – | – |
| Loss aversion | 0.01 (0.24) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.04 (0.31) | – |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | 0.91 (0.53)* | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.66 (0.30)** |
| Log-likelihood | 63.85 | 15.81 | 19.93 | 20.52 | 20.50 | 19.99 | 19.89 | 20.55 | 19.00 |
-
N = 124. Logit estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***p-value <0.01, **<0.05, *<0.10.
Determinants of public intoxication arrest: police-reported arrest data.
| Dependent variable: public | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| intoxication arrest (=1) | ||||
| Overconfidence | 0.11 (0.04)*** | 0.11 (0.04)*** | 0.09 (0.03)*** | 0.09 (0.04)** |
| Risk aversion | – | 0.01 (0.03) | – | 0.02 (0.02) |
| Discount rate | – | 0.00 (0.03) | – | 0.01 (0.03) |
| Present bias | – | 0.03 (0.04) | – | 0.02 (0.04) |
| Self-control | – | 0.01 (0.01) | – | 0.01 (0.01) |
| Selfishness | – | – | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) |
| Loss aversion | – | – | 0.00 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.04) |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | – | – | 0.19 (0.06)*** | 0.19 (0.06)*** |
| R-squared | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.30 |
-
N = 124. Linear probability model estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***p-value <0.01, **<0.05.
Robustness tests.
| Dependent variable: public intoxication arrest (=1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction: correct answers in cognitive reflection test ≤3 | Adding cognitive reflection test score | Including only binge drinkers in the control group | |
| Overconfidence | 0.12 (0.04)*** | 0.10 (0.05)* | 0.08 (0.04)* |
| Risk aversion | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.02 (0.03) |
| Discount rate | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.03) | 0.02 (0.04) |
| Present bias | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.05) |
| Self-control | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.01) |
| Selfishness | 0.00 (0.02) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.01 (0.02) |
| Loss aversion | 0.01 (0.05) | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.04 (0.05) |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | 0.19 (0.06)*** | 0.19 (0.06)*** | 0.16 (0.06)** |
| Cognitive reflection test score | – | 0.01 (0.05) | – |
| R-squared | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.26 |
| Observations | 107 | 124 | 91 |
-
Linear probability model estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***p-value <0.01, **<0.05, *<0.10.
Determinants of public intoxication arrest and underreporting: self-reported arrest data.
| Dependent variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public intoxication arrest (=1) | Underreporting (=1) | ||||||||
| Overconfidence | 0.04 (0.03) | 0.05 (0.02)** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Risk aversion | 0.00 (0.03) | – | 0.01 (0.01) | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Discount rate | 0.03 (0.03) | – | – | 0.00 (0.01) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Present bias | 0.03 (0.04) | – | – | – | 0.00 (0.01) | – | – | – | – |
| Self-control | 0.01 (0.01)** | – | – | – | – | 0.00 (0.00) | – | – | – |
| Selfishness | 0.02 (0.01) | – | – | – | – | – | 0.01 (0.01) | – | – |
| Loss aversion | 0.01 (0.04) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.00 (0.01) | – |
| Peers arrested for public intoxication | 0.15 (0.07)** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.05 (0.04) |
| R-squared | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
-
N = 124. Linear probability model estimates are reported. All models include a male dummy variable and age. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. **p-value <0.05.
We provide logit and linear probability model regression results in this appendix. Logit regression results in Tables A1–A3 (linear probability model regression results in A4, A5, and A6) correspond to Tables 2 –4 in the text, respectively. These results are qualitatively comparable to probit regression results in the text.
Appendix B: Experimental Instructions
This is an economic study of health-related behaviors. You MUST be at least 18 years old to participate in the study. If you are an international student, you should NOT join the study because you may not be familiar with drinking-related regulations in the U.S.
The study is completely anonymous. Thus we ask you to choose your own participant ID. Please remember the ID because you need it when you receive your compensation. The ID should be the combination of any word and any one digit number (e.g. ISU7 or goldfish2).
