IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2609.07358.html

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Althaus
  • Leon Houf
  • Christiane Schwieren

Abstract

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Althaus & Leon Houf & Christiane Schwieren, 2026. "Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment," Papers 2609.07358, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.07358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.07358
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simona‐Vasilica Oprea & Ionut Nica & Adela Bâra & Irina‐Alexandra Georgescu, 2024. "Are skepticism and moderation dominating attitudes toward AI‐based technologies?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(3), pages 567-607, May.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Jussupow, Ekaterina & Benbasat, Izak & Heinzl, Armin, 2024. "An integrative perspective on algorithm aversion and appreciation in decision-making," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 154733, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    4. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie W. Wang & Colin Camerer, 2024. "Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE) for Estimating Economic Preference Parameters," NBER Working Papers 33013, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. 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..
    6. Jussupow, Ekaterina & Benbasat, Izak & Heinzl, Armin, 2024. "An integrative perspective on algorithm aversion and appreciation in decision-making," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 150432, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    7. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    8. Daniel L. Chen & Martin Schonger & Chris Wickens, 2016. "oTree - An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Post-Print hal-04315125, HAL.
    9. Filiz, Ibrahim & Judek, Jan René & Lorenz, Marco & Spiwoks, Markus, 2021. "Reducing algorithm aversion through experience," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    10. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vinicius Ferraz & Leon Houf, 2026. "People escalate against a competitor labelled human and hold back against one labelled an optimising machine," Papers 2609.21439, arXiv.org.

    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. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    2. Bershadskyy, Dmitri & Dinges, Laslo & Fiedler, Marc-André & Greif, Jannik & Al-Hamadi, Ayoub & Ostermaier, Nina & Weimann, Joachim, 2026. "Lie against AI: Revealing private information through AI in an economic experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    3. Gaudeul, Alexia & Giannetti, Caterina, 2025. "Beyond Performance: Exploring trade-offs in the design of financial algorithms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    4. Rutledge, Robert M. & Alladi, Vinayak & Cheung, Stephen L., 2025. "Price expectations and reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    5. Fischer, Sabine & Grosch, Kerstin, 2025. "Contract breach with overconfident expectations: Experimental evidence on reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 145-163.
    6. Marius Protte, 2025. "Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005)," Papers 2507.15568, arXiv.org.
    7. Yang, Luhe & Ning, Yongpeng & Zhang, Lianzhong, 2025. "Reconstruction of micro-dynamics characterizing human decision-making behavior in repeated social dilemmas," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 497(C).
    8. Guido, Andrea & Martínez-Marquina, Alejandro & Rholes, Ryan, 2025. "Reference dependence and the role of information frictions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    9. Tiziana Assenza & Alberto Cardaci & Domenico Delli Gatti, 2019. "Perceived Wealth, Cognitive Sophistication and Behavioral Inattention," CESifo Working Paper Series 7992, CESifo.
    10. Roggenkamp, Hauke C., 2024. "Revisiting ‘Growth and Inequality in Public Good Provision’—Reproducing and Generalizing Through Inconvenient Online Experimentation," OSF Preprints 6rn97, Center for Open Science.
    11. Gui, Shan & Houser, Daniel, 2026. "Evaluating non-clairvoyant dynamic mechanisms: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-34.
    12. Mittone, Luigi & Morreale, Azzurra & Ritala, Paavo, 2024. "Initial conditions and path dependence in explorative and exploitative learning: An experimental study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    14. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber, 2019. "Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 76-100, March.
    16. Zhang, Peilu & Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco A., 2024. "Social roles and competitiveness: My willingness to compete depends on who I am (supposed to be)," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 125-151.
    17. Hild, Paul Ergün & Hilweg-Waldeck, Michael, 2026. "Competing against stereotypes: Stereotyped beliefs and willingness to compete," ZEW Discussion Papers 26-039, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Daniele Vignoli & Alessandra Minello & Giacomo Bazzani & Camilla Matera & Chiara Rapallini, 2022. "Narratives of the Future Affect Fertility: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(1), pages 93-124, March.
    19. Alexia GAUDEUL & Caterina GIANNETTI, 2023. "Trade-offs in the design of financial algorithms," Discussion Papers 2023/288, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Franziska Lauenstein & Daniel A. Newark & Oliver Baumann, 2025. "How Mixed Performance Feedback Shapes Exploration: The Moderating Role of Self-Enhancement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 166-185, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:2609.07358. 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.