difference between decision making and critical thinking

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.  

Real-world applications

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

• What's the source of this article?
• Is the headline potentially misleading?
• What are my friend's general beliefs?
• Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking: Which is Better?

Dive into the world of "Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking" and discover which is the superior mindset for success. Gain insights into what critical thinking and strategic thinking entail. Uncover how critical and strategic thinking can complement each other and by the end, you'll have a clearer understanding of which thinking style suits your objectives best.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Strategic Planning and Thinking Course
• Active Listening Training
• Nonverbal Communication Training
• Attention Management Training
• Interpersonal Skills Training Course

In reality, both can complement each and be used together to get better outcomes. Want to know how? Read this blog to learn about the key differences between Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking. Also, understand how they can be used together to drive success. 

Table of Contents   

1) Understanding Critical Thinking and Strategic Thinking  

     a) What is Critical Thinking? 

     b) Exploring Strategic Thinking    

2) Difference between Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking  

     a) Focus and emphasis  

     b) Mindset and approach  

     c) Timeframe and scope    

     d) Application and outcomes    

     3) Complementary nature of Critical Thinking and Strategic Thinking  

4) Conclusion  

Understanding Critical Thinking and Strategic Thinking   

Before exploring the difference between the two and which is better, it is essential to understand both. Let's have a brief look at both the skills: 

What is Critical Thinking?  

Critical Thinking is a systematic and objective approach to analysing and evaluating information. It involves gathering evidence, questioning assumptions, and applying logical reasoning to form well-informed judgments. Key components of Critical Thinking include the following:  

a) Information analysis : Gathering and examining information from various sources before forming opinions or making decisions.  

b) Objective evaluation : Assessing evidence for reliability and validity, identifying biases, and detecting fallacies in arguments.  

c) Problem-solving : Breaking down complex problems, considering alternative perspectives, and generating practical solutions.  

By developing Critical Thinking skills, individuals become more effective problem solvers, make informed decisions, and achieve a broader understanding of the world. 

Learn how to take strategic decisions. Register for our  Strategic Planning And Thinking Training now!  

Understanding Strategic Thinking   

Strategic Thinking is a process that involves a proactive and forward-looking approach to planning, goal setting, and decision-making. It goes beyond immediate problem-solving and focuses on long-term implications, patterns, and connections. Strategic Thinking encompasses several key elements:  

a) Planning and goal setting : Strategic Thinking emphasises the creation of a roadmap for achieving desired outcomes. It involves setting clear goals, defining strategies, and outlining steps to reach those objectives.  

b) Vision and foresight : Strategic thinkers can envision future possibilities and anticipate challenges and opportunities. They consider long-term implications and trends to make decisions that align with the desired outcomes.  

c) Pattern recognition : Strategic thinking focuses on identifying patterns, trends, and interrelationships among various factors. They can understand the underlying connections to get an overview of a situation.  

d) Risk assessment and opportunity evaluation : Strategic Thinking involves assessing potential risks and rewards associated with different actions. It allows individuals to make calculated decisions by weighing the potential benefits against potential drawbacks.  

Strategic Thinking is particularly valuable in planning and navigating uncertain or complex situations. By adopting a strategic mindset, individuals can anticipate challenges, adapt to changing circumstances, and take advantage of emerging opportunities. 

Difference between Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking   

Focus and emphasis   

Critical Thinking primarily focuses on analysing and evaluating information objectively. Its main emphasis is on logical reasoning, evidence assessment, and identifying biases or fallacies in arguments. Critical Thinking ensures accuracy, clarity, and sound judgment in decision-making and problem-solving.  

Strategic Thinking prioritises planning, goal-setting, and long-term vision. It looks beyond immediate analysis and focuses on understanding patterns, connections, and future implications. Strategic Thinking aims to align actions and decisions with long-term objectives and effectively navigate complex or uncertain environments. 

Mindset and approach   

Critical Thinking involves a mindset of scepticism and intellectual curiosity. It encourages individuals to question assumptions, challenge conventional wisdom, and seek evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, Critical Thinking is more analytical and fact-based, aiming to uncover the truth and make well-reasoned judgments. 

On the other hand, Strategic Thinking involves a mindset of forward-thinking and creativity. It encourages individuals to explore future possibilities, envision desired outcomes, and think holistically about the bigger picture. The Strategic Thinking approach is more visionary, seeking to develop plans and strategies that align with long-term goals and capitalise on emerging opportunities. 

Learn how to build a to-do list and create time checks with our Time Management Training - Get better at managing time.  

Timeframe and scope   

Critical Thinking tends to focus on immediate issues and problems at hand. It involves analysing a situation in detail, gathering relevant information, and evaluating it objectively. Additionally, Critical Thinking is crucial for making informed decisions in real time and solving specific problems effectively. 

In contrast, Strategic Thinking takes a broader and more long-term perspective. It considers the larger context, trends, and potential future scenarios. Considering these factors allows for assessing risks, anticipating challenges, and developing plans encompassing multiple aspects of a situation. Strategic Thinking also provides a roadmap for achieving long-term objectives and navigating complex environments. 

Application and outcomes   

Critical Thinking is highly valuable in situations that require objective analysis, such as evaluating evidence, assessing arguments, or identifying flaws in reasoning. It is crucial for making informed decisions based on facts and evidence, especially in scientific research, critical analysis, or logical problem-solving. 

Complementary nature of Critical Thinking and Strategic Thinking   

Critical Thinking and Strategic Thinking are complementary approaches that enhance decision-making, problem-solving, and planning. While Critical Thinking provides a solid foundation of analysis, objectivity, and evidence evaluation, ensuring accuracy in strategic plans. Strategic Thinking adds creativity, foresight, and a long-term perspective, encouraging individuals to envision desired outcomes and adapt to changing circumstances. 

By integrating Critical and Strategic Thinking, individuals balance short-term needs and long-term goals. They can analyse problems effectively and consider broader contexts. This combination fosters adaptability, agility, and robust, well-informed and forward-thinking decision-making. 

Conclusion   

While there are some fundamental differences between Critical Thinking vs Strategic Thinking, both are valuable thinking styles that can be developed and applied to improve decisions and solve problems. So, embrace the power of Strategic & Critical Thinking in your process and lead yourself to success. 

Develop your business and personal skills with our Personal Development Training and set yourself up for success.  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 26th Apr 2024

Fri 24th May 2024

Fri 28th Jun 2024

Fri 26th Jul 2024

Fri 23rd Aug 2024

Fri 27th Sep 2024

Fri 25th Oct 2024

Fri 22nd Nov 2024

Fri 27th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel & Certification Course
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Critical Thinking and Non-Critical Thinking: Key Differences

Have you ever asked yourself how to identify critical thinking? Knowing the differences between critical and non-critical thinking can help you understand the process of critical thinking and use it in your daily life. Critical thinking is a process of analyzing information and making decisions based on facts. While Non-critical thinking is a process where people make decisions based on intuition or opinion.

Sanju Pradeepa

Do you ever find yourself stuck in a rut of unproductive thinking? We’ve all been there. It can feel like it takes forever to break out of this cycle and make meaningful progress on a problem.

But what if you learned powerful tools for thinking more effectively and efficiently? Enter critical and non-critical thinking.

The key distinction between these two forms of thinking is that while non-critical thinking evaluates data at face value, critical thinking goes beyond the surface level to ask “why” and “how” questions that help make better decisions. Critical thinkers also examine their own biases and assumptions and look at situations from different perspectives before arriving at a conclusion.

Good news: you’ve come to the right place. In this article, I’m going to explain the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking and how each type of thinking can help us make sound choices in our lives. We’ll also explore why critical thinking can lead to better decision-making, so you can make the most informed decisions for yourself possible.

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

At its core, critical thinking involves carefully analyzing and evaluating information to make well-reasoned decisions. It can be used to assess an idea, a plan of action, a process, or an argument. It involves asking questions and looking for solutions to problems.

Characteristics of critical thinking include:

• Openness: Being open to new ideas and perspectives without prejudice or preconceived notions
• Objectivity: Being able to consider opposing points of view objectively and rationally
• Flexibility: Being able to adapt quickly in response to new information or changing situations
• Accuracy: making sure that facts are accurate and detailed before taking action.
• Insightfulness: Being able to draw connections between seemingly unrelated concepts and recognize patterns in complex matters

Ultimately, critical thinking is an invaluable skill that can help you make more informed decisions in all areas of life, both personal and professional.

To Learn more – 7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

What is non-critical thinking?

Non-critical thinking is a method of considering new ideas without any sort of evaluation or judgment. It’s a form of open learning where you are just absorbing information without trying to interpret it or break it down into its separate components. You simply take what’s presented to you as it is, without questioning or doubting it.

Typically, non-critical thinkers rely heavily on intuition and emotion to make decisions. As opposed to critical thinking, there is no attempt made at problem-solving, and any sort of hypothesis testing is avoided.

Some common characteristics of non-critical thinking include:

• Being easily influenced by the opinions and ideas of others
• Judging people quickly and not considering all perspectives
• Focusing on immediate solutions that don’t address root causes
• allowing your beliefs to cloud your judgment

The Differences Between Critical and Non-Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a must-have skill in the modern world. It’s not just about passing exams; it’s about taking a well-thought-out approach that gets you to the root cause of an issue . On the other hand, non-critical thinking is more surface level, a kind of “snap judgment” that doesn’t take into account the big picture .

• The level of focus each requires.

When deciding between critical thinking and non-critical thinking, one clear difference is the level of focus each requires . Non-critical thinking is more focused on gathering information and facts without any real need to focus on the implications of that information. On the other hand, critical thinking involves a much deeper analysis of the data and its implications.

2. The level of analysis each type of thinking calls for

Another key difference is the level of analysis each type of thinking calls for . Non-critical thinking tends to take a surface-level look at data without really looking at it from all angles. Critical thinking, however, requires you to dig deeper into the data. You have to make sure you understand all sides of an issue before you reach a conclusion.

Real-life examples of critical thinking in action include debating political issues, researching medical treatments, or even discussing how past experiences might influence future decisions. In order to engage in meaningful critical thought, you must be willing to question assumptions, explore ideas from different angles, and use evidence to construct arguments that take multiple perspectives into account.

In short, while non-critical thinkers collect surface-level facts with no real analysis or questioning necessary, critical thinkers take a much deeper dive into data in order to find new insights and draw meaningful conclusions.

By understanding the difference between critical and non-critical thinking, evaluating assumptions, and slowing down during decision-making processes, you can develop better critical thinking skills that will enable you to make smarter decisions in the future.

Benefits of Critical Thinking in Everyday Life

When it comes down to it, developing your critical thinking skills has many advantages. So, what are some of the benefits of critical thinking ?

