RUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsRUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsВестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Психология и педагогика2313-16832313-1705Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)5047210.22363/2313-1683-2025-22-4-734-755ODYUPRCURRENT TRENDS IN PERSONALITY RESEARCHСОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ РАЗВИТИЯ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ ЛИЧНОСТИResearch Article4-Component Thinking Styles Questionnaire (4-CTSQ): Adaptation and Validation in Russia4-компонентный опросник стилей мышления (4-КОСМ): адаптация и валидизация в Россииhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8775-728958182813400GLV-6876-20226639-2529GallyamovaAlbina AlikovnaГаллямоваАльбина Аликовна

Junior Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research

младший научный сотрудник, Центр социокультурных исследований

aagallyamova@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8841-172259204492200HII-5216-20224854-0374KomyaginskayaElizaveta ShamilevnaКомягинскаяЕлизавета Шамилевна

Junior Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research

младший научный сотрудник, Центр социокультурных исследований

ekomyaginskaya@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0009-5396-9177GnezdilovAlexander NikolaevichГнездиловАлександр Николаевич

student

стажер-исследователь, Научно-учебная лаборатория политико-психологических исследований

angnezdilov@edu.hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0009-7705-7906GolubkovaAngelina Evgen'evnaГолубковаАнгелина Евгеньевна

Research Intern, Politics & Psychology Research Laboratory

студент

aegolubkova@edu.hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0008-5732-9962TroshinaXenia KonstantinovnaТрошинаКсения Константиновна

student

студент

xenitimy@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-794257191706675K-3338-20151807-9739GrigoryevDmitry SergeevichГригорьевДмитрий Сергеевич

PhD, Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research

PhD, научный сотрудник, Центр социокультурных исследований

dgrigoryev@hse.ruHSE UniversityНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»04062026224VOL 22, NO4 (2025)ТОМ 22, №4 (2025)73475504062026Copyright ©; 2026, Gallyamova A.A., Komyaginskaya E.S., Gnezdilov A.N., Golubkova A.E., Troshina X.K., Grigoryev D.S.Copyright ©; 2026, Галлямова А.А., Комягинская Е.Ш., Гнездилов А.Н., Голубкова А.Е., Трошина К.К., Григорьев Д.С.2026Gallyamova A.A., Komyaginskaya E.S., Gnezdilov A.N., Golubkova A.E., Troshina X.K., Grigoryev D.S.Галлямова А.А., Комягинская Е.Ш., Гнездилов А.Н., Голубкова А.Е., Трошина К.К., Григорьев Д.С.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/psychology-pedagogics/article/view/50472

The ways in which people process information, or their thinking styles, have become one of the key variables to address a wide range of topics within psychology. Despite the growing body of relevant research, there is a clear gap: the lack of a unified framework for categorizing and measuring these styles. 4-CTSQ suggests such a unified framework for thinking styles, replacing a variety of currently used measures. The purpose of the study is to adapt and validate the Russian version of 4-Component Thinking Styles Questionnaire (4-CTSQ). This study involved the adaptation of 4-CTSQ into Russian, using cognitive interviews and subsequent validity testing through an online survey. To test the factor structure of this measure, confirmatory factor analysis was employed. In addition, validity, reliability, and measurement equivalence analyses were conducted. The adaptation of this measure involved 1,268 participants, of whom 55.8% were women and 44.2% were men, all over 18 years of age ( M = 37.9; SD = 11.2). According to the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the factor structure of the Russian language version of 4-CTSQ had satisfactory global and local fit values (e.g., CFI = 0.935, SRMR = 0.049) and satisfactory factor loadings (average value of 0.692). In addition, 4-CTSQ demonstrated measurement equivalence across gender, satisfactory reliability (with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.78 to 0.92), and validity. When examining the relationship between 4-CTSQ variables with the different types of unfounded beliefs, the thinking styles were associated with 12-24% of the variance in religious belief and pseudoscientific beliefs, respectively. Finally, several predictors, including some cognitive, personality, and sociodemographic variables, were associated with varying degrees of differences in the thinking styles. This adaptation and validation of the Russian version of 4-CTSQ can be considered successful. The factor structure, combined with indicators of reliability and validity, emphasizes that 4-CTSQ is a qualitative measurement tool. This was further supported by the results of exploring the nomological network of relationships between the thinking styles and the other focal variables.

