is resistance a useful skill in critical thinking

• Career Advice
• Job Search & Interview
• Productivity
• Public Speaking and Presentation
• Social & Interpersonal Skills
• Professional Development
• Remote Work

Eggcellent Work

12 common barriers to critical thinking (and how to overcome them).

As you know, critical thinking is a vital skill necessary for success in life and work. Unfortunately,  barriers to critical thinking  can hinder a person’s ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common  internal and external barriers to critical thinking  and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically.

Critical Thinking Challenges

You already know that  critical thinking  is the process of analyzing and evaluating a situation or person so that you can make a sound judgment. You normally use the judgment you derive from your critical thinking process to make crucial decisions, and the choices you make affect you in workplaces, relationships, and life’s goals and achievements.

Several  barriers to critical thinking  can cause you to skew your judgment. This could happen even if you have a large amount of data and information to the contrary. The result might be that you make a poor or ineffective decision instead of a choice that could improve your life quality. These are some of the top obstacles that hinder and distort the ability to think critically:

1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic

Failing to remove one’s emotions from a critical thinking analysis is one of the hugest barriers to the process. People make these mistakes mainly in the relationship realm when choosing partners based on how they “make them feel” instead of the information collected.

The correct way to decide about a relationship is to use all facts, data, opinions, and situations to make a final judgment call. More times than not, individuals use their hearts instead of their minds.

Emotions can hinder critical thinking in the employment realm as well. One example is an employee who reacts negatively to a business decision, change, or process without gathering more information. The relationship between that person and the employer could become severed by her  lack of critical thinking  instead of being salvaged by further investigations and rational reactions.

2. Personal Biases

Personal biases can come from past negative experiences, skewed teachings, and peer pressure. They create a huge obstacle in critical thinking because they overshadow open-mindedness and fairness.

One example is failing to hire someone because of a specific race, age, religious preference, or perceived attitude. The hiring person circumvents using critical thinking by accepting his or her biases as truth. Thus, the entire processes of information gathering and objective analysis get lost in the mix.

3. Obstinance

Stubbornness almost always ruins the critical thinking procedure. Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they fail to look at the big picture. Big-picture thinking is a large part of critical thinking; without it, all judgments and choices are rash and incomplete.

4. Unbelief

It’s difficult for a person to do something he or she doesn’t believe in. It’s also challenging to engage in something that seems complex. Many people don’t think critically because they believe they must be scholarly to do so. The truth is that  anyone  can think critically by practicing the following steps:

• 1. Gather as much data as possible.
• 2. Have an opinion, but be open to changing it.
• 3. Understand that assumptions are not the truth, and opinions are not facts.
• 4. Think about the scenario, person, or problem from different angles.
• 5. Evaluate all the information thoroughly.
• 6. Ask simple, precise, and abundant questions.
• 7. Take time to observe.
• 8. Don’t be afraid to spend time on the problem or issue.
• 9. Ask for input or additional information.
• 10. Make it make sense.

5. Fear of Failure or Change

Fear of change and failure often hinders a person’s critical thinking process because it doesn’t allow thinking outside the box. Sometimes, the most efficient way to resolve a problem is to be open to changing something.

That change might be a different way of doing something, a relationship termination, or a shift of positions at a workplace. Fear can block out all possible scenarios in the critical thinking cycle. The result is often one-dimensional thinking, tunnel vision, or proverbial head-banging.

6. Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a “me” lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people’s perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc.

7. Assumptions

Assumptions are one of the negative  factors that affect critical thinking . They are detrimental to the process because they cause distortions and misguided judgments. When using assumptions, an individual could unknowingly insert an invalid prejudgment into a stage of the thought process and sway the final decision.

It’s never wise to assume anything about a person, entity, or situation because it could be 100 percent wrong. The correct way to deal with assumptions is to store them in a separate thought category of possibilities and then use the data and other evidence to validate or nullify them.

XYZ  might  be why ABC happened, but there isn’t enough information or data to conclude it. The same concept is true for the rest of the possibilities, and thus, it’s necessary to research and analyze the facts before accepting them as truths.

8. Group Thinking

Group thinking is another one of the  barriers to critical thinking  that can block sound decisions and muddy judgments. It’s similar to peer pressure, where the person takes on the viewpoint of the people around him or her to avoid seeming “different.”

This barrier is dangerous because it affects how some people think about right and wrong. It’s most prevalent among teens. One example is the “everybody’s doing it (drugs, bullying), so I should too” mindset.

Unfortunately, this barrier can sometimes spill over into the workplace and darken the environment when workers can’t think for themselves. Workers may end up breaking policies, engaging in negative behavior, or harassing the workers who don’t conform.

Group thinking can also skew someone’s opinion of another person before the individual gets a chance to collect facts and evaluate the person for himself. You’ve probably heard of smear campaigns. They work so well against targets because the parties involved don’t use the critical thinking process at all.

9. Impulsivity

Impulsivity is the tendency to do things without thinking, and it’s a bona fide critical thinking killer. It skips right by  every  step in the critical thinking process and goes directly to what feels good in the moment.

Alleviating the habit takes practice and dedication. The first step is to set time aside when impulsive urges come to think about all aspects of the situation. It may take an impulsive person a while to develop a good critical thinking strategy, but it can work with time.

10. Not Knowing What’s Fact and Opinion

Critical thinking requires the thinker to know the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are statements based on other people’s evaluative processes, and those processes may not be critical or analytical. Facts are an unemotional and unbiased piece of data that one can verify. Statistics and governmental texts are examples.

11. Having a Highly Competitive Nature

A “winning” mindset can overshadow the fair and objective evaluation of a problem, task, or person and undermine critical thinking. People who  think competitively  could lose sight of what’s right and wrong to meet a selfish goal that way.

12. Basing Statements on Popularity

This problem is prevalent in today’s world. Many people will accept anything a celebrity, political figure, or popular person says as gospel, but discredit or discount other people’s input. An adept critical thinker knows how to separate  what’s  being said from  who  said it and perform the necessary verification steps.

• The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking
• Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill Or Hard Skill?
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
• 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
• 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
• 12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
• How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

How To Overcome Barriers in Critical Thinking

If you can identify any of the above-mentioned  barriers , your critical thinking may be flawed. These are some tips for overcoming such barriers:

1. Know your flaws.

The very first step toward improving anything is to know and admit your flaws. If you can do that, you are halfway to using better critical thinking strategies.

2. Park your emotions.

Use logic, not emotion, when you are evaluating something to form a judgment. It’s not the time to think with your heart.

3. Be mindful of others.

Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes to understand their stance. A little empathy goes a long way.

4. Avoid black-and-white thinking.

Understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem or achieve a goal. Additionally, consider that not every person is all bad or all good.

5. Dare to be unpopular.

Avoid making decisions to please other people. Instead, evaluate the full lot of information and make the decision you feel is best.

6. Don’t assign unjustified merit.

Don’t assume someone is telling the truth or giving you more accurate information because of his or her name or status. Evaluate  all  people’s input equally.

7. Avoid judging others.

Try to keep biases and prejudices out of your decision-making processes. That will make them fair and just.

8. Be patient with yourself.

Take all the days you need to pick apart a situation or problem and resolve it. Don’t rush to make hasty decisions.

9. Accept different points of view.

Not everyone will agree with you or tell you what you want to hear.

10. Embrace change.

Don’t ever be afraid of changing something or trying something new. Thinking outside the box is an integral part of the critical thinking process.

Now you know the answers to the question,  “What are the challenges of critical thinking?”  Use the information about the  barriers to critical thinking  to improve your critical thinking process and make healthier and more beneficial decisions for everyone.

Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?

• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
• Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
• 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

10 Self-Help Books That Actually Help Improve Your Life and Career

5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace  

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How To List Skills That I Taught Myself On Resume

12 critical thinking interview questions and scenarios with sample answers  .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10300824

An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings

Associated data.

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Though a wide array of definitions and conceptualisations of critical thinking have been offered in the past, further elaboration on some concepts is required, particularly with respect to various factors that may impede an individual’s application of critical thinking, such as in the case of reflective judgment. These barriers include varying levels of epistemological engagement or understanding, issues pertaining to heuristic-based thinking and intuitive judgment, as well as emotional and biased thinking. The aim of this review is to discuss such barriers and evaluate their impact on critical thinking in light of perspectives from research in an effort to reinforce the ‘completeness’ of extant critical thinking frameworks and to enhance the potential benefits of implementation in real-world settings. Recommendations and implications for overcoming such barriers are also discussed and evaluated.

1. Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process—consisting of a number of skills and dispositions—that, through purposeful, self-regulatory reflective judgment, increases the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument ( Dwyer 2017 , 2020 ; Dwyer et al. 2012 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 ; Dwyer and Walsh 2019 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ).

CT has long been identified as a desired outcome of education ( Bezanilla et al. 2019 ; Butler et al. 2012 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Ennis 2018 ), given that it facilitates a more complex understanding of information ( Dwyer et al. 2012 ; Halpern 2014 ), better judgment and decision-making ( Gambrill 2006 ) and less dependence on cognitive bias and heuristic thinking ( Facione and Facione 2001 ; McGuinness 2013 ). A vast body of research (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2012 ; Gadzella 1996 ; Hitchcock 2004 ; Reed and Kromrey 2001 ; Rimiene 2002 ; Solon 2007 ), including various meta-analyses (e.g., Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Niu et al. 2013 ; Ortiz 2007 ), indicates that CT can be enhanced through targeted, explicit instruction. Though CT can be taught in domain-specific areas, its domain-generality means that it can be taught across disciplines and in relation to real-world scenarios ( Dwyer 2011 , 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Gabennesch 2006 ; Halpern 2014 ). Indeed, the positive outcomes associated with CT transcend educational settings into real-world, everyday situations, which is important because CT is necessary for a variety of social and interpersonal contexts where good decision-making and problem-solving are needed on a daily basis ( Ku 2009 ). However, regardless of domain-specificity or domain-generality of instruction, the transferability of CT application has been an issue in CT research (e.g., see Dumitru 2012 ). This is an important consideration because issues with transferability—for example, in real-world settings—may imply something lacking in CT instruction.

In light of the large, aforementioned body of research focusing on enhancing CT through instruction, a growing body of research has also evaluated the manner in which CT instruction is delivered (e.g., Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Ahern et al. 2019 ; Cáceres et al. 2020 ; Byerly 2019 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ), along with additional considerations for and the barriers to such education, faced by teachers and students alike (e.g., Aliakbari and Sadeghdaghighi 2013 ; Cáceres et al. 2020 ; Cornell et al. 2011 ; Lloyd and Bahr 2010 ; Ma and Liu 2022 ; Ma and Luo 2021 ; Rear 2019 ; Saleh 2019 ); for example, those regarding conceptualisation, beliefs about CT, having feasible time for CT application and CT’s aforementioned transferability. However, there is a significant lack of research investigating barriers to CT application by individuals in real-world settings, even by those who have enjoyed benefits from previous CT instruction. Thus, perhaps the previously conjectured ‘something lacking in CT instruction’ refers to, in conjunction with the teaching of what CT consists of, making clear to students what barriers to CT application we face.

Simply, CT instruction is designed in such a way as to enhance the likelihood of positive decision-making outcomes. However, there are a variety of barriers that can impede an individual’s application of CT, regardless of past instruction with respect to ‘how to conduct CT’. For example, an individual might be regarded as a ‘critical thinker’ because they apply it in a vast majority of appropriate scenarios, but that does not ensure that they apply CT in all such appropriate scenarios. What keeps them from applying CT in those scenarios might well be one of a number of barriers to CT that often go unaddressed in CT instruction, particularly if such instruction is exclusively focused on skills and dispositions. Perhaps too much focus is placed on what educators are teaching their students to do in their CT courses as opposed to what educators should be recommending their students to look out for or advising what they should not be doing. That is, perhaps just as important for understanding what CT is and how it is conducted (i.e., knowing what to do) is a genuine awareness of the various factors and processes that can impede CT; and so, for an individual to think critically, they must know what to look out for and be able to monitor for such barriers to CT application.

To clarify, thought has not changed regarding what CT is or the cognitive/metacognitive processes at its foundation (e.g., see Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Ennis 1987 , 1996 , 1998 ; Facione 1990 ; Halpern 2014 ; Paul 1993 ; Paul and Elder 2008 ); rather, additional consideration of issues that have potential to negatively impact CT is required, such as those pertaining to epistemological engagement; intuitive judgment; as well as emotional and biased thinking. This notion has been made clear through what might be perceived of as a ‘loud shout’ for CT over at least the past 10–15 years in light of growing political, economic, social, and health-related concerns (e.g., ‘fake news’, gaps between political views in the general population, various social movements and the COVID-19 pandemic). Indeed, there is a dearth of research on barriers to CT ( Haynes et al. 2016 ; Lloyd and Bahr 2010 ; Mangena and Chabeli 2005 ; Rowe et al. 2015 ). As a result, this evaluative perspective review aims to provide an impetus for updating the manner in which CT education is approached and, perhaps most importantly, applied in real-world settings—through further identifying and elaborating on specific barriers of concern in order to reinforce the ‘completeness’ of extant CT frameworks and to enhance the potential benefits of their implementation 1 .

2. Barriers to Critical Thinking

2.1. inadequate skills and dispositions.

