# Persona-Conditioned Risk Behavior in Large Language Models: A Simulated Gambling Study with GPT-4.1

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15831 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.15831/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03286/) (2022)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Talking About Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03551/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in uncertain, sequential decision-making contexts. Yet it remains poorly understood whether the behaviors they exhibit in such environments reflect principled cognitive patterns or simply surface-level prompt mimicry. This paper presents a controlled experiment in which GPT-4.1 was assigned one of three socioeconomic personas (Rich, Middle-income, and Poor) and placed in a structured slot-machine environment with three distinct machine configurations: Fair (50%), Biased Low (35%), and Streak (dynamic probability increasing after consecutive losses). Across 50 independent iterations per condition and 6,950 recorded decisions, we find that the model reproduces key behavioral signatures predicted by Kahneman and Tversky's Prospect Theory without being instructed to do so. The Poor persona played a mean of 37.4 rounds per session (SD=15.5) compared to 1.1 rounds for the Rich persona (SD=0.31), a difference that is highly significant (Kruskal-Wallis H=393.5, p<2.2e-16). Risk scores by persona show large effect sizes (Cohen's d=4.15 for Poor vs Rich). Emotional labels appear to function as post-hoc annotations rather than decision drivers (chi-square=3205.4, Cramer's V=0.39), and belief-updating across rounds is negligible (Spearman rho=0.032 for Poor persona, p=0.016). These findings carry implications for LLM agent design, interpretability research, and the broader question of whether classical cognitive economic biases are implicitly encoded in large-scale pretrained language models.