Access to a live AI advisor does not measurably change risk-taking: a randomized experiment finds no significant effect of one-shot or interactive AI availability on participants' risk aversion and only modest, non-significant increases in consultation rates, allowing the authors to rule out effects larger than Δr=0.275 in this sample.

Main Finding

Access to a live AI advisor (one-shot or interactive) — when the informational content is held equivalent to a conventional pre-written aid — does not meaningfully change risk-taking. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158) using DOSE to elicit CRRA, the estimated treatment effect of one-shot AI vs control is essentially zero (β̂1 = 0.032, 95% CI −0.239 to 0.302). The interactive AI adds no detectable shift beyond the one-shot AI.

Key Points

• Primary result: No significant change in estimated CRRA (risk aversion) from access to a live AI advisor. Point estimates are near zero and statistically insignificant for both one-shot and interactive AI arms.
• Estimated baseline risk aversion: intercept r̂ = 0.356 (consistent with earlier lab studies).
• Precision and bounds: The design can rule out effects larger than Δr = 0.275 (TOST p = 0.040 for one-shot, 0.031 for interactive). Bayes factors (Cauchy prior, scale = 0.71) favor the null (≈4.8 and 4.5).
• Usage: Consultation rates trended up with richer media but not significantly: Control (pre-programmed) 50.0%, One-Shot AI 60.4%, Interactive AI 67.3% (χ2 tests nonsignificant). Only 2 of 49 participants in the interactive arm ever asked a follow-up question.
• Robustness: Null persists among participants who consulted the aid, among those with above-median trust in AI (S‑TIAS), and after excluding rare AI computational errors.
• AI errors: The live AI (gpt-5.4-mini) computed the risky option EV incorrectly in 12 of 228 consultations (≈5.3% of consultations). These rare errors were treated as part of the medium; excluding affected participants did not change the null result.
• Design sensitivity check: A randomized, orthogonal manipulation (which side the safe option appeared on) produced a sizable, significant shift (−0.308, p < 0.01), demonstrating the experiment could detect effects of relevant magnitude.

Data & Methods

• Sample: N = 158 participants recruited from the AWI lab at Heidelberg University (June 2026). Paid a €2.50 show-up fee plus payoff from one randomly chosen round.
• Task: Six incentivized lottery choices (safe vs risky), payoffs adapted from Holt & Laury (2002); first choice fixed, remaining five adaptive via DOSE.
• Preference elicitation: Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE) to estimate individual CRRA (r) posterior means; decision-noise parameter λ considered in robustness checks (alternative λ values tested).
• Treatments (random assignment):
  • Control: pre-programmed aid showing expected values and safe/risky framing.
  • One-Shot AI: same information presented by a live AI (consulted once per round).
  • Interactive AI: same information + option to ask up to two follow-ups per round.
• AI setup: gpt-5.4-mini system-prompted to compute EVs and use the same framing as the pre-programmed aid. Implemented in oTree.
• Analysis: OLS of r̂i on indicators for One-Shot and Interactive arms, HC3 robust SEs; subgroup and robustness analyses (aid use thresholds, trust, excluding EV-error exposures, alternative λ, and DOSE uncertainty). Pre-registered (aspredicted) and code/data to be shared on publication/request.

Implications for AI Economics

• Availability vs. imposition: Mere availability of a live AI advisor (with the same informational content) appears insufficient to shift risk preferences. Effects reported in prior work (e.g., when AI recommendations are imposed) likely reflect the recommendation/imposition itself or differences in information content, not just the “AI” label or medium.
• Context-dependence of algorithm appreciation/aversion: The classic label effects (algorithm appreciation or aversion) are not universal. Familiarity with AI, population composition (young/frequent users here), messaging, and stakes may modulate whether algorithmic presentation changes choices.
• Modeling guidance: In models of decision-making under risk, treating live AI as an informational channel (with possible frictions such as occasional errors and variable uptake) is reasonable; a structural behavioral shock from AI per se is not supported by these data for modest stakes and this population.
• Policy & design: Regulators and platform designers should note that substituting conventional aids with live AI (when information is equivalent) may not shift risk-taking at modest stakes. Where effects matter, focus on (a) whether advice is mandatory, (b) the content/framing of recommendations, (c) differential uptake across user groups, and (d) error rates and transparency about fallibility.
• Directions for research: Test mandatory or framed recommendations, different information/content (not just EVs), higher stakes, populations with different AI familiarity, repeated interactions, richer interactive use, and the behavioral impact of error rates. Quantify heterogeneity (trust, numeracy, priors) and longer-run learning effects as AI exposure grows.