rational thought problem solving

Rational Decision Making: The 7-Step Process for Making Logical Decisions

Published: October 17, 2023

Psychology tells us that emotions drive our behavior, while logic only justifies our actions after the fact . Marketing confirms this theory. Humans associate the same personality traits with brands as they do with people — choosing your favorite brand is like choosing your best friend or significant other. We go with the option that makes us feel something.

But emotions can cloud your reasoning, especially when you need to do something that could cause internal pain, like giving constructive criticism, or moving on from something you’re attached to, like scrapping a favorite topic from your team's content calendar.

There’s a way to suppress this emotional bias, though. It’s a thought process that’s completely objective and data-driven. It's called the rational decision making model, and it will help you make logically sound decisions even in situations with major ramifications , like pivoting your entire blogging strategy.

But before we learn each step of this powerful process, let’s go over what exactly rational decision making is and why it’s important.

What is Rational Decision Making?

Rational decision making is a problem-solving methodology that factors in objectivity and logic instead of subjectivity and intuition to achieve a goal. The goal of rational decision making is to identify a problem, pick a solution between multiple alternatives, and find an answer.

Rational decision making is an important skill to possess, especially in the digital marketing industry. Humans are inherently emotional, so our biases and beliefs can blur our perception of reality. Fortunately, data sharpens our view. By showing us how our audience actually interacts with our brand, data liberates us from relying on our assumptions to determine what our audience likes about us.

Rational Decision Making Model: 7 Easy Steps(+ Examples)

1. Verify and define your problem.

To prove that you actually have a problem, you need evidence for it. Most marketers think data is the silver bullet that can diagnose any issue in our strategy, but you actually need to extract insights from your data to prove anything. If you don’t, you’re just looking at a bunch of numbers packed into a spreadsheet.

To pinpoint your specific problem, collect as much data from your area of need and analyze it to find any alarming patterns or trends.

“After analyzing our blog traffic report, we now know why our traffic has plateaued for the past year — our organic traffic increases slightly month over month but our email and social traffic decrease.”

2. Research and brainstorm possible solutions for your problem.

Expanding your pool of potential solutions boosts your chances of solving your problem. To find as many potential solutions as possible, you should gather plenty of information about your problem from your own knowledge and the internet. You can also brainstorm with others to uncover more possible solutions.

Potential Solution 1: “We could focus on growing organic, email, and social traffic all at the same time."

Potential Solution 2: “We could focus on growing email and social traffic at the same time — organic traffic already increases month over month while traffic from email and social decrease.”

Potential Solution 3: "We could solely focus on growing social traffic — growing social traffic is easier than growing email and organic traffic at the same time. We also have 2 million followers on Facebook, so we could push our posts to a ton of readers."

Potential Solution 4: "We could solely focus on growing email traffic — growing email traffic is easier than growing social and organic traffic at the same time. We also have 250,000 blog subscribers, so we could push our posts to a ton of readers."

Potential Solution 5: "We could solely focus on growing organic traffic — growing organic traffic is easier than growing social and email traffic at the same time. We also just implemented a pillar-cluster model to boost our domain’s authority, so we could attract a ton of readers from Google."

3. Set standards of success and failure for your potential solutions.

Setting a threshold to measure your solutions' success and failure lets you determine which ones can actually solve your problem. Your standard of success shouldn’t be too high, though. You’d never be able to find a solution. But if your standards are realistic, quantifiable, and focused, you’ll be able to find one.

“If one of our solutions increases our total traffic by 10%, we should consider it a practical way to overcome our traffic plateau.”

4. Flesh out the potential results of each solution.

Next, you should determine each of your solutions’ consequences. To do so, create a strength and weaknesses table for each alternative and compare them to each other. You should also prioritize your solutions in a list from best chance to solve the problem to worst chance.

Potential Result 1: ‘Growing organic, email, and social traffic at the same time could pay a lot of dividends, but our team doesn’t have enough time or resources to optimize all three channels.”

Potential Result 2: “Growing email and social traffic at the same time would marginally increase overall traffic — both channels only account for 20% of our total traffic."

Potential Result 3: “Growing social traffic by posting a blog post everyday on Facebook is challenging because the platform doesn’t elevate links in the news feed and the channel only accounts for 5% of our blog traffic. Focusing solely on social would produce minimal results.”

Potential Result 4: “Growing email traffic by sending two emails per day to our blog subscribers is challenging because we already send one email to subscribers everyday and the channel only accounts for 15% of our blog traffic. Focusing on email would produce minimal results.”

Potential Result 5: “Growing organic traffic by targeting high search volume keywords for all of our new posts is the easiest way to grow our blog’s overall traffic. We have a high domain authority, Google refers 80% of our total traffic, and we just implemented a pillar-cluster model. Focusing on organic would produce the most results.”

5. Choose the best solution and test it.

Based on the evaluation of your potential solutions, choose the best one and test it. You can start monitoring your preliminary results during this stage too.

“Focusing on organic traffic seems to be the most effective and realistic play for us. Let’s test an organic-only strategy where we only create new content that has current or potential search volume and fits into our pillar cluster model.”

6. Track and analyze the results of your test.

Track and analyze your results to see if your solution actually solved your problem.

“After a month of testing, our blog traffic has increased by 14% and our organic traffic has increased by 21%.”

7. Implement the solution or test a new one.

If your potential solution passed your test and solved your problem, then it’s the most rational decision you can make. You should implement it to completely solve your current problem or any other related problems in the future. If the solution didn’t solve your problem, then test another potential solution that you came up with.

“The results from solely focusing on organic surpassed our threshold of success. From now on, we’re pivoting to an organic-only strategy, where we’ll only create new blog content that has current or future search volume and fits into our pillar cluster model.”

Avoid Bias With A Rational Decision Making Process

As humans, it’s natural for our emotions to take over your decision making process. And that’s okay. Sometimes, emotional decisions are better than logical ones. But when you really need to prioritize logic over emotion, arming your mind with the rational decision making model can help you suppress your emotion bias and be as objective as possible.

Don't forget to share this post!

Related articles.

Decision Trees: A Simple Tool to Make Radically Better Decisions

Mental Models: The Ultimate Guide

The Ultimate Guide to Decision Making

How Product Packaging Influences Buying Decisions [Infographic]

The Five Stages of the Consumer Decision-Making Process Explained

Outline your company's marketing strategy in one simple, coherent plan.

Marketing software that helps you drive revenue, save time and resources, and measure and optimize your investments — all on one easy-to-use platform

The Ultimate Guide to Rational Decision-Making (With Steps)

Making decisions is an integral part of our lives. However, how many times do we really stop to think whether our choices are rational or not?

This article dives deep into the concept of rational decision-making, its importance, real-life examples, steps involved, factors influencing it, ways to enhance your skills, potential challenges, and how cognitive biases impact it. Let’s dive in.

What is Rational Decision-Making?

Rational decision-making, at its core, is a multi-step process used to make choices that are logical, informed, and objective. It involves identifying a decision problem, gathering information, evaluating alternatives, and selecting the most rational choice. This is a stark contrast to decisions based on subjectivity or intuition, which may often rely on feelings, emotions, or personal biases.

The goal of rational decision-making is to reach decisions that support your objectives in the most optimal way. The basis of this process is rationality—a concept that propels us to make decisions that provide the maximum benefit or, in other words, the best possible outcome. Rationality encourages us to follow a path that aligns with our goals and values while making decisions. It’s an antidote to impulsive choices or decisions clouded by bias and personal emotions.

While intuitive decisions can sometimes lead to effective outcomes, especially in situations demanding quick responses, rational decision-making allows us to consider all available options, analyze their potential consequences, and make an informed choice. This often leads to decisions that are more aligned with our long-term goals and less likely to result in unintended consequences.

Why is Rational Decision-Making Important?

Rational decision-making is the cornerstone of effective problem-solving and critical thinking. It helps us to make informed choices that are not only beneficial but also ethical, a crucial aspect in both personal and professional life.

In business, rational decision-making can lead to strategies that maximize profit, minimize risk, and promote organizational growth. It ensures resource optimization by aligning decisions with business objectives. Rationality ensures that every decision is data-driven, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes.

On a personal level, rational decision-making can help us make better choices about our health, finances, relationships, and more. It enables us to make choices that align with our values and life goals, improving our overall quality of life.

Examples of Using Rational Decision-Making

Let’s see how rational decision-making manifests in various spheres.

Business: A company looking to launch a new product will employ rational decision-making. They’ll conduct market research, analyze competitor products, evaluate their resources, and predict potential profits before making a decision. This ensures the decision is based on facts and not just intuition.

Leadership: Leaders use rational decision-making while shaping policies or resolving conflicts. A school principal, for instance, may have to decide whether to enforce a strict no-mobile policy.

They’ll consider the pros and cons, consult with teachers, parents, and students, and make a decision that is most beneficial for the school’s academic environment.

Personal Finance: An individual considering their retirement savings plan would utilize rational decision-making. They might begin by understanding the importance of saving for retirement and gathering information about various options like 401(k)s, IRAs, or traditional savings accounts.

They would evaluate these alternatives, considering factors like potential growth, risk level, and tax benefits. The decision would be based on their financial situation, retirement goals, and risk tolerance, ensuring their choice is not impulsive but grounded in careful consideration and analysis.

Steps Involved in Rational Decision-Making

The rational decision-making process comprises several key steps. Here’s a rundown:

1. Identify the Decision

The first step in rational decision-making is acknowledging that a decision is required. The decision is usually a problem but can also be an opportunity. This is the foundational stage where the problem or situation is recognized, and the need for a decision becomes apparent.

You can’t make a rational decision unless you know exactly what the problem is and the context of the decision that needs to be made. Ask yourself questions such as:

• Why does a decision need to be made?
• What consequences will unfold if no decision is made?
• What desired outcome are we aiming for?
• What stands in the way of achieving it?

Take, for instance, a business observing declining profits. The company identifies the problem and realizes that strategic decisions need to be made to address this issue.

It might ask: What is the reason behind the decreasing profits? What will happen if the situation is not addressed? What are our financial goals, and what is impeding us from achieving them? This level of detailed understanding and clarity sets the stage for the subsequent steps of the decision-making process.

2. Gather Information

Once the decision has been identified, the next step is to gather relevant information about it. This could include data analysis, research, consultations with experts, surveys, etc.

Using the previous example, the business might look into financial statements, assess market trends, and consider feedback from customers. A thorough and unbiased collection of data is critical as it forms the backbone of a rational decision.

3. Identify Alternatives

The third step involves generating a list of potential alternatives. There is often more than one way to address a problem or situation, so it’s important to consider different approaches and options.

For the business facing decreasing profits, alternatives could include cost-cutting, investing in new marketing strategies, introducing new products, or even merging with another company. Creativity and open-mindedness are key in this stage to ensure a wide range of options.

4. Evaluate Alternatives

After generating alternatives, the next crucial step is to evaluate each one. This stage involves a systematic analysis of the pros and cons, feasibility, potential impact, and other factors pertinent to each option. Here, establishing your decision criteria—such as cost-effectiveness, scalability, risk level, and potential return—is key. Once established, these criteria need to be weighed based on their importance to solving the problem at hand.

For example, a business might establish criteria like cost, projected return, and alignment with company values. These criteria would be applied to evaluate the potential impact of different marketing strategies, the feasibility of cost-cutting measures, or the implications of a merger.

This systematic evaluation process, underpinned by established and weighted decision criteria, enables a business to compare and contrast different options effectively. It assists in determining which alternative aligns best with the defined criteria and thus holds the highest potential for success.

5. Choose an Alternative

This step involves making the actual decision among the evaluated alternatives. Typically, the best alternative is the one with the greatest likelihood of solving the issue, paired with the lowest degree of risk.

It’s where the business might choose the most cost-effective marketing strategy that is expected to reach the widest audience. While this stage concludes with a decision, the rational decision-making process is not yet complete.

6. Take Action

This is where the chosen alternative is implemented. It involves carrying out the decision and monitoring its progress.

For the business, this would mean launching the selected marketing strategy and keeping a close eye on metrics such as customer engagement, sales, and profit margins. It’s important to remember that this stage might involve overcoming obstacles and making adjustments as necessary.

7. Review the Decision

The final step of the process is to review and evaluate the results of the decision. This includes analyzing whether the decision has resolved the problem or situation and, if not, considering what adjustments need to be made.

In our business example, this could mean assessing whether the new marketing strategy has indeed increased profits. If it hasn’t, the business might need to revisit previous steps of the process to identify and implement a new decision.