In order to better understand the various barriers to CT that will be discussed, the manner in which CT is conceptualised must first be revisited. Though debate over its definition and what components are necessary to think critically has existed over the 80-plus years since the term’s coining (i.e., Glaser 1941 ), it is generally accepted that CT consists of two main components: skills and dispositions ( Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2012 , 2014 ; Ennis 1996 , 1998 ; Facione 1990 ; Facione et al. 2002 ; Halpern 2014 ; Ku and Ho 2010a ; Perkins and Ritchhart 2004 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ). CT skills—analysis, evaluation, and inference—refer to the higher-order, cognitive, ‘task-based’ processes necessary to conduct CT (e.g., see Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Facione 1990 ). CT dispositions have been described as inclinations, tendencies, or willingness to perform a given thinking skill (e.g., see Dwyer et al. 2016 ; Siegel 1999 ; Valenzuela et al. 2011 ), which may relate to attitudinal and intellectual habits of thinking, as well as motivational processes ( Ennis 1996 ; Norris 1994 ; Paul and Elder 2008 ; Perkins et al. 1993 ; Valenzuela et al. 2011 ). The relationship between CT skills and dispositions has been argued to be mutually dependent. As a result, overemphasising or encouraging the development of one over the other is a barrier to CT as a whole. Though this may seem obvious, it remains the case that CT instruction often places added emphasis on skills simply because they can be taught (though that does not ensure that everyone has or will be taught such skills), whereas dispositions are ‘trickier’ (e.g., see Dwyer 2017 ; Ku and Ho 2010a ). That is, it is unlikely that simply ‘teaching’ students to be motivated towards CT or to value it over short-instructional periods will actually meaningfully enhance it. Moreover, debate exists over how best to train disposition or even measure it. With that, some individuals might be more ‘inherently’ disposed to CT in light of their truth-seeking, open-minded, or inquisitive natures ( Facione and Facione 1992 ; Quinn et al. 2020 ). The barrier, in this context, is how we can enhance the disposition of those who are not ‘inherently’ inclined. For example, though an individual may possess the requisite skills to conduct CT, it does not ensure the tendency or willingness to apply them; and conversely, having the disposition to apply CT does not mean that one has the ability to do so ( Valenzuela et al. 2011 ). Given the pertinence of CT skills and dispositions to the application of CT in a broader sense, inadequacies in either create a barrier to application.

2.2. Epistemological (Mis)Understanding

To reiterate, most extant conceptualisations of CT focus on the tandem working of skills and dispositions, though significantly fewer emphasise the reflective judgment aspect of CT that might govern various associated processes ( Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 , 2015 ; King and Kitchener 1994 , 2004 ; Stanovich and Stanovich 2010 ). Reflective judgment (RJ) refers to a self-regulatory process of decision-making, with respect to taking time to engage one’s understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing and how this can affect the defense of their reasoning ( Dwyer 2017 ; King and Kitchener 1994 ; Ku and Ho 2010b ). The ability to metacognitively ‘think about thinking’ ( Flavell 1976 ; Ku and Ho 2010b ) in the application of critical thinking skills implies a reflective sensibility consistent with epistemological understanding and the capacity for reflective judgement ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ; King and Kitchener 1994 ). Acknowledging levels of (un)certainty is important in CT because the information a person is presented with (along with that person’s pre-existing knowledge) often provides only a limited source of information from which to draw a conclusion. Thus, RJ is considered a component of CT ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Huffman et al. 1991 ) because it allows one to acknowledge that epistemological understanding is necessary for recognising and judging a situation in which CT may be required ( King and Kitchener 1994 ). For example, the interdependence between RJ and CT can be seen in the way that RJ influences the manner in which CT skills like analysis and evaluation are conducted or the balance and perspective within the subsequent inferences drawn ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ; King et al. 1990 ). Moreover, research suggests that RJ development is not a simple function of age or time but more so a function of the amount of active engagement an individual has working in problem spaces that require CT ( Brabeck 1981 ; Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ). The more developed one’s RJ, the better able one is to present “a more complex and effective form of justification, providing more inclusive and better integrated assumptions for evaluating and defending a point of view” ( King and Kitchener 1994, p. 13 ).

Despite a lesser focus on RJ, research indicates a positive relationship between it and CT ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Brabeck 1981 ; Dawson 2008 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Huffman et al. 1991 ; King et al. 1990 )—the understanding of which is pertinent to better understanding the foundation to CT barriers. For example, when considering one’s proficiency in CT skills, there might come a time when the individual becomes so good at using them that their application becomes something akin to ‘second nature’ or even ‘automatic’. However, this creates a contradiction: automatic thinking is largely the antithesis of reflective judgment (even though judgment is never fully intuitive or reflective; see Cader et al. 2005 ; Dunwoody et al. 2000 ; Hamm 1988 ; Hammond 1981 , 1996 , 2000 )—those who think critically take their time and reflect on their decision-making; even if the solution/conclusion drawn from the automatic thinking is ‘correct’ or yields a positive outcome, it is not a critically thought out answer, per se. Thus, no matter how skilled one is at applying CT skills, once the application becomes primarily ‘automatic’, the thinking ceases to be critical ( Dwyer 2017 )—a perspective consistent with Dual Process Theory (e.g., Stanovich and West 2000 ). Indeed, RJ acts as System 2 thinking ( Stanovich and West 2000 ): it is slow, careful, conscious, and consistent ( Kahneman 2011 ; Hamm 1988 ); it is associated with high cognitive control, attention, awareness, concentration, and complex computation ( Cader et al. 2005 ; Kahneman 2011 ; Hamm 1988 ); and accounts for epistemological concerns—consistent not only with King and Kitchener’s ( 1994 ) conceptualisation but also Kuhn’s ( 1999 , 2000 ) perspective on metacognition and epistemological knowing . This is where RJ comes into play as an important component of CT—interdependent among the requisite skills and dispositions ( Baril et al. 1998 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 )—it allows one to acknowledge that epistemological understanding is vital to recognising and judging a situation in which CT is required ( King and Kitchener 1994 ). With respect to the importance of epistemological understanding, consider the following examples for elaboration.

The primary goal of CT is to enhance the likelihood of generating reasonable conclusions and/or solutions. Truth-seeking is a CT disposition fundamental to the attainment of this goal ( Dwyer et al. 2016 ; Facione 1990 ; Facione and Facione 1992 ) because if we just applied any old nonsense as justification for our arguments or solutions, they would fail in the application and yield undesirable consequences. Despite what may seem like truth-seeking’s obvious importance in this context, all thinkers succumb to unwarranted assumptions on occasion (i.e., beliefs presumed to be true without adequate justification). It may also seem obvious, in context, that it is important to be able to distinguish facts from beliefs. However, the concepts of ‘fact’ or ‘truth’, with respect to how much empirical support they have to validate them, also require consideration. For example, some might conceptualise truth as factual information or information that has been or can be ‘proven’ true. Likewise, ‘proof’ is often described as evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement—indicating a level of absolutism. However, the reality is that we cannot ‘prove’ things—as scientists and researchers well know—we can only disprove them, such as in experimental settings where we observe a significant difference between groups on some measure—we do not prove the hypothesis correct, rather, we disprove the null hypothesis. This is why, in large part, researchers and scientists use cautious language in reporting their results. We know the best our findings can do is reinforce a theory—another concept often misconstrued in the wider population as something like a hypothesis, as opposed to what it actually entails: a robust model for how and/or why a given phenomenon might occur (e.g., gravity). Thus, theories will hold ‘true’ until they are falsified—that is, disproven (e.g., Popper [1934] 1959 , 1999 ).

Unfortunately, ‘proof’, ‘prove’, and ‘proven’—words that ensure certainty to large populations—actually disservice the public in subtle ways that can hinder CT. For example, a company that produces toothpaste might claim its product to be ‘clinically proven’ to whiten teeth. Consumers purchasing that toothpaste are likely to expect to have whiter teeth after use. However, what happens—as often may be the case—if it does not whiten their teeth? The word ‘proven’ implies a false claim in context. Of course, those in research understand that the word’s use is a marketing ploy, given that ‘clinically proven’ sounds more reassuring to consumers than ‘there is evidence to suggest…’; but, by incorrectly using words like ‘proven’ in our daily language, we reinforce a misunderstanding of what it means to assess, measure and evaluate—particularly from a scientific standpoint (e.g., again, see Popper [1934] 1959 , 1999 ).

Though this example may seem like a semantic issue, it has great implications for CT in the population. For example, a vast majority of us grew up being taught the ‘factual’ information that there were nine planets in our solar system; then, in 2006, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet—no longer being considered a ‘major’ planet of our solar system. As a result, we now have eight planets. This change might be perceived in two distinct ways: (1) ‘science is amazing because it’s always developing—we’ve now reached a stage where we know so much about the solar system that we can differentiate celestial bodies to the extent of distinguishing planets from dwarf planets’; and (2) ‘I don’t understand why these scientists even have jobs, they can’t even count planets’. The first perspective is consistent with that of an individual with epistemological understanding and engagement that previous understandings of models and theories can change, not necessarily because they were wrong, but rather because they have been advanced in light of gaining further credible evidence. The second perspective is consistent with that of someone who has failed to engage epistemological understanding, who does not necessarily see that the change might reflect progress, who might be resistant to change, and who might grow in distrust of science and research in light of these changes. The latter point is of great concern in the CT research community because the unwarranted cynicism and distrust of science and research, in context, may simply reflect a lack of epistemological understanding or engagement (e.g., to some extent consistent with the manner in which conspiracy theories are developed, rationalised and maintained (e.g., Swami and Furnham 2014 )). Notably, this should also be of great concern to education departments around the world, as well as society, more broadly speaking.

Upon considering epistemological engagement in more practical, day-to-day scenarios (or perhaps a lack thereof), we begin to see the need for CT in everyday 21st-century life—heightened by the ‘new knowledge economy’, which has resulted in exponential increases in the amount of information made available since the late 1990s (e.g., Darling-Hammond 2008 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Jukes and McCain 2002 ; Varian and Lyman 2003 ). Though increased amounts of and enhanced access to information are largely good things, what is alarming about this is how much of it is misinformation or disinformation ( Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy in Schools 2018 ). Truth be told, the new knowledge economy is anything but ‘new’ anymore. Perhaps, over the past 10–15 years, there has been an increase in the need for CT above and beyond that seen in the ‘economy’s’ wake—or maybe ever before; for example, in light of the social media boom, political unrest, ‘fake news’, and issues regarding health literacy. The ‘new’ knowledge economy has made it so that knowledge acquisition, on its own, is no longer sufficient for learning—individuals must be able to work with and adapt information through CT in order to apply it appropriately ( Dwyer 2017 ).

Though extant research has addressed the importance of epistemological understanding for CT (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2014 ), it does not address how not engaging it can substantially hinder it—regardless of how skilled or disposed to think critically an individual may be. Notably, this is distinct from ‘inadequacies’ in, say, memory, comprehension, or other ‘lower-order’ cognitively-associated skills required for CT ( Dwyer et al. 2014 ; Halpern 2014 ; see, again, Note 1) in that reflective judgment is essentially a pole on a cognitive continuum (e.g., see Cader et al. 2005 ; Hamm 1988 ; Hammond 1981 , 1996 , 2000 ). Cognitive Continuum Theory postulates a continuum of cognitive processes anchored by reflective judgment and intuitive judgment, which represents how judgment situations or tasks relate to cognition, given that thinking is never purely reflective, nor is it completely intuitive; rather, it rests somewhere in between ( Cader et al. 2005 ; Dunwoody et al. 2000 ). It is also worth noting that, in Cognitive Continuum Theory, neither reflective nor intuitive judgment is assumed, a priori, to be superior ( Dunwoody et al. 2000 ), despite most contemporary research on judgment and decision-making focusing on the strengths of RJ and limitations associated with intuitive judgment ( Cabantous et al. 2010 ; Dhami and Thomson 2012 ; Gilovich et al. 2002 ). Though this point regarding superiority is acknowledged and respected (particularly in non-CT cases where it is advantageous to utilise intuitive judgment), in the context of CT, it is rejected in light of the example above regarding the automaticity of thinking skills.

2.3. Intuitive Judgment

The manner in which human beings think and the evolution of which, over millions of years, is a truly amazing thing. Such evolution has made it so that we can observe a particular event and make complex computations regarding predictions, interpretations, and reactions in less than a second (e.g., Teichert et al. 2014 ). Unfortunately, we have become so good at it that we often over-rely on ‘fast’ thinking and intuitive judgments that we have become ‘cognitively lazy’, given the speed at which we can make decisions with little energy ( Kahneman 2011 ; Simon 1957 ). In the context of CT, this ‘lazy’ thinking is an impediment (as in opposition to reflective judgment). For example, consider a time in which you have been presented numeric data on a topic, and you instantly aligned your perspective with what the ‘numbers indicate’. Of course, numbers do not lie… but people do—that is not to say that the person who initially interpreted and then presented you with those numbers is trying to disinform you; rather, the numbers presented might not tell the full story (i.e., the data are incomplete or inadequate, unbeknownst to the person reporting on them); and thus, there might be alternative interpretations to the data in question. With that, there most certainly are individuals who will wish to persuade you to align with their perspective, which only strengthens the impetus for being aware of intuitive judgment as a barrier. Consider another example: have you ever accidentally insulted someone at work, school, or in a social setting? Was it because the statement you made was based on some kind of assumption or stereotype? It may have been an honest mistake, but if a statement is made based on what one thinks they know, as opposed to what they actually know about the situation—without taking the time to recognise that all situations are unique and that reflection is likely warranted in light of such uncertainty—then it is likely that the schema-based ‘intuitive judgment’ is what is a fault here.

Our ability to construct schemas (i.e., mental frameworks for how we interpret the world) is evolutionarily adaptive in that these scripts allow us to: make quick decisions when necessary and without much effort, such as in moments of impending danger, answer questions in conversation; interpret social situations; or try to stave off cognitive load or decision fatigue ( Baumeister 2003 ; Sweller 2010 ; Vohs et al. 2014 ). To reiterate, research in the field of higher-order thinking often focuses on the failings of intuitive judgment ( Dwyer 2017 ; Hamm 1988 ) as being limited, misapplied, and, sometimes, yielding grossly incorrect responses—thus, leading to faulty reasoning and judgment as a result of systematic biases and errors ( Gilovich et al. 2002 ; Kahneman 2011 ; Kahneman et al. 1982 ; Slovic et al. 1977 ; Tversky and Kahneman 1974 ; in terms of schematic thinking ( Leventhal 1984 ), system 1 thinking ( Stanovich and West 2000 ; Kahneman 2011 ), miserly thinking ( Stanovich 2018 ) or even heuristics ( Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ; Tversky and Kahneman 1974 ). Nevertheless, it remains that such protocols are learned—not just through experience (as discussed below), but often through more ‘academic’ means. For example, consider again the anecdote above about learning to apply CT skills so well that it becomes like ‘second nature’. Such skills become a part of an individual’s ‘mindware’ ( Clark 2001 ; Stanovich 2018 ; Stanovich et al. 2016 ) and, in essence, become heuristics themselves. Though their application requires RJ for them to be CT, it does not mean that the responses yielded will be incorrect.

