Scholars have extolled the virtues of rationality for centuries while also debating what rationality is and who is rational. Advancing these debates, we used word embeddings trained on 840 billion words of internet text—and validated with Prolific workers in the United States—to uncover the representation, group stereotypes, and occupational correlates of rationality at scale in naturalistic language. Four results emerged. First, rather than being synonymous with competence, representations of rationality included both an analytic/logic component and an interpersonal/trust component. Second, irrationality was not merely the opposite of rationality but contained its own unique subcomponents (volatility and unfairness). Third, rationality was consistently ascribed to high-power targets across 66 social groups. Last, rationality (especially its analytic component) was consistently associated with both earnings and wage gaps across 101 occupations. Associations with demographic representation were less consistent. Complementing normative approaches, these descriptive findings advance canonical debates about rationality, extending understanding of its components, stereotypes, and correlates.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314.
2.
AliM. A.SunY.ZhouX.WangW.ZhaoX. (2019). Antonym-synonym classification based on new sub-space embeddings. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 6204–6211.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
4.
ArkesH. R.GigerenzerG.HertwigR. (2016). How bad is incoherence?Decision, 3(1), 20–39.
5.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1962). Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 70(1), 1–13.
7.
BenderE. M.GebruT.McMillan-MajorA.ShmitchellS. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In FAccT ‘21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery.
8.
BergsiekerH. B.LeslieL. M.ConstantineV. S.FiskeS. T. (2012). Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1214–1238.
9.
BermúdezJ. L. (2022). Rational framing effects: A multidisciplinary case. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, Article e220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2200005X
10.
BhatiaS.RichieRZouW. (2019). Distributed semantic representations for modelling human judgment. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29, 31–36.
11.
BhatiaS.WalasekL. (2023). Predicting implicit attitudes with natural language data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 120(25), Article e2220726120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220726120
12.
BolukbasiT.ChangK. W.ZouJ. Y.SaligramaV.KalaiA. T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.06520
13.
CaliskanA.BrysonJ. J.NarayananA. (2016). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183–186.
14.
CharlesworthT. E. S.MorehouseK.RouduriV.CunninghamW. A. (2024). Echoes of Culture: Relationships of implicit and explicit attitudes with contemporary English, historical English, and 53 non-English languages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(7), 812–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241256400
15.
CharlesworthT. E. S.SanjeevN.HatzenbuehlerM. L.BanajiM. R. (2023). Identifying and predicting stereotype change in large language corpora: 72 groups, 115 years (1900–2015), and four text sources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 969–990. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000354
16.
CharlesworthT. E. S.YangV.MannT. C.KurdiB.BanajiM. R. (2021). Gender stereotypes in natural language: Word embeddings show robust consistency across child and adult language corpora of more than 65 million words. Psychological Science, 32(2), 218–240.
17.
CohenL. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(3), 317–331.
18.
CusimanoC. (2025). The case for heterogeneity in metacognitive appraisals of biased beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 29(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241251520
19.
DorisonC. A.HellerB. H. (2022). Observers penalize decision makers whose risk preferences are unaffected by loss–gain framing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(9), 2043–2059.
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
21.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.
22.
FrankR. H. (1987). If homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience?American Economic Review, 77(4), 593–604.
23.
FrankR. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. W. W. Norton & Company.
24.
FrankR. H.GilovichT.ReganD. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.
25.
GigerenzerG. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592–596.
26.
GrossmannI.EibachR. P.KoyamaJ.SahiQ. B. (2020). Folk standards of sound judgment: Rationality versus reasonableness. Science Advances, 6(2), Article eaaz0289. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0289
27.
GrossmannI.FeinbergM.ParkerD. C.ChristakisN.TetlockP. E.CunninghamW. A. (2023). AI and the transformation of social science research. Science, 380(6650), 1108–1109.
28.
HenrichJ.BoydR.BowlesS.CamererC.FehrE.GintisH.McElreathR. (2001). In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78.
29.
JacksonJ. C.HalberstadtJ.TakezawaM.LiewK.SmithK.ApicellaC.GrayK. (2023). Generalized morality culturally evolves as an adaptive heuristic in large social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(6), 1207–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000358
30.
KnauffM.SpohnW. (Eds.) (2021). The handbook of rationality. MIT Press.
KrepsD. M.MilgromP.RobertsJ.WilsonR. (1982). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2), 245–252.
33.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931.
34.
LernerJ. S.TetlockP. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.
35.
LeslieS.-J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.
36.
LewisM.LupyanG. (2020). Gender stereotypes are reflected in the distributional structure of 25 languages. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1021–1028.
37.
LinkB. G.PhelanJ. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385.
38.
MillerD. T.RatnerR. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 53–62.
39.
NicolasG.BaiX.FiskeS. T. (2021). Comprehensive stereotype content dictionaries using a semi-automated method. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 178–196.
40.
PageL. (2022). Optimally irrational: The good reasons we behave the way we do. Cambridge University Press.
41.
PeabodyD. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 59–71.
42.
PenningtonJ.SocherR.ManningC. D. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In MoschittiA.PangB.DaelemansW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1532–1543). Association for Computational Linguistics.
43.
PinkerS. (2021). Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters. Penguin.
44.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427–430.
45.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
46.
ShafirE.LeBoeufR. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491–517.
47.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 701–717.
48.
StorageD.CharlesworthT. E.BanajiM. R.CimpianA. (2020). Adults and children implicitly associate brilliance with men more than women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 104020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020
49.
TetlockP. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451–471.
50.
TetlockP. E.MellersB. A. (2002). The great rationality debate. Psychological Science, 13(1), 94–99.
51.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582–591.
52.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Employment and wages, annual averages. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov
53.
VialeR. (2021). Why bounded rationality? In VialeR. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of bounded rationality (pp. 1–54). Routledge.
54.
WarrinerA. B.KupermanV.BrysbaertM. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
55.
WhiteM. W.LevineE. E.KristalA. C. (2024). Are rules meant to be broken? When and why consistent rule-following undermines versus enhances trust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 111, Article 104552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104552
56.
WirschingE. M.RodriguezP. L.SpirlingA.StewartB. M. (2025). Multilanguage word embeddings for social scientists: Estimation, inference, and validation resources for 157 Languages. Political Analysis, 33(2), 156–163. doi:10.1017/pan.2024.17
57.
ZouL. X.CheryanS. (2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 696–717.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
