IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2503.06646.html

Evaluating and Aligning Human Economic Risk Preferences in LLMs

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxin Liu
  • Yixuan Tang
  • Yi Yang
  • Kar Yan Tam

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making scenarios that involve risk assessment, yet their alignment with human economic rationality remains unclear. In this study, we investigate whether LLMs exhibit risk preferences consistent with human expectations across different personas. Specifically, we assess whether LLM-generated responses reflect appropriate levels of risk aversion or risk-seeking behavior based on individual's persona. Our results reveal that while LLMs make reasonable decisions in simplified, personalized risk contexts, their performance declines in more complex economic decision-making tasks. To address this, we propose an alignment method designed to enhance LLM adherence to persona-specific risk preferences. Our approach improves the economic rationality of LLMs in risk-related applications, offering a step toward more human-aligned AI decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxin Liu & Yixuan Tang & Yi Yang & Kar Yan Tam, 2025. "Evaluating and Aligning Human Economic Risk Preferences in LLMs," Papers 2503.06646, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2503.06646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.06646
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Yi Yang & Yixuan Tang & Kar Yan Tam, 2023. "InvestLM: A Large Language Model for Investment using Financial Domain Instruction Tuning," Papers 2309.13064, arXiv.org.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Barberis, Nicholas & Thaler, Richard, 2003. "A survey of behavioral finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128, Elsevier.
    6. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    8. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Shumiao Ouyang & Hayong Yun & Xingjian Zheng, 2024. "AI as Decision-Maker: Ethics and Risk Preferences of LLMs," Papers 2406.01168, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    10. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," Papers 2301.07543, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    11. Sule Alan & Teodora Boneva & Seda Ertac, 2019. "Ever Failed, Try Again, Succeed Better: Results from a Randomized Educational Intervention on Grit," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(3), pages 1121-1162.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 547, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    2. Shumiao Ouyang & Hayong Yun & Xingjian Zheng, 2024. "AI as Decision-Maker: Ethics and Risk Preferences of LLMs," Papers 2406.01168, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    4. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    6. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    7. Shu Wang & Zijun Yao & Shuhuai Zhang & Jianuo Gai & Tracy Xiao Liu & Songfa Zhong, 2025. "When Experimental Economics Meets Large Language Models: Evidence-based Tactics," Papers 2505.21371, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2025.
    8. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    9. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    12. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    13. Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "Sex Hormones and Choice under Risk," Working Papers 127, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    14. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    15. Linda Thunström & Andrea Mannberg & Benjamin Gilbert & George Loewenstein, 2025. "(Dis)satisfaction with risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 29-64, February.
    16. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    17. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    18. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    19. Christian Ehm & Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber, 2014. "Volatility Inadaptability: Investors Care About Risk, but Cannot Cope with Volatility," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1387-1423.
    20. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2503.06646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.