A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
Manuel Cherep, Chengtian Ma, Abigail Xu, Maya Shaked, Pattie Maes, Nikhil Singh
Abstract
Environments built for people are increasingly operated by a new class of economic actors: LLM-powered software agents making decisions on our behalf. These decisions range from our purchases to travel plans to medical treatment selection. Current evaluations of these agents largely focus on task competence, but we argue for a deeper assessment: how these agents choose when faced with realistic decisions. We introduce ABxLab, a framework for systematically probing agentic choice through controlled manipulations of option attributes and persuasive cues. We apply this to a realistic web-based shopping environment, where we vary prices, ratings, and psychological nudges, all of which are factors long known to shape human choice. We find that agent decisions shift predictably and substantially in response, revealing that agents are strongly biased choosers even without being subject to the cognitive constraints that shape human biases. This susceptibility reveals both risk and opportunity: risk, because agentic consumers may inherit and amplify human biases; opportunity, because consumer choice provides a powerful testbed for a behavioral science of AI agents, just as it has for the study of human behavior. We release our framework as an open benchmark for rigorous, scalable evaluation of agent decision-making.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext b985b149-6e9a-4ab6-993c-7d05372cd2e6Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on9
- WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language AgentsShunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, Karthik NarasimhanNeurIPS 2022 · 1,477 citations
- Language Models can Solve Computer TasksGeunwoo Kim, Pierre Baldi, Stephen McAleerNeurIPS 2023 · 539 citations
- Attacking Vision-Language Computer Agents via Pop-upsYanzhe Zhang, Tao Yu, Diyi YangACL 2025 · 99 citations
- How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness?Ryan Liu, Theodore R. Sumers, Ishita Dasgupta, Thomas L. GriffithsICML 2024 · 33 citations
- Do Large Language Models Perform the Way People Expect? Measuring the Human Generalization FunctionKeyon Vafa, Ashesh Rambachan, Sendhil MullainathanICML 2024 · 30 citations
Related papers
- LLM Agents Can Be Choice-Supportive Biased Evaluators: An Empirical StudyNan Zhuang, Boyu Cao, Yi Yang, Jing Xu et al.AAAI 2025 · 4 citations
- The Role of Heuristics and Biases during Complex Choices with an AI TeammateNikolos Gurney, John H. Miller, David V. PynadathAAAI 2023 · 5 citations
- STEER: Assessing the Economic Rationality of Large Language ModelsNarun Krishnamurthi Raman, Taylor Lundy, Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Yoav Levine et al.ICML 2024 · 24 citations
- For What It's Worth: Humans Overwrite Their Economic Self-interest to Avoid Bargaining With AI SystemsAlexander Erlei, Richeek Das, Lukas Meub, Avishek Anand et al.CHI 2022 · 33 citations
- Investigating the Impact of Dark Patterns on LLM-Based Web AgentsDevin Ersoy, Brandon Lee, Ananth Shreekumar, Arjun Arunasalam et al.S&P 2026 · 16 citations