These steps make up the backbone of the rational decision-making process, enabling us to systematically approach our choices, ensuring they are backed by logic and evidence.

Assumptions for Using a Rational Decision-Making Model

To effectively utilize the rational decision-making process, it’s necessary to make several key assumptions. These assumptions create a baseline for the decision-making process and help ensure its effective implementation:

• Complete Information: One must assume that all the information needed to make the decision is available and accessible. This includes details about the problem, potential solutions, and their outcomes.
• Decision-Maker Rationality: The person making the decision is assumed to be rational, meaning they are objective, logical, and aim to make the best choice based on the information available.
• Clear Objectives: The decision-maker is assumed to have clear and consistent objectives or goals that guide the decision-making process.
• Time and Resources: It’s assumed that the decision-maker has adequate time and resources to gather information, evaluate alternatives, and make a decision.
• Decision-Maker Independence: The decision-maker is assumed to have the freedom and authority to make the decision without undue influence or restrictions.
• Stable Environment: The environment in which the decision is being made is assumed to be stable, allowing for reliable predictions about the consequences of each alternative.
• Logical Evaluation: It’s assumed that the decision-maker can logically evaluate the pros and cons of each alternative, weigh them against each other, and make a rational choice.

Other Rational Decision-Making Models

While the steps above cover the basics of rational decision-making, there are several rational decision-making models that have been developed by scholars and researchers over the years.

These models provide structured approaches to making decisions based on logical reasoning and analysis. Here are a few examples:

• The Rational Economic Model: This model assumes that individuals make decisions by maximizing their utility or satisfaction, considering all available information, and weighing the costs and benefits of different alternatives.
• The Bounded Rationality Model: Proposed by Herbert Simon, this model recognizes that humans have limitations in processing information and making fully rational decisions. It suggests that individuals make decisions that are “good enough” rather than optimal, taking into account their cognitive constraints and the available information.
• The Normative Decision Model: This model focuses on the ideal decision-making process, providing a step-by-step framework for making rational decisions. It emphasizes gathering complete information, considering all alternatives, and evaluating the potential outcomes before selecting the best option.
• The Garbage Can Model: This model views decision-making as a chaotic process that occurs in organizations. It suggests that decisions often result from a combination of problems, solutions, participants, and circumstances coming together in a “garbage can” and being resolved opportunistically.
• The Prospect Theory: Proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, this model challenges the assumptions of rational decision-making by considering how individuals assess and weigh potential gains and losses. It suggests that people tend to be risk-averse when it comes to gains but risk-seeking when it comes to losses.

These are just a few examples of rational decision-making models. Each model offers a unique perspective and set of principles for approaching decision-making tasks. The choice of model depends on the context, problem complexity, available information, and the decision-makers preferences and constraints.

Factors Influencing Rational Decision-Making

While the idea of making a completely rational decision sounds perfect, in reality, our decisions are often influenced by various factors.

• Information Availability: The amount and quality of information at our disposal can greatly influence our decisions. With limited or incorrect information, we may end up making less-than-optimal decisions.
• Time Constraints: Often, we are pressed for time while making decisions. Under such constraints, we might not go through the full rational decision-making process.
• Cognitive Limitations: Our cognitive capacity to process information and make decisions is limited. We can be overwhelmed with too many alternatives or complex decision scenarios.
• Emotions: Our emotions often play a part in our decisions. We might make irrational choices under emotional distress.

Impact of Cognitive Biases on Rational Decision-Making

Cognitive biases can seriously impact our rational decision-making abilities. These mental shortcuts or “biases” can lead us to make decisions that are not in our best interest.

For instance, confirmation bias can make us pay more attention to information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ignore contradicting evidence. Similarly, the anchoring bias can cause us to rely heavily on the first piece of information we receive when making decisions.

Cognitive biases often lead to irrational choices. Being aware of these biases is the first step towards mitigating their impact on our decision-making process.

Potential Challenges in Rational Decision-Making

Rational decision-making, despite its merits, isn’t without its challenges. Some of these include:

• Information Overload: In an age of data deluge, filtering through massive amounts of information to make decisions can be overwhelming.
• Analysis Paralysis: Overanalyzing or overthinking can lead to indecision or delays in decision-making.
• Unpredictable Outcomes: Even with a thorough analysis, outcomes can be unpredictable due to the dynamic nature of our environment.

Developing Rational Decision-Making Skills

Wondering how to become better at making rational decisions? Here are some tips to get you going:

• Improve Critical Thinking: Critical thinking allows us to objectively analyze information and logically derive conclusions. By developing your critical thinking skills, you can better evaluate decision alternatives.
• Practice Mindfulness: Being aware of your thoughts and emotions can help you identify when they are clouding your decision-making process.
• Use Decision-Making Models: Decision-making models can provide a structured approach to rational decision-making. They can help guide you through complex decision scenarios.

Remember, developing rational decision-making skills takes time and practice. Stay patient and keep practicing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Rational decision-making is a structured, logical process that uses evidence and analysis. Intuitive decision-making relies on instinct and gut feelings.

Yes, rational decision-making can be applied in personal situations like choosing a career, managing finances, or making health-related decisions.

Yes, decision-making models like SWOT analysis, decision trees, or cost-benefit analysis can provide structured approaches to enhance rationality.

Wrapping Up

Rational decision-making is a skill that can transform our personal and professional lives, steering us toward more informed and effective choices. Though challenges exist, with awareness and practice, we can significantly improve our decision-making prowess.

By understanding the nuances of rational decision-making, we not only enhance our decision-making abilities but also become better thinkers, planners, and problem-solvers. Now, isn’t that a step towards a more informed and empowered life?

Your Might Also Like

10 goal-setting tips to boost productivity and personal development.

Effective Goal Setting: Unlock Your Full Potential

Smart goals: a comprehensive guide to goal setting and achievement.

How to Apply Rational Thinking in Decision Making

I. introduction.

Have you ever thought about how you make decisions? Every day, in different situations, we need to make a series of decisions – from what to wear or what to eat for breakfast to more significant choices like career moves or financial investments. These decisions can have far-reaching effects on our personal and professional life. That’s why it’s important to approach decision-making in a purposeful and rational manner.

Let’s begin by understanding what rational thinking is: it’s a cognitive process that involves logical and objective reasoning. Basically, it’s a method used to logically process information and make a sensible judgement or decision. It’s about thinking clearly, sensibly, and logically, ensuring our actions are not guided by emotion, bias, or prejudice.

Decisions are an integral part of our lives. However, the quality of these decisions can vary greatly based on how we approach them. Irrational or impulsive decisions can lead to negative consequences or regret. Meanwhile, employing a rational thought process can lead to well-informed, balanced decisions that we can feel confident about.

Rationality is such a pivotal aspect of thoughtful decision-making, and harnessing it can truly be life-changing. In this blog post, we will understand the concept of rational thinking, its role in decision making, and how you can adopt it in your everyday life. By the conclusion of this article, we will also present you with tips to improve these critical thinking skills, and showcase real-life scenarios where rational thinking has proven successful. Let’s embark on this rational journey. It’s decision time!

II. Understanding Rational Thinking

Rational thinking, as the term implies, refers to a certain approach or method that involves the use of reason in processing information and formulating decisions. It encourages us to act based on facts, evidence, and logic rather than succumbing to emotional impulses or personal biases.

A. Detailed Definition of Rational Thinking

Rational thinking, in the broadest sense, is the cognitive process wherein the identification and evaluation of evidence guide an action or belief. Its synonyms include critical thinking, logical reasoning, or analytical thinking, and it is the cornerstone of problem-solving, innovation, and decision-making.

This form of thinking is characterized by deductive and inductive reasoning - where you draw general conclusions from specific observations or specific conclusions from general principles.

“In its essence, rational thinking is a systematic, disciplined process demanding keen intellect and an open mind” - Dr. Janeen DeMarte, Psychologist

B. Core Elements of Rational Thinking

So, what goes into rational thinking? Here are the three major elements that define the process:

1. Objectivity

One of the primary parts of rational thinking is maintaining objectivity. This means having an unbiased outlook and assessing situations based on facts rather than personal feelings or preconceived notions. It involves a scientific approach to thinking, where all available evidence is considered before making a judgment.

Logic is the bedrock of rational thinking. Every argument or conclusion that you make via rational thinking must logically follow from the premises. Anything that contradicts this principle is considered fallacious or invalid.

Lastly, honesty is integral to rational thinking. Often people manipulate facts to match their predetermined conclusion, but rational thinking necessitates an honest approach. It involves being truthful about the facts and accepting the conclusion that follows, no matter how it aligns with initial assumptions or desires.

C. Why Is Rational Thinking Important?

Rational thinking serves as our guiding light to navigate the complexities of the world around us. The more rational we are, the better we can understand reality, solve problems, and make informed decisions. It helps us step out of our emotional chaos and subjective bias, ensuring our decisions are grounded in reason and logic.

The importance of rational thinking is not confined to grandiose decisions, but also to our routine lives. From simply deciding your daily diet to complex decisions like career planning, rational thinking plays an essential role.

“Rational thinking helps us stay aligned with reality, improve the quality of our lives, and bring us closer to our objectives.”

V. Case Study: Successful Rational Decision Making in Real-life Scenarios

Let’s delve into some real-world instances where a rational approach led to successful decision-making outcomes. These case studies provide tangible insight into how rationality can have a profound impact on the decision-making process, and underscores the value of thinking rationally in our daily undertakings.

A. Steve Jobs and the Creation of the iPhone

One celebrated instance of rational decision-making is the creation of the revolutionary product – the iPhone. Steve Jobs, the late co-founder of Apple Inc., is renowned for his resolute decision to push for the iPhone’s development despite facing internal opposition.

Jobs identified the problem – the absence of a substantial mobile device merging a music player and a communication tool. He gathered relevant information about the technological landscape, the market, potential competitors, and customer needs.

Employing logic, he assessed this data objectively and determined that such a product stood a good chance of carving a niche in the market. His bold, rational decision gave birth to one of the world’s most sought-after pieces of technology.

B. Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol Crisis Response

Another notable example comes from the pharmaceutical industry. In 1982, Johnson & Johnson faced a severe crisis when seven people in Chicago died after consuming its widely popular product, Tylenol, which had been laced with cyanide.

Regardless of the unknown culprit being an external actor, Johnson & Johnson embarked on a highly rational decision-making process. They first recognized the problem – a massive blow to their product’s credibility and potential loss of customer trust.

Information was gathered on the scale of the disaster and potential options to reinstate public confidence. Evincing remarkable honesty, the company opted to recall all Tylenol capsules, costing them over $100 million. This proved to be a rational decision in the long term, as it exemplified their enduring commitment to customer safety and restored their damaged reputation.

C. Elon Musk’s SpaceX Venture

Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, offers a more recent example. His decision to enter the space industry was a steep one, as space exploration had been dominated by national governmental organizations, like NASA.

The problem Musk identified was the lack of affordable methods to explore and travel in space. Gathering information about the industry, technological capacities, and prices, he realized with objectivity the huge challenge he faced. However, he saw a possibility where others did not.

SpaceX was established to create more affordable spacecraft and has since successfully launched many missions, proving that a private company can compete in this astoundingly complex field. This indicates that rational thinking and calculated risk-taking can pave the way for ground-breaking revolutions.

VI. Tips to Improve Rational Thinking Skill

Rational thinking isn’t an inborn skill that some are privileged to have and others not. Rather, it’s a learnable skill that can be honed and developed with time, effort, consistency and patience. Here are some methods you can use to elevate your rational thinking:

A. Self-awareness

Cultivating self-awareness is the first step to improving your rational thinking skill. This involves being mindful of your thoughts, feelings, actions, and biases. Question your beliefs and conclusions, and try to understand both the emotion and rationality behind your thoughts.

“> Cultivating self-awareness is like pulling the curtain back on your internal drama, revealing the characters in play and understanding their motivations.”

Being aware of your cognitive biases can also enhance your rational thinking. Cognitive biases are thinking errors we make that can affect our decisions and judgments. For instance, the confirmation bias can block us from accepting new information. By recognizing these biases, we can counteract them and think more rationally.

B. Constant Learning

Rational thinking isn’t a static skill. Instead, it constantly needs fuel in the form of knowledge to grow stronger. Surround yourself with diverse knowledge sources such as books, podcasts, articles, seminars, conversations with people from different walks of life and industry experts. The more information you gather, the more well-rounded your understanding of the world will be, allowing for more sound judgments.

“> Lifelong learning is a limitless source of fuel for rational thoughts. It broadens your experiences and perspectives and helps you make decisions from an informed viewpoint.”

