Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297523000451/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797387568828907520 |
|---|---|
| author | Fatih Bayrak Burak Dogruyol Sinan Alper Onurcan Yilmaz |
| author_facet | Fatih Bayrak Burak Dogruyol Sinan Alper Onurcan Yilmaz |
| author_sort | Fatih Bayrak |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T22:27:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0716161016b64ef6a20cec0237e3b46d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T22:27:59Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-0716161016b64ef6a20cec0237e3b46d2023-12-18T08:49:42ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752023-01-011810.1017/jdm.2023.45Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideologyFatih Bayrak0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6350-6234Burak Dogruyol1Sinan Alper2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9051-0690Onurcan Yilmaz3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-7162Department of Psychology, Baskent University, Ankara, TürkiyeDepartment of Psychology, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, TürkiyeDepartment of Psychology, Yaşar University, Izmir, TürkiyeDepartment of Psychology, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, TürkiyeLiterature 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.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297523000451/type/journal_articleintuitive thinkinganalytic thinkingreflectionintuitiondual process modelcognitive stylemoralityepistemically suspect beliefsideology |
| spellingShingle | Fatih Bayrak Burak Dogruyol Sinan Alper Onurcan Yilmaz Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology Judgment and Decision Making intuitive thinking analytic thinking reflection intuition dual process model cognitive style morality epistemically suspect beliefs ideology |
| title | Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology |
| title_full | Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology |
| title_fullStr | Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology |
| title_short | Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology |
| title_sort | multidimensional intuitive analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns epistemically suspect beliefs and ideology |
| topic | intuitive thinking analytic thinking reflection intuition dual process model cognitive style morality epistemically suspect beliefs ideology |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297523000451/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fatihbayrak multidimensionalintuitiveanalyticthinkingstyleanditsrelationtomoralconcernsepistemicallysuspectbeliefsandideology AT burakdogruyol multidimensionalintuitiveanalyticthinkingstyleanditsrelationtomoralconcernsepistemicallysuspectbeliefsandideology AT sinanalper multidimensionalintuitiveanalyticthinkingstyleanditsrelationtomoralconcernsepistemicallysuspectbeliefsandideology AT onurcanyilmaz multidimensionalintuitiveanalyticthinkingstyleanditsrelationtomoralconcernsepistemicallysuspectbeliefsandideology |