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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Communications Psychology
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00320-8
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Wim De Neys, Matthieu Raoelison
1 citations
Communications Psychology
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
1.43
article

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

Wim De Neys, Matthieu Raoelison
article en
1 citations

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.

Communications PsychologyVol. 3(1)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Université Paris Cité (FR), Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR), Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de L’Education de l’enfant (FR)
European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks — Wim De Neys, Matthieu Raoelison · Communications Psychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS