CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and SocietyArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?

Open access
Chen, Yang, Kirshner, Samuel N., Ovchinnikov, Anton, Andiappan, Meena, Jenkin, Tracy·2025·Manufacturing & Service Operations Management
DOI 10.1287/msom.2023.0279
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Problem definition: Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly leveraged in business and consumer decision-making processes. Because LLMs learn from human data and feedback, which can be biased, determining whether LLMs exhibit human-like behavioral decision biases (e.g., base-rate neglect, risk aversion, confirmation bias, etc.) is crucial prior to implementing LLMs into decision-making contexts and workflows. To understand this, we examine 18 common human biases that are important in operations management (OM) using the dominant LLM, ChatGPT. Methodology/results: We perform experiments where GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 act as participants to test these biases using vignettes adapted from the literature (“standard context”) and variants reframed in inventory and general OM contexts. In almost half of the experiments, Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) mirrors human biases, diverging from prototypical human responses in the remaining experiments. We also observe that GPT models have a notable level of consistency between the standard and OM-specific experiments as well as across temporal versions of the GPT-3.5 model. Our comparative analysis between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 reveals a dual-edged progression of GPT’s decision making, wherein GPT-4 advances in decision-making accuracy for problems with well-defined mathematical solutions while simultaneously displaying increased behavioral biases for preference-based problems. Managerial implications: First, our results highlight that managers will obtain the greatest benefits from deploying GPT to workflows leveraging established formulas. Second, that GPT displayed a high level of response consistency across the standard, inventory, and non-inventory operational contexts provides optimism that LLMs can offer reliable support even when details of the decision and problem contexts change. Third, although selecting between models, like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, represents a trade-off in cost and performance, our results suggest that managers should invest in higher-performing models, particularly for solving problems with objective solutions. Funding: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant SSHRC 430-2019-00505]. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University for providing funding to support Y. Chen’s postdoctoral appointment. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0279 .

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/msom.2023.0279

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Agrawal A, 2022, Prediction Machines, Updated and Expanded: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–144 of 144

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chen, Y., Kirshner, S. N., Ovchinnikov, A., Andiappan, M., & Jenkin, T.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • INSEAD (FR)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2025-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
354-368
ISSN
  • 1523-4614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5498
DOI
10.1287/msom.2023.0279
OpenAlex
W4407010275
Cited by
143
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 55
FWCI
81.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Manufacturing & Service Operations Management (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, behavioral biases, decision bias, operations management, inventory management, base rate neglect, risk aversion, confirmation bias, model consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review