Browsing by Author "Dogruyol, Burak"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Cognitive Reflection and Religious Belief: a Test of Two Models
(Cambridge Univ Press, 2025) Seker, Firat; Acem, Ensar; Bayrak, Fatih; Dogruyol, Burak; Isler, Ozan; Bahcekapili, Hasan G.; Yilmaz, Onurcan
Existing research suggests a negative correlation between reflective thinking and religious belief. The dual process model (DPM) posits that reflection diminishes religious belief by limiting intuitive decisions. In contrast, the expressive rationality model (ERM) argues that reflection serves an identity-protective function by bolstering rather than modifying preexisting beliefs. Although the current literature tends to favor the DPM, many studies suffer from unbalanced samples. To avoid this limitation, we recruited comparably large number of participants for both religious believers (n = 580) and non-believers (n = 594) and observed the relationship between reflection and two measures of religious belief: belief in God and disbelief in evolution. Our findings corroborate the negative associations found between higher levels of reflection and both types of belief, independent of religious affiliation. Our results align with the broader literature, supporting the DPM but not the ERM.
Multidimensional intuitive-analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology
(Cambridge Univ Press, 2023) Doğruyol, Burak; Yılmaz, Onurcan; Alper, Sinan; Yilmaz, Onurcan
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, Turkiye. 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.
Validation of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 in the Turkish Context: Exploring Its Relationship With Moral Behavior
(Springer, 2024) Dogruyol, Burak; Doğruyol, Burak; Velioglu, Ilayda; Yılmaz, Onurcan; Bayrak, Fatih; Acem, Ensar; Isler, Ozan; Yilmaz, Onurcan
Despite the considerable attention it has received, Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) remains open to criticisms regarding failure to conceptualize the moral domain. MFT was revised in response to these criticisms, along with its measurement tool, the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ-2). However, the validity of this revised theoretical structure and its explanatory power relative to existing alternatives, such as Morality as Cooperation Theory (MAC), has not yet been independently tested. Here we first validated MFT's revised six-factor structure using the MFQ-2 in a large quasi-representative sample (N = 1099) from a predominantly Muslim country (i.e., T & uuml;rkiye) and then explored the relationship of these six factors with incentivized measures of moral behavior as well as different psychological variables. Our tests revealed excellent fit values for the six-factor structure proposed by the MFQ-2, which explained more of the variance in criterion variables compared to the MAC Questionnaire (MAC-Q). However, MAC-Q performed better in predicting actual moral behavior (e.g., generosity and cooperation) compared with MFQ-2. Taken together, these findings indicate that, at least for the time being, MFQ-2 and the structure of the moral foundations proposed by MFT can be used to conceptualize the moral domain, but its relatively weak relationship to actual moral behavior limits its insights.