C. Cultivating Patience

Rational thinking requires patience. Quick decisions often lead to irrational outcomes. When you have more patience, you are much more likely to gather all the relevant information and think the situation over before coming to a decision. Be patient, take the time to think, and do not be swayed by the impulsiveness that often accompanies decision-making.

“> Patience is more than simply waiting. It’s the ability to keep a good attitude while working hard, focusing on your goal and trusting in the process.”

Remember, rational thinking is a journey, not a destination, and growth often takes effort to realize. But with consistency, self-awareness, patience, and the desire to learn, you can substantially improve your rational thinking skills and make more informed and logical decisions in your day-to-day life.

VII. Conclusion

In conclusion, it’s clear that rational thinking is a highly beneficial tool when it comes to decision making. Logic, honesty and objectivity are the key elements that enable us to make rational decisions.

“Rational thinking is not just about making decisions that benefit us in the short term, it’s about making decisions that will continue to benefit us in the long run.”

If we let our situations, emotions or biases determine our decisions, we may face unfavorable outcomes. Hence, exercising rationality helps us avoid the negative consequences of irrationality.

Rational thinking doesn’t only enable us to make well thought-out decisions, it also allows us to understand why we make certain decisions. We learnt about a simple step-by-step guide which can be integrated into our everyday life, helping us approach even the most complex problems rationally.

Remember the stories of successful rational decision making we shared? They provide real-life examples of how beneficial rational thinking can be. These people were able to achieve great things by thinking rationally and you can too!

Furthermore, we should always strive to improve our rational thinking skills. This can be achieved by promoting self-awareness, practicing patience, and dedicating ourselves to constant learning.

All in all, it’s important to realize that our decisions shape our lives. Consequently, the way we approach our decisions plays a big role in determining our successes and failures. By incorporating rational thinking into our decision making, we can ensure that we’re making the best possible decisions that will lead us towards our desired outcomes.

To paraphrase a famous quote,

“Every decision we make, and every step we take, is a result of our thinking. Therefore, if we want to change our lives, we must first change our thinking.”

Let’s strive to apply rational thinking in our everyday decision making and see the powerful positive impact it can have on our lives!

VIII. Call to Action

In conclusion, rational thinking plays a crucial role in making sound decisions personally or professionally.

“The key to good decision making is evaluating alternatives carefully and thoroughly. This calls for us to utilize our cognitive abilities rationally.”

Taking the time to analyze situations objectively, consider all feasible options, and logically draw conclusions will greatly improve our decision-making abilities.

Implement Rational Thinking

Now that you have a better understanding of rational thinking’s importance in decision-making, it is time to evaluate your own decision-making processes. Start by identifying opportunities in your daily life where you can apply rational thinking. You may be surprised at how often you encounter decision-making scenarios. From determining what to have for breakfast, choosing the route for your daily commute to making important business decisions, rational thinking can be applied intelligibly.

Continuous Improvement

Enriching rational thinking skills isn’t a process that happens overnight. It requires sustained effort and continuous learning.

• Try to maintain a continuous self-awareness of your decision-making processes.
• Aim to always gather relevant information before making decisions.
• Strive to interpret the given information objectively without any personal bias.
• Ensure to consider all possible options and outcomes before coming to a conclusion.

In addition, developing patience is equally critical as rushing through decisions can lead to errors in judgment.

“Genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way.” ~ Charles Bukowski

The beauty of rational thinking lies in its simplicity. It’s about being grounded in reality, and making decisions logically.

Further Resources

While this post provides a good starting point, there’s much more to explore when it comes to rational thinking and decision making. Books, online courses, and workshops can provide in-depth information and practical exercises to help you further improve your rational thinking skills. Search for resources that best suit your learning style, and make a commitment to continuous growth.

Remember, every decision we make shapes our life. Thus, each decision, no matter how small, should be made after thorough rational consideration. Adopt rational thinking today and make it an integral part of your daily life. Your future self will thank you!

Unlock Your Purpose Through Passion

Effective negotiation strategies, 3 steps to improved rational thinking, 5 surprising statistics about rational thinking, 10 irrational thoughts we must eliminate, why do we often lack rational thinking.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make Rational Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty

• Cheryl Strauss Einhorn

A four-step approach.

We’re all used to operating with a degree of uncertainty, but between the Covid pandemic and a contentious election year, 2020 is shaping up to be even more unpredictable than usual. When we feel such heightened uncertainty, our decision-making processes can break down, and we may act based on bias, emotion, and intuition instead of logic and fact.  The author offers a four-step framework to pause and assess ambiguous data: 1) Identify which data you’re working with; 2) Recognize which cognitive biases might accompany that data; 3) Invert the problem to identify what you really need to know; and 4) Formulate the right questions to get the answers you need.

As we’re battling a virus that scientists still don’t fully understand, watching the stock market sink, then soar, then sink again, and facing a contentious election, the future seems completely unpredictable (instead of merely as unpredictable as it has always been). When we feel such heightened uncertainty, our decision-making processes can break down. We may become paralyzed and afraid to act, or we may act on the basis of bias, emotion, and intuition instead of logic and facts.

• Cheryl Strauss Einhorn is the founder and CEO of Decisive, a decision sciences company using her AREA Method decision-making system for individuals, companies, and nonprofits looking to solve complex problems. Decisive offers digital tools and in-person training, workshops, coaching and consulting. Cheryl is a long-time educator teaching at Columbia Business School and Cornell and has won several journalism awards for her investigative news stories. She’s authored two books on complex problem solving, Problem Solved for personal and professional decisions, and Investing In Financial Research about business, financial, and investment decisions. Her new book, Problem Solver, is about the psychology of personal decision-making and Problem Solver Profiles. For more information please watch Cheryl’s TED talk and visit areamethod.com .

Partner Center

The Rational Decision Making Model: A Guide to Clear and Logical Choices

Making decisions is a part of everyday life, whether it’s choosing what to eat for dinner or deciding on a business strategy. Sometimes, decisions are straightforward, but other times, they require careful thought and analysis. The rational decision making model is a structured approach that helps guide us through this process, ensuring that we make well-considered, logical choices. This guide will walk you through each step of the model and show you how to apply it to your decisions.

What is the Rational Decision Making Model?

The rational decision-making model is a structured and systematic approach to making decisions. It involves analyzing a problem, evaluating possible solutions, and selecting the best option based on logical reasoning and evidence. The model breaks down the decision-making process into clear steps to ensure that decisions are made thoughtfully and objectively, minimizing biases and maximizing the chances of success.

In essence, the model helps you make informed choices by focusing on facts, data, and a logical process rather than relying on intuition or emotions. It’s often used in business and personal contexts where important decisions need to be made carefully and with consideration of all relevant factors.

Key Principles of the Rational Decision Making Model

The key principles of the rational decision-making model guide you in making well-informed, logical choices. These principles help you approach decisions thoughtfully, increasing the likelihood of achieving successful outcomes.

• Logical thinking - Make decisions based on facts and clear reasoning, not just feelings or guesses.
• Fair evaluation - Consider all options equally and judge them based on specific criteria without letting personal bias influence your choice.
• Step-by-step process - Follow a clear set of steps to ensure you cover all aspects of the decision thoroughly.
• Evidence-based choices - Base your decisions on solid information and data to reduce uncertainty and make better choices.
• Consistency - Use the same approach for every decision to ensure your choices are reliable and align with your goals.

What is Rational Decision Making?

Rational decision-making is a methodical approach to making choices by carefully analyzing a problem, evaluating possible solutions, and selecting the best option. It involves using logic, facts, and a clear process to make decisions, rather than relying on emotions or guesses. This approach helps ensure that decisions are well-considered, objective, and aligned with the desired goals or outcomes.

How to Use the Rational Decision Model for Decision Making

Follow these detailed steps to use the rational decision-making model to make well-informed, logical choices that lead to better outcomes.

1. Define the problem

The first step is to clearly identify the problem or decision you need to make. Take your time to understand what’s really at stake and why this decision is important. If the problem is not well-defined, you might end up focusing on the wrong issue or making a decision that doesn’t address the real challenge. A well-defined problem provides a strong foundation for the rest of the decision-making process.

2. Identify decision criteria

Next, you need to determine what factors will influence your decision. These are the criteria that matter most in solving the problem, such as cost, time, quality, or impact. By identifying these criteria upfront, you ensure that your decision-making process focuses on the most important aspects. This step helps clarify what’s truly important and sets the stage for evaluating your options.

3. Weigh the criteria

Once you’ve identified your criteria, the next step is to assign a weight or rank to each one. Not all criteria are equally important, so you need to decide which factors should have the most influence on your decision. For example, if cost is more critical than time, you would give it a higher weight. Weighing the criteria helps prioritize your decision-making and ensures that the most important factors guide your choice.

• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

4. Generate alternatives

Now it’s time to brainstorm different options or solutions. Think creatively and consider a range of alternatives that could solve the problem. The goal is to come up with as many viable options as possible. Having a variety of alternatives increases the chances of finding the best solution. Don’t limit yourself to just one idea—explore all possible avenues.

5. Evaluate alternatives

With your options in hand, it’s time to compare each one against your criteria. Analyze the pros and cons of each alternative and see how well they meet the factors you’ve identified. This step is about making a careful, objective evaluation of your options. By systematically assessing each alternative, you can identify the best fit based on your priorities and needs.

6. Make the decision

After evaluating the alternatives, it’s time to make your decision. Choose the option that best meets your criteria and solves the problem. Ensure that your choice aligns with your overall goals and priorities. This is the moment where you commit to a course of action, confident that you’ve made a thoughtful and informed decision based on a thorough analysis.

7. Implement the decision

Once the decision is made, you need to put it into action. Create a plan that outlines the steps needed to carry out the decision, assign tasks, and gather the necessary resources. Implementation is crucial because even the best decision can fail without a solid plan. This step ensures that your decision leads to real, tangible results.

8. Monitor and evaluate the outcome

Finally, you should monitor how your decision is working out. Keep track of progress and regularly assess whether the solution is achieving the desired results. If things aren’t going as planned, be ready to make adjustments. Monitoring allows you to catch problems early, while evaluating the outcome helps you learn from the experience and improve future decisions.

Rational Decision vs Intuitive Decision Making

Rational decision-making is a structured approach that relies on careful analysis, facts, and logical reasoning. It involves a step-by-step process where all options are considered, making it ideal for complex decisions that require thorough evaluation. However, it can be time-consuming. In contrast, intuitive decision-making is quicker and relies on instincts and gut feelings, drawing from past experiences and subconscious insights. This approach is useful in fast-paced situations where decisions need to be made swiftly, but it may lead to biases or overlook important details. While rational decision-making emphasizes logic and evidence, intuitive decision-making focuses on speed and experience.

Techniques for Rational Decision Making

These techniques can be used individually or in combination to support rational decision-making, ensuring that your choices are well-informed and aligned with your goals.

1. Cost-benefit analysis

This technique involves comparing the costs and benefits of each option. By evaluating the potential gains and losses, you can make decisions that maximize benefits while minimizing costs.

2. SWOT analysis

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis helps you assess both internal and external factors that can impact your decision. This technique gives you a balanced view of the pros and cons.

3. Decision matrix

A decision matrix , or weighted scoring model, allows you to evaluate options against a set of criteria. You assign weights to each criterion and score each option, helping you choose the best one based on the overall score.

4. Pareto analysis

Also known as the 80/20 rule, Pareto analysis helps you focus on the options that will have the greatest impact. By identifying the key factors that contribute most to the outcome, you can prioritize the most effective solutions.

5. Risk analysis

Risk analysis involves assessing the potential risks associated with each option. By understanding and planning for risks, you can make more informed decisions and avoid unexpected setbacks.

6. Decision tree

A decision tree is a visual tool that maps out possible choices and their potential outcomes. It helps you explore different scenarios and make decisions that consider all possible consequences.

7. Break-even analysis

This technique helps you determine the point at which a decision will start generating positive results. By calculating the break-even point, you can decide whether an option is worth pursuing.

Advantages and Limitations of the Rational Decision Making Model

By understanding these advantages and limitations, you can decide when to use the rational decision-making model and when a more flexible approach might be better.

Advantages of the Rational Decision-Making Model

• Clear and logical decisions - The model ensures that decisions are made based on facts and logical reasoning, reducing the chances of mistakes or poor choices.
• Thorough analysis - By following a step-by-step process, the model helps you explore all possible options and evaluate them carefully, leading to well-thought-out decisions.
• Minimizes biases - Since the model relies on objective data and evidence, it reduces the influence of personal biases and emotions on the decision-making process.
• Consistency - Using the same structured approach for different decisions leads to consistent outcomes, making it easier to replicate success in future decisions.
• Confidence in decisions - Knowing that your choice is based on a logical process and solid evidence can increase your confidence in the decision.

