Doğruyol, Burak

Profile Picture
Name Variants
DOĞRUYOL, Burak
D.,Burak
Burak Doğruyol
D., Burak
Burak, Dogruyol
Burak DOĞRUYOL
Dogruyol,Burak
Doğruyol,B.
DOĞRUYOL, BURAK
Doğruyol B.
Dogruyol B.
Doğruyol, B.
Dogruyol,B.
Doğruyol, BURAK
Dogruyol, Burak
Doğruyol, Burak
BURAK DOĞRUYOL
B. Doğruyol
Job Title
Doç. Dr.
Email Address
burak.dogruyol@khas.edu.tr
Main Affiliation
Psychology
Status
Website
ORCID ID
0000-0002-3469-590X
Scopus Author ID
Turkish CoHE Profile ID
Google Scholar ID
WoS Researcher ID

Sustainable Development Goals Report Points

SDG data could not be loaded because of an error. Please refresh the page or try again later.
Scholarly Output

7

Articles

7

Citation Count

96

Supervised Theses

0

Filters

20232
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: ideology

Scholarly Output Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Citation - WoS: 3
    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; Psychology
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Citation - Scopus: 3
    Multidimensional Intuitive–analytic Thinking Style and Its Relation To Moral Concerns, Epistemically Suspect Beliefs, and Ideology
    (Society for Judgment and Decision making, 2023) Bayrak,F.; Doğruyol, Burak; Dogruyol,B.; Yılmaz, Onurcan; Alper,S.; Yilmaz,O.; Psychology
    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.