Do large language models show decision heuristics similar to humans? A case study using GPT-3.5.
Abstract
A Large Language Model (LLM) is an artificial intelligence system trained on vast amounts of natural language data, enabling it to generate human-like responses to written or spoken language input. Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT)-3.5 is an example of an LLM that supports a conversational agent called ChatGPT. In this work, we used a series of novel prompts to determine whether ChatGPT shows heuristics and other context-sensitive responses. We also tested the same prompts on human participants. Across four studies, we found that ChatGPT was influenced by random anchors in making estimates (anchoring, Study 1); it judged the likelihood of two events occurring together to be higher than the likelihood of either event occurring alone, and it was influenced by anecdotal information (representativeness and availability heuristic, Study 2); it found an item to be more efficacious when its features were presented positively rather than negatively-even though both presentations contained statistically equivalent information (framing effect, Study 3); and it valued an owned item more than a newly found item even though the two items were objectively identical (endowment effect, Study 4). In each study, human participants showed similar effects. Heuristics and context-sensitive responses in humans are thought to be driven by cognitive and affective processes such as loss aversion and effort reduction. The fact that an LLM-which lacks these processes-also shows such responses invites consideration of the possibility that language is sufficiently rich to carry these effects and may play a role in generating these effects in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs often fail on informal reasoning tasks because they either lack human cognitive abilities or replicate human-like cognitive biases and heuristics.
“These failures arise either because LLMs lack certain fundamental cognitive abilities possessed by humans - leading to errors that humans typically avoid (Han et al., 2024b) - or because LLMs replicate human-like cognitive biases and heuristics, resulting in analogous mistakes (Suri et al., 2024; Lampinen et al., 2024).”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Suri et al., 2024
The Abstract (p. 2) reports that GPT-3.5 showed human-like decision heuristics and made analogous errors, including a conjunction error and reliance on salient anecdotes. That supports the part of the sentence attributed to Suri et al., but the paper cautions (p. 21) that it studied GPT-3.5 and cannot establish the same result for LLMs generally. The alternative explanation about lacking cognitive abilities is attributed to a different citation, not Suri et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). 'Coherent arbitrariness': Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 118 (1), 73-106.
- Bommarito II, M., & Katz, D. M. (2022). GPT Takes the Bar Exam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14402 . Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 133-139). American Psychological Association. Bui, T. C., Krieger, H. A., & Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2015). Framing effects on physicians' judgment and decision making. Psychological Reports , 117 (2), 508-522. Christensen, C., Heckerung, P., Mackesy -Amiti, M. E., Bernstein, L. M., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 8 (3), 169-180. Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (7), 301306. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science , 12 (5), 391-396. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (4), 657. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of · arXiv
- Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). intuitive judgment . Cambridge university press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways
Deng, Z., Guo, Y., Han, C., Ma, W., Xiong, J., Wen, S., & Xiang, Y. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3716628 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?
Chen, Y., Kirshner, S. N., Ovchinnikov, A., Andiappan, M., & Jenkin, T. (2025) · Manufacturing & Service Operations Management · doi:10.1287/msom.2023.0279 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
Song, P., Han, P., & Goodman, N. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06176 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Suri, G., Slater, L. R., Ziaee, A., & Nguyen, M.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco State University (US)
- ORCID
- Suri, Gaurav
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1066-1075
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W4391655051
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 24.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Keywords
- large language models, ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, decision heuristics, anchoring effect, representativeness heuristic, availability heuristic, framing effects, endowment effect, loss aversion, effort reduction, human-AI comparison, language and cognition
- MeSH terms
- Heuristics, Affect, Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Humans, Language
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review