Browsing by Author "Yilmaz,O."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Citation Count: 0
How do beliefs in free will and determinism correlate with beliefs in conspiracy, paranormal, and pseudoscience beliefs?
(Elsevier Ltd, 2024) Yılmaz, Onurcan; Konukoglu,K.; Atalay,E.D.; Duzgun,A.; Yilmaz,O.
In this study, we tested the relationship between personal agency beliefs, represented by free will, scientific and fatalistic determinism and unpredictability, and epistemically suspect beliefs (ESBs), including conspiracy, paranormal, and pseudoscience beliefs, across two different cultures (Türkiye and the UK). In two preregistered studies (NStudy 1 = 682, NStudy 2 = 532), we proposed and found correlational evidence for the idea that although seemingly contradictory, both forms of determinism—scientific and fatalistic—might lead individuals to feel a reduced control over their actions, prompting them towards simpler explanations offered by ESBs, thereby compensating for a diminished sense of agency. The relationship between free will, unpredictability, and ESBs varied by culture, likely influenced by the cultural interpretation of those beliefs. Our results underscore the link between personal agency and ESBs, suggesting that ESBs may act as a safeguard against eroding personal agency. © 2024 Elsevier Ltd
Citation Count: 0
Multidimensional intuitive–analytic thinking style and its relation to moral concerns, epistemically suspect beliefs, and ideology
(Society for Judgment and Decision making, 2023) Doğruyol, Burak; Yılmaz, Onurcan; Alper,S.; Yilmaz,O.
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. © The Author(s), 2023.