A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25609v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:05:23 GMT
• Title: A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
• Authors: Manuel Cherep, Chengtian Ma, Abigail Xu, Maya Shaked, Pattie Maes, Nikhil Singh,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a framework for probing agentic choice through controlled manipulations of option attributes and persuasive cues.<n>We find that agent decisions shift predictably and substantially in response, revealing that agents are strongly biased choosers.<n>This susceptibility reveals both risk and opportunity: risk, because agentic consumers may inherit and amplify human biases; opportunity, because consumer choice provides a powerful testbed for a behavioral science of AI agents.
• Score: 24.983925189624816
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Environments built for people are increasingly operated by a new class of economic actors: LLM-powered software agents making decisions on our behalf. These decisions range from our purchases to travel plans to medical treatment selection. Current evaluations of these agents largely focus on task competence, but we argue for a deeper assessment: how these agents choose when faced with realistic decisions. We introduce ABxLab, a framework for systematically probing agentic choice through controlled manipulations of option attributes and persuasive cues. We apply this to a realistic web-based shopping environment, where we vary prices, ratings, and psychological nudges, all of which are factors long known to shape human choice. We find that agent decisions shift predictably and substantially in response, revealing that agents are strongly biased choosers even without being subject to the cognitive constraints that shape human biases. This susceptibility reveals both risk and opportunity: risk, because agentic consumers may inherit and amplify human biases; opportunity, because consumer choice provides a powerful testbed for a behavioral science of AI agents, just as it has for the study of human behavior. We release our framework as an open benchmark for rigorous, scalable evaluation of agent decision-making.

Related papers

• Financial Stability Implications of Generative AI: Taming the Animal Spirits [0.0]
  Our results show that AI agents make more rational decisions than humans.<n>Increased reliance on AI-powered trading advice could potentially lead to fewer asset price bubbles.<n>While optimal herding improves market discipline, this behavior still carries potential implications for financial stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T20:46:02Z)
• Toward a Theory of Agents as Tool-Use Decision-Makers [89.26889709510242]
  We argue that true autonomy requires agents to be grounded in a coherent epistemic framework that governs what they know, what they need to know, and how to acquire that knowledge efficiently.<n>We propose a unified theory that treats internal reasoning and external actions as equivalent epistemic tools, enabling agents to systematically coordinate introspection and interaction.<n>This perspective shifts the design of agents from mere action executors to knowledge-driven intelligence systems, offering a principled path toward building foundation agents capable of adaptive, efficient, and goal-directed behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T07:52:16Z)
• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• ADESSE: Advice Explanations in Complex Repeated Decision-Making Environments [14.105935964906976]
  This work considers a problem setup where an intelligent agent provides advice to a human decision-maker. We develop an approach named ADESSE to generate explanations about the adviser agent to improve human trust and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T08:59:20Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Causal Strategic Learning with Competitive Selection [10.237954203296187]
  We study the problem of agent selection in causal strategic learning under multiple decision makers. We show that the optimal selection rule is a trade-off between selecting the best agents and providing incentives to maximise the agents' improvement. We provide a cooperative protocol which all decision makers must collectively adopt to recover the true causal parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T18:43:11Z)
• Parametrically Retargetable Decision-Makers Tend To Seek Power [91.93765604105025]
  In fully observable environments, most reward functions have an optimal policy which seeks power by keeping options open and staying alive. We consider a range of models of AI decision-making, from optimal, to random, to choices informed by learning and interacting with an environment. We show that a range of qualitatively dissimilar decision-making procedures incentivize agents to seek power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T17:39:23Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Hiding Behind Machines: When Blame Is Shifted to Artificial Agents [0.0]
  This article focuses on the responsibility of agents who decide on our behalf. We investigate whether the production of moral outcomes by an agent is systematically judged differently when the agent is artificial and not human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-27T14:50:02Z)
• A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores [85.12096045419686]
  We study the adoption of an algorithmic tool used to assist child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. We first show that humans do alter their behavior when the tool is deployed. We show that humans are less likely to adhere to the machine's recommendation when the score displayed is an incorrect estimate of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-19T07:27:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.