A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does Rank Still Matter? Position Bias When AI Agents Shop on Our Behalf
Wadi, D., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.22697
“…their bookings on listings with high review scores and low prices (Table W4), which mirrors human consumers (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Floyd et al., 2014) and is consistent with other studies of AI shopping agents (Allouah et al., 2026; Cherep et al., 2026; Wadi and Ma, 2026b; Kireyev, 2026).”
A Cue's Hidden Price: Auditing Seller Influence on AI Shoppers
Buecheler, F., Berbeglia, G., & Guo, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.25843
- Authors
- Cherep, M., Ma, C., Xu, A., Shaked, M., Maes, P., & Singh, N.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2509.25609
- OpenAlex
- W4415338268
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- consumer choice, behavioral biases, agent evaluation benchmarks
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