IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp17521.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Homo-Silicus: Not (Yet) a Good Imitator of Homo Sapiens or Homo Economicus

Author

Listed:
  • Polachek, Solomon

    (Binghamton University, New York)

  • Romano, Kenneth

    (Binghamton University, New York)

  • Tonguc, Ozlem

    (State University of New York)

Abstract

Do large language models (LLMs)—such as ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Google's Gemini 1.0 Pro—simulate human behavior in the context of the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) game with varying stake sizes? This paper investigates this question, examining how LLMs navigate scenarios where self-interested behavior of all players results in less preferred outcomes, offering insights into how LLMs might "perceive" human decision-making. Through a replication of Yamagishi et al. (2016) "Study 2," we analyze LLM responses to different payoff stakes and the influence of stake order on cooperation rates. LLMs demonstrate sensitivity to these factors, and some LLMs mirror human behavior only under very specific circumstances, implying the need for cautious application of LLMs in behavioral research.

Suggested Citation

  • Polachek, Solomon & Romano, Kenneth & Tonguc, Ozlem, 2024. "Homo-Silicus: Not (Yet) a Good Imitator of Homo Sapiens or Homo Economicus," IZA Discussion Papers 17521, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp17521.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. List, 2006. "Friend or Foe? A Natural Experiment of the Prisoner's Dilemma," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 463-471, August.
    2. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    3. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Visser, Martine, 2008. "Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 508-511, June.
    4. Philip Brookins & Jason DeBacker, 2024. "Playing games with GPT: What can we learn about a large language model from canonical strategic games?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(1), pages 25-37.
    5. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Maitra, Pushkar & Neelim, Ananta, 2018. "Large stakes and little honesty? Experimental evidence from a developing country," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 76-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    2. Fehr, Ernst & Tougareva, Elena & Fischbacher, Urs, 2014. "Do high stakes and competition undermine fair behaviour? Evidence from Russia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 354-363.
    3. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    4. Daley, Brendan & Sadowski, Philipp, 2017. "Magical thinking: A representation result," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    5. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    6. Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Andreas Leibbrandt & John Lynham, 2018. "Does the paradox of plenty exist? Experimental evidence on the curse of resource abundance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 337-354, June.
    8. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Schindler, David, 2017. "Overpricing and stake size: On the robustness of results from experimental asset markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 101-104.
    9. Geerling, Wayne & Magee, Gary B. & Brooks, Robert, 2015. "Cooperation, defection and resistance in Nazi Germany," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 125-139.
    10. Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans Van Winden, 2017. "Emotion at Stake—The Role of Stake Size and Emotions in a Power-to-Take Game Experiment in China with a Comparison to Europe," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Julie Novakova & Jaroslav Flegr, 2013. "How Much Is Our Fairness Worth? The Effect of Raising Stakes on Offers by Proposers and Minimum Acceptable Offers in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    12. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    13. Wolf, Stephan & Dron, Cameron, 2020. "The effect of an experimental veil of ignorance on intergenerational resource sharing: empirical evidence from a sequential multi-person dictator game," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    15. Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Minhaj Mahmud & Peter Martinsson, 2009. "Trust and Religion: Experimental Evidence from Rural Bangladesh," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(303), pages 462-485, July.
    16. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    17. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Klarizze Anne Puzon & Marc Willinger, 2015. "Malevolent Governance, Intra-Group Conflict and the Paradox of the Plenty: An Experiment," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Brülhart, Marius & Usunier, Jean-Claude, 2012. "Does the trust game measure trust?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 20-23.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Prisoner's Dilemma; cooperation; payoff stakes; artificial intelligence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17521. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.