Способы, которыми люди обрабатывают информацию, или их стили мышления , стали одними из ключевых переменных для рассмотрения широкого спектра тем в рамках психологии. Однако, несмотря на рост количества соответствующих исследований, отсутствует единая структура для классификации и измерения этих стилей. Такую единую структуру для оценки стилей мышления предлагает 4-Component Thinking Styles Questionnaire (4-CTSQ), заменяющий собой сразу множество популярных на сегодняшний день методик. Цель исследования - адаптация и валидизация русскоязычной версии методики 4-CTSQ - «4-компонентного опросника стилей мышления» (4-КОСМ). Проведена адаптация методики 4-КОСМ на русский язык с использованием когнитивных интервью и последующая проверка его валидности посредством онлайн-опроса. Для тестирования факторной структуры методики использовался конфирматорный факторный анализ. В дополнение были проведены анализы валидности, надежности и измерительной эквивалентности. В адаптации методики участвовали 1268 респондентов старше 18 лет ( M = 37,9; SD = 11,2), среди которых 55,8 % - женщины, а 44,2 % - мужчины. Согласно результатам конфирматорного факторного анализа факторная структура русскоязычной версии 4-КОСМ имела удовлетворительные показатели глобального и локального соответствия (например, CFI = 0,935, SRMR = 0,049), а также удовлетворительные значения факторных нагрузок (в среднем 0,692). Кроме того, 4-КОСМ продемонстрировал измерительную эквивалентность по полу, удовлетворительную надежность (с коэффициентами α-Кронбаха в диапазоне от 0,78 до 0,92) и валидность. Проверка критериальной валидности продемонстрировала связи между переменными 4-КОСМ и определенными убеждениями (например, религиозными, паранормальными, псевдонаучными и конспирологическими), а также с различными когнитивными, личностными и социально-демографическими переменными. Адаптацию и валидизацию русскоязычной версии 4-КОСМ можно считать успешной: факторная структура опросника в сочетании с показателями надежности и валидности подчеркивает, что 4-КОСМ является качественным измерительным инструментом, что дополнительно продемонстрировали и результаты изучения номологической сети взаимосвязей стилей мышления и остальных рассмотренных переменных.