Moreover, despite the descriptions above, it would be incorrect, and a disservice to readers to imply that RJ is always right and intuitive judgment is always wrong, especially without consideration of the contextual issues—both intuitive and reflective judgments have the potential to be ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ with respect to validity, reasonableness or appropriateness. However, it must also be acknowledged that there is a cognitive ‘miserliness’ to depending on intuitive judgment, in which case, the ability to detect and override this dependence ( Stanovich 2018 )—consistent with RJ, is of utmost importance if we care about our decision-making. That is, if we care about our CT (see below for a more detailed discussion), we must ignore the implicit ‘noise’ associated with the intuitive judgment (regardless of whether or not it is ‘correct’) and, instead, apply the necessary RJ to ensure, as best we can, that the conclusion or solution is valid, reasonable or appropriate.

Although, such a recommendation is much easier said than done. One problem with relying on mental shortcuts afforded by intuition and heuristics is that they are largely experience-based protocols. Though that may sound like a positive thing, using ‘experience’ to draw a conclusion in a task that requires CT is erroneous because it essentially acts as ‘research’ based on a sample size of one; and so, ‘findings’ (i.e., one’s conclusion) cannot be generalised to the larger population—in this case, other contexts or problem-spaces ( Dwyer 2017 ). Despite this, we often over-emphasise the importance of experience in two related ways. First, people have a tendency to confuse experience for expertise (e.g., see the Dunning–KrugerEffect (i.e., the tendency for low-skilled individuals to overestimate their ability in tasks relevant to said skill and highly skilled individuals to underestimate their ability in tasks relevant to said skills); see also: ( Kruger and Dunning 1999 ; Mahmood 2016 ), wherein people may not necessarily be expert, rather they may just have a lot of experience completing a task imperfectly or wrong ( Dwyer and Walsh 2019 ; Hammond 1996 ; Kahneman 2011 ). Second, depending on the nature of the topic or problem, people often evaluate experience on par with research evidence (in terms of credibility), given its personalised nature, which is reinforced by self-serving bias(es).

When evaluating topics in domains wherein one lacks expertise, the need for intellectual integrity and humility ( Paul and Elder 2008 ) in their RJ is increased so that the individual may assess what knowledge is required to make a critically considered judgment. However, this is not necessarily a common response to a lack of relevant knowledge, given that when individuals are tasked with decision-making regarding a topic in which they do not possess relevant knowledge, these individuals will generally rely on emotional cues to inform their decision-making (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ). Concerns here are not necessarily about the lack of domain-specific knowledge necessary to make an accurate decision, but rather the (1) belief of the individual that they have the knowledge necessary to make a critically thought-out judgment, even when this is not the case—again, akin to the Dunning–Kruger Effect ( Kruger and Dunning 1999 ); or (2) lack of willingness (i.e., disposition) to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.

One final problem with relying on experience for important decisions, as alluded to above, is that when experience is engaged, it is not necessarily an objective recollection of the procedure. It can be accompanied by the individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and feelings—how that experience is recalled. The manner in which an individual draws on their personal experience, in light of these other factors, is inherently emotion-based and, likewise, biased (e.g., Croskerry et al. 2013 ; Loftus 2017 ; Paul 1993 ).

2.4. Bias and Emotion

Definitions of CT often reflect that it is to be applied to a topic, argument, or problem of importance that the individual cares about ( Dwyer 2017 ). The issue of ‘caring’ is important because it excludes judgment and decision-making in day-to-day scenarios that are not of great importance and do not warrant CT (e.g., ‘what colour pants best match my shirt’ and ‘what to eat for dinner’); again, for example, in an effort to conserve time and cognitive resources (e.g., Baumeister 2003 ; Sweller 2010 ). However, given that ‘importance’ is subjective, it essentially boils down to what one cares about (e.g., issues potentially impactful in one’s personal life; topics of personal importance to the individual; or even problems faced by an individual’s social group or work organisation (in which case, care might be more extrinsically-oriented). This is arguably one of the most difficult issues to resolve in CT application, given its contradictory nature—where it is generally recommended that CT should be conducted void of emotion and bias (as much as it can be possible), at the same time, it is also recommended that it should only be applied to things we care about. As a result, the manner in which care is conceptualised requires consideration. For example, in terms of CT, care can be conceptualised as ‘concern or interest; the attachment of importance to a person, place, object or concept; and serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk’; as opposed to some form of passion (e.g., intense, driving or over-powering feeling or conviction; emotions as distinguished from reason; a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object or concept). In this light, care could be argued as more of a dispositional or self-regulatory factor than emotional bias; thus, making it useful to CT. Though this distinction is important, the manner in which care is labeled does not lessen the potential for biased emotion to play a role in the thinking process. For example, it has been argued that if one cares about the decision they make or the conclusion they draw, then the individual will do their best to be objective as possible ( Dwyer 2017 ). However, it must also be acknowledged that this may not always be the case or even completely feasible (i.e., how can any decision be fully void of emotional input? )—though one may strive to be as objective as possible, such objectivity is not ensured given that implicit bias may infiltrate their decision-making (e.g., taking assumptions for granted as facts in filling gaps (unknowns) in a given problem-space). Consequently, such implicit biases may be difficult to amend, given that we may not be fully aware of them at play.

With that, explicit biases are just as concerning, despite our awareness of them. For example, the more important an opinion or belief is to an individual, the greater the resistance to changing their mind about it ( Rowe et al. 2015 ), even in light of evidence indicating the contrary ( Tavris and Aronson 2007 ). In some cases, the provision of information that corrects the flawed concept may even ‘backfire’ and reinforce the flawed or debunked stance ( Cook and Lewandowsky 2011 ). This cognitive resistance is an important barrier to CT to consider for obvious reasons—as a process; it acts in direct opposition to RJ, the skill of evaluation, as well as a number of requisite dispositions towards CT, including truth-seeking and open-mindedness (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2014 , 2016 ; Facione 1990 ); and at the same time, yields important real-world impacts (e.g., see Nyhan et al. 2014 ).

The notion of emotion impacting rational thought is by no means a novel concept. A large body of research indicates a negative impact of emotion on decision-making (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ; Slovic et al. 2002 ; Strack et al. 1988 ), higher-order cognition ( Anticevic et al. 2011 ; Chuah et al. 2010 ; Denkova et al. 2010 ; Dolcos and McCarthy 2006 ) and cognition, more generally ( Iordan et al. 2013 ; Johnson et al. 2005 ; Most et al. 2005 ; Shackman et al. 2006 ) 2 . However, less attention has specifically focused on emotion’s impact on the application of critical thought. This may be a result of assumptions that if a person is inclined to think critically, then what is yielded will typically be void of emotion—which is true to a certain extent. However, despite the domain generality of CT ( Dwyer 2011 , 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2015 ; Gabennesch 2006 ; Halpern 2014 ), the likelihood of emotional control during the CT process remains heavily dependent on the topic of application. Consider again, for example; there is no guarantee that an individual who generally applies CT to important topics or situations will do so in all contexts. Indeed, depending on the nature of the topic or the problem faced, an individual’s mindware ( Clark 2001 ; Stanovich 2018 ; Stanovich et al. 2016 ; consistent with the metacognitive nature of CT) and the extent to which a context can evoke emotion in the thinker will influence what and how thinking is applied. As addressed above, if the topic is something to which the individual feels passionate, then it will more likely be a greater challenge for them to remain unbiased and develop a reasonably objective argument or solution.

Notably, self-regulation is an important aspect of both RJ and CT ( Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer et al. 2014 ), and, in this context, it is difficult not to consider the role emotional intelligence might play in the relationship between affect and CT. For example, though there are a variety of conceptualisations of emotional intelligence (e.g., Bar-On 2006 ; Feyerherm and Rice 2002 ; Goleman 1995 ; Salovey and Mayer 1990 ; Schutte et al. 1998 ), the underlying thread among these is that, similar to the concept of self-regulation, emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to monitor (e.g., perceive, understand and regulate) one’s own feelings, as well as those of others, and to use this information to guide relevant thinking and behaviour. Indeed, extant research indicates that there is a positive association between EI and CT (e.g., Afshar and Rahimi 2014 ; Akbari-Lakeh et al. 2018 ; Ghanizadeh and Moafian 2011 ; Kaya et al. 2017 ; Stedman and Andenoro 2007 ; Yao et al. 2018 ). To shed light upon this relationship, Elder ( 1997 ) addressed the potential link between CT and EI through her description of the latter as a measure of the extent to which affective responses are rationally-based , in which reasonable desires and behaviours emerge from such rationally-based emotions. Though there is extant research on the links between CT and EI, it is recommended that future research further elaborate on this relationship, as well as with other self-regulatory processes, in an effort to further establish the potentially important role that EI might play within CT.

3. Discussion

3.1. interpretations.

Given difficulties in the past regarding the conceptualisation of CT ( Dwyer et al. 2014 ), efforts have been made to be as specific and comprehensive as possible when discussing CT in the literature to ensure clarity and accuracy. However, it has been argued that such efforts have actually added to the complexity of CT’s conceptualisation and had the opposite effect on clarity and, perhaps, more importantly, the accessibility and practical usefulness for educators (and students) not working in the research area. As a result, when asked what CT is, I generally follow up the ‘long definition’, in light of past research, with a much simpler description: CT is akin to ‘playing devil’s advocate’. That is, once a claim is made, one should second-guess it in as many conceivable ways as possible, in a process similar to the Socratic Method. Through asking ‘why’ and conjecturing alternatives, we ask the individual—be it another person or even ourselves—to justify the decision-making. It keeps the thinker ‘honest’, which is particularly useful if we’re questioning ourselves. If we do not have justifiable reason(s) for why we think or intend to act in a particular way (above and beyond considered objections), then it should become obvious that we either missed something or we are biased. It is perhaps this simplified description of CT that gives such impetus for the aim of this review.

Whereas extant frameworks often discuss the importance of CT skills, dispositions, and, to a lesser extent, RJ and other self-regulatory functions of CT, they do so with respect to components of CT or processes that facilitate CT (e.g., motivation, executive functions, and dispositions), without fully encapsulating cognitive processes and other factors that may hinder it (e.g., emotion, bias, intuitive judgment and a lack of epistemological understanding or engagement). With that, this review is neither a criticism of existing CT frameworks nor is it to imply that CT has so many barriers that it cannot be taught well, nor does it claim to be a complete list of processes that can impede CT (see again Note 1). To reiterate, education in CT can yield beneficial effects ( Abrami et al. 2008 , 2015 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Dwyer and Eigenauer 2017 ); however, such efficacy may be further enhanced by presenting students and individuals interested in CT the barriers they are likely to face in its application; explaining how these barriers manifest and operate; and offer potential strategies for overcoming them.

3.2. Further Implications and Future Research

Though the barriers addressed here are by no means new to the arena of research in higher-order cognition, there is a novelty in their collated discussion as impactful barriers in the context of CT, particularly with respect to extant CT research typically focusing on introducing strategies and skills for enhancing CT, rather than identifying ‘preventative measures’ for barriers that can negatively impact CT. Nevertheless, future research is necessary to address how such barriers can be overcome in the context of CT. As addressed above, it is recommended that CT education include discussion of these barriers and encourage self-regulation against them; and, given the vast body of CT research focusing on enhancement through training and education, it seems obvious to make such a recommendation in this context. However, it is also recognised that simply identifying these barriers and encouraging people to engage in RJ and self-regulation to combat them may not suffice. For example, educators might very well succeed in teaching students how to apply CT skills , but just as these educators may not be able to motivate students to use them as often as they might be needed or even to value such skills (such as in attempting to elicit a positive disposition towards CT), it might be the case that without knowing about the impact of the discussed barriers to CT (e.g., emotion and/or intuitive judgment), students may be just as susceptible to biases in their attempts to think critically as others without CT skills. Thus, what such individuals might be applying is not CT at all; rather, just a series of higher-order cognitive skills from a biased or emotion-driven perspective. As a result, a genuine understanding of these barriers is necessary for individuals to appropriately self-regulate their thinking.

Moreover, though the issues of epistemological beliefs, bias, emotion, and intuitive processes are distinct in the manner in which they can impact CT, these do not have set boundaries; thus, an important implication is that they can overlap. For example, epistemological understanding can influence how individuals make decisions in real-world scenarios, such as through intuiting a judgment in social situations (i.e., without considering the nature of the knowledge behind the decision, the manner in which such knowledge interacts [e.g., correlation v. causation], the level of uncertainty regarding both the decision-maker’s personal stance and the available evidence), when a situation might actually require further consideration or even the honest response of ‘I don’t know’. The latter concept—that of simply responding ‘I don’t know’ is interesting to consider because though it seems, on the surface, to be inconsistent with CT and its outcomes, it is commensurate with many of its associated components (e.g., intellectual honesty and humility; see Paul and Elder 2008 ). In the context this example is used, ‘I don’t know’ refers to epistemological understanding. With that, it may also be impacted by bias and emotion. For example, depending on the topic, an individual may be likely to respond ‘I don’t know’ when they do not have the relevant knowledge or evidence to provide a sufficient answer. However, in the event that the topic is something the individual is emotionally invested in or feels passionate about, an opinion or belief may be shared instead of ‘I don’t know’ (e.g., Kahneman and Frederick 2002 ), despite a lack of requisite evidence-based knowledge (e.g., Kruger and Dunning 1999 ). An emotional response based on belief may be motivated in the sense that the individual knows that they do not know for sure and simply uses a belief to support their reasoning as a persuasive tool. On the other hand, the emotional response based on belief might be used simply because the individual may not know that the use of a belief is an insufficient means of supporting their perspective– instead, they might think that their intuitive, belief-based judgment is as good as a piece of empirical evidence; thus, suggesting a lack of empirical understanding. With that, it is fair to say that though epistemological understanding, intuitive judgment, emotion, and bias are distinct concepts, they can influence each other in real-world CT and decision-making. Though there are many more examples of how this might occur, the one presented may further support the recommendation that education can be used to overcome some of the negative effects associated with the barriers presented.