Limitations of the Rational Decision-Making Model

• Time-consuming - The detailed, step-by-step process can take a lot of time, making it less practical for decisions that need to be made quickly.
• Requires complete information - The model relies on having all relevant information available, which isn’t always possible, leading to potential gaps in the decision-making process.
• Complexity - For some decisions, especially simple or routine ones, the model can be overly complex, making the process feel unnecessary or cumbersome.
• May overlook creativity - The structured approach can sometimes limit creative thinking, as it focuses on logic and facts rather than exploring innovative or unconventional ideas.
• Not always flexible - The model’s rigid structure can make it difficult to adapt to changing circumstances or unexpected challenges that arise during the decision-making process.

Rational Decision-Making with Creately

Creately is a powerful tool that can help you make rational decisions by visually organizing your thoughts and data. Here’s how Creately can support each step of the rational decision-making process.

Mind mapping for problem definition

Creately’s mind mapping feature allows you to visually break down and define the problem. You can create a central problem node and branch out with related issues or factors, making it easier to see the full picture.

Brainstorming with teams for generating alternatives

Creately’s collaborative features enable real-time brainstorming with your team. You can use tools like sticky notes, idea boards, and shared canvases to generate and visualize different alternatives, ensuring that you consider all possible solutions.

Collaborative real-time editing

Creately allows multiple users to collaborate in real time, ensuring that all relevant perspectives are considered. This feature is essential for rational decision-making in teams, as it promotes collective input and consensus-building.

Commenting and Feedback Tools

The commenting feature in Creately lets team members provide feedback directly on the visual elements. This enables clear communication and ensures that all concerns are addressed before finalizing a decision, helping maintain objectivity.

Task management and assignment tools

Creately’s task management features let you assign tasks and track progress directly within the platform. This helps ensure that the decision is implemented effectively and that everyone involved knows their responsibilities.

Presentation mode for stakeholder communication

Once a decision is made, you can use Creately’s presentation mode to share your findings and rationale with stakeholders. This feature helps in communicating decisions clearly and gaining buy-in from others.

The rational decision-making model is a powerful tool that helps you make clear and logical choices. By following its structured steps, you can approach decisions with confidence, knowing that you’ve carefully considered all relevant factors. Whether in business or personal life, this model can guide you to better outcomes by turning complex decisions into manageable steps. Remember, the key to success is applying the model thoughtfully and adapting it to your unique situation.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Amanda Athuraliya is the communication specialist/content writer at Creately, online diagramming and collaboration tool. She is an avid reader, a budding writer and a passionate researcher who loves to write about all kinds of topics.

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

What is Logical Thinking? A Beginner's Guide 

What is Logical Thinking? A Beginner's Guide: Discover the essence of Logical Thinking in this detailed guide. Unveil its importance in problem-solving, decision-making, and analytical reasoning. Learn techniques to develop this crucial skill, understand common logical fallacies, and explore how Logical Thinking can be applied effectively in various aspects of life and work.

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
• Leadership Skills Training
• Practical Thinking Course
• Attention Management Training
• Introduction to Supervising a Team

Whether you're solving a complex problem, engaging in critical discussions, or just navigating your daily routines, Logical Thinking plays a pivotal role in ensuring that your thoughts and actions are rational and coherent. In this blog, we will discuss What is Logical Thinking in detail, its importance, and its components. You'll also learn about the various ways that make up Logical Thinking and how to develop this essential skill.    

Table of contents  

1)  Understanding Logical Thinking 

2)  Components of Logical Thinking 

3)  Why is Logical Thinking important? 

4)  What are Logical Thinking skills?   

5)  Developing Logical Thinking skills 

6)  Exercises to improve Logical Thinking 

7)  Conclusion 

Understanding Logical Thinking  

Logical Thinking is the capacity to employ reason and systematic processes to analyse information, establish connections, and reach well-founded conclusions. It entails a structured and rational approach to problem-solving and decision-making. 

For example, consider a scenario where you're presented with a puzzle. To logically think through it, you would assess the provided clues, break down the problem into smaller elements, and systematically find potential solutions. You'd avoid hasty or emotion-driven judgments and rely on evidence and sound reasoning to arrive at the correct answer, showcasing the essence of Logical Thinking in problem-solving .

C omponents of Logical Thinking  

After knowing What is Logic al Thinking, let’s move on to the key components of Logical Thinking. Logical Thinking comprises several key components that work together to facilitate reasoned analysis and problem-solving. Here are the following key components of Logical Thinking.  

1)  Deductive reasoning : Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general premises or facts. It's like moving from a broad idea to a more specific conclusion. For example, if all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human, then you can logically conclude that Socrates is mortal. 

2)   I nductive reasoning : Inductive reasoning is the procedure of forming general conclusions based on specific observations or evidence. It's the opposite of deductive reasoning. For instance, if you observe that the sun has risen every day, you might inductively reason that the sun will rise again tomorrow.  

3)  Causal inference : Causal inference is the ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships between events, actions, or variables. It involves understanding that one event or action can lead to another event as a consequence . In essence, it's the recognition that a specific cause produces a particular effect.  

4)  Analogy : Analogical reasoning or analogy involves drawing similarities and making comparisons between two or more situations, objects, or concepts. It's a way of applying knowledge or understanding from one context to another by recognising shared features or characteristics. Analogical reasoning is powerful because it allows you to transfer what you know in one domain to another, making it easier to comprehend and solve new problems. 

Why is Logical Thinking Important?  

1)  Effective problem-solving : Logical Thinking equips individuals with the ability to dissect complex problems, identify patterns, and devise systematic solutions. Whether it's troubleshooting a technical issue or resolving personal dilemmas, Logical Thinking ensures that problems are approached with a structured and efficient methodology. 

2)  Enhanced decision-making : Making sound decisions is a cornerstone of success in both personal and professional life. Logical Thinking allows individuals to evaluate options, consider consequences, and choose the most rational course of action. This is particularly critical in high-stakes situations. 

3)   Critical thinking : Logical Thinking is at the core of critical thinking . It encourages individuals to question assumptions, seek evidence, and challenge existing beliefs. This capacity for critical analysis fosters a deeper understanding of complex issues and prevents the acceptance of unfounded or biased information. 

4)  Effective communication : In discussions and debates, Logical Thinking helps individuals express their ideas and viewpoints clearly and persuasively. It enables individuals to construct well-structured arguments, provide evidence, and counter opposing views, fostering productive and respectful communication . 

5)  Academic and professional success : Logical Thinking is highly valued in educational settings and the workplace. It allows students to excel academically by tackling challenging coursework and assignments. In the professional world, it's a key attribute for problem-solving, innovation, and career advancement. 

6)  Avoiding Logical fallacies : Logical Thinking equips individuals with the ability to recognise and avoid common logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. This safeguards them from being deceived or manipulated by flawed or deceptive arguments. 

Supercharge Your Sales with our Sales Negotiation Skills Course . Check out now and close deals like a pro!  

What are Logical Thinking skills ?  

Logical Thinking skills are cognitive abilities that allow individuals to process information, analyse it systematically, and draw reasonable conclusions. These skills enable people to approach problems, decisions, and challenges with a structured and rational mindset .  

Developing Logical Thinking skills  

Developing strong Logical Thinking skills is essential for improved problem-solving, decision-making , and critical analysis. Here are some key strategies to help you enhance your Logical Thinking abilities.   

1)  Practice critical thinking : Engage in activities that require critical thinking, such as analysing articles, solving puzzles, or evaluating arguments. Regular practice sharpens your analytical skills.  

2)  L earn formal logic : Study the principles of formal logic, which provide a structured approach to reasoning. This can include topics like syllogisms, propositional logic, and predicate logic. 

3)  I dentify assumptions : When faced with a problem or argument, be aware of underlying assumptions. Question these assumptions and consider how they impact the overall reasoning. 

4)  B reak down problems : When tackling complex problems, break them down into smaller, more manageable components. Analyse each component individually before looking at the problem as a whole . 

5)   Seek diverse perspectives : Engage in discussions and debates with people who hold different viewpoints. This helps you consider a range of perspectives and strengthens your ability to construct and counter -arguments. 

6)  Read widely : Reading a variety of materials, from academic articles to literature, exposes you to different modes of reasoning and argumentation. This broadens your thinking and enhances your ability to connect ideas.  

7)  Solve puzzles and brain teasers : Engaging in puzzles, riddles, and brain teasers challenges your mind and encourages creative problem-solving. It's an enjoyable way to exercise your Logical Thinking. 

8)  Develop mathematical skills : Mathematics is a discipline that heavily relies on Logical Thinking. Learning and practising mathematical concepts and problem-solving techniques can significantly boost your logical reasoning skills. 

Unlock Your sales potential with our Soft Skills Training For Sales Professionals . Elevate your sales game today and boost your success – register now!  

Exercises to improve Logical Thinking  

Enhancing your Logical Thinking skills is achievable through various exercises and activities. Here are some practical exercises to help you strengthen your Logical Thinking abilities:  

1)   Sudoku puzzles : Solve Sudoku puzzles, as they require logical deduction to fill in the missing numbers.  

2)   Crossword puzzles : Crosswords challenge your vocabulary and logical word placement.  

3)  Brain teasers : Engage in brain teasers and riddles that encourage creative problem-solving.  

4)  Chess and board games : Play strategic board games like chess, checkers, or strategic video games that require forward thinking and planning.  

5)  Logical argumentation : Engage in debates or discussions where you must construct reasoned arguments and counter opposing viewpoints.  

6)  Coding and programming : Learn coding and programming languages which promote structured and Logical Thinking in problem-solving. 

7)  Mathematical challenges : Solve mathematical problems and equations, as mathematics is inherently logical.  

8)   Mensa puzzles : Work on Mensa puzzles, which are designed to test and strengthen Logical Thinking skills. 

9)  Logic games : Play logic-based games like Minesweeper or Mastermind.  

10)   Logical analogy exercises : Practice solving analogy exercises, which test your ability to find relationships between words or concepts.  

11)  Visual logic puzzles : Tackle visual logic puzzles like nonograms or logic grid puzzles. 

12)  Critical reading : Read books, articles, or academic papers and critically analyse the arguments and evidence presented. 

13)  Coding challenges : Participate in online coding challenges and competitions that require logical problem-solving in coding. 

14)  Scientific method : Conduct simple science experiments or projects, applying the scientific method to develop hypotheses and draw logical conclusions.  

15)   Poker or card games : Play card games like poker, where you must strategi se and make logical decisions based on probabilities and information. 

16)  Analyse real-world situations : Analyse real-world situations or news stories, evaluating the information, causes, and potential consequences. 

These exercises will help you practice and enhance your Logical Thinking skills in a fun and engaging way, making them an integral part of your problem-solving and decision-making toolkit. 

Take your sales to the next level! Elevate your skills with our Sales Training . Join us today!  

Concluson  

In this blog, we have discussed What is Logical Thinking, its importance, its components and ways to improve this skill. When you learn how to think logically, you start gathering each and every information as much as possible, analyse the facts, and methodically choose the best way to go forward with your decision. Logical Thinking is considered the most important tool in brainstorming ideas, assessing issues and finding solutions. 

Master the art of effective meetings. Elevate your Meeting Skills for success. Get started now!  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 27th Sep 2024

Fri 25th Oct 2024

Fri 22nd Nov 2024

Fri 27th Dec 2024

Fri 10th Jan 2025

Fri 14th Mar 2025

Fri 9th May 2025

Fri 11th Jul 2025

Fri 12th Sep 2025

Fri 14th Nov 2025

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 summer 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
• ISO 9001 Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• 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'.

RATIONAL THINKING

Rational Thinking: A Comprehensive Overview

Rational thinking is a cognitive process that involves using logic and reasoning to analyze a specific problem or situation. It is a process of making decisions based on facts, evidence, and logical conclusions. Rational thinking is a fundamental skill for problem-solving and decision-making. This article provides an overview of rational thinking, including its definition, benefits, and strategies for applying it.

Definition of Rational Thinking

Rational thinking is defined as the usage of logical arguments and evidence-based reasoning to evaluate and understand a situation or problem. It is the process of reasoning logically and objectively in order to reach a conclusion. Rational thinking is contrasted with emotional thinking, which is based on feelings rather than facts and logic.