• ability to make decisions based on facts and evidence rather than personal biases or opinions
• It allows you to analyze a situation from multiple angles.
• Understanding complex topics quickly
• Greater clarity during decision-making processes
• able to construct arguments effectively.
• Improved communication skills
• enables you to look past potential biases and make informed decisions based on logic, facts, and reliable sources.
• It also provides more avenues for innovation and creative problem-solving.

By contrast, non-critical thinking limits your perspective on any given problem. It also tends to be quite binary black or white, good or bad whereas critical thinkers understand that the truth often lies somewhere in between. The result is often a much broader range of solutions than what could be achieved through non-critical thinking alone.

Enhancing your ability for critical thinking

If you want to improve your critical thinking skills, you should start by understanding the difference between critical and non-critical thinking. Non-critical thinking is simply “thinking without criticism.” It involves making decisions based on assumptions or ideas without questioning them. On the other hand, critical thinking involves careful consideration of different perspectives and examining evidence from multiple sources before making a decision; it’s the opposite of just taking things at face value.

So how can you become a better critical thinker? Here are some tips you can use to strengthen your critical thinking skills: Here are a few:

1. Formulate your own opinion.

Before making an opinion on any given matter, take the time to research the different perspectives and form your own judgment. This will help you become more aware of possible cognitive biases that could lead to misinterpretations of facts or events.

2. Question assumptions

Take the time to question any assumptions you’ve made about a situation. For example, if you think that buying a certain product is the only solution to a problem, ask yourself why. Is it really the most effective solution? Doing this will help you evaluate ideas and see if there is any other way of approaching the subject that is more beneficial in the long run.

3. Develop creative solutions.

When facing a challenge, step out of your comfort zone and try to come up with creative solutions to solve it. A creative approach is often better than strictly relying on previous experience, as it encourages outside-the-box thinking and allows for new possibilities to arise.

4. Do not jump to conclusions.

It’s important not to allow our experiences or emotions to shape our opinions or decisions without first analyzing the facts. Before making a conclusion about something, it’s essential to simply stop, think, and reflect on your thought process so that emotion does not overrule rationality. Doing this allows us to make informed decisions, which often lead to better outcomes in the long run.

5. Slow down and promote critical thinking.

Take your time while making decisions rushing to conclusions can lead to misinformed decisions that have unintended consequences down the road. Instead, slow down and encourage others to think critically by asking questions, evaluating data, and challenging ideas so that all perspectives are taken into account when making informed decisions.

6. Evaluate your assumptions and reasons.

Start by taking a step back to evaluate your underlying assumptions and reasons for believing something. Question why you think something is true or right, and consider other possible explanations or perspectives. This will help you assess your information more objectively and weigh more options before concluding.

Practical Exercises to Develop Critical Thinking Abilities

If improving your critical thinking skills is a goal of yours there are a few simple practical exercises you can do to help develop them.

One great place to start is by examining your own beliefs , especially ones that you may have taken for granted.

Take some time to analyze why you hold certain beliefs and assess the evidence that supports them. Consider how you come to conclusions, and be prepared to challenge even your own opinion by looking at it from different angles. Ultimately, this exercise should help you understand how thinking critically can lead to more balanced judgments.

Another exercise you can use involves the scientific method: gather background information, form hypotheses based on those observations, test those hypotheses with experiments, record and analyze data, then draw possible conclusions, and finally communicate results.

By following these steps over and over again in real-life scenarios, you’ll soon learn what it means to think critically. This will not only help in situations that require problem-solving but also give you more of an analytical mindset in daily life, one where reasoning and logic come before emotion or impulse decisions.

In conclusion, the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking can be a difficult concept to grasp but understanding it can be invaluable to making better decisions and forming effective strategies. Critical thinking requires us to be open to the possibility of change and to accept the fact that not everything is as it seems at first glance. Non-critical thinking, on the other hand, can lead us to become entrenched in our beliefs and to reject new information, even if it could potentially benefit us. With practice, we can learn to separate the two and make more informed decisions.

• What is the difference between critical and non critical thinking by Answers Team published in Answers.com https://www.answers.com/
• C ritical Thinking vs. Non-Critical Thinking by SUSIE ZAPPIA published in Classroom (https://classroom.synonym.com/)

Call to Action

If you enjoyed this blog post and want to learn more about the topic, don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media. You’ll be part of a community of like-minded people who share your interests and passions. So what are you waiting for? Join us today and start your journey of learning and discovery!

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Mind by Design

Critical thinking vs analytical thinking: The differences and similarities

The ability to think clearly and make informed decisions is paramount to life. This article delves deep into the realms of analytical thinking and critical thinking, shedding light on their differences and how they complement each other. By understanding these thinking styles, you’ll be better equipped to tackle complex problems, evaluate information, and make well-informed decisions. Let’s dive in!

Introduction to Analytical and Critical Thinking

Analytical and critical thinking are two skills essential for solving problems and making decisions in various aspects of life. While both involve the use of logic and reasoning, they differ in their approach and outcomes. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex information into smaller parts, while critical thinking involves taking a holistic view and evaluating information from different angles. Analytical thinking involves the ability to dissect a problem or situation into its individual components and examining each part separately. It requires careful observation and the ability to identify patterns and relationships. This type of thinking is essential for tasks such as data analysis, problem-solving, and troubleshooting.

Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves the ability to assess information objectively, evaluate its credibility, and make logical judgments. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and considering different perspectives. Critical thinking is crucial for making informed decisions, weighing pros and cons, and avoiding biases and fallacies.

Both analytical and critical thinking complement each other and are necessary for effective problem-solving and decision-making. Analytical thinking provides a structured and systematic approach to understanding complex problems , while critical thinking helps evaluate different options and make sound judgments.

Developing analytical and critical thinking skills can greatly benefit individuals in various aspects of life. In academia, these skills are necessary for understanding and interpreting complex subjects, conducting research, and writing analytical essays. In the workplace, analytical and critical thinking skills are highly valued by employers as they enable employees to solve problems efficiently and make informed decisions. In daily life, these skills are essential for evaluating information, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and making rational choices.

There are various ways to improve analytical and critical thinking skills. Engaging in activities that require logical reasoning, such as puzzles, brain teasers, and mathematical problems, can help develop analytical thinking abilities. Reading diverse sources of information, questioning assumptions, and actively seeking different perspectives can enhance critical thinking skills . Additionally, engaging in debates, discussions, and problem-solving exercises can promote both analytical and critical thinking.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and decision-making in various aspects of life. They involve breaking down complex information and evaluating it from different angles. Developing these skills can lead to more effective problem-solving, informed decision-making, and overall improved cognitive abilities. 

Traits of an Analytical Thinker

An analytical thinker is one who is adept at breaking down complex problems into smaller parts. This type of thinking is linear and involves analyzing cause and effect relationships. Analytical thinking uses logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion, often relying on data and facts. Some key traits of an analytical thinker include:

• The ability to dissect complex information into smaller pieces.
• A knack for recognizing patterns and relationships.
• A methodical approach to problem-solving.

What Does It Mean to Think Critically?

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a type of higher-order thinking that requires a more holistic approach. Critical thinkers are often skeptical, questioning the validity of information before accepting it. They are adept at evaluating information from various sources and are not easily swayed by outside information. Key aspects of critical thinking include :

• The ability to form an opinion based on evidence.
• Considering multiple perspectives before making a decision.
• Recognizing biases and challenging one’s own assumptions.

Analytical Thinking vs Critical Thinking: The Major Differences

While both analytical and critical thinking are essential for solving problems, they differ in several key ways:

• Approach : Analytical thinking is more linear and focuses on breaking down complex information into smaller parts. Critical thinking, however, is holistic and looks at the bigger picture.
• Use of Information : Analytical thinkers rely heavily on facts and data, while critical thinkers use facts in conjunction with other pieces of information and perspectives.
• Outcome : Analytical thinking often leads to a single logical conclusion, whereas critical thinking might result in multiple potential solutions or outcomes.

The Processes: Analytical Thinking Process vs Critical Thinking Process

Both styles of thinking have distinct processes:

• Analytical Thinking Process : Starts with gathering data, followed by breaking down complex problems, analyzing the cause and effect relationships, and finally drawing a conclusion.
• Critical Thinking Process : Begins with gathering diverse pieces of information, evaluating their validity, considering various perspectives, and finally forming an opinion or decision.

Using Analytical and Critical Thinking in Real Life Scenarios

In real-life scenarios, these thinking styles can be applied in various ways. For instance, when faced with a business decision, an analytical thinker might focus on the numbers and statistics, while a critical thinker might consider the potential impact on employees, company culture, and external stakeholders.

Analytical thinking can be particularly useful when analyzing financial data and making data-driven decisions. For example, a business owner might use analytical thinking to analyze the company’s financial statements and determine the profitability and financial health of the business. They might examine key financial ratios, such as return on investment or gross profit margin, to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of various business operations.

On the other hand, critical thinking can be applied when evaluating different options and considering the potential consequences of each option. For example, when considering a potential business expansion, a critical thinker may explore the potential impact on existing employees, the company’s culture, and the external stakeholders. They may assess the potential risks and benefits of the expansion, considering factors such as increased competition, resource allocation, and market demand.

Analytical and critical thinking can also be applied in personal decision-making. For example, when considering a major life decision such as buying a house or changing careers, analytical thinking can help weigh the financial implications, such as the monthly mortgage payments or future earning potential. Critical thinking can help evaluate the potential impact on personal goals, values, and overall satisfaction.

In everyday life, analytical thinking can be useful when evaluating product options or making purchasing decisions. For example, comparing different phone models based on features, specifications, and customer reviews can help individuals make an informed choice. Critical thinking can be applied when assessing the potential consequences of a decision, such as considering the long-term environmental impact of a product or the ethical practices of a particular company.

Both analytical and critical thinking are valuable skills in problem-solving. They can help individuals identify the root causes of a problem, analyze potential solutions, and evaluate their effectiveness. Whether it’s troubleshooting a technical issue, resolving a conflict, or devising strategies to improve personal or professional performance, these thinking styles can be instrumental in finding effective solutions. 

Analytical and Critical Thinking in Problem-Solving

Problem-solving requires a combination of both analytical and critical thinking. Analytical thinking helps break the problem into manageable parts, while critical thinking helps in evaluating potential solutions and considering their implications.

The Importance of Combining Both Thinking Styles

While both styles are powerful on their own, combining analytical and critical thinking skills can lead to more robust solutions. This combination allows for a thorough analysis of a problem while also considering the broader implications and potential consequences of a decision.

Mistakes to Avoid: Misconceptions about Analytical and Critical Thinking

Many assume that analytical thinking and critical thinking are one and the same, but this is a misconception. It’s important to recognize their distinct differences and strengths. Another common mistake is over-relying on one style and neglecting the other, leading to potential oversights in decision-making.

Key Takeaways: The Future of Analytical and Critical Thinking

In summary, here are the most important things to remember:

• Distinct yet Complementary : While analytical and critical thinking have distinct processes and outcomes, they are complementary and can be used together for more effective decision-making.
• Real-world Applications : Both styles are essential in various aspects of life, from business decisions to personal choices.
• Continuous Learning : As the world becomes more complex, honing both analytical and critical thinking skills will be crucial for success.