For example, in Ireland, students are not generally taught about academic referencing until they reach third-level education. Anecdotally, I was taught about referencing at age 12 and had to use it all the way through high school when I was growing up in New York. In the context of these referencing lessons, we were taught about the credibility of sources, as well as how analyse and evaluate arguments and subsequently infer conclusions in light of these sources (i.e., CT skills). We were motivated by our teacher to find the ‘truth’ as best we could (i.e., a fundament of CT disposition). Now, I recognise that this experience cannot be generalised to larger populations, given that I am a sample size of one, but I do look upon such education, perhaps, as a kind of transformative learning experience ( Casey 2018 ; King 2009 ; Mezirow 1978 , 1990 ) in the sense that such education might have provided a basis for both CT and epistemological understanding. For CT, we use research to support our positions, hence the importance of referencing. When a ‘reference’ is not available, one must ask if there is actual evidence available to support the proposition. If there is not, one must question the basis for why they think or believe that their stance is correct—that is, where there is logic to the reasoning or if the proposition is simply an emotion- or bias-based intuitive judgment. So, in addition to referencing, the teaching of some form of epistemology—perhaps early in children’s secondary school careers, might benefit students in future efforts to overcome some barriers to CT. Likewise, presenting examples of the observable impact that bias, emotions, and intuitive thought can have on their thinking might also facilitate overcoming these barriers.

As addressed above, it is acknowledged that we may not be able to ‘teach’ people not to be biased or emotionally driven in their thinking because it occurs naturally ( Kahneman 2011 )—regardless of how ‘skilled’ one might be in CT. For example, though research suggests that components of CT, such as disposition, can improve over relatively short periods of time (e.g., over the duration of a semester-long course; Rimiene 2002 ), less is known about how such components have been enhanced (given the difficulty often associated with trying to teach something like disposition ( Dwyer 2017 ); i.e., to reiterate, it is unlikely that simply ‘teaching’ (or telling) students to be motivated towards CT or to value it (or its associated concepts) will actually enhance it over short periods of time (e.g., semester-long training). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that, in light of such research, educators can encourage dispositional growth and provide opportunities to develop it. Likewise, it is recommended that educators encourage students to be aware of the cognitive barriers discussed and provide chances to engage in CT scenarios where such barriers are likely to play a role, thus, giving students opportunities to acknowledge the barriers and practice overcoming them. Moreover, making students aware of such barriers at younger ages—in a simplified manner, may promote the development of personal perspectives and approaches that are better able to overcome the discussed barriers to CT. This perspective is consistent with research on RJ ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ), in which it was recommended that such enhancement requires not only time to develop (be it over the course of a semester or longer) but is also a function of having increased opportunities to engage CT. In the possibilities described, individuals may learn both to overcome barriers to CT and from the positive outcomes of applying CT; and, perhaps, engage in some form of transformative learning ( Casey 2018 ; King 2009 ; Mezirow 1978 , 1990 ) that facilitates an enhanced ‘valuing’ of and motivation towards CT. For example, through growing an understanding of the nature of epistemology, intuitive-based thinking, emotion, bias, and the manner in which people often succumb to faulty reasoning in light of these, individuals may come to better understand the limits of knowledge, barriers to CT and how both understandings can be applied; thus, growing further appreciation of the process as it is needed.

To reiterate, research suggests that there may be a developmental trajectory above and beyond the parameters of a semester-long training course that is necessary to develop the RJ necessary to think critically and, likewise, engage an adequate epistemological stance and self-regulate against impeding cognitive processes ( Dwyer et al. 2015 ). Though such research suggests that such development may not be an issue of time, but rather the amount of opportunities to engage RJ and CT, there is a dearth of recommendations offered with respect to how this could be performed in practice. Moreover, the how and what regarding ‘opportunities for engagement’ requires further investigation as well. For example, does this require additional academic work outside the classroom in a formal manner, or does it require informal ‘exploration’ of the world of information on one’s own? If the latter, the case of motivational and dispositional levels once again comes into question; thus, even further consideration is needed. One way or another, future research efforts are necessary to identify how best to make individuals aware of barriers to CT, encourage them to self-regulate against them, and identify means of increasing opportunities to engage RJ and CT.

4. Conclusions

Taking heed that it is unnecessary to reinvent the CT wheel ( Eigenauer 2017 ), the aim of this review was to further elaborate on the processes associated with CT and make a valuable contribution to its literature with respect to conceptualisation—not just in light of making people explicitly aware of what it is, but also what it is not and how it can be impeded (e.g., through inadequate CT skills and dispositions; epistemological misunderstanding; intuitive judgment; as well as bias and emotion)—a perspective consistent with that of ‘constructive feedback’ wherein students need to know both what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. This review further contributes to the CT education literature by identifying the importance of (1) engaging understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowing as individuals traverse the landscape of evidence-bases in their research and ‘truth-seeking’; (2) understanding how emotions and biases can affect CT, regardless of the topic; (3) managing gut-level intuition until RJ has been appropriately engaged; and (4) the manner in which language is used to convey meaning to important and/or abstract concepts (e.g., ‘caring’, ‘proof’, causation/correlation, etc.). Consistent with the perspectives on research advancement presented in this review, it is acknowledged that the issues addressed here may not be complete and may themselves be advanced upon and updated in time; thus, future research is recommended and welcomed to improve and further establish our working conceptualisation of critical thinking, particularly in a real-world application.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge, with great thanks and appreciation, John Eigenauer (Taft College) for his consult, review and advice regarding earlier versions of this manuscript.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

1 Notably, though inadequacies in cognitive resources (apart from those explicitly set within the conceptualisations of CT discussed; e.g., see Section 2.1 ) are acknowledged as impediments to one’s ability to apply CT (e.g., a lack of relevant background knowledge, as well as broader cognitive abilities and resources ( Dwyer 2017 ; Halpern 2014 ; Stanovich and Stanovich 2010 )), these will not be discussed as focus is largely restricted to issues of cognitive processes that ‘naturally’ act as barriers in their functioning. Moreover, such inadequacies may more so be issues of individual differences than ongoing issues that everyone , regardless of ability, would face in CT (e.g., the impact of emotion and bias). Nevertheless, it is recommended that future research further investigates the influence of such inadequacies in cognitive resources on CT.