Benefits of Rational Thinking

Rational thinking has numerous benefits, including the ability to make better decisions, improve problem-solving skills, and develop critical-thinking skills. Rational thinking can also help to avoid irrational decisions that can lead to negative outcomes. Additionally, rational thinking can reduce stress and anxiety, as it allows people to evaluate a situation logically and objectively.

Strategies for Applying Rational Thinking

There are several strategies for applying rational thinking. These include gathering all of the facts and information available, considering all of the potential outcomes of a decision, analyzing the situation from different perspectives, and examining the evidence to make an informed decision. Additionally, it is important to consider the long-term implications of a decision, as well as to remain objective and unbiased.

Rational thinking is a cognitive process that involves using facts, evidence, and logical reasoning to make decisions. It can have numerous benefits, such as improving problem-solving skills, developing critical-thinking skills, and avoiding irrational decisions. There are several strategies for applying rational thinking, including gathering facts and information, considering potential outcomes, and remaining objective and unbiased.

Benson, D. (2019). Rational Thinking: Definition, Benefits, and Strategies. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-rational-thinking-2794851

Fascione, G. (2013). Benefits of Rational Thinking. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-decision-tree/201307/benefits-rational-thinking

O’Brien, G. (2019). Rational Thinking: A Definition and Examples. The Balance Careers. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/rational-thinking-definition-and-examples-4169356

Related terms

Redundant coding, referential signal, reflex integration, regressive electroshock therapy.

Logical Thought

Logical thought is essentially a process of figuring things out step by step. Think of it like putting together a puzzle where each piece must fit perfectly with the others to form a complete picture. It’s a way of thinking that helps connect ideas in a rational, sensible order. It starts with simple truths, builds on them, and leads to a solid conclusion, just like following a set of directions to get to a particular place.

Another way to describe logical thought is considering it as a tool we use to find out what’s true and what’s not. It’s like being a detective with a magnifying glass, examining each clue carefully to solve a mystery. Logical thought involves checking that each clue makes sense with the last one, ensuring there are no gaps or mistakes, and steadily moving toward solving the case.

In the world of logical thought, several key varieties are like different paths you might take in reaching the same destination:

• Deductive reasoning : This method is like following a recipe step-by-step. If each step is done correctly, you should end up with the expected result.
• Inductive reasoning : Here, you’re making an educated guess about what is likely to be true, based on patterns you’ve observed in the past.
• Abductive reasoning : This approach involves looking at incomplete information and making the best possible guess about what it means.

Examples of Logical Thought

If you wake up and the streets are wet, using abductive reasoning , you might conclude that it rained overnight. This is logical because a wet street often follows rain, even though you didn’t see the rain yourself.

In math class, you might use deductive reasoning when a problem says “All squares have four sides,” and you see a shape with four sides, postulating it must be a square. This is logical because you’re applying a general rule to a specific example.

Scientists often use inductive reasoning when they observe the same results in their experiments several times, leading them to propose a general rule. This forms the basis of many scientific laws and theories.

Why is it Important?

Logical thought is critical because it helps us navigate through our lives with clarity and good judgment. It guides us in school, where logic can turn complex problems into manageable ones. In daily decisions, logical thought helps us weigh our options carefully to avoid mistakes. Think of it as the brain’s GPS, guiding us through the maze of life’s choices and challenges. It’s especially vital in the world of science and technology, where accurate, logical conclusions lead to breakthroughs and innovations. Logical thought also underpins our justice system, ensuring that laws are based on solid reasoning.

The techniques and importance of logical thought stretch back to ancient philosophers like Aristotle , who sowed the seeds for the systematic study of logic. Aristotle developed a framework for reasoning that still influences how we approach logical thinking today.

Controversies

Despite the usefulness of logical thought, it’s not without its debates. Some people argue that it might not always lead us to the truth, as our perspectives can distort reality. Then there’s the dispute on whether emotions and logic can coexist, with some arguing that emotions can cloud logical judgment, while others say emotions provide insights that pure logic cannot.

To wrap things up, logical thought is a timeless tool for seeking truth and understanding in our complex world. Although there are disagreements about its applications and limitations, the value of logical thought in developing critical, informed perspectives cannot be overstated. So, learning to think logically benefits us all, from making better personal decisions to advancing society as a whole.

Related Topics

Logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can undermine the logic of an argument . They might be mistakes made by accident or used on purpose to persuade others. Recognizing these fallacies is a big part of thinking logically and not being tricked by faulty reasoning.

Problem-Solving

Logical thought is central to solving problems effectively. It helps us identify the true source of a problem and find a solution that actually works, rather than just treating the symptoms.

Decision Making

Every day we make countless decisions, and logical thought helps us navigate these choices. By weighing evidence and considering the possible outcomes, we can make decisions that are likely to lead to better results in our lives.

Rational Decision-Making Model: Meaning, Importance And Examples

What is the rational decision-making model? Rational decision-making is a method that organizations, businesses and individuals use to make the…

What is the rational decision-making model? Rational decision-making is a method that organizations, businesses and individuals use to make the best decisions. Rational decision-making, one of many decision-making tools, helps users come up with the most suitable course of action. In this blog, we will look at the meaning of rational decision-making, the importance of rational decision-making and study some rational decision-making examples.

Rational decision-making is a process in which decision-makers go through a set of steps and processes and choose the best solution to a problem. These decisions are based on data analysis and logic, eliminating intuition and subjectivity.

Rational decision-making means that every variable factor, every piece of information about all the available options, has been taken into account. 

What Is The Rational Decision-Making Model Used For?

What is the rational decision-making process, non-rational decision making.

The most basic use of the rational decision-making model is to ensure a consistent method of making decisions. This could be used as a standardized decision-making tool across an organization or to ensure that all managers receive the same information to make decisions. The rational decision-making process can be used to maintain a structured, step-by-step approach for every decision.

What Is The Rational Decision-Making Process ?

How the rational decision-making model is implemented can be explained in seven steps:

(There is also an example to help you understand the importance of rational decision-making)

1. Understand and define the scope

Just stating that a problem exists isn’t enough. Solid, accurate data is required to understand and analyze the problem in depth. This lets you know how much attention it requires.

It’s vital to collect as much relevant and accurate data around the problem as possible.

Here’s a rational decision-making example:

Your social media posts aren’t translating to conversions. What could the problem be? Once the analytics reports come in, you realize there isn’t enough engagement. The issue isn’t that your posts are not reaching the right audience, it’s that they don’t engage them. This sets up the next step: figuring out why the problem exists. Why is user engagement low?

2. Research and get feedback

The next step in the rational decision-making process is to delve into the problem. Find out what is causing the problem and how it can be solved. You could start with a brainstorming session and find out what your team thinks.

Rational decision-making example continued:

The budget is good, there are enough views and likes on the posts. So, why is there a lack of engagement? Why aren’t users interacting with the post? Why aren’t they clicking on the CTA?

You might need new types of posts; perhaps the current posts aren’t trendy. Maybe the posts don’t evoke an emotional response from the audience. Or they don’t convey what the product can do for the audience.

Now that you know what the causes could be, you are a step closer. It’s time to collate the data.

The team comes together with their opinions and findings. After a few customer surveys, the major issues are identified as follows:

• Potential consumers don’t know how the product will add value to their lives.
• Potential customers don’t understand the posts’ objectives and aren’t clear on what the product is.

3. List your choices

There are bound to be a host of opinions and innumerable choices about how to address the issue. Consider all of them so that you don’t create more problems later.

This is where you start to use rational decision-making:

Now that the problem has been understood, it’s time to list your options.

You could create a post that showcases what the product does.

You could have an informative GIF that shows that product in action.

You could create additional whitepapers to showcase how the product adds value and thus is beneficial for the customer to buy.

The analytics show that traffic isn’t the issue, so you don’t have to focus on garnering more traffic. Your focus has to be on conversions.

Your color schemes and CTA could be a little more impactful.

Maybe video clips are the way to go?

4. Analyze your options carefully

Now that you have all the options in front of you, cross out the ones that don’t add value or don’t solve the problem. Understand how each of the potential solutions could turn out and what other effects they could have.

Point 6 is about having a back up plan. Once you’ve chosen the plan that is likely to serve you the best, choose the second best option as well. You could use that as your back up, in case things don’t go according to plan.

While it’s great to get a quick solution to a real problem, the solution should be permanent or at least solve the majority of the issue.

The example of the rational decision-making process continued:

This is where you set about deciding the benefits of each of your choices mentioned above.

A video clip post would mean additional costs.

Redesigning the graphics may lead to more views and interaction but dilute your following.

A whitepaper is a good idea, but it doesn’t help with conversions. It’s ideal for customers to click on the CTA.

While GIFs are very popular, the image you choose has to convey the right information and be impactful. You may need to rework the branding for this to work.

While it would be great to have a post that showcases how the product works, it can’t be overly technical.

5. Understand the results you want

This is where the importance of rational decision-making comes into play. Understand what you expect from the solutions. There has to be a clear outcome because of the decision that is made. Knowing what you expect from your actions is important. It’s always a good idea to test the solution to see if it resolves the problem entirely.

Rational decision-making model example continued:

The best course of action might be to assign different teams for the different potential solutions.

One team could create a GIF, while the other works on the video clip and another on the ‘how to use’ post.

Once the teams have all made rough drafts, a productive critiquing session could be conducted. The teams can then look at each others’ solutions and point out the merits and drawbacks of each.

This way a general consensus can be reached and the best option or options can be selected. It is also advisable to use predictive social media tools. There are algorithms and equations that could help predict the success of a post to some degree.

6. Have a backup plan

While this may not always be necessary and can be a little cost-intensive, it may be worthwhile to have a backup plan if the solution doesn’t give you the intended results. This means that you should either have another strategy in place, created using the rational decision-making model .

Even though your plan has been made after careful thought, there is a chance that it either does not go as per plan or that an external factor interferes and throws your plan into chaos.

Try to have a back-up plan to make sure that your business isn’t impacted.

Now that you’ve decided to go with a combination of a GIF and an information-based post, go ahead and begin drafting your white paper as well.

7. Implement

Once the team has done all the work and created the solution, implement it. Implementing this plan means that everyone has to be on board. This means that everyone should be informed and be willing to contribute in executing the plan. The plan won’t work if everyone isn’t working toward the same goal.

As logic and data have been used to reach the decision, it’s likely going to be the most effective one.

Non -Rational Decision-Making

Non-rational decision-making is quite simply the opposite of rational decision-making . Non-rational decision-making is generally used when there isn’t enough information available or when there isn’t enough time to carry out the research and analysis required to employ rational decision-making methods.

Non-rational decision-making can be used when the person or team making the decisions has experienced that issue before or their collective experience allows them to predict what the outcome of their decision would be.

To sum it up, rational decision making can be the difference between a high performance culture driven by results and an unorganized setting. If you would like to drive decisions that guarantee results, you have to employ strategies that kindle organizational objectives based on real data. Let’s sum up the steps explained in this post about the importance of rational decision-making.

• Understand and define the scope
• Research and get feedback
• List your choices
• Analyze your options carefully
• Understand the results you want

Now that you have some idea of what the rational decision-making process is, you may be curious to find out how to make better decisions for your business. To understand more about the importance of rational decision-making , take a look at Harappa’s Making Decisions course. It delves deep into how the best decisions can be reached. The course is for you if you’re looking to get into business and learn how to use rational decision-making.

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as How To Define Problem , Steps involved in Ethical Decision Making , Importance Of Decision Making and How To Overcome Indecisiveness to classify problems and solve them efficiently.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Module 7: Thinking, Reasoning, and Problem-Solving

This module is about how a solid working knowledge of psychological principles can help you to think more effectively, so you can succeed in school and life. You might be inclined to believe that—because you have been thinking for as long as you can remember, because you are able to figure out the solution to many problems, because you feel capable of using logic to argue a point, because you can evaluate whether the things you read and hear make sense—you do not need any special training in thinking. But this, of course, is one of the key barriers to helping people think better. If you do not believe that there is anything wrong, why try to fix it?

The human brain is indeed a remarkable thinking machine, capable of amazing, complex, creative, logical thoughts. Why, then, are we telling you that you need to learn how to think? Mainly because one major lesson from cognitive psychology is that these capabilities of the human brain are relatively infrequently realized. Many psychologists believe that people are essentially “cognitive misers.” It is not that we are lazy, but that we have a tendency to expend the least amount of mental effort necessary. Although you may not realize it, it actually takes a great deal of energy to think. Careful, deliberative reasoning and critical thinking are very difficult. Because we seem to be successful without going to the trouble of using these skills well, it feels unnecessary to develop them. As you shall see, however, there are many pitfalls in the cognitive processes described in this module. When people do not devote extra effort to learning and improving reasoning, problem solving, and critical thinking skills, they make many errors.