Please decide your own participant ID: ______________
The study will ask you a number of questions, many of which can earn you money. Your earnings will be decided based on all of your choices in those questions. Participant compensation will average $20. Your final compensation may vary depending on your decisions made on study tasks.
The study will last approximately 20 min. Please try to complete the study in one sitting. If you complete the study within the next hour, we will pay you a $1 bonus in addition to your earnings.
[Overconfidence]
This task asks you to answer four logical questions. You will be paid $0.50 for each question answered correctly.
A monitor and a keyboard cost $350 in total. The monitor costs $300 more than the keyboard. How much does the keyboard cost? _____
It takes 10 computers 10 min to run 10 simulations. How long does it take 200 computers to run 200 simulations? _____
In a house, there is a tree. The tree doubles in height every year. If it takes 30 years for the tree to be 30 feet, how many years would it take to be 15 feet? _____
James is both the 10th tallest and the 10th shortest in height in the class. How many students are in the class? _____
How many of the four questions do you think you solved correctly? 0/1/2/3/4
[Risk aversion]
In this task, you will be asked to choose one lottery you would like to play among five different lotteries. Each lottery has two possible outcomes, and its outcome is determined by flipping a coin. You will learn your payoff in this task after you finish the entire study. Please choose one lottery you prefer: _____
Lottery A: You win $4 if a heads turns up; you win $4 if a tails turns up.
Lottery B: You win $6 if a heads turns up; you win $3 if a tails turns up.
Lottery C: You win $8 if a heads turns up; you win $2 if a tails turns up.
Lottery D: You win $10 if a heads turns up; you win $1 if a tails turns up.
Lottery E: You win $12 if a heads turns up; you win $0 if a tails turns up.
[Discount rate and present bias]
In this task, suppose you were asked to choose between smaller payments today and larger payments in 4 weeks. For each question, please choose one payment. Please answer all six questions.
Would you like to receive (A) $49 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $44 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $40 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $35 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $29 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $22 today; or (B) $50 in 4 weeks? A/B.
In this task, suppose you were asked to choose between smaller payments in 4 weeks and larger payments in 8 weeks. For each question, please choose one payment. Please answer all six questions.
Would you like to receive (A) $49 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $44 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $40 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $35 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $29 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
Would you like to receive (A) $22 in 4 weeks; or (B) $50 in 8 weeks? A/B.
[Self-control]
In this task, for each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Be sure to indicate your agreement or disagreement for every statement below.
| Stronglydisagree | Somewhatdisagree | Neutral | Somewhatagree | Stronglyagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I rarely make hasty decisions. | |||||
| I am not able to get organized. | |||||
| I do fly off the handle. | |||||
| There are so many little jobs that need to be done that I sometimes just ignore them. | |||||
| I control my temper. | |||||
| I do things on impulse that I later regret. | |||||
| I do control my angry feelings. | |||||
| I do worry about things that might go wrong. | |||||
| I do consider the consequences before I take action. | |||||
| I am not a worrier. | |||||
| I do plan for the future. | |||||
| I never do things on the spur of the moment. | |||||
| I do finish what I start. | |||||
| I do act on impulse. |
[Selfishness: dictator game]
In this task, you now have $10 to be divided between you and another, randomly chosen, study participant. All other study participants will be given the same choice: that is, they will be given $10 to divide between themselves and another participant.
Whichever amount you decide to pass on to another participant will be divided by two. That is, if you decide to pass $x and keep $(10 − x) for yourself, one randomly chosen participant will receive $x/2 (rounded up).
Your payoff from this task will be how much you allocate to yourself, plus half the amount allocated to you by another randomly chosen participant. Note that the recipient, the participant that receives money from you, and the participant that you receive money from will be different, and both will be chosen randomly.
