Comparing Risk Preferences and Loss Aversion in Humans and AI: A Persona-Based Approach with Fine-Tuning
Ryota Iwamoto,
Takunori Ishihara and
Takanori Ida
Discussion papers from Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University
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.
Keywords: bias; bias; loss aversion; risk preference; generative AI; persona; fine-tuning; Wasserstein distance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C91 D91 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 48
Date: 2025-07
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ain, nep-cbe and nep-exp
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dp/papers/e-25-006.pdf (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kue:epaper:e-25-006
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Discussion papers from Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Graduate School of Economics Project Center ().