Embrace both styles of thinking and watch as your decision-making skills, problem-solving abilities, and overall understanding of complex situations improve dramatically.

Q: What is the difference between critical thinking and analytical thinking?

A: Critical thinking and analytical thinking are similar thinking skills, but there are some differences between the two. Critical thinking involves gathering information, evaluating and interpreting it, and then making a judgment or decision based on that information. Analytical thinking, on the other hand, focuses more on breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and coming up with solutions based on this analysis. So while both skills involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking, critical thinking is more focused on making judgments and decisions, whereas analytical thinking is more focused on problem-solving and analysis.

Q: How do I use critical thinking in everyday life?

A: Critical thinking is a valuable skill that can be applied in various aspects of everyday life. To use critical thinking, you need to approach situations and problems with an open and questioning mind. This involves challenging your own assumptions and beliefs, gathering and evaluating information from different sources, considering alternative perspectives, and making informed decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. By using critical thinking, you can enhance your problem-solving skills, improve your decision-making abilities , and think more creatively and independently.

Q: How do I use analytical thinking in my professional life?

A: Analytical thinking is an important skill in many professional fields. To use analytical thinking, you need to be able to break down complex problems or tasks into smaller parts, analyze the relationships between these parts, and come up with logical and well-reasoned solutions. This involves gathering and evaluating relevant data, identifying patterns or trends, and using logical reasoning to draw conclusions. By using analytical thinking, you can improve your problem-solving and decision-making abilities, demonstrate a logical and organized approach to your work, and effectively communicate your analysis and solutions to others.

Q: Can critical thinking and analytical thinking be used together?

A: Yes, critical thinking and analytical thinking are complementary skills that can be used together. Both skills involve a systematic and logical approach to thinking, and they can reinforce each other in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Critical thinking provides the framework for evaluating and interpreting information, while analytical thinking provides the tools for breaking down complex problems and finding solutions. By using both skills together, you can enhance your ability to think critically and analytically, make more informed decisions, and solve problems more effectively.

Q: What are the differences between analytical reasoning and critical thinking?

A: Analytical reasoning and critical thinking are related skills that involve a logical and systematic approach to thinking. However, there are some differences between the two. Analytical reasoning is more focused on the process of breaking down complex problems or arguments, identifying logical relationships between different elements, and drawing conclusions based on this analysis. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is a broader skill that involves evaluating and interpreting information, questioning assumptions and biases, and making judgments or decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. While analytical reasoning is an important part of critical thinking, critical thinking encompasses a wider range of cognitive processes and skills.

Q: How can I develop and improve my analytical thinking skills?

A: To develop and improve your analytical thinking skills, you can engage in activities that stimulate your logical and problem-solving abilities. This may involve practicing with puzzles and brainteasers, analyzing case studies or real-life scenarios, participating in debates or discussions, learning and applying different analytical frameworks or models, and seeking feedback on your analytical thinking from others. Additionally, you can also cultivate your analytical thinking skills by staying curious, asking thoughtful questions, and continuously seeking new knowledge and perspectives. With practice and perseverance, you can enhance your analytical thinking abilities and become a more effective problem solver and decision maker.

Q: How can I become a critical thinker?

A: Becoming a critical thinker requires a conscious effort to develop and refine your thinking skills. Here are some steps you can take to become a critical thinker : 1. Cultivate intellectual humility and open-mindedness: Be willing to consider alternative viewpoints and challenge your own assumptions and beliefs. 2. Develop strong analytical and reasoning skills: Learn to gather and evaluate evidence, identify logical fallacies, and draw logical and well-supported conclusions. 3. Practice active listening and effective communication: Listen attentively to others’ perspectives, ask thoughtful questions, and communicate your own ideas clearly and persuasively. 4. Seek out diverse sources of information: Expose yourself to different perspectives and viewpoints to broaden your understanding and avoid bias. 5. Reflect and evaluate your own thinking: Regularly reflect on your own thinking processes, identify any biases or logical gaps, and work on improving your critical thinking skills.

Q: What role does critical thinking play in problem-solving?

A: Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in problem-solving. It helps you approach problems with a logical and systematic mindset, evaluate potential solutions, and make informed decisions. Critical thinking allows you to gather and analyze relevant information, identify patterns or trends, consider different perspectives or alternatives, weigh the pros and cons, and choose the most effective solution. By using critical thinking in problem-solving, you can enhance your ability to find creative and innovative solutions, overcome obstacles, and make well-informed decisions that are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

Q: Why is critical thinking important?

A: Critical thinking is important because it enables you to think independently, make informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and evaluate information and arguments critically. In a rapidly changing and complex world, critical thinking allows you to navigate through information overload, identify biases or misinformation, and make sense of a wide range of conflicting information. It also helps you develop a deep understanding of concepts and ideas, construct well-reasoned arguments, and communicate your thoughts effectively. In both personal and professional contexts, critical thinking is a valuable skill that empowers you to be a more effective and successful individual.

Q: How does analytical thinking contribute to problem-solving?

A: Analytical thinking is a key component of problem-solving. It involves breaking down complex problems into smaller components, analyzing the relationships between these components, and identifying patterns or trends. Analytical thinking helps you understand the underlying causes of problems, explore different possible solutions, and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness. By using analytical thinking, you can approach problems in a structured and systematic way, make well-informed decisions, and find creative and innovative solutions. Analytical thinking provides a solid foundation for problem-solving, enabling you to effectively address challenges and find solutions in various domains.

Similar Posts

How to make yourself hungry in 17 simple ways

Getting the urge to eat for some can sometimes be difficult and known to happen to those who are watching their weight. However, there are plenty of ways you can make yourself hungry. In this post you will discover the reasons why you lack an appetite and the best ways to go about getting it…

Understanding the Power of Having Goals Beyond Your Understanding

Setting goals is an essential part of personal growth and success. It gives us direction, motivation, and a sense of purpose. While many people strive for common goals such as financial stability, career advancement, or a happy family life, there are those whose aspirations go beyond the ordinary. These individuals have goals that are beyond…

How to Own Your Own Mind in 5 Simple Ways

We’ve all been there. You meet someone new and they start talking, you listen – then before you know it they have expressed a strong opinion on a topic that matters to you that contradicts what you believe. And as much as your initial reaction might be anger, after some consideration, you find yourself agreeing…

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Embracing the Duality of Human Societies

In a world where diverse cultures coexist, the clash between individualism and collectivism has been a subject of profound debate and exploration. These two contrasting ideologies shape the very fabric of our societies, influencing our values, beliefs, and social structures. Individualism champions personal freedom, autonomy, and self-expression, while collectivism emphasizes social harmony, interdependence, and group…

Difference Between Ego and Pride: Understanding the Subtle Difference

In the complex landscape of human emotions and psychology, two terms stand out: pride and ego. Often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings that can shape our behaviors, relationships, and self-perception. While both pride and ego relate to our sense of self-worth and identity, they manifest in different ways and have varying implications. In this…

9 Ingenious Ways to have the right mindset for success

Do you know the right ways to have the right mindset for success? Not sure. Well, most people don’t even understand the concept of mindset correctly in the first place. It’s one of those things that we take for granted because we’ve grown up with it. It’s like when you were little and your mom…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

• Media Center

System 1 and System 2 Thinking

The basic idea, theory, meet practice.

TDL is an applied research consultancy. In our work, we leverage the insights of diverse fields—from psychology and economics to machine learning and behavioral data science—to sculpt targeted solutions to nuanced problems.

When commuting to work, you always know which route to take without having to consciously think about it. You automatically walk to the subway station, habitually get off at the same stop, and walk to your office while your mind wanders. It’s effortless. However, the subway line is down today.

While your route to the subway station was intuitive, you now find yourself spending some time analyzing alternative routes to work in order to take the quickest one. Are the buses running? Is it too cold outside to walk? How much does a rideshare cost?

Our responses to these two scenarios demonstrate the differences between our slower thinking process and our instantaneous one.  System 1 thinking  is a near-instantaneous process; it happens automatically, intuitively, and with little effort. It’s driven by instinct and our experiences.  System 2 thinking  is slower and requires more effort. It is conscious and logical.

However, even when we think that we are being rational in our decisions, our System 1 beliefs and biases still drive many of our choices. Understanding the interplay of these two systems in our daily lives can help us become more aware of the bias in our decisions – and how we can avoid it.

The automatic operations of System 1 generate surprisingly complex patterns of ideas, but only the slower System 2 can construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps. – Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow

System 1 Thinking:  Our brains’ fast, automatic, unconscious, and emotional response to situations and stimuli. This can be in the form of absentmindedly reading text on a billboard, knowing how to tie your shoelaces without a second thought, or instinctively hopping over a puddle on the sidewalk.

System 2 Thinking:  The slow, effortful, and logical mode in which our brains operate when solving more complicated problems. For example, System 2 thinking is used when looking for a friend in a crowd, parking your vehicle in a tight space, or determining the quality-to-value ratio of your take-out lunch.

Automatic Thinking :  An unconscious and instinctive process of human thinking. This term can be used interchangeably with System 1 thinking.

Reasoning:  Consciously using existing information to logically make a decision or reach a conclusion.

Dual Process Model:  A theory in psychology that distinguishes two thought processes in humans by describing them as unconscious and conscious, respectively.

For many centuries, philosophers and psychologists have been able to differentiate instinctive thinking and conscious reasoning, starting as early as the 17th century with Descartes’ mind-body dualism.

William James, an American psychologist, was at the root of this idea in the late 19th century. In his book,  Principles of Psychology , James believed that associative and true reasoning formed the two ways of thinking. 1,2  Associative knowledge was derived only from past experiences, as opposed to true reasoning being used in new, unfamiliar scenarios that an individual is unfamiliar with. James’s ideas laid the groundwork for System 1 and System 2 thinking.

In 1975, psychologists Michael Posner and Charles Snyder developed the dual-process model of the mind in their book,  Attention and Cognitive Control . The dual-process model was a more polished version of James’ ideas, distinguishing the two ways of thinking by describing them as  automatic  and controlled, respectively. 3

As the theory developed, automatic processes were characterized by four conditions:

• They are elicited unintentionally;
• They require only a small amount of cognitive resources;
• They cannot be stopped voluntarily; and
• They happen unconsciously.

Likewise, controlled processes were characterized by four conditions:

• They are elicited intentionally;
• They require a considerable amount of cognitive resources;
• They can be stopped voluntarily; and
• They happen consciously.

