IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kue/epaper/e-25-006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Risk Preferences and Loss Aversion in Humans and AI: A Persona-Based Approach with Fine-Tuning

Author

Listed:
  • Ryota IWAMOTO
  • Takunori ISHIHARA
  • Takanori IDA

Abstract

This study empirically investigates the differences in risk preferences and loss aversion between humans and generative AI. We conduct a nationwide online survey of 4,838 individuals and generate AI responses under identical conditions by using personas constructed from demographic attributes. The results show that in gain domains, both humans and the AI select risk-averse options and exhibit similar preference patterns. However, in loss domains, AI shows a stronger risk-loving tendency and responds more sharply to individual attributes such as gender, age, and income. We retrain the AI by fine-tuning it based on human choice data. After fine-tuning, the AI’s preference distribution moves closer to that of humans, with loss-related decisions showing the greatest improvement. Using Wasserstein distance, we also confirm that fine-tuning reduces the behavioral gap between AI and humans.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryota IWAMOTO & Takunori ISHIHARA & Takanori IDA, 2025. "Comparing Risk Preferences and Loss Aversion in Humans and AI: A Persona-Based Approach with Fine-Tuning," Discussion papers e-25-006, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kue:epaper:e-25-006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dp/papers/e-25-006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Fulin Guo, 2023. "GPT in Game Theory Experiments," Papers 2305.05516, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    3. Sanguk Lee & Tai-Quan Peng & Matthew H Goldberg & Seth A Rosenthal & John E Kotcher & Edward W Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2024. "Can large language models estimate public opinion about global warming? An empirical assessment of algorithmic fidelity and bias," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Philip Brookins & Jason DeBacker, 2024. "Playing games with GPT: What can we learn about a large language model from canonical strategic games?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(1), pages 25-37.
    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. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    7. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    9. Peiyao Li & Noah Castelo & Zsolt Katona & Miklos Sarvary, 2024. "Frontiers: Determining the Validity of Large Language Models for Automated Perceptual Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 254-266, March.
    10. Argyle, Lisa P. & Busby, Ethan C. & Fulda, Nancy & Gubler, Joshua R. & Rytting, Christopher & Wingate, David, 2023. "Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 337-351, July.
    11. Yang Chen & Samuel N. Kirshner & Anton Ovchinnikov & Meena Andiappan & Tracy Jenkin, 2025. "A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 354-368, March.
    12. Fabio Motoki & Valdemar Pinho Neto & Victor Rodrigues, 2024. "More human than human: measuring ChatGPT political bias," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 198(1), pages 3-23, January.
    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. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Huong Trang Kim & Quang Nguyen, 2024. "Linking top managers’ behavioural traits with business practices and firm performance," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(11), pages 3253-3296, November.
    3. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Thomas Dohmen & Simone Quercia & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "On the psychology of the relation between optimism and risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 193-214, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Schaewitz, Johannes & Wang, Mei & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2022. "Culture and Institutions: Long-lasting effects of communism on risk and time preferences of individuals in Europe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 785-829.
    7. Inhwa Kim & Keith J. Gamble, 2022. "Too much or too little information: how unknown uncertainty fuels time inconsistency," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-33, February.
    8. Upravitelev, A., 2023. "Neoclassical roots of behavioral economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 58(1), pages 110-140.
    9. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil & Xu, Xiaogeng, 2025. "Risk taking on behalf of others: Does the timing of uncertainty revelation matter?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    10. Brandts, Jordi & El Baroudi, Sabrine & Huber, Stefanie J. & Rott, Christina, 2021. "Gender differences in private and public goal setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 222-247.
    11. Heckman, James J. & Galaty, Bridget & Tian, Haihan, 2023. "The Economic Approach to Personality, Character and Virtue," IZA Discussion Papers 16133, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1015-1042 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Griebenow, Malte & Kifmann, Mathias & Then, Franziska, 2022. "Rewards for information provision in patient referrals: A theoretical model and an experimental test," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2021. "Measuring natural source dependence," Working Papers hal-03330409, HAL.
    16. Dohmen, Thomas & Quercia, Simone & Willrodt, Jana, 2018. "Willingness to Take Risk: The Role of Risk Conception and Optimism," IZA Discussion Papers 11642, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Hu, Youxin & Huang, Shaoqing & Jiang, Ming & Xu, Xiaoshu, 2024. "Traffic violations and economic preferences: Evidence from full-time drivers of a large transportation network company in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    18. Kopsacheilis, Orestis & Goerg, Sebastian J., 2023. "Order Effects in Eliciting Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16343, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Clark Gordon L, 2021. "The Significance of Financial Competence and Risk Tolerance in Home-Related Expenditure by Jurisdiction and Regime," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27, March.
    20. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    21. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:kue:epaper:e-25-006. 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: Graduate School of Economics Project Center (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fekyojp.html .

    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.