Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023389›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks.

Wim De Neys, Matthieu Raoelison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wim De NeysLaPsyDE (UMR CNRS 8240), Université Paris Cité, Paris, France. wim.de-neys@u-paris.fr.
Matthieu RaoelisonLaPsyDE (UMR CNRS 8240), Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9438-5383

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Influential models conceive human thinking as an interplay between intuition and deliberation. Yet, it's unclear how people actually perceive these types of reasoning. Across 13 studies (n = 239, 241, 240, 240, 241, 240, 184, 482, 479, 240 and 240 for Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively), we examined whether humans favor intuition or deliberation and if this replicates in LLMs. Participants rated individuals' reasoning quality in short vignettes that varied by reasoning type (fast-intuitive vs. slow-deliberative) and past accuracy (high, low, unspecified). Consistently, participants rated deliberative reasoning as superior to intuition, even when accounting for accuracy. Deliberative thinkers were seen as smarter and more trustworthy-a preference that held under time pressure and cognitive load, suggesting it arises intuitively. Studies with LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5 and 4) replicated the human preference pattern, indicating that AI language models capture human folk beliefs about reasoning. These findings suggest humans intuitively link deliberation with reliability and have implications for public trust in human and AI recommendations.

Identifiers

PMID41023389
PMCPMC12480527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.