However, in 1992, John Bargh challenged these rigid characteristics and suggested that it was virtually impossible for any process to satisfy all four characteristics. 4

Fast forward to 2011, and Daniel Kahneman published his bestselling book,  Thinking, Fast and Slow , popularizing the distinction between automatic and conscious thought processes. 5  In this book, Kahneman incorporated the terms System 1 and System 2 to describe the two processes, first coined by psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West in 2000. 6

Daniel Kahneman

A renowned psychologist in the field of  behavioral economics  who was influential in topics such as judgement and decision-making. Kahneman’s 2011 book,  Thinking, Fast and Slow , popularized the concepts of System 1 & System 2.

William James

An American psychologist, philosopher, and historian who is credited with laying the initial groundwork for two different types of thinking in the late 19th century. His work would go on to influence formal literature on the dual process model in the late 20th century. At Harvard University, James was one of the very first educators to offer a psychology course in the United States. 7

Michael Posner

An American psychologist who, along with Charles Snyder, was one of the first to formally introduce the dual process model. Posner and Snyder’s book,  Attention and Cognitive Control , described the two forms of thinking as automatic and controlled, respectively.

Consequences

Case 1: marketing.

The concepts of System 1 and System 2 have become highly influential in the world of marketing. In a world where consumers have more options than ever, brands often rely on the automatic, feelings-driven processes of System 1 to sell their products. Advertising seeks not just to communicate information about a product, but also to establish certain emotional associations around it that will stick in customers’ heads and drive them to purchase it without extra thought.

The power of System 1 thinking means that overhauled and refreshed marketing campaigns may not be as effective as initially thought. As competition continues to grow fiercely in the field of marketing, many brands are attempting bold, radically new campaigns. However, overhauled campaigns may get rid of the valuable, distinctive features that shape consumers’ automatic perception of the brand’s image. 8  By leveraging a brand’s distinctive image to increase its resonance in consumers’ System 1 thinking, a greater return on investment can be created in the short and long term. 8

That doesn’t mean that System 2 doesn’t play an important role in consumer decisions. For expensive purchases, consumers tend to make decisions based on System 1 beliefs, in addition to a more careful and rational thought-process driven by System 2. 8  Brands can use their knowledge of System 2 to provide a powerful justification, reinforcing consumers’ System 1 beliefs with details, facts or statistics. 8

Case 2: Financial planning

Governments can also take advantage of System thinking to develop effective behavioral interventions. Recognizing System 1 thinking’s automatic preference for the default has led to the development of effective interventions, addressing issues such as insufficient retirement savings. 9

In the United States, behavioral economists recognized that even when workers received a raise, few would actually take action to increase their savings rate. They concluded that the lack of action was a sign of an overreliance on System 1 thinking.

In this case, the default option kept the savings rate the same, unless a worker took action to increase it. To tackle the problem, behavioral economists designed an intervention that automatically increased a worker’s savings rate whenever they received a raise. The automatic increase was able to take advantage of workers’ System 1 thinking to increase savings rates in the US. 9

Controversies

The concepts of System 1 and System 2 thinking have become common in mainstream thinking. The transition from academia to popular culture has resulted in the original theory losing some of its nuance and depth, replaced by simplifications of human thought processes. There are three common misconceptions that have emerged in popular culture. 5

First is the idea that System 1 and System 2 thinking literally represents our brain structure. This is false, and Kahneman even says that “there is no part of the brain that either of the systems would call home.” 10

Second is the idea that System 1 thinking occurs first, followed by System 2 thinking if necessary. Kahneman explains that the dual-system approach combines both forms of reasoning as almost all processes are a mix of both systems. Though difficult scenarios may rely more on System 2, both systems work together. Emotions from our unconscious System 1 processes influence and complement our logical System 2 thinking, and our brain integrates the two to enable us to make purposeful decisions. 5

Finally, popular culture tends to incorrectly label System 1 as the source of bias, and System 2 as the logical correction to said biases. In fact, both systems are susceptible to biases and mistakes, such as  confirmation bias . 5  For example, we may notice information when it supports our existing System 1 beliefs, in addition to using System 2 to analyse new information in order to justify our existing beliefs as a result of the confirmation bias. 5

In 1995, the popularity of M&M’s, the multi-colored chocolate candy, was decreasing. BBDO, an advertising agency, was recruited in an attempt to revitalize the brand. Then-creative director, Susan Credle, had a small budget to work with compared to other iconic brands, like Pepsi or Coke. However, Credle’s approach was highly successful: she made each colour of M&M candy into a character – a ‘spokescandy’. 11  BBDO introduced Red (the sarcastic one), Yellow (the happy one), Blue (the cool one), and Green (the seductive one).

This move resulted in the creation of M&M retail stores and multiple M&M line extensions. 11  The characters became so popular that, in an attempt to prevent consumers from losing interest, BBDO experimented with occasionally removing them from television advertisements. In response, consumers would ask where the characters had gone. 11  The characters were eventually reinstalled, and today, remain easily identifiable.

By developing memorable characters, BBDO was able to successfully ingrain M&M into consumers’ System 1 thinking. This was achieved on a sustainable, mass scale by creating distinctive brand assets. This not only deepens M&M’s resonance in consumers’ System 1 thinking, it also creates more return on investment in the short and long run. 11

Related TDL Content

Automatic Thinking

The Decision Lab takes a closer look at automatic thinking by considering its history, in addition to the consequences and controversies, it is associated with.

How to Protect An Aging Mind From Financial Fraud

Although aging is inevitable, financial fraud in old age isn’t. Elderly individuals in the US alone lose an estimated $3 billion a year to financial scams. System 1 thinking can play a part in this, and research by The Decision Lab offers insights into how this reality can be avoided.

• Dual-process model . (n.d.). Oxford Reference.  https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095732808
• Dual-process models . (n.d.). Psychology Wiki. Retrieved October 12, 2021, from  https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Dual_process_models
• Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual process theories. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.),  The Oxford handbook of social cognition  (pp. 282–312). Oxford University Press.
• Bargh, J. A. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects.  The American Journal of Psychology ,  105 (2), 181.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1423027
• System 1 and System 2 Thinking . (n.d.). The Marketing Society.  https://www.marketingsociety.com/think-piece/system-1-and-system-2-thinking#_ftn1
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?  Behavioral and Brain Sciences ,  23 (5), 645-665.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435
• William James . (n.d.). Department of Psychology.  https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/william-james#:~:text=In%201875%20James%20taught%20one,Stanley%20Hall%20in%201878
• What is ‘System 1’ thinking—and why do you need to learn it?  (17, September 19). Observer.  https://observer.com/2017/09/what-is-system-1-thinking-and-how-do-you-do-it/
• Zheng, J. (2012, February 22).  The benefits of being in two minds . The Conversation.  https://theconversation.com/the-benefits-of-being-in-two-minds-5388#
• Kahneman, D. (2011).  Thinking, Fast and Slow . Doubleday Canada.
• O’Reilly, L. (2016, March 26).  How 6 colorful characters propelled M&M’s to become America’s favorite candy . Business Insider.  https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-the-mms-characters-2016-3

Progressive Disclosure

Mobile First Design

Mental Models

Conversion Funnel

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Get new behavioral science insights in your inbox every month..

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
• Korean J Med Educ
• v.31(4); 2019 Dec

Reasoning processes in clinical reasoning: from the perspective of cognitive psychology

Hyoung seok shin.

Department of Medical Education, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Clinical reasoning is considered a crucial concept in reaching medical decisions. This paper reviews the reasoning processes involved in clinical reasoning from the perspective of cognitive psychology. To properly use clinical reasoning, one requires not only domain knowledge but also structural knowledge, such as critical thinking skills. In this paper, two types of reasoning process required for critical thinking are discussed: inductive and deductive. Inductive and deductive reasoning processes have different features and are generally appropriate for different types of tasks. Numerous studies have suggested that experts tend to use inductive reasoning while novices tend to use deductive reasoning. However, even experts sometimes use deductive reasoning when facing challenging and unfamiliar problems. In clinical reasoning, expert physicians generally use inductive reasoning with a holistic viewpoint based on a full understanding of content knowledge in most cases. Such a problem-solving process appears as a type of recognition-primed decision making only in experienced physicians’ clinical reasoning. However, they also use deductive reasoning when distinct patterns of illness are not recognized. Therefore, medical schools should pursue problem-based learning by providing students with various opportunities to develop the critical thinking skills required for problem solving in a holistic manner.

Introduction

It is hard to describe clinical reasoning in a sentence, because it has been studied by a number of researchers from various perspectives, such as medical education, cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, and so forth, and they have failed to reach an agreement on its basic characteristics [ 1 ]. Accordingly, clinical reasoning has been defined in various ways. Some researchers defined clinical reasoning as a crucial skill or ability that all physicians should have for their clinical decision making, regardless of their area of expertise [ 2 , 3 ]. Others focused more on the processes of clinical reasoning; thus, they defined it as a complex process of identifying the clinical issues to propose a treatment plan [ 4 - 6 ]. However, these definitions are not so different. Taking this into account, it can be concluded that clinical reasoning is used to analyze patients’ status and arrive at a medical decision so that doctors can provide the proper medical treatment.

In reality, properly working clinical reasoning requires three domains of knowledge: diagnostic knowledge, etiological knowledge, and treatment knowledge [ 6 ]. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, structural knowledge is needed to integrate domain knowledge and find solutions based on the learner’s prior knowledge and experience [ 7 ], and structural knowledge can be constructed as a form of mental model by understanding the relations between the interconnected factors involved in clinical issues [ 8 , 9 ]. In this cognitive process, critical thinking skills such as causal reasoning and systems thinking can play a pivotal role in developing deeper understanding of given problem situations. Causal reasoning is the ability to identify causal relationships between sets of causes and effects [ 10 ]. Causality often involves a series or chain of events that can be used to infer or predict the effects and consequences of a particular cause [ 10 - 13 ]. Systems thinking is a thinking paradigm or conceptual framework where understanding is defined in terms of how well one is able to break a complex system down into its component parts [ 14 , 15 ]. It is based on the premise that a system involves causality between factors that are parts of the system as a whole [ 14 ]. Systems thinking is a process for achieving a deeper understanding of complex phenomena that are composed of components that are causally interrelated [ 14 - 16 ]. As a result, causal reasoning and systems thinking are skills that can help people to better understand complex phenomena in order to arrive at effective and targeted solutions that address the root causes of complex problems [ 10 , 12 , 15 ].

If cognitive skills work properly, one can make correct decisions all of the time. However, human reasoning is not always logical, and people often make mistakes in their reasoning. The more difficult the problems with which they are presented, the more likely they are to choose wrong answers that are produced by errors or flaws in the reasoning process [ 17 , 18 ]. Individual differences in reasoning skills—such as systems thinking, causal reasoning, and thinking processes—may influence and explain observed differences in their understanding. Therefore, to better assist learners in solving problems, instructors should focus more on facilitating the reasoning skills required to solve given problems successfully.

