Abstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have highlighted their potential to predict human decisions. In two studies, we compared predictions by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 51 scenarios (9,600 responses) against published data from 2,104 human participants within an evolutionary-psychology framework. We further examined our findings with GPT-4o across eight social-group and kinship conditions (1,600 responses). Our results revealed behavioral differences between humans and LLMs' predictions: Humans showed a greater sensitivity to kinship and group size than the LLMs when making life-death decisions. LLMs align closer with humans with a higher risk-seeking preference in financial domains. While human choices followed Prospect theory's value function (risk-averse in gains, risk-seeking in losses), LLMs often predicted reversed patterns. GPT-3.5 matched the average level of human risk preference but showed reversed framing effects; GPT-4 was indiscriminately risk-averse across social contexts. While humans were more risk-seeking in small or kin groups than in large groups, GPT-4o made the opposite predictions. Our results suggest a set of criteria for a psychological version of the Turing Test reflected in framing effects and social context-dependent risk preference involving kinship, group size, social relations, sense of fairness, self-age awareness, public vs. personal properties, and social group-dependent aspiration levels.