Please decide a money amount for recipient (between $0 and $10): ____
[Loss aversion]
This task asks you to answer three questions. In each question, you will be asked to decide whether or not you would like to play a lottery. Each lottery has two possible outcomes, and its outcome is determined by flipping a coin.
Any amount you win will be added to your earnings, and any amount you lose will be subtracted from your earnings. After you finish the entire study, we will randomly choose one of your choices and pay you accordingly.
Would you play the following lottery?: Win $5 if a heads occurs; otherwise, lose $2 Play/Not play
Would you play the following lottery?: Win $5 if a heads occurs; otherwise, lose $3 Play/Not play
Would you play the following lottery?: Win $5 if a heads occurs; otherwise, lose $4 Play/Not play
[Peers who were arrested for public intoxication]
In this task, we have an interest in your best friends’ drinking-related behaviors in the past. Please prepare a scratch paper and list FIVE names of your best friends on the paper. We will not ask your friends’ names. Put friends first that you spend more time socializing with.
Please check a box if the friends have ever been arrested or cited for the following reasons since [the year prior to the experiment].
| Public intoxication (“drunk and disorderly”) | Neither | I am not sure. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Friend 1 (closest) | |||
| Friend 2 | |||
| Friend 3 | |||
| Friend 4 | |||
| Friend 5 |
[Self-reported public intoxication arrest]
Since the previous year, have you ever been arrested or cited for public intoxication (i.e. “drunk and disorderly”)? Yes/No
[Self-reported binge drinking]
In the past 30 days, have you had 5 [4 if you are female] or more drinks of alcohol on one occasion? One drink is defined as one bottle or glass of beer, one glass of wine, one mixed drink, or one shot of liquor? Yes/No
[Gender]
What is your gender? Male/Female.
References
Ameriks, J., A. Caplin, and J. Leahy. 2003. “Wealth Accumulation and the Propensity to Plan.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (3): 1007–47. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360698487.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R., and J. M. Mellor. 2008. “Predicting Health Behaviors with an Experimental Measure of Risk Preference.” Journal of Health Economics 27 (5): 1260–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.011.Search in Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., E. Duflo, D. Keniston, and N. Singh. 2019. “The Efficient Deployment of Police Resources: Theory and New Evidence from a Randomized Drunk Driving Crackdown in India.” In NBER Working Paper No. 26224.10.3386/w26224Search in Google Scholar
Barberis, N. C. 2013. “Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 173–96. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.173.Search in Google Scholar
Bénabou, R., and J. Tirole. 2002. “Self-Confidence and Personal Motivation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (3): 871–915. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193913.Search in Google Scholar
Bernhardt, N., E. Obst, S. Nebe, S. Pooseh, F. M. Wurst, W. Weinmann, M. N. Smolka, and U. S. Zimmermann. 2019. “Acute Alcohol Effects on Impulsive Choice in Adolescents.” Journal of Psychopharmacology 33 (3): 316–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118822063.Search in Google Scholar
Bouffard, J. A., M. L. Exum, and N. Niebuhr. 2018. “Examining the Stability and Predictors of Deterrability across Multiple Offense Types within a Sample of Convicted Felons.” Journal of Criminal Justice 57: 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.04.005.Search in Google Scholar
Bradford, D., C. Courtemanche, G. Heutel, P. McAlvanah, and C. Ruhm. 2017. “Time Preferences and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 55 (2): 119–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-018-9272-8.Search in Google Scholar
Bregu, K., C. Deck, L. Ham, and S. Jahedi. 2017. “The Effects of Alcohol Use on Economic Decision Making.” Southern Economic Journal 83 (4): 886–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12179.Search in Google Scholar
Burks, S. V., J. P. Carpenter, L. Goette, and A. Rustichini. 2013. “Overconfidence and Social Signalling.” The Review of Economic Studies 80 (3): 949–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rds046.Search in Google Scholar
