In daily life, we frequently interact with specialists—individuals whose complementary insights augment our limited first-hand experiences in decision-making. Efficient as this may be, the cognitive demands of employing our theory of mind to determine and integrate the evidential contributions of diverse specialists may offset its benefits. In this study, we explore human judgments in a scenario where they must aggregate opinions from multiple social peers, each possessing expertise in a different aspect of the problem. We examine whether participants integrate specialist judgments with or without mentalizing using a normative Bayesian model and propose two heuristic approaches. Our results show the majority of participants across two experiments relied on heuristics, suggesting that people don’t tend to or have limited ability to integrate specialist judgments through mentalizing.