In this review paper, the author focuses on the reasoning processes involved in clinical reasoning, given that clinical reasoning is considered as a sort of problem-solving process. Therefore, this paper introduces concepts related to the reasoning processes involved in clinical reasoning and their influences on novices and experts in the field of medical education from the perspective of cognitive psychology. Then, based on the contents discussed, the author will be able to propose specific instructional strategies associated with reasoning processes to improve medical students’ reasoning skills to enhance their clinical reasoning.

Concepts and nature of reasoning processes

Generally, reasoning processes can be categorized into two types: inductive/forward and deductive/backward [ 19 ]. In an inductive reasoning process, one observes several individual facts first, then makes a conclusion about a premise or principle based on these facts. Yet there may be the possibility that a conclusion is not true even though a premise or principle in support of that conclusion is true, because the conclusion is generalized from the facts observed by the learner, but the learner does not observe all relevant examples [ 20 ].

In general, in a deductive reasoning process, according to Johnson-Laird [ 20 ], one establishes a mental model or a set of models to solve given problems considering general knowledge and principles based on a solid foundation. Then, one makes a conclusion or finds a solution based on the mental model or set of models. To verify a mental model, one needs to check the validity of the conclusions or solutions by searching for counterexamples. If one cannot find any counterexamples, the conclusions can be accepted as true and the solutions as valid. Consequently, the initial mental model or set of models can be used for deductive reasoning.

Anderson [ 17 ] proposed three different ways of solving complex problems: means-ends analysis, working backward, and planning by simplification. A means-ends analysis is a process that gets rid of differences between the current state and the ideal state in order to determine sub-goals in solving problems, and the process can be repeated until the major goal is achieved [ 21 - 23 ]. It can be considered an inductive reasoning process, because the distinct feature of means-ends analysis where it achieves sub-goals in consecutive order is similar to inductive reasoning. Working backward is addressed as an opposite concept to means-ends analysis [ 17 ], because it needs to set up a desired result to find causes by measuring the gap between the current state and the ideal state; then, this process is repeated until the root causes of a problem are identified. According to Anderson [ 17 ], means-ends analysis (inductive reasoning) is more useful in finding a solution quickly when a limited number of options are given or many sub-goals should be achieved for the major goal; whereas working backward (deductive reasoning) spends more time removing wrong answers or inferences to find the root causes of a problem. In conclusion, inductive and deductive reasoning processes have different features and can play different roles in solving complex problems.

The use of reasoning processes

A number of researchers across different fields have used inductive and deductive approaches as reasoning processes to solve complex problems or complete tasks. For example, Scavarda et al. [ 24 ] used both approaches in their study to collect qualitative data through interviews with experts, and they found that experts with a deductive approach used a top-down approach and those with an inductive approach used a bottom-up approach to solve a given problem. In a study of Overmars et al. [ 25 ], the results showed that a deductive approach explicitly illustrated causal relations and processes in 39 geographic contexts and it was appropriate for evaluating various possible scenarios; whereas an inductive approach presented associations that did not guarantee causality and was more useful for identifying relatively detailed changes.

Sharma et al. [ 26 ] found that inductive or deductive approaches can both be useful depending on the characteristics of the tasks and resources available to solve problems. An inductive approach is considered a data-driven approach, which is a way to find possible outcomes based on rules detected from undoubted facts [ 26 ]. Therefore, if there is a lot of available data and an output hypothesis, then it is effective to use an inductive approach to discover solutions or unexpected and interesting findings [ 26 , 27 ]. An inductive approach makes it possible to directly reach conclusions via thorough reasoning that involves the following procedures: (1) recognize, (2) select, and (3) act [ 28 ]. These procedures are recurrent, but one cannot know how long they should be continued to complete a task, because a goal is not specified [ 26 ]. Consequently, an inductive approach is useful when analyzing an unstructured data set or system [ 29 ].

On the other hand, a deductive approach sets up a desired goal first, then finds a supporting basis—such as information and rules—for the goals [ 26 ]. For this, a backward approach, which is considered deductive reasoning, gradually gets rid of things proved unnecessary for achieving the goal while reasoning; therefore, it is regarded as a goal-driven approach [ 28 ]. If the output hypothesis is limited and it is necessary to find supporting facts from data, then a deductive approach would be effective [ 26 , 28 ]. This implies that a deductive approach is more appropriate when a system or phenomenon is well-structured and relationships between the components are clearly present [ 29 ]. Table 1 shows a summary of the features and differences of the inductive and deductive reasoning processes.

Features of Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Processes

The classification according to the reasoning processes in the table is dichotomous, but they do not always follow this classification absolutely. This means that each reasoning process shows such tendencies.

Considering the attributes of the two reasoning processes, an inductive approach is effective for exploratory tasks that do not have distinct goals—for example, planning, design, process monitoring, and so on, while a deductive approach is more useful for diagnostic and classification tasks [ 26 ]. In addition, an inductive approach is more useful for discovering solutions from an unstructured system. On the other hand, a deductive approach can be better used to identify root causes in a well-structured context. While both reasoning approaches are useful in particular contexts, it can be suggested that inductive reasoning is more appropriate than deductive reasoning in clinical situations, which focus on diagnosis and treatment of diseases rather than on finding their causes.

Reasoning processes by novices and experts

As mentioned above, which reasoning process is more effective for reaching conclusions can be generally determined depending on the context and purpose of the problem solving. In reality, however, learners’ choices are not always consistent with this suggestion, because they are affected not only by the problem itself, but also by the learner. Assuming that learners or individuals can be categorized into two types, novices and experts, based on their level of prior knowledge and structural knowledge, much research has shown that novices and experts use a different reasoning process for problem solving. For example, in a study of Eseryel et al. [ 30 ], novice instructional designers who possessed theoretical knowledge but little experience showed different patterns of ill-structured problem solving compared to experts with real-life experience. Given that each learner has a different level of prior knowledge relating to particular topics and critical thinking skills, selecting the proper reasoning process for each problem is quite complex. This section focuses on which reasoning process an individual uses depending on their content and structural knowledge.

Numerous studies have examined which reasoning processes are used by experts, who have sufficient content and structural knowledge, and novices, who have little content and structural knowledge, for problem solving. The result of a study of Hong et al. [ 31 ] showed that children generally performed better when using cause-effect inferences (inductive approach) than effect-cause inferences (considered a deductive approach). According to Anderson [ 17 ], people are faced with some difficulties when they solve problems using induction. The first difficulty is in formulating proper hypotheses and the second is that people do not know how to interpret negative evidence when it is given and reach a conclusion based on that evidence [ 17 ]. Nevertheless, most students use a type of inductive reasoning to solve problems that they have not previously faced [ 32 ]. Taken together, the studies suggest that novices generally prefer an inductive approach to a deductive approach for solving problems because they may feel comfortable and natural using an inductive approach but tend to experience difficulties during problem-solving processes. From these findings, it can be concluded that novices are more likely to use inductive reasoning, but it is not always productive.

Nevertheless, there is still a controversy about which reasoning processes are used by experts or novices [ 33 ]. For example, experts in specific domains use an inductive approach to solving problems, but novices, who have a lower level of prior knowledge in specific domains, tend to use a deductive approach [ 23 ]. In contrast, according to Smith [ 34 ], studies in which more familiar problems were used concluded that experts preferred an inductive approach, whereas in studies that employed relatively unfamiliar problems that required more time and effort to solve, experts tended to prefer a deductive approach. In line with this finding, in solving physics problems, experts mostly used inductive reasoning that was faster and had fewer errors for problem solving only when they encountered easy or familiar problems where they could gain a full understanding of the situation quickly, but novices took more time to deductively reason by planning and solving each step in the process of problem solving [ 35 ].

Assuming that an individual’s prior knowledge consists of content knowledge such as knowledge of specific domains as well as structural knowledge such as the critical thinking skills required for problem solving in the relevant field, it seems experts use an inductive approach when faced with relatively easy or familiar problems; while a deductive approach is used for relatively challenging, unfamiliar, or complex problems. In the case of novices, it may be better to use deductive reasoning for problem solving considering that they have a lower level of prior knowledge and that even experts use deductive reasoning to solve complex problems.

Inductive and deductive reasoning in clinical reasoning

In medicine, concepts of inductive and deductive reasoning apply to gathering appropriate information and making a clinical diagnosis considering that the medical treatment process is a form of problem solving. Inductive reasoning is used to make a diagnosis by starting with an analysis of observed clinical data [ 36 , 37 ]. Inductive reasoning is considered as scheme-inductive problem solving in medicine [ 36 ], because in inductive reasoning, one first constructs his/her scheme (also considered a mental model) based on one’s experiences and knowledge. It is generally used for a clinical presentation-based model, which has been most recently applied to medical education [ 38 ].

In contrast, deductive reasoning entails making a clinical diagnosis by testing hypotheses based on systematically collected data [ 39 ]. Deductive reasoning is considered an information-gathering method, because one constructs a hypothesis first then finds supporting or refuting facts from data [ 36 , 40 ]. It has been mostly used for discipline-based, system-based, and case-based models in medical education [ 38 ].

Inductive and deductive reasoning by novice and expert physicians

A growing body of research explores which reasoning processes are mainly used by novices and experts in clinical reasoning. Novice physicians generally use deductive reasoning, because limited knowledge restricts them from using deductive reasoning [ 1 , 38 ]. Also, it is hard to consider deductive reasoning as an approach generally used by experts, since they do not repeatedly test a hypothesis based on limited knowledge in order to move on to the next stage in the process of problem solving [ 38 ]. Therefore, it seems that deductive reasoning is generally used by novices, while inductive reasoning is used by expert physicians in general. However, this may be too conclusive and needs to be further examined in the context of clinical reasoning.

In clinical reasoning, inductive reasoning is more intuitive and requires a holistic view based on a full understanding of content knowledge, including declarative and procedural knowledge, but also structural knowledge; thus, it occurs only when physicians’ knowledge structures of given problems are highly organized [ 38 ]. Expert physicians recognize particular patterns of symptoms through repeated application of deductive reasoning, and the pattern recognition process makes it possible for them to apply inductive reasoning when diagnosing patients [ 10 ]. As experts automate a number of cognitive sequences required for problem solving in their own fields [ 35 ], expert physicians automatically make appropriate diagnoses following a process of clinical reasoning when they encounter patients who have familiar or typical diseases. Such a process of problem solving is called recognition-primed decision making (RPDM) [ 41 , 42 ]. It is a process of finding appropriate solutions to ill-structured problems in a limited timeframe [ 10 ]. In RPDM, expert physicians are aware of what actions should be taken when faced with particular situations based on hundreds of prior experiences [ 10 ]. These prior experiences are called illness scripts in diagnostic medicine [ 10 ], and this is a concept similar to a mental model or schema in problem solving.