Chu, Y. W. L. 2015. “Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?” The Journal of Law and Economics 58 (2): 481–517. https://doi.org/10.1086/684043.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J., K. M. Ericson, D. Laibson, and J. M. White. 2020. “Measuring Time Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 58 (2): 299–347. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191074.Search in Google Scholar
Corazzini, L., A. Filippin, and P. Vanin. 2015. “Economic Behavior under the Influence of Alcohol: An Experiment on Time Preferences, Risk-Taking, and Altruism.” PLoS One 10 (4): e0121530. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121530.Search in Google Scholar
Damm, A. P., and C. Dustmann. 2014. “Does Growing up in a High Crime Neighborhood Affect Youth Criminal Behavior?” The American Economic Review 104 (6): 1806–32. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.6.1806.Search in Google Scholar
Dave, D., and H. Saffer. 2008. “Alcohol Demand and Risk Preference.” Journal of Economic Psychology 29 (6): 810–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.03.006.Search in Google Scholar
Daylor, J. M., D. V. Blalock, T. Davis, W. X. Klauberg, J. Stuewig, and J. P. Tangney. 2019. “Who Tells the Truth? Former Inmates’ Self-Reported Arrests vs. Official Records.” Journal of Criminal Justice 63: 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.04.002.Search in Google Scholar
Deaves, R., E. Lüders, and M. Schröder. 2010. “The Dynamics of Overconfidence: Evidence from Stock Market Forecasters.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 75 (3): 402–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S., and U. Malmendier. 2006. “Paying Not to Go to the Gym.” The American Economic Review 96 (3): 694–719. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.3.694.Search in Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., and P. J. Grossman. 2008. “Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.006.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, D., E. Golberstein, and J. L. Whitlock. 2014. “Peer Effects on Risky Behaviors: New Evidence from College Roommate Assignments.” Journal of Health Economics 33: 126–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.11.006.Search in Google Scholar
Engel, C. 2011. “Dictator Games: A Meta Study.” Experimental Economics 14 (4): 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7.Search in Google Scholar
Engineer, R., A. Phillips, J. Thompson, and J. Nicholls. 2003. Drunk and Disorderly: A Qualitative Study of Binge Drinking Among 18-to 24-Year-Olds. London: Home Office.Search in Google Scholar
Feld, J., J. Sauermann, and A. de Grip. 2017. “Estimating the Relationship between Skill and Overconfidence.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 68: 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.03.002.Search in Google Scholar
Frederick, S. 2005. “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (4): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.Search in Google Scholar
Friehe, T., and H. Schildberg-Hörisch. 2018. “Predicting Norm Enforcement: The Individual and Joint Predictive Power of Economic Preferences, Personality, and Self-Control.” European Journal of Law and Economics 45 (1): 127–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-017-9556-5.Search in Google Scholar
Gervais, S., and T. Odean. 2001. “Learning to Be Overconfident.” Review of Financial Studies 14 (1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/14.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Gillen, B., E. Snowberg, and L. Yariv. 2018. “Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study.” Journal of Political Economy 127 (4): 1826–63. https://doi.org/10.1086/701681.Search in Google Scholar
González-Iglesias, B., J. A. Gómez-Fraguela, and Ma Á. Luengo. 2014. “Sensation Seeking and Drunk Driving: The Mediational Role of Social Norms and Self-Efficacy.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 71: 22–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.05.006.Search in Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R., and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503621794Search in Google Scholar
Hansen, B. 2015. “Punishment and Deterrence: Evidence from Drunk Driving.” The American Economic Review 105 (4): 1581–617. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130189.Search in Google Scholar