As is true for memory, if you develop the cognitive skills presented in this module, you will be more successful in school. It is important that you realize, however, that these skills will help you far beyond school, even more so than a good memory will. Although it is somewhat useful to have a good memory, ten years from now no potential employer will care how many questions you got right on multiple choice exams during college. All of them will, however, recognize whether you are a logical, analytical, critical thinker. With these thinking skills, you will be an effective, persuasive communicator and an excellent problem solver.

The module begins by describing different kinds of thought and knowledge, especially conceptual knowledge and critical thinking. An understanding of these differences will be valuable as you progress through school and encounter different assignments that require you to tap into different kinds of knowledge. The second section covers deductive and inductive reasoning, which are processes we use to construct and evaluate strong arguments. They are essential skills to have whenever you are trying to persuade someone (including yourself) of some point, or to respond to someone’s efforts to persuade you. The module ends with a section about problem solving. A solid understanding of the key processes involved in problem solving will help you to handle many daily challenges.

7.1. Different kinds of thought

7.2. Reasoning and Judgment

7.3. Problem Solving

READING WITH PURPOSE

Remember and understand.

By reading and studying Module 7, you should be able to remember and describe:

• Concepts and inferences (7.1)
• Procedural knowledge (7.1)
• Metacognition (7.1)
• Characteristics of critical thinking:  skepticism; identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions; reasoning and problem solving skills  (7.1)
• Reasoning:  deductive reasoning, deductively valid argument, inductive reasoning, inductively strong argument, availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic  (7.2)
• Fixation:  functional fixedness, mental set  (7.3)
• Algorithms, heuristics, and the role of confirmation bias (7.3)
• Effective problem solving sequence (7.3)

By reading and thinking about how the concepts in Module 6 apply to real life, you should be able to:

• Identify which type of knowledge a piece of information is (7.1)
• Recognize examples of deductive and inductive reasoning (7.2)
• Recognize judgments that have probably been influenced by the availability heuristic (7.2)
• Recognize examples of problem solving heuristics and algorithms (7.3)

Analyze, Evaluate, and Create

By reading and thinking about Module 6, participating in classroom activities, and completing out-of-class assignments, you should be able to:

• Use the principles of critical thinking to evaluate information (7.1)
• Explain whether examples of reasoning arguments are deductively valid or inductively strong (7.2)
• Outline how you could try to solve a problem from your life using the effective problem solving sequence (7.3)

7.1. Different kinds of thought and knowledge

• Take a few minutes to write down everything that you know about dogs.
• Do you believe that:
• Psychic ability exists?
• Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness?
• Magnet therapy is effective for relieving pain?
• Aerobic exercise is an effective treatment for depression?
• UFO’s from outer space have visited earth?

On what do you base your belief or disbelief for the questions above?

Of course, we all know what is meant by the words  think  and  knowledge . You probably also realize that they are not unitary concepts; there are different kinds of thought and knowledge. In this section, let us look at some of these differences. If you are familiar with these different kinds of thought and pay attention to them in your classes, it will help you to focus on the right goals, learn more effectively, and succeed in school. Different assignments and requirements in school call on you to use different kinds of knowledge or thought, so it will be very helpful for you to learn to recognize them (Anderson, et al. 2001).

Factual and conceptual knowledge

Module 5 introduced the idea of declarative memory, which is composed of facts and episodes. If you have ever played a trivia game or watched Jeopardy on TV, you realize that the human brain is able to hold an extraordinary number of facts. Likewise, you realize that each of us has an enormous store of episodes, essentially facts about events that happened in our own lives. It may be difficult to keep that in mind when we are struggling to retrieve one of those facts while taking an exam, however. Part of the problem is that, in contradiction to the advice from Module 5, many students continue to try to memorize course material as a series of unrelated facts (picture a history student simply trying to memorize history as a set of unrelated dates without any coherent story tying them together). Facts in the real world are not random and unorganized, however. It is the way that they are organized that constitutes a second key kind of knowledge, conceptual.

Concepts are nothing more than our mental representations of categories of things in the world. For example, think about dogs. When you do this, you might remember specific facts about dogs, such as they have fur and they bark. You may also recall dogs that you have encountered and picture them in your mind. All of this information (and more) makes up your concept of dog. You can have concepts of simple categories (e.g., triangle), complex categories (e.g., small dogs that sleep all day, eat out of the garbage, and bark at leaves), kinds of people (e.g., psychology professors), events (e.g., birthday parties), and abstract ideas (e.g., justice). Gregory Murphy (2002) refers to concepts as the “glue that holds our mental life together” (p. 1). Very simply, summarizing the world by using concepts is one of the most important cognitive tasks that we do. Our conceptual knowledge  is  our knowledge about the world. Individual concepts are related to each other to form a rich interconnected network of knowledge. For example, think about how the following concepts might be related to each other: dog, pet, play, Frisbee, chew toy, shoe. Or, of more obvious use to you now, how these concepts are related: working memory, long-term memory, declarative memory, procedural memory, and rehearsal? Because our minds have a natural tendency to organize information conceptually, when students try to remember course material as isolated facts, they are working against their strengths.

One last important point about concepts is that they allow you to instantly know a great deal of information about something. For example, if someone hands you a small red object and says, “here is an apple,” they do not have to tell you, “it is something you can eat.” You already know that you can eat it because it is true by virtue of the fact that the object is an apple; this is called drawing an  inference , assuming that something is true on the basis of your previous knowledge (for example, of category membership or of how the world works) or logical reasoning.

Procedural knowledge

Physical skills, such as tying your shoes, doing a cartwheel, and driving a car (or doing all three at the same time, but don’t try this at home) are certainly a kind of knowledge. They are procedural knowledge, the same idea as procedural memory that you saw in Module 5. Mental skills, such as reading, debating, and planning a psychology experiment, are procedural knowledge, as well. In short, procedural knowledge is the knowledge how to do something (Cohen & Eichenbaum, 1993).

Metacognitive knowledge

Floyd used to think that he had a great memory. Now, he has a better memory. Why? Because he finally realized that his memory was not as great as he once thought it was. Because Floyd eventually learned that he often forgets where he put things, he finally developed the habit of putting things in the same place. (Unfortunately, he did not learn this lesson before losing at least 5 watches and a wedding ring.) Because he finally realized that he often forgets to do things, he finally started using the To Do list app on his phone. And so on. Floyd’s insights about the real limitations of his memory have allowed him to remember things that he used to forget.

All of us have knowledge about the way our own minds work. You may know that you have a good memory for people’s names and a poor memory for math formulas. Someone else might realize that they have difficulty remembering to do things, like stopping at the store on the way home. Others still know that they tend to overlook details. This knowledge about our own thinking is actually quite important; it is called metacognitive knowledge, or  metacognition . Like other kinds of thinking skills, it is subject to error. For example, in unpublished research, one of the authors surveyed about 120 General Psychology students on the first day of the term. Among other questions, the students were asked them to predict their grade in the class and report their current Grade Point Average. Two-thirds of the students predicted that their grade in the course would be higher than their GPA. (The reality is that at our college, students tend to earn lower grades in psychology than their overall GPA.) Another example: Students routinely report that they thought they had done well on an exam, only to discover, to their dismay, that they were wrong (more on that important problem in a moment). Both errors reveal a breakdown in metacognition.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

In general, most college students probably do not study enough. For example, using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, Fosnacht, McCormack, and Lerma (2018) reported that first-year students at 4-year colleges in the U.S. averaged less than 14 hours per week preparing for classes. The typical suggestion is that you should spend two hours outside of class for every hour in class, or 24 – 30 hours per week for a full-time student. Clearly, students in general are nowhere near that recommended mark. Many observers, including some faculty, believe that this shortfall is a result of students being too busy or lazy. Now, it may be true that many students are too busy, with work and family obligations, for example. Others, are not particularly motivated in school, and therefore might correctly be labeled lazy. A third possible explanation, however, is that some students might not think they need to spend this much time. And this is a matter of metacognition. Consider the scenario that we mentioned above, students thinking they had done well on an exam only to discover that they did not. Justin Kruger and David Dunning examined scenarios very much like this in 1999. Kruger and Dunning gave research participants tests measuring humor, logic, and grammar. Then, they asked the participants to assess their own abilities and test performance in these areas. They found that participants in general tended to overestimate their abilities, already a problem with metacognition. Importantly, the participants who scored the lowest overestimated their abilities the most. Specifically, students who scored in the bottom quarter (averaging in the 12th percentile) thought they had scored in the 62nd percentile. This has become known as the  Dunning-Kruger effect . Many individual faculty members have replicated these results with their own student on their course exams, including the authors of this book. Think about it. Some students who just took an exam and performed poorly believe that they did well before seeing their score. It seems very likely that these are the very same students who stopped studying the night before because they thought they were “done.” Quite simply, it is not just that they did not know the material. They did not know that they did not know the material. That is poor metacognition.

In order to develop good metacognitive skills, you should continually monitor your thinking and seek frequent feedback on the accuracy of your thinking (Medina, Castleberry, & Persky 2017). For example, in classes get in the habit of predicting your exam grades. As soon as possible after taking an exam, try to find out which questions you missed and try to figure out why. If you do this soon enough, you may be able to recall the way it felt when you originally answered the question. Did you feel confident that you had answered the question correctly? Then you have just discovered an opportunity to improve your metacognition. Be on the lookout for that feeling and respond with caution.

concept :  a mental representation of a category of things in the world

Dunning-Kruger effect : individuals who are less competent tend to overestimate their abilities more than individuals who are more competent do

inference : an assumption about the truth of something that is not stated. Inferences come from our prior knowledge and experience, and from logical reasoning

metacognition :  knowledge about one’s own cognitive processes; thinking about your thinking

Critical thinking

One particular kind of knowledge or thinking skill that is related to metacognition is  critical thinking (Chew, 2020). You may have noticed that critical thinking is an objective in many college courses, and thus it could be a legitimate topic to cover in nearly any college course. It is particularly appropriate in psychology, however. As the science of (behavior and) mental processes, psychology is obviously well suited to be the discipline through which you should be introduced to this important way of thinking.

More importantly, there is a particular need to use critical thinking in psychology. We are all, in a way, experts in human behavior and mental processes, having engaged in them literally since birth. Thus, perhaps more than in any other class, students typically approach psychology with very clear ideas and opinions about its subject matter. That is, students already “know” a lot about psychology. The problem is, “it ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so” (Ward, quoted in Gilovich 1991). Indeed, many of students’ preconceptions about psychology are just plain wrong. Randolph Smith (2002) wrote a book about critical thinking in psychology called  Challenging Your Preconceptions,  highlighting this fact. On the other hand, many of students’ preconceptions about psychology are just plain right! But wait, how do you know which of your preconceptions are right and which are wrong? And when you come across a research finding or theory in this class that contradicts your preconceptions, what will you do? Will you stick to your original idea, discounting the information from the class? Will you immediately change your mind? Critical thinking can help us sort through this confusing mess.

But what is critical thinking? The goal of critical thinking is simple to state (but extraordinarily difficult to achieve): it is to be right, to draw the correct conclusions, to believe in things that are true and to disbelieve things that are false. We will provide two definitions of critical thinking (or, if you like, one large definition with two distinct parts). First, a more conceptual one: Critical thinking is thinking like a scientist in your everyday life (Schmaltz, Jansen, & Wenckowski, 2017).  Our second definition is more operational; it is simply a list of skills that are essential to be a critical thinker. Critical thinking entails solid reasoning and problem solving skills; skepticism; and an ability to identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions. Excellent deductive and inductive reasoning, and problem solving skills contribute to critical thinking. So, you can consider the subject matter of sections 7.2 and 7.3 to be part of critical thinking. Because we will be devoting considerable time to these concepts in the rest of the module, let us begin with a discussion about the other aspects of critical thinking.

Let’s address that first part of the definition. Scientists form hypotheses, or predictions about some possible future observations. Then, they collect data, or information (think of this as making those future observations). They do their best to make unbiased observations using reliable techniques that have been verified by others. Then, and only then, they draw a conclusion about what those observations mean. Oh, and do not forget the most important part. “Conclusion” is probably not the most appropriate word because this conclusion is only tentative. A scientist is always prepared that someone else might come along and produce new observations that would require a new conclusion be drawn. Wow! If you like to be right, you could do a lot worse than using a process like this.

