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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12319 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.12319/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- ["Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09219/) (2023)
- [Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07938/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.