2 There is also some research that suggests that emotion may mediate enhanced cognition ( Dolcos et al. 2011 , 2012 ). However, this discrepancy in findings may result from the types of emotion studied—such as task-relevant emotion and task-irrelevant emotion. The distinction between the two is important to consider in terms of, for example, the distinction between one’s general mood and feelings specific unto the topic under consideration. Though mood may play a role in the manner in which CT is conducted (e.g., making judgments about a topic one is passionate about may elicit positive or negative emotions that affect the thinker’s mood in some way), notably, this discussion focuses on task-relevant emotion and associated biases that negatively impact the CT process. This is also an important distinction because an individual may generally think critically about ‘important’ topics, but may fail to do so when faced with a cognitive task that requires CT with which the individual has a strong, emotional perspective (e.g., in terms of passion , as described above).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Eugene, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne, Persson Tonje. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–314. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Afshar Hassan Soodmand, Rahimi Masoud. The relationship among critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking abilities of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 136 :75–79. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.291. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahern Aoife, Dominguez Caroline, McNally Ciaran, O’Sullivan John J., Pedrosa Daniela. A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :816–28. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1586325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akbari-Lakeh M., Naderi A., Arbabisarjou A. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence skills and relationship with students’ academic achievement. Prensa Médica Argentina. 2018; 104 :2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aliakbari Mohammad, Sadeghdaghighi Akram. Teachers’ perception of the barriers to critical thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 70 :1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anticevic Alan, Repovs Grega, Corlett Philip R., Barch Deanna M. Negative and nonemotional interference with visual working memory in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry. 2011; 70 :1159–68. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.07.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baril Charles P., Cunningham Billie M., Fordham David R., Gardner Robert L., Wolcott Susan K. Critical thinking in the public accounting profession: Aptitudes and attitudes. Journal of Accounting Education. 1998; 16 :381–406. doi: 10.1016/S0748-5751(98)00023-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bar-On Reuven. The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI) Psicothema. 2006; 18 :13–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister Roy. The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices. The Psychology of Economic Decisions. 2003; 1 :3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezanilla María José, Fernández-Nogueira Donna, Poblete Manuel, Galindo-Domínguez Hector. Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher’s view. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019; 33 :100584. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brabeck Mary Margaret. The relationship between critical thinking skills and development of reflective judgment among adolescent and adult women; Paper presented at the 89th annual convention of the American Psychological Association; Los Angeles, CA, USA. August 24–26; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Franco Amanda, Rivas Silvia F., Saiz Carlos, Almeida Leandro S. The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :112–21. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byerly T. Ryan. Teaching for intellectual virtue in logic and critical thinking classes: Why and how. Teaching Philosophy. 2019; 42 :1. doi: 10.5840/teachphil201911599. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabantous Laure, Gond Jean-Pascal, Johnson-Cramer Michael. Decision theory as practice: Crafting rationality in organizations. Organization Studies. 2010; 31 :1531–66. doi: 10.1177/0170840610380804. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cáceres Martín, Nussbaum Miguel, Ortiz Jorge. Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 37 :100674. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cader Raffik, Campbell Steve, Watson Don. Cognitive continuum theory in nursing decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2005; 49 :397–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03303.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey Helen. Doctoral dissertation. National University of Ireland; Galway, Ireland: 2018. Transformative Learning: An Exploration of the BA in Community and Family Studies Graduates’ Experiences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuah Lisa YM, Dolcos Florin, Chen Annette K., Zheng Hui, Parimal Sarayu, Chee Michael WL. Sleep deprivation and interference by emotional distracters. SLEEP. 2010; 33 :1305–13. doi: 10.1093/sleep/33.10.1305. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark Andy. Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press; New York: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy in Schools . Fake News and Critical Literacy: Final Report. National Literacy Trust; London: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook John, Lewandowsky Stephan. The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland; St. Lucia: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornell Paul, Riordan Monica, Townsend-Gervis Mary, Mobley Robin. Barriers to critical thinking: Workflow interruptions and task switching among nurses. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2011; 41 :407–14. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e31822edd42. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croskerry Pat, Singhal Geeta, Mamede Sílvia. Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2013; 22 :ii65–ii72. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond Linda. How can we teach for meaningful learning? In: Darling-Hammond L., editor. Powerful Learning. Wiley; New York: 2008. pp. 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson Theo L. Prepared in Response to Tasking from ODNI/CHCO/IC Leadership Development Office. Developmental Testing Service, LLC; Northampton: 2008. Metacognition and learning in adulthood. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denkova Ekaterina, Wong Gloria, Dolcos Sanda, Sung Keen, Wang Lihong, Coupland Nicholas, Dolcos Florin. The impact of anxiety-inducing distraction on cognitive performance: A combined brain imaging and personality investigation. PLoS ONE. 2010; 5 :e14150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhami Mandeep K., Thomson Mary E. On the relevance of cognitive continuum theory and quasirationality for understanding management judgment and decision making. European Management Journal. 2012; 30 :316–26. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2012.02.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, Iordan Alexandru D., Dolcos Sanda. Neural correlates of emotion–cognition interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 23 :669–94. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.594433. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, McCarthy Gregory. Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction. Journal of Neuroscience. 2006; 26 :2072–79. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5042-05.2006. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolcos Florin, Denkova Ekaterina, Dolcos Sanda. Neural correlates of emotional memories: A review of evidence from brain imaging studies. Psychologia. 2012; 55 :80–111. doi: 10.2117/psysoc.2012.80. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitru Daniela. Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 33 :143–47. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunwoody Philip T., Haarbauer Eric, Mahan Robert P., Marino Christopher, Tang Chu-Chun. Cognitive adaptation and its consequences: A test of cognitive continuum theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2000; 13 :35–54. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<35::AID-BDM339>3.0.CO;2-U. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Doctoral thesis. National University of Ireland; Galway, Ireland: 2011. The Evaluation of Argument Mapping as a Learning Tool. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Teaching critical thinking. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Higher Education. 2020; 4 :1510–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Walsh Anne. A case study of the effects of critical thinking instruction through adult distance learning on critical thinking performance: Implications for critical thinking development. Educational Technology and Research. 2019; 68 :17–35. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09659-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Eigenauer John D. To Teach or not to Teach Critical Thinking: A Reply to Huber and Kuncel. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 26 :92–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learning environments. Metacognition and Learning. 2012; 7 :219–44. doi: 10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014; 12 :43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P., Hogan Michael J., Stewart Ian. The evaluation of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction as a method of enhancing reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills & Creativity. 2015; 16 :11–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher. P., Hogan Michael J., Harney Owen M., Kavanagh Caroline. Facilitating a Student-Educator Conceptual Model of Dispositions towards Critical Thinking through Interactive Management. Educational Technology & Research. 2016; 65 :47–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eigenauer John D. Don’t reinvent the critical thinking wheel: What scholarly literature says about critical thinking instruction. NISOD Innovation Abstracts. 2017; 39 :2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder Linda. Critical thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Journal of Developmental Education. 1997; 21 :40. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews199616211. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. A taxonomoy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron J. B., Sternberg R. J., editors. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. W.H. Freeman; New York: 1987. pp. 9–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. Critical Thinking. Prentice-Hall; Upper Saddle River: 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teaching Philosophy. 1998; 21 :15–33. doi: 10.5840/teachphil19982113. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert. H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi. 2018; 37 :165–84. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Noreen C., Facione Peter A. Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2001; 15 :267–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A. The Delphi Report: Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. California Academic Press; Millbrae: 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A., Facione Noreen C. CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory. California Academic Press; Millbrae: 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Facione Peter A., Facione Noreen C., Blohm Stephen W., Giancarlo Carol Ann F. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST. California Academic Press; San Jose: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feyerherm Ann E., Rice Cheryl L. Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good, the bad and the ugly. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2002; 10 :343–63. doi: 10.1108/eb028957. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flavell John H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence. 1976:231–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabennesch Howard. Critical thinking… what is it good for? (In fact, what is it?) Skeptical Inquirer. 2006; 30 :36–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadzella Bernadette M. Teaching and Learning Critical Thinking Skills. 1996.
• Gambrill Eileen. Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice. 2006; 16 :338–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghanizadeh Afsaneh, Moafian Fatemeh. Critical thinking and emotional intelligence: Investigating the relationship among EFL learners and the contribution of age and gender. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2011; 14 :23–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilovich Thomas, Griffin Dale, Kahneman Daniel., editors. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser Edward. M. An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. Teachers College of Columbia University, Bureau of Publications; New York: 1941. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goleman Daniel. Emotional Intelligence. Bantam; New York: 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Thought & Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 5th ed. Psychology Press; London: 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamm Robert M. Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: Expertise and the cognitive continuum. In: Dowie J., Elstein A. S., editors. Professional Judgment: A Reader in Clinical Decision Making. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1988. pp. 78–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Principles of Organization in Intuitive and Analytical Cognition. Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado; Boulder: 1981. Report No. 231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Upon reflection. Thinking and Reasoning. 1996; 2 :239–48. doi: 10.1080/135467896394537. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammond Kenneth R. Judgments Under Stress. Oxford University Press on Demand; New York: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes Ada, Lisic Elizabeth, Goltz Michele, Stein Barry, Harris Kevin. Moving beyond assessment to improving students’ critical thinking skills: A model for implementing change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2016; 16 :44–61. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v16i4.19407. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hitchcock David. The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in critical thinking. Informal Logic. 2004; 24 :183–218. doi: 10.22329/il.v24i3.2145. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huffman Karen, Vernoy Mark W., William Barbara F. Studying Psychology in Action: A Study Guide to Accompany Psychology in Action. Wiley; Hoboken: 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iordan Alexandru D., Dolcos Sanda, Dolcos Florin. Neural signatures of the response to emotional distraction: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2013; 7 :200. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson Marcia K., Raye Carol L., Mitchell Karen J., Greene Erich J., Cunningham William A., Sanislow Charles A. Using fMRI to investigate a component process of reflection: Prefrontal correlates of refreshing a just-activated representation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2005; 5 :339–61. doi: 10.3758/CABN.5.3.339. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jukes I., McCain T. Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context of Children’s Learning. Erlbaum; Hillsdale: 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin; Great Britain: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel, Frederick Shane. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in 240 intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., editors. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2002. pp. 49–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel, Slovic Paul, Tversky Amos., editors. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaya Hülya, Şenyuva Emine, Bodur Gönül. Developing critical thinking disposition and emotional intelligence of nursing students: A longitudinal research. Nurse Education Today. 2017; 48 :72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Kathleen P. Adult Education Special Topics: Theory, Research, and Practice in Lifelong Learning. Information Age Publishing; Charlotte: 2009. The Handbook of the Evolving Research of Transformative Learning Based on the Learning Activities Survey. [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia M., Kitchener Karen S. Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist. 2004; 39 :5–18. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia M., Wood Phillip K., Mines Robert A. Critical thinking among college and graduate students. The Review of Higher Education. 1990; 13 :167–86. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1990.0026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King Patricia. M., Kitchener Karen. Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey Bass; San Francisco: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruger Justin, Dunning David. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 77 :1121–34. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L. Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2009; 4 :70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010a; 48 :54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning. 2010b; 5 :251–67. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher. 1999; 28 :16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X028002016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn Deanna. Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2000; 9 :178–81. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leventhal Howard. A perceptual-motor theory of emotion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1984; 17 :117–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd Margaret, Bahr Nan. Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2010; 4 :1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loftus Elizabeth. F. Eavesdropping on memory. Annual Review of Psychology. 2017; 68 :1–18. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Lihong, Luo Haifeng. Chinese pre-service teachers’ cognitions about cultivating critical thinking in teaching English as a foreign language. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2021; 41 :543–57. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2020.1793733. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Lihong, Liu Ning. Teacher belief about integrating critical thinking in English teaching in China. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2022; 49 :137–52. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2022.2044267. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmood Khalid. Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Communications in Information Literacy. 2016; 10 :199–213. doi: 10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.24. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangena Agnes, Chabeli Mary M. Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today. 2005; 25 :291–98. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.012. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuinness Carol. Teaching thinking: Learning how to think; Presented at the Psychological Society of Ireland and British Psychological Association’sPublic Lecture Series; Galway, Ireland. March 6; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow Jack. Perspective Transformation. Adult Education. 1978; 28 :100–10. doi: 10.1177/074171367802800202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow Jack. How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning. In: Mezirow J., editor. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. Jossey Bass; San Francisco: 1990. pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Most Steven B., Chun Marvin M., Widders David M., Zald David H. Attentional rubbernecking: Cognitive control and personality in emotioninduced blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2005; 12 :654–61. doi: 10.3758/BF03196754. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niu Lian, Behar-Horenstein Linda S., Garvan Cyndi W. Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2013; 9 :114–28. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris Stephen P. Critical Thinking: Current Research, Theory, and Practice. Kluwer; Dordrecht: 1994. The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores; pp. 315–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyhan Brendan, Reifler Jason, Richey Sean, Freed Gary L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014; 133 :E835–E842. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-2365. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz Claudia Maria Alvarez. Master’s thesis. University of Melbourne; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: 2007. Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Foundation for Critical Thinking; Santa Barbara: 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul Richard, Elder Linda. Critical. The Foundation for Critical Thinking; Dillon Beach: 2008. Thinking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins David N., Jay Eileen, Tishman Shari. Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 1993; 39 :1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins David, Ritchhart Ron. Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition. Routledge; London: 2004. When is good thinking? pp. 365–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge; London: 1959. First published 1934. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper Karl R. All Life Is Problem Solving. Psychology Press; London: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn Sarah, Hogan Michael, Dwyer Christopher, Finn Patrick, Fogarty Emer. Development and Validation of the Student-Educator Negotiated Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (SENCTDS) Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2020; 38 :100710. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100710. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rear David. One size fits all? The limitations of standardised assessment in critical thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44 :664–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed Jennifer H., Kromrey Jeffrey D. Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing Paul’s model. College Student Journal. 2001; 35 :201–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimiene Vaiva. Assessing and developing students’ critical thinking. Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2002; 2 :17–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe Matthew P., Gillespie B. Marcus, Harris Kevin R., Koether Steven D., Shannon Li-Jen Y., Rose Lori A. Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2015; 14 :ar30. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saleh Salamah Embark. Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: Conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2019; 4 :1. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2542838. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salovey Peter, Mayer John D. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 1990; 9 :185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutte Nicola S., Malouff John M., Hall Lena E., Haggerty Donald J., Cooper Joan T., Golden Charles J., Dornheim Liane. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998; 25 :167–77. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shackman Alexander J., Sarinopoulos Issidoros, Maxwell Jeffrey S., Pizzagalli Diego A., Lavric Aureliu, Davidson Richard J. Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion. 2006; 6 :40–61. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel Harvey. What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educational Theory. 1999; 49 :207–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon Herbert A. Models of Man. Wiley; New York: 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slovic Paul, Fischhoff Baruch, Lichtenstein Sarah. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology. 1977; 28 :1–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slovic Paul, Finucane Melissa, Peters Ellen, MacGregor Donald G. Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of SocioEconomics. 2002; 31 :329–42. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solon Tom. Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in Introductory Psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2007; 34 :95–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E. Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning. 2018; 24 :423–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., Stanovich Paula J. A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. In: Preiss D. D., Sternberg R. J., editors. Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development. Springer Publishing Company; Berlin/Heidelberg: 2010. pp. 195–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2000; 23 :645–65. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. MIT Press; Cambridge: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stedman Nicole LP, Andenoro Anthony C. Identification of relationships between emotional intelligence skill and critical thinking disposition in undergraduate leadership students. Journal of Leadership Education. 2007; 6 :190–208. doi: 10.12806/V6/I1/RF10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strack Fritz, Martin Leonard L., Schwarz Norbert. Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988; 18 :429–42. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swami Viren, Furnham Adrian. Political paranoia and conspiracy theories. In: van Prooijen J. W., van Lange P. A. M., editors. Power, Politics, and Paranoia: Why People Are Suspicious of Their Leaders. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2014. pp. 218–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweller John. Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In: Plass J. L., Moreno R., Brünken R., editors. Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2010. pp. 29–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavris Carol, Aronson Elliot. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Harcourt; Orlando: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teichert Tobias, Ferrera Vincent P., Grinband Jack. Humans optimize decision-making by delaying decision onset. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9 :e89638. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089638. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky Amos, Kahneman Daniel. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185 :1124–31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valenzuela Jorge, Nieto Ana, Saiz Carlos. Critical Thinking Motivational Scale: A 253 contribution to the study of relationship between critical thinking and motivation. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2011; 9 :823–48. doi: 10.25115/ejrep.v9i24.1475. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varian Hal, Lyman Peter. How Much Information? School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley; Berkeley: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vohs Kathleen D., Baumeister Roy F., Schmeichel Brandon J., Twenge Jean M., Nelson Noelle M., Tice Dianne M. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Personality Processes and Individual Differences. 2014; 94 :883–98. doi: 10.1037/2333-8113.1.S.19. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yao Xiaonan, Yuan Shuge, Yang Wenjing, Chen Qunlin, Wei Dongtao, Hou Yuling, Zhang Lijie, Qiu Jiang, Yang Dong. Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between regional gray matter volume in the bilateral temporal pole and critical thinking disposition. Brain Imaging and Behavior. 2018; 12 :488–98. doi: 10.1007/s11682-017-9701-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

On Resistance to Critical Thinking

DOI link for On Resistance to Critical Thinking

Click here to navigate to parent product.

This chapter focuses on some obstacles to critical thinking, dividing them into cognitive motivational or personal, and methodological obstacles. The teaching of reasoning, thinking skills, or critical thinking is usually promoted as a single topic, understandably, because all involved inferences and higher cognitive processes of wide applicability. Critical thinkers in an analogous situation must explicitly bring forward for examination what all have accepted. The epistemological approach to critical thinking instruction emphasizes the importance of giving reasons and being open to objections. In matters of personal concern, the critical thinker must overcome pulls toward self-deception and other forms of “motivated irrationality”. Studies in social psychology, beginning with cognitive dissonance research, reveal that these pulls are powerful and pervasive. Critical thinking does have costs and represents only one—one very important—perspective on reasoning or argumentation. Instruction for critical thought must respect an essential tension within the complex of factors that constitute the critical thinker.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

15 Things We Have Learned About Critical Thinking

Here are the key issues to consider in critical thinking..

Posted July 27, 2018

• What Is Cognition?
• Find a therapist near me

Not long after the publication of my book, Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines , by Cambridge University Press, Psychology Today contacted me and asked me to write a blog on the subject. I never thought I would write a blog, but when presented with the opportunity to keep sharing my thoughts on critical thinking on a regular basis, I thought, why not ? Maybe my writing might help educators, maybe they might help students and maybe they might help people in their day-to-day decision-making . If it can help, then it’s worthwhile.

To recap, critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when applied through purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment, increase the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

CT, if anything, has become more necessary , in this age of information bombardment and the new knowledge economy (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). It allows students to gain a better understanding of complex information (Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2012; 2014; Gambrill, 2006; Halpern, 2014); it allows them to achieve higher grades and become more employable, informed and active citizens (Barton & McCully, 2007; Holmes & Clizbe, 1997; National Academy of Sciences, 2005); it facilitates good decision-making and problem-solving in social and interpersonal contexts (Ku, 2009); and it decreases the effects of cognitive biases and heuristic -based thinking (Facione & Facione, 2001; McGuinness, 2013).

It’s now been just over a year since I started writing ‘Thoughts on Thinking’. As I consider my thinking and look over my writing during this period, I thought it would be worthwhile to collate and summarise some of the broader learning that has appeared in my writings. So, here’s what we’ve learned:

• We all know CT is important, but it may be the case that many educators, as well as students, don’t really know what researchers mean by "critical thinking" and/or simply haven’t researched it themselves.
• Just as many don’t really know what is meant by "critical thinking", there is also the problem of ensuring consistency across how it is defined/conceptualised, trained and measured , which is no easy task.
• Without adequate training in CT, it may be the case that mature students’ perceptions of how they approach CT do not match their actual ability - despite potentially enhanced autonomy, student responsibility and locus of control , it may be that an over- optimistic outlook on the benefits of experience (and its associated heuristic-based, intuitive judgment) takes centre-stage above and beyond actual ability.
• Social media is many things: entertainment, education , networking and much more. It is also, unfortunately, a vehicle for promoting faulty thinking. Being able to recognise persuasion techniques, illogical argumentation and fallacious reasoning , will allow you to better assess arguments presented to you, and help you to present better arguments.
• Values are unique to each and every individual. Though individuals can certainly share values, there is no guarantee that all of an individual’s values overlap with another’s. On the other hand, using the 'virtue' moniker implies that the individual is right based on some kind of ‘moral correctness’. Though there is nothing wrong with an individual presenting ideas and perspectives that they value, it is ill-conceived and dangerous to treat them as global virtues that everyone else should value too.
• CT is domain-g eneral, but explicit CT training is necessary if educators want to see CT improve and flourish across domains.
• A person with a strong willingness to conduct CT has the consistent internal willingness and motivation to engage problems and make decisions by using reflective judgment . Reflective judgment, the recognition of limited knowledge and how this uncertainty can affect decision-making processes, is an important aspect of critical thinking regarding ‘taking a step back’ and thinking about an argument or problem a little bit longer and considering the basis for the reasons and consequences of responding in a particular way.
• There is a need for general, secondary-school training in bias and statistics. We need to teach CT to the coming generations. When not critically thinking, people don’t listen, and fail to be open-minded and reflect upon the information presented to them; they project their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether or not they have evidence to support their claims.
• Be open-minded towards others. You don’t have to respect them (respect is earned, it’s not a right); but be courteous (sure, we may be in disagreement; but, hey, we’re still civilised people).
• A person said what they said, not how you interpret what they said. If you are unclear as to what has been said, ask for clarification. Asking for clarity is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of successful problem-solving.
• ‘Proof’ is the dirtiest word in critical thinking. Research and science do not prove things, they can only disprove. Be wary when you hear the word ‘prove’ or any of its variants thrown around; but also, be mindful that people feel safer when they are assured and words like ‘proven’ reinforce this feeling of assuredness.
• Creative thinking isn’t really useful or practical in critical thinking, depending on how you conceptualize it. Critical thinking and creative thinking are very different entities if you treat the latter as something similar to lateral thinking or ‘thinking outside the box’. However, if we conceptualize creative thinking as synthesizing information for the purpose of inferring a logical and feasible conclusion or solution, then it becomes complementary to critical thinking. But then, we are not resorting to creativity alone - all other avenues involving critical thinking must be considered. That is, we can think creatively by synthesizing information we have previously thought about critically (i.e. through analysis and evaluation ) for the purpose of inferring a logical and feasible conclusion or solution. Thus, given this caveat, we can infuse our critical thinking with creative thinking, but we must do so with caution.
• Changing people’s minds is not easy ; and it’s even more difficult when the person you’re working with believes they have critically thought about it. It may simply boil down to the person you’re trying to educate and their disposition towards critical thinking, but the person’s emotional investment in their stance also plays a significant role.
• There is no such thing as good or bad CT – you either thought critically or you didn’t. Those who try it in good faith are likely to want to do it ‘properly’; and so, much of whether or not an individual is thinking critically comes down to intellectual humility and intellectual integrity .
• Finally, there are some general tips that people find useful in applying their critical thinking:
• Save your critical thinking for things that matter - things you care about.
• Do it earlier in your day to avoid faulty thinking resulting from decision fatigue.
• Take a step back and think about a problem a little bit longer, considering the basis for the reasons and consequences of responding in a particular way.
• Play Devil’s Advocate in order to overcome bias and 'auto-pilot processing' through truly considering alternatives.
• Leave emotion at the door and remove your beliefs, attitudes, opinions and personal experiences from the equation - all of which are emotionally charged.