Hoch, S. J. 1985. “Counterfactual Reasoning and Accuracy in Predicting Personal Events.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11 (4): 719–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.719.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffman, M., and S. V. Burks. 2020. “Worker Overconfidence: Field Evidence and Implications for Employee Turnover and Firm Profits.” Quantitative Economics 11 (1): 315–48. https://doi.org/10.3982/QE834.Search in Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–55. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700.Search in Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2014. “Chapter 4 – Assessment and Estimation of Risk Preferences.” In Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, edited by M. Machina, and B. T. Kip. Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty Viscusi, 135–201. North-Holland.10.1016/B978-0-444-53685-3.00004-0Search in Google Scholar
Hsu, C., K. E. Novoselov, and R. Wang. 2017. “Does Accounting Conservatism Mitigate the Shortcomings of CEO Overconfidence?” The Accounting Review 92 (6): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51718.Search in Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. V., L. Kincaid, A. F. Weltge, M. Lee, and S. F. Basinger. 2019. “Public Intoxication: Sobering Centers as an Alternative to Incarceration, Houston, 2010–2017.” American Journal of Public Health 109 (4): 597–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304907.Search in Google Scholar
Khwaja, A., D. Silverman, and F. Sloan. 2007. “Time Preference, Time Discounting, and Smoking Decisions.” Journal of Health Economics 26 (5): 927–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.02.004.Search in Google Scholar
Lochner, Lance. 2007. “Individual Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System.” American Economic Review 97 (1): 444–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.1.444.Search in Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. 1996. “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (3): 272–92. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0028.Search in Google Scholar
Loughran, T. A., R. Paternoster, A. R. Piquero, and J. Fagan. 2012. “‘A Good Man Always Knows His Limitations’: The Role of Overconfidence in Criminal Offending.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50 (3): 327–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812459649.Search in Google Scholar
Moan, I. S., T. Norström, and E. E. Storvoll. 2013. “Alcohol Use and Drunk Driving: The Modifying Effect of Impulsivity.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 74 (1): 114–9. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.114.Search in Google Scholar
Moffitt, T. E., L. Arseneault, D. Belsky, N. Dickson, R. J. Hancox, H.L. Harrington, R. Houts, H. Harrington, R. Houts, R. Poulton, B. W. Roberts, S. Ross, M. R. Sears, W. M. Thomson, and A. Caspi. 2011. “A Gradient of Childhood Self-Control Predicts Health, Wealth, and Public Safety.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (7): 2693 LP-2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108.Search in Google Scholar
Moore, D. A., and P. J. Healy. 2008. “The Trouble with Overconfidence.” Psychological Review 115 (2): 502–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502.Search in Google Scholar
Northcote, J., and M. Livingston. 2011. “Accuracy of Self-Reported Drinking: Observational Verification of ‘Last Occasion’ Drink Estimates of Young Adults.” Alcohol and Alcoholism 46 (6): 709–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agr138.Search in Google Scholar
Nusbaumer, M. R. 1991. “Hitting the Skids: Social Policy and the Control of Public Intoxication.” Sociological Focus 21 (2): 165–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1988.10570976.Search in Google Scholar
Oster, E., I. Shoulson, and E. R. Dorsey. 2013. “Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease.” The American Economic Review 103 (2): 804–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.2.804.Search in Google Scholar
Piquero, A. R., R. Paternoster, G. Pogarsky, and T. Loughran. 2011. “Elaborating the Individual Difference Component in Deterrence Theory.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7 (1): 335–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404.Search in Google Scholar
Pogarsky, G. 2007. “Deterrence and Individual Differences Among Convicted Offenders.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23 (1): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6.Search in Google Scholar
Schulenberg, J., L. Johnston, P. O’Malley, J. Bachman, R. Miech, and M. Patrick. 2020. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use 1975–2019: Volume 2, College Students and Adults Ages 19-60. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.10.3998/2027.42/162576Search in Google Scholar
