Decision and Gender Biases in Large Language Models: A Behavioral Economic Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12319v1
• Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 18:38:17 GMT
• Title: Decision and Gender Biases in Large Language Models: A Behavioral Economic Perspective
• Authors: Luca Corazzini, Elisa Deriu, Marco Guerzoni,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate economic and organisational processes.<n>This study investigates whether advanced LLMs behave as rational agents or whether they reproduce human behavioural tendencies when faced with classic decision problems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate economic and organisational processes, from automated customer support and recruitment to investment advice and policy analysis. These systems are often assumed to embody rational decision making free from human error; yet they are trained on human language corpora that may embed cognitive and social biases. This study investigates whether advanced LLMs behave as rational agents or whether they reproduce human behavioural tendencies when faced with classic decision problems. Using two canonical experiments in behavioural economics, the ultimatum game and a gambling game, we elicit decisions from two state of the art models, Google Gemma7B and Qwen, under neutral and gender conditioned prompts. We estimate parameters of inequity aversion and loss-aversion and compare them with human benchmarks. The models display attenuated but persistent deviations from rationality, including moderate fairness concerns, mild loss aversion, and subtle gender conditioned differences.

Related papers

• Behavioral Economics of AI: LLM Biases and Corrections [0.37318062488817705]
  Large language AI models (LLMs) exhibit systematic behavioral biases in economic and financial decisions.<n>In preference-based tasks, responses become more human-like as models become more advanced.<n>In belief-based tasks, advanced large-scale models frequently generate rational responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T03:10:48Z)
• Sparks of Rationality: Do Reasoning LLMs Align with Human Judgment and Choice? [10.367910587365529]
  Large Language Models are increasingly positioned as decision engines for hiring, healthcare, and economic judgment.<n>It is critical to assess whether they exhibit analogous patterns of (ir)rationalities and biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T21:17:06Z)
• Towards Cognitively-Faithful Decision-Making Models to Improve AI Alignment [35.506295119331064]
  We present an axiomatic approach to learning cognitively faithful decision processes from pairwise comparisons.<n>We show that our proposed models match or surpass the accuracy of prior models of human pairwise decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T17:59:29Z)
• Cascaded Language Models for Cost-effective Human-AI Decision-Making [52.81324217423194]
  We present a cascaded LLM decision framework that adaptively delegates tasks across multiple tiers of expertise.<n>First, a deferral policy determines whether to accept the base model's answer or regenerate it with a large model.<n>Second, an abstention policy decides whether the cascade model response is sufficiently certain or requires human intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:36:22Z)
• Self-Adaptive Cognitive Debiasing for Large Language Models in Decision-Making [71.71796367760112]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications.<n>We propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD)<n>We evaluate SACD on finance, healthcare, and legal decision-making tasks using both open-weight and closed-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T11:23:05Z)
• Gender Bias of LLM in Economics: An Existentialism Perspective [1.024113475677323]
  This paper investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs) LLMs reinforce gender stereotypes even without explicit gender markers. We argue that bias in LLMs is not an unintended flaw but a systematic result of their rational processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T01:42:01Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Underspecified Human Decision Experiments Considered Harmful [18.27590643693167]
  We present a widely applicable definition of a decision problem synthesized from statistical decision theory and information economics.<n>We evaluate whether recent empirical research on AI-assisted decisions achieves this standard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T16:21:37Z)
• 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)
• Limited or Biased: Modeling Sub-Rational Human Investors in Financial Markets [2.913033886371052]
  We introduce a flexible model that incorporates five different aspects of human sub-rationality using reinforcement learning. We evaluate the behavior of sub-rational human investors using hand-crafted market scenarios and SHAP value analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-16T15:50:26Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
  It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)

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.