Barton, K., & McCully, A. (2007). Teaching controversial issues where controversial issues really matter. Teaching History, 127, 13–19.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learningenvironments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219–244.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J. & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43-52.

Eigenauer, J.D. (2017). Don’t reinvent the critical thinking wheel: What scholarly literature tells us about critical thinking instruction. Innovation Abstracts, 39, 2.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2001). Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15(2), 267–286.

Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 338–357.

Halpern, D.F. (2014). Though and knowledge. UK: Psychology Press.

Holmes, J., & Clizbe, E. (1997). Facing the 21st century. Business Education Forum, 52(1), 33–35.

Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity,4(1), 70–76.

McGuinness, C. (2013). Teaching thinking: Learning how to think. Presented at the Psychological Society of Ireland and British Psychological Association’s Public Lecture Series. Galway, Ireland, 6th March.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005). National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine Rising above the gathering storm: Energising and employingAmerica for a brighter economic future. Committee on prospering in the global economy for the 21st century. Washington, DC.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that could derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face triggers with less reactivity and get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

On Resistance to Critical Thinking

DOI link for On Resistance to Critical Thinking

Click here to navigate to parent product.

Educators concerned with critical thinking have two distinguishable objectives: to teach a set of skills and to offer an ideal for a liberally educated citizen. 1 Either objective requires focus on the development of the person, not simply the teaching of methods. Positive attitudes and dispositions toward critical inquiry must be encouraged. With such lofty and valuable goals, attention must be devoted to the prospects for success.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Critical thinking – A skill and a process

Now, that oversimplified approach to learning certainly is the first step to studying as well. However, in order to be successful in our studies, we need to do more than just contain and repeat information. We need to be able to assess the value of the information, its correctness, and its contribution to any given debate. Ideally, we are able to put it into context with other aspects of our knowledge, too. This is what makes us students, this is what makes us critical thinkers.

Critical thinking is not just one skill, rather it is the result of a number of skills applied effectively. In order to be able to think critically, you’ll need to be able reason. You’ll need to be able to assess the source of the information you’re given and you’ll be able to reflect on its accuracy or validity, depending on your task.

By thinking critically, you are applying each of those skills in order to evaluate the information in front of you. This can be a theory, a new research result, or even a news item. Critical thinking allows you to apply an objective approach to your learning, rather than subjectively following either the proposed information you’re given, or your own opinion rather than clear and convincing arguments and facts.

Critical thinking is a process of continuing evaluation and reflection. It is most powerful, when leading to a change of view in ourselves or in others.

This is where critical thinking becomes relevant outside the world of studying. By being critical of what we read, hear and see, we are engaging with the society we live in actively. We are not perceiving anything as given, but are rather reflecting on the value and correctness of the way society works.

This helps us to be better employees, by reflecting on where processes and ways of working can be improved. It helps us to more engaged citizens, as we are reflecting on political campaigns and their truthfulness and value for us when we are asked to participate in an election. Critical thinking pushes ourselves and our environment to continuously adapt and improve.

When you think critically, you open up a whole new way of engaging with the world around you.

Find out more about 'Go the Distance'

Am I ready to be a distance learner?

Distance learning can open up opportunities for study. You might have not studied for a while, you might be returning to education, or you might not have had the chance to study at a higher level before. This free course, Am I ready to be a distance learner?, will help to boost your confidence. You'll explore useful skills so you can discover ...

Free course

Level: 1 Introductory

Taking your first steps into higher education

What is university study like? Is it for me? If you are asking yourself these questions, this free course is for you. Taking your first steps into higher education provides insights into how subjects are studied at university. This introduction to carefully selected materials helps you decide what you might want to study. You will be ...

Are you ready for postgraduate study?

This free course, Are you ready for postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and ensure you are ready to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Level: 3 Advanced

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Wednesday, 15 November 2017
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'angels with a book statue' - Copyright free
• Image 'Am I ready to be a distance learner?' - Copyright free
• Image 'Are you ready for postgraduate study?' - Copyright free
• Image 'Taking your first steps into higher education' - Copyright: Image courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Critical Thinking Models: A Comprehensive Guide for Effective Decision Making

Critical thinking models are valuable frameworks that help individuals develop and enhance their critical thinking skills . These models provide a structured approach to problem-solving and decision-making by encouraging the evaluation of information and arguments in a logical, systematic manner. By understanding and applying these models, one can learn to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions.

Key Takeaways

Fundamentals of critical thinking.

Definition and Importance

Critical thinking is the intellectual process of logically, objectively, and systematically evaluating information to form reasoned judgments, utilizing reasoning , logic , and evidence . It involves:

Core Cognitive Skills

Influence of cognitive biases.

A key aspect of critical thinking is recognizing and mitigating the impact of cognitive biases on our thought processes. Cognitive biases are cognitive shortcuts or heuristics that can lead to flawed reasoning and distort our understanding of a situation. Examples of cognitive biases include confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and availability heuristic.

To counter the influence of cognitive biases, critical thinkers must be aware of their own assumptions and strive to apply consistent and objective evaluation criteria in their thinking process. The practice of actively recognizing and addressing cognitive biases promotes an unbiased and rational approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

The Critical Thinking Process

Stages of Critical Thinking

The critical thinking process starts with gathering and evaluating data . This stage involves identifying relevant information and ensuring it is credible and reliable. Next, an individual engages in analysis by examining the data closely to understand its context and interpret its meaning. This step can involve breaking down complex ideas into simpler components for better understanding.

Values play a significant role in the critical thinking process. Critical thinkers assess the significance of moral, ethical, or cultural values shaping the issue, argument, or decision at hand. They determine whether these values align with the evidence and logic they have analyzed.

Application in Decision Making

Critical Thinking Models

The red model.

The RED Model stands for Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions, weighing evidence, and reaching logical conclusions.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical model that classifies cognitive skills into six levels of complexity. These levels are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. By progressing through these levels, individuals can develop higher-order thinking skills.

Paul-Elder Model

The Paul-Elder Model introduces the concept of “elements of thought,” focusing on a structured approach to critical thinking. This model promotes intellectual standards, such as clarity, accuracy, and relevance. It consists of three stages:

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment

These four critical thinking models can be used as frameworks to improve and enhance cognitive abilities. By learning and practicing these models, individuals can become better equipped to analyze complex information, evaluate options, and make well-informed decisions.

Evaluating Information and Arguments

Evidence assessment, logic and fallacies.

Being aware of these fallacies enables a thinker to effectively evaluate the strength of an argument and make sound judgments accordingly.

Argument Analysis

Enhancing critical thinking, strategies for improvement, critical thinking in education.

In the field of education, critical thinking is an essential component of effective learning and pedagogy. Integrating critical thinking into the curriculum encourages student autonomy, fosters innovation, and improves student outcomes. Teachers can use various approaches to promote critical thinking, such as:

Developing a Critical Thinking Mindset

Critical thinking in various contexts, the workplace and beyond.

In the workplace context, critical thinkers are able to recognize assumptions, evaluate arguments, and draw conclusions, following models such as the RED model . They can also adapt their thinking to suit various scenarios, allowing them to tackle complex and diverse problems.

Creative and Lateral Thinking

In conclusion, critical thinking is a multifaceted skill that comprises various thought processes, including creative and lateral thinking. By embracing these skills, individuals can excel in the workplace and in their personal lives, making better decisions and solving problems effectively.

Overcoming Challenges

Recognizing and addressing bias.

By adopting these practices, individuals can minimize the impact of biases and enhance the overall quality of their critical thinking skills.

Dealing with Information Overload

By implementing these techniques, individuals can effectively manage information overload, enabling them to process and analyze data more effectively, leading to better decision-making.

Measuring Critical Thinking

Assessment tools and criteria.

Furthermore, criteria for assessing critical thinking often include precision, relevance, and the ability to gather and analyze relevant information. Some assessors utilize the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , which measures the application of cognitive skills such as deduction, observation, and induction in real-world scenarios.

The Role of IQ and Tests

Frequently asked questions, what are the main steps involved in the paul-elder critical thinking model.

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model is a comprehensive framework for developing critical thinking skills. The main steps include: identifying the purpose, formulating questions, gathering information, identifying assumptions, interpreting information, and evaluating arguments. The model emphasizes clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, and fairness throughout the critical thinking process. By following these steps, individuals can efficiently analyze and evaluate complex ideas and issues.

Can you list five techniques to enhance critical thinking skills?

What is the red model of critical thinking and how is it applied, how do the ‘3 c’s’ of critical thinking contribute to effective problem-solving.

The ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking – Curiosity, Creativity, and Criticism – collectively contribute to effective problem-solving. Curiosity allows individuals to explore various perspectives and ask thought-provoking questions, while Creativity helps develop innovative solutions and unique approaches to challenges. Criticism, or the ability to evaluate and analyze ideas objectively, ensures that the problem-solving process remains grounded in logic and relevance.

What characteristics distinguish critical thinking from creative thinking?

What are some recommended books to help improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills, you may also like, critical thinking concepts: enhancing decision-making skills, occam’s razor: simplifying complex problems with an age-old principle, online learning and critical thinking: how to choose the right course, what is historical thinking, download this free ebook.

• How it works

What is Critical Thinking in Academics – Guide With Examples

Published by Grace Graffin at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In an era dominated by vast amounts of information, the ability to discern, evaluate, and form independent conclusions is more crucial than ever. Enter the realm of “critical thinking.” But what does this term truly mean? 

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the disciplined art of analysing and evaluating information or situations by applying a range of intellectual skills. It goes beyond mere memorisation or blind acceptance of information, demanding a deeper understanding and assessment of evidence, context, and implications.

Moreover, paraphrasing in sources is an essential skill in critical thinking, as it allows for representing another’s ideas in one’s own words, ensuring comprehension.

Critical thinking is not just an academic buzzword but an essential tool. In academic settings, it serves as the backbone of genuine understanding and the springboard for innovation. When students embrace critical thinking, they move from being passive recipients of information to active participants in their own learning journey.

They question, evaluate, and synthesise information from various sources, fostering an intellectual curiosity that extends beyond the classroom. Part of this involves understanding how to integrate sources into their work, which means not only including information from various places, but also doing so in a cohesive and logical way.

The importance of critical thinking in academics cannot be overstated. It equips students with the skills to discern credible sources from unreliable ones, develop well-informed arguments, and approach problems with a solution-oriented mindset.

The Origins and Evolution of Critical Thinking

The idea of critical thinking isn’t a new-age concept. Its roots reach back into ancient civilisations, moulding the foundations of philosophy, science, and education. To appreciate its evolution, it’s vital to delve into its historical context and the influential thinkers who have championed it.

Historical Perspective on the Concept of Critical Thinking

The seeds of critical thinking can be traced back to Ancient Greece, particularly in the city-state of Athens. Here, the practice of debate, dialogue, and philosophical inquiry was valued and was seen as a route to knowledge and wisdom. This era prized the art of questioning, investigating, and exploring diverse viewpoints to reach enlightened conclusions.

In medieval Islamic civilisation, scholars in centres of learning, such as the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, played a pivotal role in advancing critical thought. Their works encompassed vast areas, including philosophy, mathematics, and medicine, often intertwining rigorous empirical observations with analytical reasoning.

The Renaissance period further nurtured critical thinking as it was a time of revival in art, culture, and intellect. This era championed humanistic values, focusing on human potential and achievements. It saw the rebirth of scientific inquiry, scepticism about religious dogma, and an emphasis on empirical evidence.

Philosophers and Educators Who Championed Critical Thinking

Several philosophers and educators stand out for their remarkable contributions to the sphere of critical thinking:

Known for the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue, Socrates would ask probing questions, forcing his pupils to think deeply about their beliefs and assumptions. His methodology still influences modern education, emphasising the answer and the path of reasoning that leads to it.

A student of Socrates, Plato believed in the importance of reason and inquiry. His allegory of the cave highlights the difference between blindly accepting information and seeking true knowledge.

He placed great emphasis on empirical evidence and logic. His works on syllogism and deductive reasoning laid the foundation for systematic critical thought.

Al-Farabi And Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Islamic philosophers, who harmonised Greek philosophy with Islamic thought, emphasised the importance of rationality and critical inquiry.

Sir Francis Bacon

An advocate for the scientific method, Bacon believed that knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation rather than mere reliance on accepted truths.

A modern proponent of critical thinking, Dewey viewed it as an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge. He emphasised that students should be taught to think for themselves rather than just memorise facts.

Paulo Freire

Recognised for his ideas on “problem-posing education,” Freire believed that students should be encouraged to question, reflect upon, and respond to societal issues, fostering critical consciousness.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers are not defined merely by the knowledge they possess, but by the manner in which they process, analyse, and use that knowledge. While the profile of a critical thinker can be multifaceted, certain core traits distinguish them. Let’s delve into these characteristics:

1. Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness refers to the willingness to consider different ideas, opinions, and perspectives, even if they challenge one’s existing beliefs. It allows critical thinkers to avoid being trapped in their own biases or preconceived notions. By being open to diverse viewpoints, they can make more informed and holistic decisions.