4-Component Thinking Styles Questionnaire4-CTSQthinking stylesepistemically unfounded beliefsdual process theoryintuitive thinkinganalytical thinking4-компонентный опросник стилей мышления4-КОСМстили мышленияэпистемически необоснованные убеждениятеория двойного процессаинтуитивное мышлениеаналитическое мышлениеИсследование реализовано при поддержке факультета социальных наук, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики».This research is supported by the Faculty of Social Sciences, HSE UniversityAkimova, M.K., Borisova, E.M., Kozlova, V.T., Loginova, G.P., & Gurevich, K.M. (1993). Guide to using the R. Amthauer Intelligenz-Struktur-Test. Obninsk: Obninsk Psycholo­gical and Physiological Center “Detstvo”. (In Russ.).Акимова М.К., Борисова Е.М., Козлова В.Т., Логинова Г.П., Гуревич К.М. Руководство к применению Теста структуры интеллекта Рудольфа Амтхауера. Обнинск : Обнинский городской психолого-физиологический центр «Детство», 1993. 20 с. EDN: YQGOCDAlaybek, B., Wang, Y., Dalal, R.S., Dubrow, S., & Boemerman, L.S.G. (2021). Meta-analytic relations between thinking styles and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differen­ces, 168, 110322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110322Григорьев Д.С. Адаптация и валидизация шкалы веры в паранормальное Дж. Тобасика // Социальная психология и общество. 2015. Т. 6. № 2. С. 132–145. EDN: TYRPNBBaron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004Комягинская Е.Ш., Галлямова А.А., Очерет А.Ю., Григорьев Д.С. Русскоязычные версии методик для оценки путаницы в базовых знаниях и восприимчивости к чуши: адаптация и валидизация // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Психология и педагогика. 2025. Т. 22. № 2. С. 268–288. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2025-22-2-268-288 EDN: VLBPOOCacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116Мишкевич А.М., Щебетенко С.А., Калугин А.Ю., Сото К.Дж., Джон О.П. Адаптация краткой и сверх-краткой версий вопросника Big Five Inventory-2: BFI-2-SCheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5и BFI-2-XS // Психологический журнал. 2022. Т. 43. № 1. С. 95–108. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920017744-4 EDN: XVJIEKEpstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159–184). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507Щебетенко С.А. Психометрика русской версии Шкалы потребности в познании // Вестник Пермского университета. Философия. Психология. Социология. 2011. № 2 (6). С. 87–100. EDN: NVVWWFEpstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-Alaybek B., Wang Y., Dalal R.S., Dubrow S., Boemerman L.S.G. Meta-analytic relations between thinking styles and intelligence // Personality and Individual Differences. 2021. Vol. 168. Article no. 110322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110322experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390Baron J. Actively open-minded thinking in politics // Cognition. 2019. Vol. 188. P. 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004Evans, J.St.B.T., & Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E. The need for cognition // Journal of Personality and Social Psycho­logy. 1982. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2019). Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3501Cheung G.W., Rensvold R.B. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invarian­ce // Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2002. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312Epstein S. Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality // Comprehensive handbook of psychology. 2003. No. 5. P. 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732Epstein S., Pacini R., Denes-Raj V., Heier H. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. Vol. 71. No. 2. P. 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 EDN: HITIENGarrett, R.K., & Weeks, B.E. (2017). Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PloS One, 12(9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184733Evans St.J.B.T., Stanovich K.E. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2013. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685Grigoryev, D.S. (2015). Russian adaptation and validation of Tobacyk’s revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Social Psychology and Society, 6(2), 132–145. (In Russ.).Fasce A., Picó A. Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019. Vol. 33. No 4. P. 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3501Grigoryev, D., & Gallyamova, A. (2023). Social worldviews predict the general factor of paranormal and generic conspiracist beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 26, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2023.18Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error // Journal of Marketing Research. 1981. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005. Vol. 19. No. 4. P. 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Garrett R.K., Weeks B.E. Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation // PloS One. 2017. Vol. 12. No. 9. P. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184733Komyaginskaya, E., Gallyamova, A., Golubkova, A., Gnezdilov, A., Ocheret, A., & Grigoryev, D. (2025). Ontological confusion reconsidered: Introducing the new Ontological Confusion Scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(6), e70150. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70150Grigoryev D., Gallyamova A. Social worldviews predict the general factor of paranormal and generic conspiracist beliefs // The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2023. Vol. 26. Article no. e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2023.18 EDN: YAVTMEKomyaginskaya, E.Sh., Gallyamova, A.A., Ocheret, A.Y., & Grigoryev, D.S. (2025). Russian versions of measures for assessing core knowledge confusions and bullshit receptivity: Adaptation and validation. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 22(2), 268–288. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2025-22-2-268-288Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling // Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015. Vol. 43. № 1. P. 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8Krumrei-Mancuso, E.J., & Rouse, S.V. (2016). The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174Kline R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press, 2010.Litman, J.A., & Spielberger, C.D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16Komyaginskaya E., Gallyamova A., Golubkova A., Gnezdilov A., Ocheret A., Grigoryev D. Ontological confusion reconsidered: Introducing the new Ontological Confusion Scale // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2025. Vol. 39. No. 6. Article no. e70150. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70150 EDN: UZZXTIMishkevich, A., Shchebetenko, S., Kalugin, A., Soto, C.J., & John, O.P. (2022). The short and extrashort forms of the Russian version of the Big Five Inventory-2: BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 43(1), 95–108. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920017744-4Krumrei-Mancuso E.J., Rouse S.V. The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale // Journal of Personality Assessment. 2016. Vol. 98. No. 2. P. 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113Litman J.A., Spielberge C.D. Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components // Journal of Personality Assessment. 2003. Vol. 80. No. 1. P. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_16Newton, C., Feeney, J., & Pennycook, G. (2024). On the disposition to think analytically: Four distinct intuitive-analytic thinking styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(6), 906–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231154886Neuberg S.L., Newsom J.T. Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993. Vol. 65. No. 1. P. 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113 EDN: HITXQBPennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Seli, P., Koehler, D.J., & Fugelsang, J.A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003Newton C., Feeney J., Pennycook G. On the disposition to think analytically: Four distinct intuitive-analytic thinking styles // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2024. Vol. 50. No 6. P. 906–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231154886 EDN: DSSLTWPennycook, G., Fugelsang, J.A., & Koehler, D.J. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610Pennycook G., Cheyne J.A., Seli P., Koehler D.J., Fugelsang J.A. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief // Cognition. 2012. Vol. 123. No. 3. P. 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003Rokeach, M., & Fruchter, B. (1956). A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042069Pennycook G., Fugelsang J.A., Koehler D.J. Everyday consequences of analytic thinking // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2015. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004Rokeach M., Fruchter B. A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts // The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1956. Vol. 53. No. 3. P. 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042069Saris, W.E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W.M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433Roets A., Van Hiel, A. Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale // Personality and Individual Differences. 2011. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004Shchebetenko, S.A. (2011). Russian version of 18-ITEM Need for Cognition Scale. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya, 6, 87–100. (In Russ.)Saris W.E., Satorra A., van der Veld W.M. Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? // Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2009. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433Sladek, R.M., Bond, M.J., & Phillips, P.A. (2010). Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 907–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028Sladek R.M., Bond M.J., Phillips P.A. Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking // Personality and Individual Differences. 2010. Vol. 49. No. 8. P. 907–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796Stanovich K.E., West R.F. Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability // Thinking & Reasoning. 2007. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796Wilderom, C.P., & Cryns, A.G. (1985). Authoritarianism/dogmatism as a function of age: A relevant yet forgotten area of research. The High School Journal, 68(4), 424–428.Wilderom C.P., Cryns A.G. Authoritarianism/dogmatism as a function of age: A relevant yet forgotten area of research // The High School Journal. 1985. Vol. 68. No. 4. P. 424–428.Willis, G.B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655Willis G.B. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ, 2005. 335 p.Witteman, C., van den Bercken, J., Claes, L., & Godoy, A. (2009). Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.39Witteman C., Van Den Bercken J., Claes L., Godoy A. Assessing Rational and Intuitive Thin­king Styles // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2009. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.39