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

A1 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). A2 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). A3 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). A4 Study method: The online survey consists of German translations of the 4-CTSQ questionnaire (Newton et al., 2024), the Paranormal Beliefs Scale (Orenstein, 2002), an adapted version of the Religious Beliefs Scale (EVS, 2022)(see M13), the extended version of the CRT (Frederick, 2005; Newton et al, 2024; Thomson & Oppenheimer, 2016), the short form of the Empathizing Scales (Samson & Hu-ber, 2010), two moral vignettes (Haidt et al., 1993), three items from the Heuristics and Biases Battery (Toplak et al., 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 1983) and the German 5C Scale for Vaccination Attitudes (Betsch et al., 2018).