• Listening to a debate without immediately taking sides.
• Reading literature from different cultures to understand various world views.

2. Analytical Nature

An analytical nature entails the ability to break down complex problems or information into smaller, manageable parts to understand the whole better. Being analytical enables individuals to see patterns, relationships, and inconsistencies, allowing for deeper comprehension and better problem-solving.

• Evaluating a research paper by examining its methodology, results, and conclusions separately.
• Breaking down the components of a business strategy to assess its viability.

3. Scepticism

Scepticism is the tendency to question and doubt claims or assertions until sufficient evidence is presented. Skepticism ensures that critical thinkers do not accept information at face value. They seek evidence and are cautious about jumping to conclusions without verification.

• Questioning the results of a study that lacks a control group.
• Doubting a sensational news headline and researching further before believing or sharing it.

4. Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility involves recognising and accepting the limitations of one’s knowledge and understanding. It is about being aware that one does not have all the answers. This trait prevents arrogance and overconfidence. Critical thinkers with intellectual humility are open to learning and receptive to constructive criticism.

• Admitting when one is wrong in a discussion.
• Actively seeking feedback on a project or idea to enhance it.

5. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is the ability to think sequentially and make connections between concepts in a coherent manner. It involves drawing conclusions that logically follow from the available information. Logical reasoning ensures that decisions and conclusions are sound and based on valid premises. It helps avoid fallacies and cognitive biases.

• Using deductive reasoning to derive a specific conclusion from a general statement.
• Evaluating an argument for potential logical fallacies like “slippery slope” or “ad hominem.”

The Difference Between Critical Thinking and Memorisation

In today’s rapidly changing educational landscape, there is an ongoing debate about the importance of rote memorisation versus the significance of cultivating critical thinking skills. Both have their place in learning, but they serve very different purposes.

Nature Of Learning

• Rote Learning: Involves memorising information exactly as it is, without necessarily understanding its context or underlying meaning. It’s akin to storing data as-is, without processing.
• Analytical Processing (Critical Thinking): Involves understanding, questioning, and connecting new information with existing knowledge. It’s less about storage and more about comprehension and application.

Depth of Engagement

• Rote Learning: Often remains at the surface level. Students might remember facts for a test, but might forget them shortly after.
• Analytical Processing: Engages deeper cognitive skills. When students think critically, they’re more likely to retain information because they’ve processed it deeper.

Application in New Situations

• Rote Learning: Information memorised through rote often does not easily apply to new or unfamiliar situations, since it is detached from understanding.
• Analytical Processing: Promotes adaptability. Critical thinkers can transfer knowledge and skills to different contexts because they understand underlying concepts and principles.

Why Critical Thinking Produces Long-Term Academic Benefits

Here are the benefits of critical thinking in academics. 

Enhanced Retention

Critical thinking often involves active learning—discussions, problem-solving, and debates—which promotes better retention than passive memorisation.

Skill Development

Beyond content knowledge, critical thinking develops skills like analysis, synthesis, source evaluation , and problem-solving. These are invaluable in higher education and professional settings.

Adaptability

In an ever-evolving world, the ability to adapt is crucial. Critical thinkers are better equipped to learn and adapt because they don’t just know facts; they understand concepts.

Lifelong Learning

Critical thinkers are naturally curious. They seek to understand, question, and explore, turning them into lifelong learners who continually seek knowledge and personal growth.

Improved Decision-Making

Analytical processing allows students to evaluate various perspectives, weigh evidence, and make well-informed decisions, a skill far beyond academics.

Preparation for Real-World Challenges

The real world does not come with a textbook. Critical thinkers can navigate unexpected challenges, connect disparate pieces of information, and innovate solutions.

Steps in the Critical Thinking Process

Critical thinking is more than just a skill—it is a structured process. By following a systematic approach, critical thinkers can navigate complex issues and ensure their conclusions are well-informed and reasoned. Here’s a breakdown of the steps involved:

Step 1. Identification and Clarification of the Problem or Question

Recognizing that a problem or question exists and understanding its nature. It’s about defining the issue clearly, without ambiguity. A well-defined problem serves as the foundation for the subsequent steps. The entire process may become misguided without a clear understanding of what’s being addressed.

Example: Instead of a vague problem like “improving the environment,” a more specific question could be “How can urban areas reduce air pollution?”

Step 2. Gathering Information and Evidence

Actively seeking relevant data, facts, and evidence. This might involve research, observations, experiments, or discussions. Reliable decisions are based on solid evidence. The quality and relevance of the information gathered can heavily influence the final conclusion.

Example: To address urban air pollution, one might gather data on current pollution levels, sources of pollutants, existing policies, and strategies employed by other cities.

Step 3. Analysing the Information

Breaking down the gathered information, scrutinising its validity, and identifying patterns, contradictions, and relationships. This step ensures that the information is not just accepted at face value. Critical thinkers can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant information and detect biases or inaccuracies by analysing data.

Example: When examining data on pollution, one might notice that certain industries are major contributors or that pollution levels rise significantly at specific times of the year.

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions and Making Decisions

After thorough analysis, formulating an informed perspective, solution, or decision-based on the evidence. This is the culmination of the previous steps. Here, the critical thinker synthesises the information and applies logic to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Example: Based on the analysis, one might conclude that regulating specific industries and promoting public transportation during peak pollution periods can help reduce urban air pollution.

Step 5. Reflecting on the Process And The Conclusions Reached

Take a step back to assess the entire process, considering any potential biases, errors, or alternative perspectives. It is also about evaluating the feasibility and implications of the conclusions. Reflection ensures continuous learning and improvement. Individuals can refine their approach to future problems by evaluating their thinking process.

Example: Reflecting on the proposed solution to reduce pollution, one might consider its economic implications, potential industry resistance, and the need for public awareness campaigns.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

The Role of Critical Thinking in Different Academic Subjects

Critical thinking is a universal skill applicable across disciplines. Its methodologies might differ based on the subject, but its core principles remain consistent. Let us explore how critical thinking manifests in various academic domains:

1. Sciences

• Hypothesis Testing: Science often begins with a hypothesis—a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Critical thinking is essential in formulating a testable hypothesis and determining its validity based on experimental results.
• Experimental Design: Designing experiments requires careful planning to ensure valid and reliable results. Critical thinking aids in identifying variables, ensuring controls, and determining the best methodologies to obtain accurate data.
• Example: In a biology experiment to test the effect of light on plant growth, critical thinking helps ensure variables like water and soil quality are consistent, allowing for a fair assessment of the light’s impact.

2. Humanities

• Analysing Texts: Humanities often involve studying texts—literature, historical documents, or philosophical treatises. Critical thinking lets students decode themes, discern authorial intent, and recognise underlying assumptions or biases.
• Understanding Contexts: Recognizing a text or artwork’s cultural, historical, or social contexts is pivotal. Critical thinking allows for a deeper appreciation of these contexts, providing a holistic understanding of the subject.
• Example: When studying Shakespeare’s “Othello,” critical thinking aids in understanding the play’s exploration of jealousy, race, and betrayal, while also appreciating its historical context in Elizabethan England.

3. Social Sciences

• Evaluating Arguments: Social sciences, such as sociology or political science, often present various theories or arguments about societal structures and behaviours. Critical thinking aids in assessing the merits of these arguments and recognising their implications.
• Understanding Biases: Since social sciences study human societies, they’re susceptible to biases. Critical thinking helps identify potential biases in research or theories, ensuring a more objective understanding.
• Example: In studying economic policies, critical thinking helps weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different economic models, considering both empirical data and theoretical arguments.

4. Mathematics

• Problem-Solving: Mathematics is more than just numbers; it is about solving problems. Critical thinking enables students to identify the best strategies to tackle problems, ensuring efficient and accurate solutions.
• Logical Deduction: Mathematical proofs and theorems rely on logical steps. Critical thinking ensures that each step is valid and the conclusions sound.
• Example: In geometry, when proving that two triangles are congruent, critical thinking helps ensure that each criterion (like side lengths or angles) is met and the logic of the proof is coherent.

Examples of Critical Thinking in Academics

Some of the critical thinking examples in academics are discussed below. 

Case Study 1: Evaluating A Scientific Research Paper

Scenario: A research paper claims that a new herbal supplement significantly improves memory in elderly individuals.

Critical Thinking Application:

Scrutinising Methodology:

• Was the study double-blind and placebo-controlled?
• How large was the sample size?
• Were the groups randomised?
• Were there any potential confounding variables?

Assessing Conclusions:

• Do the results conclusively support the claim, or are there other potential explanations?
• Are the statistical analyses robust, and do they show a significant difference?
• Is the effect size clinically relevant or just statistically significant?

Considering Broader Context:

• How does this study compare with existing literature on the subject?
• Were there any conflicts of interest, such as funding from the supplement company?

Critical analysis determined that while the study showed statistical significance, the effect size was minimal. Additionally, the sample size was small, and there was potential bias as the supplement manufacturer funded the study.

Case Study 2: Analysing a Literary Text

Scenario: A reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.”

Understanding Symbolism:

• What does the green light represent for Gatsby and in the broader context of the American Dream?
• How does the Valley of Ashes symbolise societal decay?

Recognising Authorial Intent:

• Why might Fitzgerald depict the characters’ lavish lifestyles amid underlying dissatisfaction?
• What critiques of American society is Fitzgerald potentially making?

Contextual Analysis:

• How does the era in which the novel was written (Roaring Twenties) influence its themes and characters?

Through critical analysis, the reader recognises that while “The Great Gatsby” is a tale of love and ambition, it’s also a poignant critique of the hollowness of the American Dream and the societal excesses of the 1920s.

Case Study 3: Decoding Historical Events

Scenario: The events leading up to the American Revolution.

Considering Multiple Perspectives:

• How did the British government view the colonies and their demands?
• What were the diverse perspectives within the American colonies, considering loyalists and patriots?

Assessing Validity of Sources:

• Which accounts are primary sources, and which are secondary?
• Are there potential biases in these accounts, based on their origins?

Analysing Causation and Correlation:

• Were taxes and representation the sole reasons for the revolution, or were there deeper economic and philosophical reasons?

Through critical analysis, the student understands that while taxation without representation was a significant catalyst, the American Revolution was also influenced by Enlightenment ideas, economic interests, and long-standing grievances against colonial policies.

Challenges to Developing Critical Thinking Skills

In our complex and rapidly changing world, the importance of critical thinking cannot be overstated. However, various challenges can impede the cultivation of these vital skills. 

1. Common Misconceptions and Cognitive Biases

Human brains often take shortcuts in processing information, leading to cognitive biases. Additionally, certain misconceptions about what constitutes critical thinking can hinder its development.

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
• Anchoring Bias: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
• Misconception: Believing that critical thinking merely means being critical or negative about ideas, rather than evaluating them objectively.

These biases can skew perception and decision-making, making it challenging to objectively approach issues.

2. The Influence of Technology and Social Media

While providing unprecedented access to information, the digital age also presents unique challenges. The barrage of information, the immediacy of social media reactions, and algorithms that cater to user preferences can hinder critical thought.

• Information Overload: The sheer volume of online data can make it difficult to discern credible sources from unreliable ones.
• Clickbait and Misinformation: Articles with sensational titles designed to generate clicks might lack depth or accuracy.
• Algorithmic Bias: Platforms showing users content based on past preferences can limit exposure to diverse viewpoints.

Relying too heavily on technology and social media can lead to superficial understanding, reduced attention spans, and a narrow worldview.

3. The Danger of Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias

An echo chamber is a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system, cutting off differing viewpoints.

• Social Media Groups: Joining groups or following pages that only align with one’s beliefs can create a feedback loop, reinforcing existing opinions without challenge.
• Selective Media Consumption: Only watching news channels or reading websites that align with one’s political or social views.

Echo chambers reinforce confirmation bias, limit exposure to diverse perspectives, and can polarise opinions, making objective, critical evaluation of issues challenging.

Benefits of Promoting Critical Thinking in Education

When cultivated and promoted in educational settings, critical thinking can have transformative effects on students, equipping them with vital skills to navigate their academic journey and beyond. Here’s an exploration of the manifold benefits of emphasising critical thinking in education:

Improved Problem-Solving Skills

Critical thinking enables students to approach problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, analysing each aspect, and synthesising solutions.

• Academic: Enhances students’ ability to tackle complex assignments, research projects, and unfamiliar topics.
• Beyond School: Prepares students for real-world challenges where they might encounter problems without predefined solutions.

Enhanced Creativity and Innovation

Critical thinking is not just analytical but also involves lateral thinking, helping students see connections between disparate ideas and encouraging imaginative solutions.

• Academic: Promotes richer discussions, more creative projects, and the ability to view topics from multiple angles.
• Beyond School: Equips students for careers and situations where innovative solutions can lead to advancements in fields like technology, arts, or social entrepreneurship.

Better Decision-Making Abilities

Critical thinkers evaluate information thoroughly, weigh potential outcomes, and make decisions based on evidence and reason rather than impulse or peer pressure.

• Academic: Helps students make informed choices about their studies, research directions, or group projects.
• Beyond School: Prepares students to make sound decisions in personal and professional spheres, from financial choices to ethical dilemmas.

Greater Resilience in the Face of Complex Challenges

Critical thinking nurtures a growth mindset. When students think critically, they are more likely to view challenges as opportunities for learning rather than insurmountable obstacles.

• Academic: Increases perseverance in difficult subjects, promoting a deeper understanding rather than superficial learning. Students become more resilient in handling academic pressures and setbacks.
• Beyond School: Cultivates individuals who can navigate the complexities of modern life, from career challenges to societal changes, with resilience and adaptability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue to form a judgment. It involves gathering relevant information, discerning potential biases, logically connecting ideas, and questioning assumptions. Essential for informed decision-making, it promotes scepticism and requires the ability to think independently and rationally.

What makes critical thinking?

Critical thinking arises from questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, discerning fact from opinion, recognising biases, and logically connecting ideas. It demands curiosity, scepticism, and an open mind. By continuously challenging one’s beliefs and considering alternative viewpoints, one cultivates the ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently.

What is the purpose of critical thinking?

The purpose of critical thinking is to enable informed decisions by analysing and evaluating information objectively. It fosters understanding, problem-solving, and clarity, reducing the influence of biases and misconceptions. Through critical thinking, individuals discern truth, make reasoned judgments, and engage more effectively in discussions and debates.

