Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology

dc.authorscopusid57211604087
dc.authorscopusid36082461900
dc.authorscopusid56673764500
dc.authorscopusid56498563100
dc.contributor.authorDoğruyol, Burak
dc.contributor.authorYılmaz, Onurcan
dc.contributor.authorAlper,S.
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz,O.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-23T21:38:56Z
dc.date.available2024-06-23T21:38:56Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentKadir Has Universityen_US
dc.department-tempBayrak F., Department of Psychology, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey; Dogruyol B., Department of Psychology, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey; Alper S., Department of Psychology, Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey; Yilmaz O., Department of Psychology, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractLiterature highlights the distinction between intuitive and analytic thinking as a prominent cognitive style distinction, leading to the proposal of various theories within the framework of the dual process model. However, it remains unclear whether individuals differ in their thinking styles along a single dimension, from intuitive to analytic, or if other dimensions are at play. Moreover, the presence of numerous thinking style measures, employing different terminology but conceptually overlapping, leads to confusion. To address these complexities, Newton et al. suggested the idea that individuals vary across multiple dimensions of intuitive–analytic thinking styles and distinguished thinking styles between 4 distinct types: Actively open-minded thinking, close-minded thinking, preference for effortful thinking, and preference for intuitive thinking. They proposed a new measure for this 4-factor disposition, The 4-Component Thinking Styles Questionnaire (4-CTSQ), to comprehensively capture the psychological outcomes related to thinking styles; however, no independent test exists. In the current pre-registered studies, we test the validity of 4-CTSQ for the first time beyond the original study and examine the association of the proposed measure with various factors, including morality, conspiracy beliefs, paranormal and religious beliefs, vaccine hesitancy, and ideology in an underrepresented culture, Türkiye. We found that the correlated 4-factor model of 4-CTSQ is an appropriate measure to capture individual differences based on cognitive style. The results endorse the notion that cognitive style differences are characterized by distinct structures rather than being confined to two ends of a single continuum. © The Author(s), 2023.en_US
dc.identifier.citation0
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/JDM.2023.45
dc.identifier.issn1930-2975
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85194375234
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1017/JDM.2023.45
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/5839
dc.identifier.volume18en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSociety for Judgment and Decision makingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJudgment and Decision Makingen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectanalytic thinkingen_US
dc.subjectcognitive styleen_US
dc.subjectdual process modelen_US
dc.subjectepistemically suspect beliefsen_US
dc.subjectideologyen_US
dc.subjectintuitionen_US
dc.subjectintuitive thinkingen_US
dc.subjectmoralityen_US
dc.subjectreflectionen_US
dc.titleMultidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideologyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3ee2e3d3-0646-4b7b-ae07-0876605be9bd
relation.isAuthorOfPublication9871d16b-164e-4f1d-b0e5-8eef999e6b38
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery3ee2e3d3-0646-4b7b-ae07-0876605be9bd

Files