A Critical Thinker’s Toolkit 

Now for the second part of the definition. Good critical thinkers (and scientists) rely on a variety of tools to evaluate information. Perhaps the most recognizable tool for critical thinking is  skepticism (and this term provides the clearest link to the thinking like a scientist definition, as you are about to see). Some people intend it as an insult when they call someone a skeptic. But if someone calls you a skeptic, if they are using the term correctly, you should consider it a great compliment. Simply put, skepticism is a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided. People from Missouri should recognize this principle, as Missouri is known as the Show-Me State. As a skeptic, you are not inclined to believe something just because someone said so, because someone else believes it, or because it sounds reasonable. You must be persuaded by high quality evidence.

Of course, if that evidence is produced, you have a responsibility as a skeptic to change your belief. Failure to change a belief in the face of good evidence is not skepticism; skepticism has open mindedness at its core. M. Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley (2018) use the term weak sense critical thinking to describe critical thinking behaviors that are used only to strengthen a prior belief. Strong sense critical thinking, on the other hand, has as its goal reaching the best conclusion. Sometimes that means strengthening your prior belief, but sometimes it means changing your belief to accommodate the better evidence.

Many times, a failure to think critically or weak sense critical thinking is related to a  bias , an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice. Everybody has biases, but many people are unaware of them. Awareness of your own biases gives you the opportunity to control or counteract them. Unfortunately, however, many people are happy to let their biases creep into their attempts to persuade others; indeed, it is a key part of their persuasive strategy. To see how these biases influence messages, just look at the different descriptions and explanations of the same events given by people of different ages or income brackets, or conservative versus liberal commentators, or by commentators from different parts of the world. Of course, to be successful, these people who are consciously using their biases must disguise them. Even undisguised biases can be difficult to identify, so disguised ones can be nearly impossible.

Here are some common sources of biases:

• Personal values and beliefs.  Some people believe that human beings are basically driven to seek power and that they are typically in competition with one another over scarce resources. These beliefs are similar to the world-view that political scientists call “realism.” Other people believe that human beings prefer to cooperate and that, given the chance, they will do so. These beliefs are similar to the world-view known as “idealism.” For many people, these deeply held beliefs can influence, or bias, their interpretations of such wide ranging situations as the behavior of nations and their leaders or the behavior of the driver in the car ahead of you. For example, if your worldview is that people are typically in competition and someone cuts you off on the highway, you may assume that the driver did it purposely to get ahead of you. Other types of beliefs about the way the world is or the way the world should be, for example, political beliefs, can similarly become a significant source of bias.
• Racism, sexism, ageism and other forms of prejudice and bigotry.  These are, sadly, a common source of bias in many people. They are essentially a special kind of “belief about the way the world is.” These beliefs—for example, that women do not make effective leaders—lead people to ignore contradictory evidence (examples of effective women leaders, or research that disputes the belief) and to interpret ambiguous evidence in a way consistent with the belief.
• Self-interest.  When particular people benefit from things turning out a certain way, they can sometimes be very susceptible to letting that interest bias them. For example, a company that will earn a profit if they sell their product may have a bias in the way that they give information about their product. A union that will benefit if its members get a generous contract might have a bias in the way it presents information about salaries at competing organizations. (Note that our inclusion of examples describing both companies and unions is an explicit attempt to control for our own personal biases). Home buyers are often dismayed to discover that they purchased their dream house from someone whose self-interest led them to lie about flooding problems in the basement or back yard. This principle, the biasing power of self-interest, is likely what led to the famous phrase  Caveat Emptor  (let the buyer beware) .  

Knowing that these types of biases exist will help you evaluate evidence more critically. Do not forget, though, that people are not always keen to let you discover the sources of biases in their arguments. For example, companies or political organizations can sometimes disguise their support of a research study by contracting with a university professor, who comes complete with a seemingly unbiased institutional affiliation, to conduct the study.

People’s biases, conscious or unconscious, can lead them to make omissions, distortions, and assumptions that undermine our ability to correctly evaluate evidence. It is essential that you look for these elements. Always ask, what is missing, what is not as it appears, and what is being assumed here? For example, consider this (fictional) chart from an ad reporting customer satisfaction at 4 local health clubs.

Clearly, from the results of the chart, one would be tempted to give Club C a try, as customer satisfaction is much higher than for the other 3 clubs.

There are so many distortions and omissions in this chart, however, that it is actually quite meaningless. First, how was satisfaction measured? Do the bars represent responses to a survey? If so, how were the questions asked? Most importantly, where is the missing scale for the chart? Although the differences look quite large, are they really?

Well, here is the same chart, with a different scale, this time labeled:

Club C is not so impressive any more, is it? In fact, all of the health clubs have customer satisfaction ratings (whatever that means) between 85% and 88%. In the first chart, the entire scale of the graph included only the percentages between 83 and 89. This “judicious” choice of scale—some would call it a distortion—and omission of that scale from the chart make the tiny differences among the clubs seem important, however.

Also, in order to be a critical thinker, you need to learn to pay attention to the assumptions that underlie a message. Let us briefly illustrate the role of assumptions by touching on some people’s beliefs about the criminal justice system in the US. Some believe that a major problem with our judicial system is that many criminals go free because of legal technicalities. Others believe that a major problem is that many innocent people are convicted of crimes. The simple fact is, both types of errors occur. A person’s conclusion about which flaw in our judicial system is the greater tragedy is based on an assumption about which of these is the more serious error (letting the guilty go free or convicting the innocent). This type of assumption is called a value assumption (Browne and Keeley, 2018). It reflects the differences in values that people develop, differences that may lead us to disregard valid evidence that does not fit in with our particular values.

Oh, by the way, some students probably noticed this, but the seven tips for evaluating information that we shared in Module 1 are related to this. Actually, they are part of this section. The tips are, to a very large degree, set of ideas you can use to help you identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions. If you do not remember this section, we strongly recommend you take a few minutes to review it.

skepticism :  a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided

bias : an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice

• Which of your beliefs (or disbeliefs) from the Activate exercise for this section were derived from a process of critical thinking? If some of your beliefs were not based on critical thinking, are you willing to reassess these beliefs? If the answer is no, why do you think that is? If the answer is yes, what concrete steps will you take?

7.2 Reasoning and Judgment

• What percentage of kidnappings are committed by strangers?
• Which area of the house is riskiest: kitchen, bathroom, or stairs?
• What is the most common cancer in the US?
• What percentage of workplace homicides are committed by co-workers?

An essential set of procedural thinking skills is  reasoning , the ability to generate and evaluate solid conclusions from a set of statements or evidence. You should note that these conclusions (when they are generated instead of being evaluated) are one key type of inference that we described in Section 7.1. There are two main types of reasoning, deductive and inductive.

Deductive reasoning

Suppose your teacher tells you that if you get an A on the final exam in a course, you will get an A for the whole course. Then, you get an A on the final exam. What will your final course grade be? Most people can see instantly that you can conclude with certainty that you will get an A for the course. This is a type of reasoning called  deductive reasoning , which is defined as reasoning in which a conclusion is guaranteed to be true as long as the statements leading to it are true. The three statements can be listed as an  argument , with two beginning statements and a conclusion:

Statement 1: If you get an A on the final exam, you will get an A for the course

Statement 2: You get an A on the final exam

Conclusion: You will get an A for the course

This particular arrangement, in which true beginning statements lead to a guaranteed true conclusion, is known as a  deductively valid argument . Although deductive reasoning is often the subject of abstract, brain-teasing, puzzle-like word problems, it is actually an extremely important type of everyday reasoning. It is just hard to recognize sometimes. For example, imagine that you are looking for your car keys and you realize that they are either in the kitchen drawer or in your book bag. After looking in the kitchen drawer, you instantly know that they must be in your book bag. That conclusion results from a simple deductive reasoning argument. In addition, solid deductive reasoning skills are necessary for you to succeed in the sciences, philosophy, math, computer programming, and any endeavor involving the use of logic to persuade others to your point of view or to evaluate others’ arguments.

Cognitive psychologists, and before them philosophers, have been quite interested in deductive reasoning, not so much for its practical applications, but for the insights it can offer them about the ways that human beings think. One of the early ideas to emerge from the examination of deductive reasoning is that people learn (or develop) mental versions of rules that allow them to solve these types of reasoning problems (Braine, 1978; Braine, Reiser, & Rumain, 1984). The best way to see this point of view is to realize that there are different possible rules, and some of them are very simple. For example, consider this rule of logic:

therefore q

Logical rules are often presented abstractly, as letters, in order to imply that they can be used in very many specific situations. Here is a concrete version of the of the same rule:

I’ll either have pizza or a hamburger for dinner tonight (p or q)

I won’t have pizza (not p)

Therefore, I’ll have a hamburger (therefore q)

This kind of reasoning seems so natural, so easy, that it is quite plausible that we would use a version of this rule in our daily lives. At least, it seems more plausible than some of the alternative possibilities—for example, that we need to have experience with the specific situation (pizza or hamburger, in this case) in order to solve this type of problem easily. So perhaps there is a form of natural logic (Rips, 1990) that contains very simple versions of logical rules. When we are faced with a reasoning problem that maps onto one of these rules, we use the rule.

But be very careful; things are not always as easy as they seem. Even these simple rules are not so simple. For example, consider the following rule. Many people fail to realize that this rule is just as valid as the pizza or hamburger rule above.

if p, then q

therefore, not p

Concrete version:

If I eat dinner, then I will have dessert

I did not have dessert

Therefore, I did not eat dinner

The simple fact is, it can be very difficult for people to apply rules of deductive logic correctly; as a result, they make many errors when trying to do so. Is this a deductively valid argument or not?

Students who like school study a lot

Students who study a lot get good grades

Jane does not like school

Therefore, Jane does not get good grades

Many people are surprised to discover that this is not a logically valid argument; the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true from the beginning statements. Although the first statement says that students who like school study a lot, it does NOT say that students who do not like school do not study a lot. In other words, it may very well be possible to study a lot without liking school. Even people who sometimes get problems like this right might not be using the rules of deductive reasoning. Instead, they might just be making judgments for examples they know, in this case, remembering instances of people who get good grades despite not liking school.

Making deductive reasoning even more difficult is the fact that there are two important properties that an argument may have. One, it can be valid or invalid (meaning that the conclusion does or does not follow logically from the statements leading up to it). Two, an argument (or more correctly, its conclusion) can be true or false. Here is an example of an argument that is logically valid, but has a false conclusion (at least we think it is false).

Either you are eleven feet tall or the Grand Canyon was created by a spaceship crashing into the earth.

You are not eleven feet tall

Therefore the Grand Canyon was created by a spaceship crashing into the earth

This argument has the exact same form as the pizza or hamburger argument above, making it is deductively valid. The conclusion is so false, however, that it is absurd (of course, the reason the conclusion is false is that the first statement is false). When people are judging arguments, they tend to not observe the difference between deductive validity and the empirical truth of statements or conclusions. If the elements of an argument happen to be true, people are likely to judge the argument logically valid; if the elements are false, they will very likely judge it invalid (Markovits & Bouffard-Bouchard, 1992; Moshman & Franks, 1986). Thus, it seems a stretch to say that people are using these logical rules to judge the validity of arguments. Many psychologists believe that most people actually have very limited deductive reasoning skills (Johnson-Laird, 1999). They argue that when faced with a problem for which deductive logic is required, people resort to some simpler technique, such as matching terms that appear in the statements and the conclusion (Evans, 1982). This might not seem like a problem, but what if reasoners believe that the elements are true and they happen to be wrong; they will would believe that they are using a form of reasoning that guarantees they are correct and yet be wrong.

deductive reasoning :  a type of reasoning in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true any time the statements leading up to it are true

argument :  a set of statements in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion

deductively valid argument :  an argument for which true beginning statements guarantee that the conclusion is true

Inductive reasoning and judgment

Every day, you make many judgments about the likelihood of one thing or another. Whether you realize it or not, you are practicing  inductive reasoning   on a daily basis. In inductive reasoning arguments, a conclusion is likely whenever the statements preceding it are true. The first thing to notice about inductive reasoning is that, by definition, you can never be sure about your conclusion; you can only estimate how likely the conclusion is. Inductive reasoning may lead you to focus on Memory Encoding and Recoding when you study for the exam, but it is possible the instructor will ask more questions about Memory Retrieval instead. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusions you reach through inductive reasoning are only probable, not certain. That is why scientists consider inductive reasoning weaker than deductive reasoning. But imagine how hard it would be for us to function if we could not act unless we were certain about the outcome.