However, expert physicians do not always use inductive reasoning in their clinical reasoning. Jonassen [ 10 ] categorized RPDM into three forms of variations in problem solving by experts, and the first form of variation is the simplest and easiest one based on inductive reasoning, as mentioned above. The second type of variation occurs when an encountered problem is somewhat atypical [ 10 ]. Even expert physicians are not always faced with familiar or typical diseases when treating patients. Expert physicians’ RPDM does not work automatically when faced with atypical symptoms, because they do not have sufficient experiences relevant to the atypical symptoms. In this case, it can be said that they have weak illness scripts or mental models of the given symptoms. In the second variation, experts need more information and will attempt to connect it to their prior knowledge and experiences [ 10 ]. Deductive reasoning is involved in this process so that problem solvers can test their hypotheses in order to find new patterns and construct new mental models based on the newly collected data and previous experiences. The third variation of RPDM is when expert physicians have no previous experience or prior knowledge of given problem situations; in other words, no illness script or mental model [ 10 ]. Jonassen [ 10 ] argued that a mental simulation is conducted to predict the consequences of various actions by experts in the third variation. This process inevitably involves repetitive deductive reasoning to test a larger number of hypotheses when making a diagnosis.

Similarly, from the perspective of dual process theory as a decision-making process, decision making is classified into two approaches based on the reasoning style: type 1 and type 2 (or system 1 and system 2) [ 43 , 44 ]. According to Croskerry [ 44 ], the type 1 decision-making process is intuitive and based on experiential-inductive reasoning, while type 2 is an analytical and hypothetico-deductive decision-making process [ 44 , 45 ]. A feature that distinguishes the two processes is whether a physician who encounters a patient’s symptoms succeeds in pattern recognition. If a physician recognizes prominent features of the visual presentation of illness, type 1 processes (or system 1) are operated automatically, whereas type 2 (or system 2) processes work if any distinct feature of illness presentation is not recognized [ 44 ].

Only experienced expert physicians can use RPDM [ 10 , 46 ] or type 1 and 2 processes [ 43 ], because it can occur solely based on various experiences and a wide range of prior knowledge that can be gained as a result of a huge amount of deductive reasoning since they were novices. Consequently, it can be concluded that expert physicians generally use more inductive reasoning when they automatically recognize key patterns of given problems or symptoms, while sometimes they also use deductive reasoning when they additionally need processes of hypothesis testing to recognize new patterns of symptoms.

From the perspective of cognitive processes, clinical reasoning is considered as one of the decision-making processes that finds the best solutions to patients’ illnesses. As a form of decision making for problem solving, two reasoning processes have been considered: inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can be used to make a diagnosis if physicians have insufficient knowledge, sufficient time, and the ability to analyze the current status of their patients. However, in reality, it is inefficient to conduct thorough deductive reasoning at each stage of clinical reasoning because only a limited amount of time is allowed for both physicians and patients to reach a conclusion in most cases. A few researchers have suggested that using deductive reasoning is more likely to result in diagnostic errors than inductive reasoning, because evidence-based research, such as deductive reasoning, focuses mainly on available and observable evidence and rules out the possibility of any other possible factors influencing the patient’s symptoms [ 37 , 38 ]. However, when a physician encounters unfamiliar symptom and the degree of uncertainty is high, deductive reasoning is required to reach the correct diagnosis through analytical and slow diagnostic processes by collecting data from resources [ 44 ]. Taken together, in order to make the most of a limited timeframe and reduce diagnostic errors, physicians should be encouraged to use inductive reasoning in their clinical reasoning as far as possible given that patterns of illness presentation are recognized.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy for novice physicians to apply inductive or deductive reasoning in all cases. Expert physicians have sufficient capabilities to use both inductive and deductive reasoning and can also automate their clinical reasoning based on inductive reasoning, because they have already gathered the wide range of experiences and knowledge required to diagnose various symptoms. Novice physicians should make a greater effort to use inductive reasoning when making diagnoses; however, it takes experiencing countless deductive reasoning processes to structure various illness scripts or strong mental models until they reach a professional level. As a result, teaching not only clinical reasoning as a whole process but also the critical thinking skills required for clinical reasoning is important in medical schools [ 47 ]. For this, medical schools should pursue problem-based learning by providing students with various opportunities to gain content knowledge as well as develop the critical thinking skills —such as data analysis skills, metacognitive skills, causal reasoning, systems thinking, and so forth—required for problem solving in a holistic manner so that they can improve their reasoning skills and freely use both inductive and deductive approaches in any context. Further studies will be reviewed to provide detailed guidelines or teaching tips on how to develop medical students’ critical thinking skills.

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author contributions

All work was done by HS.

The Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Critical Theory

Comparing approaches..

Posted February 15, 2024 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

• Critical theory is a way of identifying, critiquing, and challenging social dynamics and power structures.
• Modern critical theory seems to skip a lot of steps associated with logic and mechanisms of good thinking.
• Human beings think in hierarchically structured fashion, and they develop social groups in a similar manner.

I recently asked a fellow academic, in conversation, how they try to integrate critical thinking into their classroom, and they replied that they don’t have "much time for that kind of thing." I quickly realised that they didn’t know what I was talking about and likely confused it for something else. This shouldn’t have been entirely surprising to me, given research by Lloyd and Bahr (2010) indicates that, unfortunately, many educators are not au fait with what critical thinking actually is. Following further conversation, I came to understand what this academic was referring to: critical theory. This was neither the first time I’ve encountered such confusion of terms, nor was it the first time I heard criticism of the field.

What Critical Theory Is

I recognise that the phrasing "critical lens" one often hears in educational contexts might be a bit ambiguous and could be perceived in various ways. Critical thinking is many things, but one thing it is not is critical theory. Critical theory is an arts and humanities approach to identifying, critiquing, and challenging social dynamics and power structures within society (e.g., see Tyson 2023, Marcuse, 1968). Simply, it’s a critique of society; hence, the name—though some in the field would argue this and uphold the belief that it’s an association with our beloved critical thinking. I would argue that such people would fit in well with the aforementioned cohort of people who don’t really understand what critical thinking is.

The critical theory approach developed out of post-World War II German social climates as a means of exploring how Germany and, indeed, Europe got to where they were at that point in time. This is reasonable; indeed, psychology was interested in these implications as well (e.g., consider the work of Milgram and Asch). Critical theory grew from there into other socially aware applications. Despite methodological concerns, there is some good work done through critical theory. However, there is also considerable poor research done in this area. I would argue that the core reason for this is that the approach is often founded in bias . That is, unfortunately, a lot of modern critical theory starts with the proposition that some dynamic is "bad." Now, I’m not saying that many of the dynamics often under investigation aren’t bad, but starting research on the basis of a biased perspective doesn’t sound like a particularly promising rationale. Where’s the critical thinking? Where’s the evaluation? If you truly care about the topic, apply critical thinking from an unbiased perspective. Modern critical theory seems to skip a lot of steps associated with logic and the mechanisms of good thinking.

The purpose of this brief discussion on critical theory is two-fold. First, it’s argued that there has been "considerable" growth in the field in recent years (e.g., critical theory student numbers, growing presence in popular society, and growing inclusion in educational curricula), which is concerning given the rationale above, and, second, consistent with my observation in the introduction, its name is unfortunately similar to "critical thinking" and, thus, the two are often confused for one another. Please, don’t make this mistake.

Power Structures

Similar to the aforementioned negative social dynamics, I’m not saying that power structures don’t exist either. Look at families: Parents hold "power" over their children. Look at jobs: Employees are under the power of their managers, who are under the power of other managers, and so on. Indeed, depending on what country you live in, your government has varying levels of power over those it governs (e.g., with respect to law and policy-making). Some will argue that it’s the people who should be governing themselves: voting in law- and policy-makers as representatives, which is reasonable to me, but not all governments are like this— that’s politics for you (e.g., largely belief-led) , so what can you do? "Think critically about it" would be a reasonable response in the context of this page, and that is notably distinct from engaging in critical theory.

The point is that such "structures" are naturally occurring. Human beings think in hierarchically structured fashion (e.g., through schema construction, classification, categorisation) and they develop social groups in a similar manner. That’s not to say that we should accept such structures in all situations, but no amount of academia is likely to change human nature; believe me, we’ve been trying to get people to think critically for a long time. Another important consideration for recognising this commonality is our expectance of these structures. Unfortunately, because we expect to see them everywhere, we wind up creating many of them, through our interpretations, when they might not even exist.

So, if you are approaching your research from the perspective that because something (e.g., some group) experiences, for example, a less-than-desirable event or condition, it’s very easy—without the application of critical thinking—that such negative outcomes should be attributed to some other group, in a sort of causal relationship. The problem is, as opposed to this being a conclusion ( a leads to b ), it is often the starting point of research, which then biases the methodology and its outcomes. For example, in an effort not to single out any particular group, let’s say I’m studying some topic from a Zuggist perspective (I made-up the word/group "Zug"). Considering the fact that I side with Zuggists—I might even be a Zug myself—the chances of me reporting something that is biased in favour of Zugs is more likely than not. To me, that’s not good research.

Again, I’m not saying that all research from a critical theory approach is like this, but, unfortunately, a noticeable amount of it is. Sure, every field has its barriers and "crises" from time to time: Psychology has been battling a replicability crisis in recent years. However, at least psychology (for the most part) recognises the importance of replicability and other research mechanisms associated with good methodology. I have concerns about that with respect to critical theory.

All in all, critical theory doesn’t mean much to me, but, for now, like my fellow academic said in the introduction, "I don’t have much time for that kind of thing." So, why bother talking about it here? This page is focused on critical thinking and good decision-making . These are the outcomes in which I and readers of this blog are interested, alongside learning more about how we can enhance them. It’s difficult enough conceptualising and describing critical thinking without having something similarly named adding further confusion. I’m not putting blame on anyone for the manner in which they coined the term "critical theory"; however, I think it important that people from all walks of life know the differences between them, because those differences are many and important.

Lloyd, M., & Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4, 2, 1–16.

Marcuse, Herbert. "Philosophy and Critical Theory," in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory , with translations from the German by Jeremy J. Shapiro (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pp. 134–158.

Tyson, L. (2023). Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide . Taylor & Francis.

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 Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Comparison of Critical Thinking based on Decisionmaking Style and Brain-behavioral System in Psychology Students

Aim: This study aimed to compare the levels of critical thinking based on decision making styles and behavioral brain systems through a causal comparative study. The research population consists of all students of the master's degree in psychology in Allameh Tabataba'i University in the second semester of 2017-18. A sample of 117 men and women was selected by convenience sampling. Then, Critical Thinking Questionnaire, Behavioral Brain System Scale and Decision-Making Styles Questionnaire were completed. The results of ANOVA and independent t-test revealed a significant difference between critical thinking of the two modes of behavioral brain system. In terms of decision-making styles, critical thinking did not show significant differences between individuals with rational and intuitive styles. Therefore, it can be concluded that individual characteristics, particularly the type of decision-making style and type of brain-behavioral system, can affect critical thinking.