How to improve critical thinking?

• Cultivate curiosity by asking questions.
• Practice active listening.
• Read widely and diversely.
• Engage in discussions and debates.
• Reflect on your thought processes.
• Identify biases and challenge assumptions.
• Solve problems systematically.

What are some critical thinking skills?

• Analysis: breaking concepts into parts.
• Evaluation: judging information’s validity.
• Inference: drawing logical conclusions.
• Explanation: articulating reasons.
• Interpretation: understanding meaning.
• Problem-solving: devising effective solutions.
• Decision-making: choosing the best options.

What is information literacy?

Information literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, and use information effectively. It encompasses understanding where to locate information, determining its credibility, distinguishing between facts and opinions, and using it responsibly. Essential in the digital age, it equips individuals to navigate the vast sea of data and make informed decisions.

What makes a credible source?

• Authorship by experts or professionals.
• Reliable publisher or institution backing.
• Transparent sourcing and references.
• Absence of bias or clear disclosure of it.
• Recent publications or timely updates.
• Peer review or editorial oversight.
• Clear, logical arguments.
• Reputability in its field or domain.

How do I analyse information critically?

• Determine the source’s credibility.
• Identify the main arguments or points.
• Examine the evidence provided.
• Spot inconsistencies or fallacies.
• Detect biases or unspoken assumptions.
• Cross-check facts with other sources.
• Evaluate the relevance to your context.
• Reflect on your own biases or beliefs.

You May Also Like

Information literacy is more than just the ability to find information; it encompasses the skills to recognise when information is needed and the competence to locate, evaluate, use, and ethically disseminate it.

When researching or exploring a new topic, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is paramount. The validity, reliability, and relevance of the information you gather will heavily depend on the type of source you consult. 

In today’s information age, where vast amounts of knowledge are easily accessible, it is crucial to know how to use and represent that knowledge correctly and how to cite sources properly.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Mere Liberty

• Libertarian Christian Institute
• Reformed Libertarians Podcast
• Kerry’s Bio & Contact

Why Resisting Manipulation Means Learning to Think Critically

• Critical Thinking
• abuse , fallacies , socratic seminars , teaching

Recently, it occurred to me why critical thinking is a tool in resisting manipulation and heal from manipulative forms of abuse. Manipulation is itself a failure in the skills of thinking well (critical thinking). Most people speak about manipulation as if it were enigmatic. But really, it’s like a cheap magician’s trick; once you learn how the trick works, the illusion is gone and you’re no longer fooled. How can this be?

Failing to think critically involves making errors. These errors are known as fallacies. Manipulation itself is a form of thinking and one that contains errors – a particular kind of error, in fact. These errors may be present in what a manipulator does or says. But they also may be present in the manipulated person’s thinking as well. Since fallacies are errors in thinking, and manipulation contains such errors, then learning to think well would be the obvious response. In this article, I will explain why resisting manipulation means learning to think critically.

Resisting Manipulation Means Learning to Think Critically

Manipulation is a term that has grown in interest over the past few years. It’s especially related to questions of:

• toxic relationships,
• emotional/spiritual/psychological abuse,
• narcissism and other personality disorders,
• but also statistics, scientific reports and peer-reviewed articles, media, and government policy.

One therapist suggests critical thinking is a way to heal from narcissistic abuse . But who wants to go through the mental exercises of critical thinking? Manipulators should just stop or victims should just leave, right? But as many manipulative abuse survivors have learned, neither of these are always options. In fact, victims are such because they can’t leave and have failed in resisting manipulation effectively.

Likewise, spotting poor thinking is a matter of becoming disillusioned by erroneous reasoning. However, many have come to understand critical thinking is about spotting others’ failures. Christian philosopher James K.A. Smith demonstrates this in his article disavowing critical thinking as a tool for resolving conflict. This is mistaken.

Critical thinking is about your skills, not the skills of others. It’s about self- reflection and self- improvement, not proving others wrong or improving them . Smith mistakenly laments critical thinking, but he’s critical of a false perception that critical thinking is about fixing others. Manipulation also is about the other person. What can others do for me? How do I change other people? Manipulation is about getting others to change without them thinking. So resisting manipulation is about you changing yourself.

What is manipulation?

I am operating from the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of manipulation , and the etymology of the word, manipulate . In short, manipulation is the action taken to manage or control others by mental influence, often unfairly or dishonestly.

Manipulation is a lack of regard for relational boundaries. Ie, it breaks the rules for healthy relationships. Fallacies can also be seen as lacking regard for boundaries. These boundaries are the rules for thinking well, or making a good argument. So resisting manipulation entails enforcing healthy relational boundaries.

What is a fallacy? A bad argument

A fallacy violates the criteria for good arguments. What’s an argument? A claim supported by other claims. There are:

• moral claims,
• legal claims,
• philosophical claims,
• scientific claims,
• political claims,
• religious claims
• relational claims,

While formal arguments in philosophy or science are substantially different from common parlance, they follow the same basic pattern. When one says, such-and-such is true, or you should do or believe such-and-such, here’s why (or how), they’re making an argument or explanation of some kind.

The purpose of offering such reasoning is to influence others; usually to change their mind, take an action, or support a cause. The basic pattern of any argument or explanation looks like this:

Premises are claims of truth offered as reasons why/how the conclusion is also true. There can be many reasons (premises) offered. There are good ways to make arguments, and there are bad ways too. A fallacy makes an argument bad. Something about the premises or the conclusion are untrue or invalid.

The similarities between manipulation and fallacies

One way to resist manipulation is by learning and practicing the skills of thinking well.  Manipulators also make arguments, but they don’t try to persuade with good reasoning. Instead, they use bad arguments to manipulate. Persuasion is much more difficult, takes much more time, and requires patience, care, and mutual understanding. Manipulation is much more easy, takes less time, requires considerably less patience, a disregard for others, and lack of mutual understanding.

There are five criteria for a good argument. One specifically relevant to manipulation is the relevance criteria. Only relevant reasons may be used to support a good argument.

Not all things count as relevant reasons. Simply having a true statement is insufficient. True statements might provide interesting context, for example, but may have no bearing on the conclusion. In a different context, those reasons may result in a different conclusion. Before pointing out the connections to manipulation, I will explain the errors (fallacies) of violating the relevance principle.

Fallacies of Irrelevant Premise

Irrelevant premises are reasons offered in support of a conclusion that really have no bearing on the conclusion. That they are offered to support a conclusion doesn’t mean they actually do. A good argument will hold true regardless of these irrelevant premises. Examples of irrelevant premise are:

• Genetic fallacy

Rationalization

Non sequitur, genetic fallacy.

Making an appeal to origin or the history of a thing/idea. This is a reductive fallacy.  That is, it reduces all relevant factors down to one irrelevant factor. It makes origin or historicity the final authority regardless of relevant factors.

Rationalizing gives plausible-sounding, but false, reasons for supporting conclusions. They are reasons held on less respectable grounds such as being untrue or unlikely . This can happen non-consciously (w/o an awareness) or consciously (deliberately deceptive).

Non sequitur is Latin for it does not follow. So, non sequitur fallacies are conclusions that do not follow from the premise(s). Two ways to make a non sequitur:

• true reasons offered in support of a different conclusion
• wrong reasons offered in support of a true conclusion

The conventional abortion debate is rife with examples of non sequiturs. A perfect example is the question of bodily autonomy.

• Pro-choicers argue for the woman’s bodily autonomy, but conclude that extends to a right to abortion. (wrong conclusion)
• Prolifers argue against a woman’s bodily autonomy because pro-choicers argue for it, and so it must not be true. (wrong reasons)

Fallacies of Irrelevant Appeal

An appeal itself is to call on a higher authority. So, the following appeals are invoking irrelevant or erroneous things or people as more authoritative than the truth. It is essential we understand what authority is and what claims are legitimate or not. Examples of irrelevant appeal are:

Appeal to authority

Appeal to common opinion, appeal to force or threat, appeal to tradition, appeal to self-interest (or the interest of others), appeal to emotion.

Legitimate credentials may offer useful context, but the truth of a claim does not depend on them. A university degree, for example, only demonstrates you met the requirements for graduation from a particular institution. An office or title does not award infallibility. Those with authority are still capable of error.

Claims such as, “the science is settled,” or “the people have spoken,” are examples. This fallacy calls upon the majority or consensus as the ultimate authority. Just because there is majority, or even unanimous consensus, doesn’t mean a claim is true. After all, there used to be consensus that the earth was the center of the universe.

Authoritarianism itself is a fallacy of reasoning. This is the monopolization of power under a single person or entity. The principle behind illegitimate use of force to threaten and coerce compliance, or agreement. Authoritarianism can manifest in the family, romantic relationships, friendships, church, the workplace, and civil government.

Calling on cultural or even religious traditions as ultimate authority. For example, the idea that women can (or cannot) have certain roles in society or the church, solely on the basis of tradition is insufficient. If the tradition has good reasons, there is no need to call on the existence of the tradition as proof. But if the tradition has bad reasons, then it’s better to seek the truth on the matter.

Principled self-interest is not inherently fallacious. But, if the argument is: “you must do ‘x’, because  it’s in my self-interest,” it’s fallacious. If the argument is, “you must do ‘x’, because it’s in the group’s interest,” that is fallacious. There might be reasons why something is in someone’s self-interest. But calling on self-interest alone without relevant reasons is fallacious.

This is probably the most confused fallacy. When most people think of appealing to emotion, they think it means setting aside emotion – ie. not feeling your feelings. Instead, this fallacy is about exploiting someone else’s emotions rather than presenting relevant evidence. It’s calling on their pity, flattering them, assigning guilt by association, questioning their group loyalty, and shaming. The experience of emotions or exploring why you’re feeling them is not fallacious. Manipulation of others emotions, is! Facts may not care about feelings, but feelings most definitely care about facts.

Factors of Manipulation and Fallacious Reasoning

Manipulators manipulate because manipulation works! It doesn’t work because it’s some kind of enigmatic mystery though. It works when you’re not resisting manipulation.  Manipulation works because most people aren’t aware when they’re being manipulated. So for manipulation to work, there is the side of the manipulator and that of the manipulated. Resisting manipulation requires a lack of cooperation with the manipulator.

Below I describe in brief a few common factors of manipulation and which fallacies those factors entail.

Blame-shifting

When confronting someone about a problem that needs attention they deflect responsibility by blaming something or someone else. Shifting blame is an appeal to something else as the real cause of the problem. People who do this want to render their part in the matter, irrelevant. To do this, they draw attention to something actually irrelevant.

• Genetic fallacy, appeal to history, “you always do this!” The pattern of behavior is irrelevant to the present moment.
• Genetic fallacy, appeal to origins, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” OR, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Adam and Eve blaming the serpent as the origin, is irrelevant to their disobedience to God.
• appeal to tradition, “this religious doctrine says I’m not mistreating you.” Religious doctrine is only an idea and irrelevant to your discernment as a) true in itself, b) interpreting it correctly, or c) applying it correctly.
• rationalization, “if the kitchen wasn’t a mess, I would have treated you better.” Not having particular preferences met is irrelevant to your mistreatment of someone.

These are just a few examples. There are plenty more. Blame-shifting also entails non sequitur. Blame-shifting draws on wrong reasons to support a true conclusion. Resisting manipulation here recognizing when you are (and are not) really responsible for something.

Emotophobia: Fear of conflict, fear of negative emotions

Emotophobia is an excessive fear of negative emotions and conflict. Part of this is the fear of being wrong, especially if you’ve been punished by another’s anger for being wrong in the past. The irony is that the emotophobic person becomes more negatively emotional themselves. If they’re trying to avoid angry people, they will become an angry person. Negative emotions are not necessarily bad or unhealthy things. How we deal (or not deal) with them can be unhealthy. 

• Genetic fallacy, believing that things can’t be dealt with because they originate in negative emotions.
• Appeal to force or threat , a manipulator exploiting your emotophobia will use intimidation or violence to get you to do or believe what they want.
• rationalization, non-sequitur, “if I don’t make them mad, then our relationship will be good.”

Resisting manipulation here means learning to become comfortable with your negative emotions.

People-pleasing

Also known as the “disease to please.” This entails mind-sets and habits which are not good. They believe their actions are good, but they’re actually controlled by their own need to please others. People-pleasing isn’t merely an inability to say, ‘no’. It’s a compulsive, addictive pattern that results in emotional/spiritual/psychological self-harm. 

• rationalization, people-pleasers rationalize these bad habits and mind-sets as being “in service” to others.
• Non sequitur, this drive to please others may be for wrong reasons or for wrong conclusions. It may be true that a person needs help, but it doesn’t follow that you’re the one who should help. It may be true that you’re an empathetic person, not because you have some special power, but because you’ve been traumatized. (Listen to my episode with Antony Sammeroff where we discuss this).

Manipulators will exploit your tendency toward people-pleasing. They will invoke irrelevant appeals to do this. Whatever motivates your people-pleasing; your sense of shame, group loyalty, traditions or perceptions of authority , these are all ways a manipulator will use your people-pleasing against you and for their benefit. Resisting manipulation here means learning that you do not have to do something simply to make the other happy.

Critical Thinking as an Important and Healthy Resistance to Manipulation

This isn’t just about knowing facts about our faith or the world around us. We can know many facts, but not understand their import. Critical thinking (and resisting manipulation) is about understanding the importance of true things, how they are true, why they are true, and what effect they have in our lives. Not only this, but critical thinking emboldens us to integrity and perseverance.  

Critical thinking certainly isn’t the only way to respond to manipulation and manipulative forms of abuse. It is one primary tool, though. And I invite you to learn more about my courses that teach you how to build the skills of critical thinking and a healthy and non-antagonistic sort of way.

Read more articles about

Join Mere Liberty

• Monthly Member
• Courses Member
• Free Membership
• Reformed Eikon (Coming Soon!)

Member Login

Website designed by Kerry Baldwin | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

Mere Liberty, LLC | 5203 Juan Tabo Blvd. NE Suite 2B | Albuquerque, NM 87111

Subscribe by Email

Receive monthly updates by email.

Privacy policy and terms & conditions . 

You will be asked to confirm your subscription by email, so please check your email/junk file after signing up. 

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.