Single, E., M. Beaubrun, M. Mauffret, A. Minoletti, J. Moskalewicz, A. Moukolo, N. K. Plange, S. Saxena, T. Stockwell, P. Sulkunen, H. Suwaki, K. Hoshigoe, and S. Weiss. 1997. “Public Drinking, Problems and Prevention Measures in Twelve Countries: Results of the WHO Project on Public Drinking.” Contemporary Drug Problems 24 (3): 425–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099702400302.Search in Google Scholar
Sloan, F. A., and L. M. Eldred. 2015. “Do Preferences of Drinker-Drivers Differ?” International Journal of Health Economics and Management 15 (2): 241–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-015-9169-x.Search in Google Scholar
Sloan, F. A., L. M. Eldred, T. Guo, and Y. Xu. 2013. “Are People Overoptimistic about the Effects of Heavy Drinking?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 47 (1): 93–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-013-9172-x.Search in Google Scholar
Sloan, F. A., L. M. Eldred, and Y. Xu. 2014. “The Behavioral Economics of Drunk Driving.” Journal of Health Economics 35: 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2014.01.005.Search in Google Scholar
Sloan, F., L. Eldred, S. McCutchan, and A. Platt. 2016. “Deterring Rearrests for Drinking and Driving.” Southern Economic Journal 83 (2): 416–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12159.Search in Google Scholar
Sloan, F. A., S. A. McCutchan, and L. M. Eldred. 2017. “Alcohol-Impaired Driving and Perceived Risks of Legal Consequences.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 41 (2): 432–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13298.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J. D., and J. Agate. 2004. “Solutions for Overconfidence: Evaluation of an Instructional Module for Counselor Trainees.” Counselor Education and Supervision 44 (1): 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01858.x.Search in Google Scholar
Snowberg, E., and L. Yariv. 2021. “Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools.” The American Economic Review 111 (2): 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181065.Search in Google Scholar
Spinnewijn, J. 2015. “Unemployed but Optimistic: Optimal Insurance Design with Biased Beliefs.” Journal of the European Economic Association 13 (1): 130–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12099.Search in Google Scholar
Trafimow, D., and J. A. Sniezek. 1994. “Perceived Expertise and its Effect on Confidence.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57 (2): 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1016.Search in Google Scholar
Weisburd, S. 2021. “Police Presence, Rapid Response Rates, and Crime Prevention.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 103 (2): 280–93. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00889.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Overconfidence and Public Intoxication Arrest: Evidence from a University Town Police Log
- The Changing Determinants of Juvenile Crime
- Failing Young and Temporary Workers? The Impact of a Disruptive Crisis on a Dual Labour Market
- Productivity, Innovation Spillovers, and Mergers: Evidence from a Panel of U.S. Firms
- Trade Policies and FDI with an Endogenous Market Structure
- Is There a Business Cycle Effect on the Incidence of Dual Job Holding?
- The Impact of Environmental Taxation on Wage Inequality in the Presence of Subsidizing Renewable Energy
- The Competitive Foundations of Price Cap Regulation
- Letters
- Exploring the Existence of a Short-Run Kuznets Curve: Does the Fourth Industrial Revolution Affect Income distribution?
- MRS Functions and the Pareto Interval in Public Good Provision
- Optimal Imprisonment with General Enforcement of Law
- Immigration and Perceived Social Position. Insights from an Unintended Survey Experiment
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Overconfidence and Public Intoxication Arrest: Evidence from a University Town Police Log
- The Changing Determinants of Juvenile Crime
- Failing Young and Temporary Workers? The Impact of a Disruptive Crisis on a Dual Labour Market
- Productivity, Innovation Spillovers, and Mergers: Evidence from a Panel of U.S. Firms
- Trade Policies and FDI with an Endogenous Market Structure
- Is There a Business Cycle Effect on the Incidence of Dual Job Holding?
- The Impact of Environmental Taxation on Wage Inequality in the Presence of Subsidizing Renewable Energy
- The Competitive Foundations of Price Cap Regulation
- Letters
- Exploring the Existence of a Short-Run Kuznets Curve: Does the Fourth Industrial Revolution Affect Income distribution?
- MRS Functions and the Pareto Interval in Public Good Provision
- Optimal Imprisonment with General Enforcement of Law
- Immigration and Perceived Social Position. Insights from an Unintended Survey Experiment
