ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Can generative AI infer thinking style from language? Evaluating the utility of AI as a psychological text analysis tool.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An augmented evidence base for the interpretation of forensic text-based communications materials as intelligence and evidence.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- An intelligent agent for sentence completion test: creation and application in depression assessment.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- ChatGPT applications in academic writing: a review of potential, limitations, and ethical challenges.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring the Association Between Textual Parameters and Psychological and Cognitive Factors.Psychology research and behavior management · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative AI, short for Generative Artificial Intelligence, a class of artificial intelligence systems, is not currently the choice technology for text analysis, but prior work suggests it may have some utility to assess dynamics like emotion. The current work builds upon this empirical foundation to consider how analytic thinking scores from a large language model chatbot, ChatGPT, were linked to analytic thinking scores from dictionary-based tools like Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Using over 16,000 texts from four samples and tested against three prompts and two large language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4), the evidence suggests there were small associations between ChatGPT and LIWC analytic thinking scores (meta-analytic effect sizes: .058 < rs < .304; ps < .001). When given the formula to calculate the LIWC analytic thinking index, ChatGPT performed incorrect mathematical operations in 22% of the cases, suggesting basic word and number processing may be unreliable with large language models. Researchers should be cautious when using AI for text analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38277084What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.