Follow-up to Translation and Validation of the 4-CTSQ-D

Background: The 4-CTSQ represents a new approach to assess and differentiate human thinking better than it has been done in previous science. In contrast to the one-dimensional differentiation of thinking, based on the classical dual-process theory (Evans & Stanovich, 2013), Newton et al. assume a multidimensional differentiation of thinking styles, based on more modern dual-process theories (Newton et al., 2024; Pennycook et al., 2015; Thompson, 2009). The four thinking styles were de-termined by means of an exploratory factor analysis (AOT, CMT, PIT and PET) and the 4-CTSQ was subsequently created from this (Newton et al., 2024). Objectives and Research questions: First, the 4-CTSQ will be translated into German. In addition, the questionnaire will be validated by the regression between the different thinking styles and religious beliefs, paranormal beliefs, em-pathy, vaccination attitudes, actual behavior and the assessment of a moral dilemma. The focus of this study is the criterion validity (concurrent validity). Participants: A random sample of German participants will be recruited. The questionnaire will be sent out as an anonymous, non-personalized link on various platforms. Furthermore, the survey will be distributed and conducted in the personal environment of the authors (students). Study method: The online survey consists of German translations of the 4-CTSQ questionnaire (Newton et al., 2024), an extended version of the CRT (based on Frederick, 2005; Newton et al, 2024; Thomson & Oppenheimer, 2016), and an adapted version of the Heuristics and Biases battery (Toplak et al., 2011). unknown other