Related Papers

مجلة الآداب

Procedia-Social and …

A. Seda Saracaloğlu

Natcha Mahapoonyanont

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Innovative Research Across Disciplines (ICIRAD 2019)

Ida Bagus Nyoman Sudria

Marmara Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği'nin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Mustafa Özgenel

The purpose of this research is to develop a scale that can measure the general critical thinking dispositions of teachers and administrators in a valid and reliable way. In the scale development process, the literature was firstly searched, the critical thinking related scales were examined, the item pool was established and the draft scale were arranged in the direction of the expert and teacher opinions. The scale development study, 410 teachers participated in 2016-2017 academic year in Istanbul Province of Pendik. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Barlett test values were calculated to determine whether the collected data were appropriate for factor analysis. As a result of the exploratory factor analysis made to determine the factor structure of the scale, a structure consisting of 6 factors and 28 items was obtained. Factors derived from the exploratory factor analysis were called as reasoning, reaching judgment, search evidence, search the truth, open-mindedness and systematiccity. The 6-factor scale explained 56.35% of the total variance. The correlation coefficients between the factors were found to be significant. The general reliability of the scale was calculated as Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient 0.91. The item-total and item-remainder correlation coefficients are found significant. The lower and the upper %27 independent sample t-tesi were determined to be distinguishing the items. In the test-retest analysis, the subscales and the general of the scale and the correlation coefficients for were significant. The developed scale is called "Marmara Critical Thinking Tendency Scale (MEDEÖ)". It is concluded that in the light of the studies and analyzes done, teachers and administrators are a valid and reliable scale that measures the general critical thinking dipositions.

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Muhammad Noor Kholid

Problem solving in mathematics is something that can not be separated from the ability to think critically. Whereas critical can be influenced by cognitive style. This study describes the students&#39; critical thinking character in mathematics problem solving in terms of cognitive style. Data was collected using test techniques, observation notes, interviews, and video recordings. Subjects included were 7th grade students of MTs Agung Alim Blado Indonesia. The number of subjects was 4 students, consisting of 2 students with Field Independent cognitive style (FI) and 2 students with Field Dependent (FD) cognitive style. The results showed differences in critical thinking skills between FI subjects and FD subjects. Subjects FI fullfil all of the critical thinking aspects such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self regulation. Subjects FD only fulfill a number of indicators in critical thinking aspects.

Technium Social Sciences Journal

Siti Mujanah

This research aimed to analyze factors that can influence the critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian to meet the competitive needs in the global market faced by college graduates. The population of this study were the students from several universities which were 116 from Malaysia and 175 from Indonesia. This research used a quantitative approach to analyze data to test hypotheses. Descriptive explanatory research methode used by finding the cause of the emergence of students’ critical thinking With this research, The data were collected using the survey method, which is a questionnaire as an instrument for gathering data. The findings indicate that factors that determine on Critical thinking of Indonesian and Malaysian were educational factors and personal factors. However, family factor and healthy food do not affect them substantially. Interestingly, in terms of education and family conditions, there were differences between Indonesian and Malaysian respondents, and Indon...

Higher Education Studies

Education and Self Development

Petr Kovarik

Critical thinking is necessary not only to understand the academic content, but also to effectively carry out activities related to one’s own profession. The aim of the research was to identify the level of critical thinking in university students and to determine the influence of selected variables on the level of critical thinking. The variables were gender, age, use of the media, necessity of the media, up-to-date information, up-to-date professional information, and health information on the Internet. Fifty respondents studying at university participated in the research. Both bachelor’s and master’s students at the age of 21 to 36 were involved in the study. In order to achieve the set goal, an quantitative approach was adopted using a critical thinking test (Criticatl Thinking Test for university Students - CTTUS) as a research technique. Descriptive, inductive and multivariate statistics were applied for the data analysis. Age and gender emerged as important factors. Informati...

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Child Language / Volume 41 / Issue 02 / March 2014, pp 382 - 415

Clifton Pye

David Israel

Madalina Fiterau

Jackson Herrera Rocha

Johannes C Cronje

Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring

Catherine Striley

Javier Sanchez Medina

Acta Sociologica

Arne Kalleberg

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Ashley Reichelmann

Brain Disorders & Therapy

Richard Peppard

Ashley J. Holmes

Eduardo Rehbein Rodrigues

Journal of Structural Fire Engineering

Ghasem Pachideh

Nur Kholifah Fitria

Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B

René Lefever

Journal of Family Research

Anna Rosińska

Neuro-Oncology

Alexander Yuile

Ética y Valores en Educación

Angel Homero Flores Samaniego

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Sabuktagin Rahman

American Journal of Epidemiology

LAURA LIZBETH MUNEVAR RODRIGUEZ

SSRN Electronic Journal

Leonardo Martinez

Nanoscale research letters

Man Mahendra Singh

IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics

Matjaz Sraml

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Sergio D Bergese

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Design Thinking vs Critical Thinking: Unraveling the Key Differences

Design thinking and critical thinking are two approaches that individuals and organizations use to solve problems and make decisions. Design thinking, a non-linear, iterative process, involves understanding users, challenging assumptions, redefining problems, and creating innovative solutions through prototyping and testing. Whereas critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, and logical reasoning to reach well-founded conclusions based on evidence and context.

However, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They can complement and strengthen each other in various fields and applications. Design thinking can offer educators creative new approaches to engage students in critical thinking, while critical thinking can be integrated into product design and development methods. Both approaches emphasize different aspects of problem-solving and decision-making, ultimately contributing to more effective and innovative solutions.

Key Takeaways

• Design thinking and critical thinking are distinct approaches to problem-solving, but can be combined effectively.
• Both methods can be applied in various fields, from education to product development.
• Empathy, feedback, and cultural context play significant roles in the successful integration of design thinking and critical thinking.

Understanding Design and Critical Thinking

In this section, we will explore the concepts of design thinking and critical thinking, their definitions, and how they relate to each other.

Definition of Design Thinking

Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that focuses on understanding the user’s experience and needs. It is characterized by empathy, collaboration, and experimentation to develop innovative solutions for design challenges. This methodology encourages designers to take risks and iterate on their ideas until they find a solution that addresses users’ needs and desires effectively. Design thinking often involves creative thinking and abductive reasoning , as designers generate multiple alternative solutions and refine them based on feedback and iterations.

Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a process of evaluating information, identifying assumptions, and making reasoned decisions based on evidence. It encompasses reflective thinking, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Reflective thinking involves assessing one’s assumptions and beliefs, while deductive reasoning uses general principles to make specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, draws general conclusions from specific observations and examples.

When problem-solving, both design thinking and critical thinking are essential components that contribute to effective decision-making. By incorporating elements of both creative thinking and reflective thinking, individuals can better grasp the nuances of a problem, identify potential solutions, and evaluate their efficacy. This balanced approach, drawing on the strengths of the critical thinking process and the design thinking mindset, can promote more successful outcomes in both product design and development.

Ultimately, understanding the relationship between design thinking and critical thinking is essential for designers, researchers, and problem solvers as they tackle complex problems and work together to create innovative solutions.

Differentiating Critical and Design Thinking

Process of design thinking.

Design thinking is a collaborative, creative methodology that focuses on defining and solving complex problems through empathy and experimentation. It involves understanding the users’ needs, brainstorming solutions, and rapidly prototyping to test and refine ideas. Design thinking includes techniques and tools for problem-solving and emphasizing human-centered design that enables businesses to create innovative solutions for their customers.

The design thinking process typically includes the following steps:

• Empathize : Understand the users’ needs, motivations, and constraints by putting oneself in their shoes and actively seeking feedback.
• Define : Identify users’ needs and pain points by observing and analyzing patterns and refining the problem statement.
• Ideate : Generate various solutions to the identified problems using brainstorming and other creative techniques, with an emphasis on divergent thinking.
• Prototype : Create low-fidelity representations of the proposed solution(s) for the purpose of testing with users.
• Test : Evaluate the prototypes with users, gather feedback, and iterate on the design to improve it further.

Process of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an intellectual process that involves evaluating and analyzing information, concepts, and data. It is a method for evaluating situations from different perspectives to arrive at an unbiased, optimum solution. Critical thinking encompasses a range of cognitive skills and methods, such as logic, reasoning, and skepticism, for gathering and assessing evidence, making connections, and developing well-informed conclusions.

The critical thinking process can typically be broken down into the following steps:

• Identify : Determine the problem or issue faced and establish the context in which it exists.
• Gather : Collect relevant information and data from various sources to understand the issue better.
• Analyze : Break down the collected information into smaller components, identify patterns, relationships, and other essential factors.
• Evaluate : Assess the reliability, credibility, and relevance of the information found during the analysis phase.
• Synthesize : Integrate the analyzed information and insights to arrive at a well-informed conclusion or decision about the issue in question.

While both critical and design thinking involve problem-solving and analysis, they differ in their approach, focus, and methodology. Design thinking is more focused on empathy and creativity, creating innovative solutions to meet users’ needs. In contrast, critical thinking centers on logic, reasoning, and evidence-based evaluation to make well-informed decisions or judgments. The combination of both modes of thinking can enhance the problem-solving process and lead to more efficient and innovative outcomes for businesses and individuals.

Applications in Various Fields

Design thinking and critical thinking are essential skills that drive growth and innovation across various fields. This section explores their applications in product creation and decision making.

Design Thinking in Product Creation

Design thinking plays a crucial role in product creation as it enables organizations to develop innovative and user-centered solutions. By focusing on empathy, creativity, and iterative prototyping, design thinking fosters an environment where products are tailored to meet users’ needs.

For instance, through observing and interacting with potential customers, businesses can better understand their audience and identify their pain points. This process helps them formulate problems that need to be addressed, leading to more targeted product development strategies.

The iterative nature of design thinking encourages businesses to create multiple prototypes, test them, gather feedback, and refine their designs until the desired user experience is achieved. This flexibility often results in more innovative products that solve real-life problems while staying within the bounds of business models .

Critical Thinking in Decision Making

Critical thinking is an essential component of decision making across various fields, including business, science, and politics. Unlike design thinking, critical thinking revolves around the analysis and evaluation of information. It helps individuals and organizations to:

• Define clear objectives and criteria for decision making, enabling them to prioritize goals and assess the feasibility of different solutions.
• Analyze information to identify the underlying patterns, trends, and relationships that might influence a given situation.
• Evaluate the credibility of sources, data, and arguments to make well-informed decisions.

In the context of organizations, critical thinking can be applied to improve internal processes, optimize resource allocation, and identify potential risks. Furthermore, developing a culture of critical thinking can empower employees to make better decisions independently, leading to increased efficiency and more robust business models.

Both design thinking and critical thinking contribute significantly to the development of innovative products, enhanced user experiences, and improved decision-making processes. By leveraging these complementary skill sets, organizations can unleash their full potential and thrive in various fields.

