Author
Listed:
- Bayrak, Fatih
- Dogruyol, Burak
- Alper, Sinan
- Yilmaz, Onurcan
Abstract
Literature 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.
Suggested Citation
Bayrak, Fatih & Dogruyol, Burak & Alper, Sinan & Yilmaz, Onurcan, 2023.
"Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology,"
Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18, pages 1-1, January.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:18:y:2023:i::p:-_42
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:18:y:2023:i::p:-_42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.