The Role of Empathy and Feedback

Empathy plays a crucial role in design thinking as it helps designers understand and connect with their users’ emotions, perspectives, and concerns. By developing a strong sense of empathy, designers can tailor their designs to better meet users’ needs and expectations. Empathy allows designers to create more user-centric products and experiences, ultimately leading to higher levels of user satisfaction and engagement source .

Feedback, on the other hand, serves as a valuable tool for improving and refining designs. It enables designers to receive insights from users and stakeholders, helping them identify areas of improvement or new opportunities to explore. By actively seeking feedback, designers can ensure that their designs are aligned with users’ expectations while also addressing any potential issues or concerns. The feedback process also promotes collaboration and encourages critical thinking, essential components for any successful design project source .

Incorporating empathy and feedback into the design process can often yield innovative solutions to complex problems. By understanding users’ needs and expectations, designers can develop more targeted and effective designs. Open communication and a willingness to embrace feedback lead to continuous improvement and adaptation, resulting in better project outcomes.

When comparing design thinking and critical thinking, both empathy and feedback serve as key differentiators. While critical thinking focuses on objective analysis, design thinking prioritizes empathy and the emotional connection with users. Furthermore, feedback serves as a bridge between design and critical thinking, enabling designers to adapt their designs based on input from users and stakeholders.

Ultimately, the role of empathy and feedback in design thinking is critical for creating meaningful and impactful designs. By incorporating these elements into the process, designers can develop products and experiences that delight users and meet their needs, expectations, and preferences.

The Cultural Impact

Creating an innovative culture.

Design thinking and critical thinking play a vital role in shaping the culture of organizations and teams. Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that emphasizes empathy, experimentation, and iteration. It is often used in the fields of technology, services, and sustainability. Companies like IDEO and various businesses have integrated design thinking into their strategies to enhance innovation and user-centricity.

An innovative culture can be nurtured by embracing design thinking principles. The purpose is to promote collaboration and open-mindedness, allowing teams to approach problems from various perspectives. This also encourages a behavior of continuous learning, as individuals are urged to challenge their preconceptions and be more adaptable.

Integrating design thinking can lead to valuable advancements in technology and services, creating a sustainable business strategy. By fostering an environment that supports experimentation and growth, organizations can stay ahead in their respective industries.

Nurturing a Culture of Critical Examination

On the other hand, critical thinking focuses on systematic analysis, evaluation, and judgment. It aims to improve decision-making by helping individuals control their cognitive biases and maintain a neutral stance. This thought process adds value to problem-solving by promoting rationality and thorough examination.

A culture that nurtures critical thinking encourages individuals to question their assumptions and assess the validity of their beliefs. Implementation of this thinking process instills a sense of responsibility and accountability, thus contributing to a more effective problem-solving.

A blend of critical thinking and design thinking can lead to comprehensive problem-solving approaches, as it combines empathy, creativity, and in-depth analysis. By incorporating both methodologies into their organizational culture, businesses can foster an environment that continually drives growth, adaptability, and sustainable success.

Practical Approaches and Techniques

Design iteration process.

The design iteration process is a crucial aspect of design thinking, which is an approach for practical and creative problem-solving primarily focused on human-centered design ( source ). Tim Brown, an expert in design thinking, emphasizes the importance of empathizing with users to devise innovative problem-solving solutions. This human-centered approach can be applied to various fields such as interaction design, product design, and even urban planning.

In the design iteration process, teams go through multiple stages that involve empathizing, defining problems, ideating, prototyping, and testing. These stages are continuously repeated to improve and refine the final solution. Iterating is an essential part of this process as it allows designers to address any shortcomings in earlier stages and adjust their prototypes accordingly.

Critical Thinking and Decision Making Process

Critical thinking is a vital component in making well-informed decisions that account for authentic and accurate information ( source ). This process encompasses various aspects, including synthesizing information, evaluating evidence, reflecting on data, and reconstructing arguments. Critical thinking is essential in fields like product design, business, and engineering, as it enables professionals to analyze and validate various aspects of their work.

The decision-making process is intertwined with critical thinking as it relies on the accurate and logical evaluation of information. In this process, individuals apply critical thinking skills to weigh the pros and cons of different alternatives and choose the best course of action, considering both short-term and long-term consequences. It is also essential to revisit decisions regularly, as this allows for adjustments and improvements based on new evidence and insights.

By integrating both design thinking and critical thinking into their processes, individuals and teams can not only solve problems more creatively but also make decisions that are grounded in evidence and sound reasoning. Both approaches, when used effectively, can lead to better outcomes in a wide range of disciplines, including design, urban planning, and business.

Design thinking and critical thinking are two distinct approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. Design thinking emphasizes empathy, collaboration, and creative exploration to find innovative solutions to complex issues source . On the other hand, critical thinking focuses on evaluating and analyzing information to make well-informed decisions source .

While both of these methodologies have their unique advantages, they can also complement one another. By integrating design thinking practices into critical thinking, practitioners can enhance their ability to address problems and generate effective solutions. This happens through the potential for design thinking methods to augment traditional critical thinking practices source .

In the professional world, design thinking has become a valuable skill that can lead to career advancements and increased salaries, especially among marketing managers source . In tandem, critical thinking remains a widely accepted educational goal, making it an essential skill for nearly any profession source .

Ultimately, understanding both design thinking and critical thinking empowers individuals to tackle complex problems with comprehensive and flexible frameworks. By leveraging the strengths of each approach, professionals from various sectors can effectively navigate challenges and produce solutions that benefit their organizations and communities.

You may also like

Critical Thinking job interview questions

In all areas of work the applicants have their own reasons for applying for a position, and the main aim of the […]

Critical Thinking for Problem Solving

Critical thinking is the process to rationally analyze and attempt to solve a problem – accurately and efficiently. This method is made […]

Best Children’s Books on Critical Thinking: Top Picks for Young Minds in 2023

Introducing children to critical thinking at an early age is essential for their cognitive development. Engaging in thought-provoking activities not only helps […]

History of Critical Thinking

The history of critical thinking stretches all the way back to Socrates, who was around from 470 BC to 399 BC. So, […]

Thinking vs Critical Thinking: Difference and Comparison

Whenever we draw a conclusion or make an opinion about something, we think about all the possible aspects of a topic, or we directly conclude as per what our mind says.

This is the process of thinking or critical thinking. Both topics have vast matters in them. 

Key Takeaways Thinking is a mental process that involves cognitive functions such as perception and memory, while critical thinking requires deliberate analysis and evaluation of information. Critical thinking involves skills like problem-solving, logical reasoning, and decision-making. Critical thinking aims to achieve objective understanding and rational conclusions instead of thinking, which biases and emotions can influence.

Thinking vs Critical Thinking

The difference between thinking and critical thinking is that thinking involves the act of analyzing something at a basic or ground level and acting fast whereas critical thinking is the act of analyzing all the possible outcomes and characteristics of something until a conclusion or opinion is formed.

Thinking is a process in which a person quickly and readily forms a thought about something. It does not require or take long hours to analyse the situation or topic.

Thinking is a very active, necessary, and frequent action which we come across in our daily lives. 

Critical thinking is a different field. It is also the action of thinking but has exceptions.

Critical thinking involves the analysis of the situation or the topic and investigating every possible outcome and all peculiar properties of the case. It is time taking and more substantial.

Comparison Table

What is thinking.

Thinking is analyzing, examining, investigating, and making a thought or an opinion about a situation kept after us or a topic we think about.

Thinking is a fundamental and general activity that we all do in our daily lives. Almost every work we do involves thinking.

However, thinking is not always active; it can also be passive.

Active thinking involves drawing an opinion about something for our benefit. In contrast, passive thinking means thinking about something passively that is not at all beneficial to us or just imagination is considered as passive thinking.

Thinking is a stress-free task and does not tire us like overthinking or critical thinking.

The act of thinking is also not always factual or based upon evidence.

Thinking can be pointless too. It can reflect one’s personality and behaviour also. In other words, the thinker also sometimes fails to conclude the thought they raised in their mind.

Thinking is a rapid, reliable, and frequent activity. For instance, someone can eat the food later if they are not hungry at that particular time.

This thought can come in fractions of seconds in someone’s brain and is all a result of thinking. 

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a more complex and tedious task than thinking. As the name itself says, critical thinking involves thinking seriously and critically.

Unlike thinking, it involves using assumptions, observations, factual knowledge, and evidence to conclude the situation or an ongoing topic.

Critical thinking is a very stressful action. It also requires research and proper analysis of something before concluding. Moreover, it is also time-consuming.

Sometimes, it may last for hours, but the decision still becomes manipulative. It also requires an intense investigation.

Although it is not frequent or quick, it may also stress somebody’s personal life.

Critical thinking is done upon serious tasks like a family matter that stresses the underaged children of that family and lets them think about the situation more often.

Critical thinking is an occasional action. Critical thinking involves thinking more than what the matter requires.

When done in excess, critical thinking also turns hazardous to health, causing headaches and anxiety.

Sometimes people combine critical thinking abilities and overthinking, which results in significant losses yet perfect conclusions.

Critical thinking includes seeking knowledge and drawing conclusions, whereas overthinking is just an obsession .

Main Differences Between Thinking and Critical Thinking

• Thinking is the process of forming a thought about something and can be done in a fraction of a second which is less time-consuming, whereas critical thinking consumes a lot of time and energy too.
• Thinking involves the practice of analyzing only visible aspects of something, which is kept right in front, whereas critical thinking involves every aspect of the topic and involves unseen sides and details also.
• Thinking can be done for unwanted and unnecessary things also, whereas critical thinking always focuses on being productive and is for important things only. 
• Thinking never gives stress whereas critical thinking does.
• Thinking may or may not always conclude, whereas critical thinking always leads to a conclusion.

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.17.1.248.pdf
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00733.x

Last Updated : 13 July, 2023

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Emma Smith holds an MA degree in English from Irvine Valley College. She has been a Journalist since 2002, writing articles on the English language, Sports, and Law. Read more about me on her bio page .

Similar Reads

• Divergent vs Convergent Thinking: Difference and Comparison
• Concrete vs Abstract Thinking: Difference and Comparison

Share this post!

10 thoughts on “thinking vs critical thinking: difference and comparison”.

This was a very informative article, I learned a lot from the detailed comparison between thinking and critical thinking.

I respectfully disagree with the stress-free aspect of thinking mentioned. Sometimes even simple thinking can lead to stress.

It is very important to always think critically, not just think, we must always investigate and analyze all the possible outcomes.

It’s interesting how thinking can reflect one’s personality and behavior, very well explained.

Absolutely, understanding the nature of thinking is crucial for self-awareness.

The comparison between thinking and critical thinking was detailed and thought-provoking.

This article provides an in-depth understanding of the intricate process of critical thinking.

The distinction between thinking and critical thinking is clear, and it provides valuable insights.

It’s essential to understand the difference between thinking and critical thinking in order to make well-informed decisions.

I truly believe that critical thinking is an essential skill to navigate through the complexities of life.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!