Inductive reasoning can be represented as logical arguments consisting of statements and a conclusion, just as deductive reasoning can be. In an inductive argument, you are given some statements and a conclusion (or you are given some statements and must draw a conclusion). An argument is  inductively strong   if the conclusion would be very probable whenever the statements are true. So, for example, here is an inductively strong argument:

• Statement #1: The forecaster on Channel 2 said it is going to rain today.
• Statement #2: The forecaster on Channel 5 said it is going to rain today.
• Statement #3: It is very cloudy and humid.
• Statement #4: You just heard thunder.
• Conclusion (or judgment): It is going to rain today.

Think of the statements as evidence, on the basis of which you will draw a conclusion. So, based on the evidence presented in the four statements, it is very likely that it will rain today. Will it definitely rain today? Certainly not. We can all think of times that the weather forecaster was wrong.

A true story: Some years ago psychology student was watching a baseball playoff game between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Los Angeles Dodgers. A graphic on the screen had just informed the audience that the Cardinal at bat, (Hall of Fame shortstop) Ozzie Smith, a switch hitter batting left-handed for this plate appearance, had never, in nearly 3000 career at-bats, hit a home run left-handed. The student, who had just learned about inductive reasoning in his psychology class, turned to his companion (a Cardinals fan) and smugly said, “It is an inductively strong argument that Ozzie Smith will not hit a home run.” He turned back to face the television just in time to watch the ball sail over the right field fence for a home run. Although the student felt foolish at the time, he was not wrong. It was an inductively strong argument; 3000 at-bats is an awful lot of evidence suggesting that the Wizard of Ozz (as he was known) would not be hitting one out of the park (think of each at-bat without a home run as a statement in an inductive argument). Sadly (for the die-hard Cubs fan and Cardinals-hating student), despite the strength of the argument, the conclusion was wrong.

Given the possibility that we might draw an incorrect conclusion even with an inductively strong argument, we really want to be sure that we do, in fact, make inductively strong arguments. If we judge something probable, it had better be probable. If we judge something nearly impossible, it had better not happen. Think of inductive reasoning, then, as making reasonably accurate judgments of the probability of some conclusion given a set of evidence.

We base many decisions in our lives on inductive reasoning. For example:

Statement #1: Psychology is not my best subject

Statement #2: My psychology instructor has a reputation for giving difficult exams

Statement #3: My first psychology exam was much harder than I expected

Judgment: The next exam will probably be very difficult.

Decision: I will study tonight instead of watching Netflix.

Some other examples of judgments that people commonly make in a school context include judgments of the likelihood that:

• A particular class will be interesting/useful/difficult
• You will be able to finish writing a paper by next week if you go out tonight
• Your laptop’s battery will last through the next trip to the library
• You will not miss anything important if you skip class tomorrow
• Your instructor will not notice if you skip class tomorrow
• You will be able to find a book that you will need for a paper
• There will be an essay question about Memory Encoding on the next exam

Tversky and Kahneman (1983) recognized that there are two general ways that we might make these judgments; they termed them extensional (i.e., following the laws of probability) and intuitive (i.e., using shortcuts or heuristics, see below). We will use a similar distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 thinking, as described by Keith Stanovich and his colleagues (Evans and Stanovich, 2013; Stanovich and West, 2000). Type 1 thinking is fast, automatic, effortful, and emotional. In fact, it is hardly fair to call it reasoning at all, as judgments just seem to pop into one’s head. Type 2 thinking , on the other hand, is slow, effortful, and logical. So obviously, it is more likely to lead to a correct judgment, or an optimal decision. The problem is, we tend to over-rely on Type 1. Now, we are not saying that Type 2 is the right way to go for every decision or judgment we make. It seems a bit much, for example, to engage in a step-by-step logical reasoning procedure to decide whether we will have chicken or fish for dinner tonight.

Many bad decisions in some very important contexts, however, can be traced back to poor judgments of the likelihood of certain risks or outcomes that result from the use of Type 1 when a more logical reasoning process would have been more appropriate. For example:

Statement #1: It is late at night.

Statement #2: Albert has been drinking beer for the past five hours at a party.

Statement #3: Albert is not exactly sure where he is or how far away home is.

Judgment: Albert will have no difficulty walking home.

Decision: He walks home alone.

As you can see in this example, the three statements backing up the judgment do not really support it. In other words, this argument is not inductively strong because it is based on judgments that ignore the laws of probability. What are the chances that someone facing these conditions will be able to walk home alone easily? And one need not be drunk to make poor decisions based on judgments that just pop into our heads.

The truth is that many of our probability judgments do not come very close to what the laws of probability say they should be. Think about it. In order for us to reason in accordance with these laws, we would need to know the laws of probability, which would allow us to calculate the relationship between particular pieces of evidence and the probability of some outcome (i.e., how much likelihood should change given a piece of evidence), and we would have to do these heavy math calculations in our heads. After all, that is what Type 2 requires. Needless to say, even if we were motivated, we often do not even know how to apply Type 2 reasoning in many cases.

So what do we do when we don’t have the knowledge, skills, or time required to make the correct mathematical judgment? Do we hold off and wait until we can get better evidence? Do we read up on probability and fire up our calculator app so we can compute the correct probability? Of course not. We rely on Type 1 thinking. We “wing it.” That is, we come up with a likelihood estimate using some means at our disposal. Psychologists use the term heuristic to describe the type of “winging it” we are talking about. A  heuristic   is a shortcut strategy that we use to make some judgment or solve some problem (see Section 7.3). Heuristics are easy and quick, think of them as the basic procedures that are characteristic of Type 1.  They can absolutely lead to reasonably good judgments and decisions in some situations (like choosing between chicken and fish for dinner). They are, however, far from foolproof. There are, in fact, quite a lot of situations in which heuristics can lead us to make incorrect judgments, and in many cases the decisions based on those judgments can have serious consequences.

Let us return to the activity that begins this section. You were asked to judge the likelihood (or frequency) of certain events and risks. You were free to come up with your own evidence (or statements) to make these judgments. This is where a heuristic crops up. As a judgment shortcut, we tend to generate specific examples of those very events to help us decide their likelihood or frequency. For example, if we are asked to judge how common, frequent, or likely a particular type of cancer is, many of our statements would be examples of specific cancer cases:

Statement #1: Andy Kaufman (comedian) had lung cancer.

Statement #2: Colin Powell (US Secretary of State) had prostate cancer.

Statement #3: Bob Marley (musician) had skin and brain cancer

Statement #4: Sandra Day O’Connor (Supreme Court Justice) had breast cancer.

Statement #5: Fred Rogers (children’s entertainer) had stomach cancer.

Statement #6: Robin Roberts (news anchor) had breast cancer.

Statement #7: Bette Davis (actress) had breast cancer.

Judgment: Breast cancer is the most common type.

Your own experience or memory may also tell you that breast cancer is the most common type. But it is not (although it is common). Actually, skin cancer is the most common type in the US. We make the same types of misjudgments all the time because we do not generate the examples or evidence according to their actual frequencies or probabilities. Instead, we have a tendency (or bias) to search for the examples in memory; if they are easy to retrieve, we assume that they are common. To rephrase this in the language of the heuristic, events seem more likely to the extent that they are available to memory. This bias has been termed the  availability heuristic   (Kahneman and Tversky, 1974).

The fact that we use the availability heuristic does not automatically mean that our judgment is wrong. The reason we use heuristics in the first place is that they work fairly well in many cases (and, of course that they are easy to use). So, the easiest examples to think of sometimes are the most common ones. Is it more likely that a member of the U.S. Senate is a man or a woman? Most people have a much easier time generating examples of male senators. And as it turns out, the U.S. Senate has many more men than women (74 to 26 in 2020). In this case, then, the availability heuristic would lead you to make the correct judgment; it is far more likely that a senator would be a man.

In many other cases, however, the availability heuristic will lead us astray. This is because events can be memorable for many reasons other than their frequency. Section 5.2, Encoding Meaning, suggested that one good way to encode the meaning of some information is to form a mental image of it. Thus, information that has been pictured mentally will be more available to memory. Indeed, an event that is vivid and easily pictured will trick many people into supposing that type of event is more common than it actually is. Repetition of information will also make it more memorable. So, if the same event is described to you in a magazine, on the evening news, on a podcast that you listen to, and in your Facebook feed; it will be very available to memory. Again, the availability heuristic will cause you to misperceive the frequency of these types of events.

Most interestingly, information that is unusual is more memorable. Suppose we give you the following list of words to remember: box, flower, letter, platypus, oven, boat, newspaper, purse, drum, car. Very likely, the easiest word to remember would be platypus, the unusual one. The same thing occurs with memories of events. An event may be available to memory because it is unusual, yet the availability heuristic leads us to judge that the event is common. Did you catch that? In these cases, the availability heuristic makes us think the exact opposite of the true frequency. We end up thinking something is common because it is unusual (and therefore memorable). Yikes.

The misapplication of the availability heuristic sometimes has unfortunate results. For example, if you went to K-12 school in the US over the past 10 years, it is extremely likely that you have participated in lockdown and active shooter drills. Of course, everyone is trying to prevent the tragedy of another school shooting. And believe us, we are not trying to minimize how terrible the tragedy is. But the truth of the matter is, school shootings are extremely rare. Because the federal government does not keep a database of school shootings, the Washington Post has maintained their own running tally. Between 1999 and January 2020 (the date of the most recent school shooting with a death in the US at of the time this paragraph was written), the Post reported a total of 254 people died in school shootings in the US. Not 254 per year, 254 total. That is an average of 12 per year. Of course, that is 254 people who should not have died (particularly because many were children), but in a country with approximately 60,000,000 students and teachers, this is a very small risk.

But many students and teachers are terrified that they will be victims of school shootings because of the availability heuristic. It is so easy to think of examples (they are very available to memory) that people believe the event is very common. It is not. And there is a downside to this. We happen to believe that there is an enormous gun violence problem in the United States. According the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 39,773 firearm deaths in the US in 2017. Fifteen of those deaths were in school shootings, according to the Post. 60% of those deaths were suicides. When people pay attention to the school shooting risk (low), they often fail to notice the much larger risk.

And examples like this are by no means unique. The authors of this book have been teaching psychology since the 1990’s. We have been able to make the exact same arguments about the misapplication of the availability heuristics and keep them current by simply swapping out for the “fear of the day.” In the 1990’s it was children being kidnapped by strangers (it was known as “stranger danger”) despite the facts that kidnappings accounted for only 2% of the violent crimes committed against children, and only 24% of kidnappings are committed by strangers (US Department of Justice, 2007). This fear overlapped with the fear of terrorism that gripped the country after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and US Pentagon and still plagues the population of the US somewhat in 2020. After a well-publicized, sensational act of violence, people are extremely likely to increase their estimates of the chances that they, too, will be victims of terror. Think about the reality, however. In October of 2001, a terrorist mailed anthrax spores to members of the US government and a number of media companies. A total of five people died as a result of this attack. The nation was nearly paralyzed by the fear of dying from the attack; in reality the probability of an individual person dying was 0.00000002.

The availability heuristic can lead you to make incorrect judgments in a school setting as well. For example, suppose you are trying to decide if you should take a class from a particular math professor. You might try to make a judgment of how good a teacher she is by recalling instances of friends and acquaintances making comments about her teaching skill. You may have some examples that suggest that she is a poor teacher very available to memory, so on the basis of the availability heuristic you judge her a poor teacher and decide to take the class from someone else. What if, however, the instances you recalled were all from the same person, and this person happens to be a very colorful storyteller? The subsequent ease of remembering the instances might not indicate that the professor is a poor teacher after all.

Although the availability heuristic is obviously important, it is not the only judgment heuristic we use. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman examined the role of heuristics in inductive reasoning in a long series of studies. Kahneman received a Nobel Prize in Economics for this research in 2002, and Tversky would have certainly received one as well if he had not died of melanoma at age 59 in 1996 (Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously). Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated repeatedly that people do not reason in ways that are consistent with the laws of probability. They identified several heuristic strategies that people use instead to make judgments about likelihood. The importance of this work for economics (and the reason that Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize) is that earlier economic theories had assumed that people do make judgments rationally, that is, in agreement with the laws of probability.

Another common heuristic that people use for making judgments is the  representativeness heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky 1973). Suppose we describe a person to you. He is quiet and shy, has an unassuming personality, and likes to work with numbers. Is this person more likely to be an accountant or an attorney? If you said accountant, you were probably using the representativeness heuristic. Our imaginary person is judged likely to be an accountant because he resembles, or is representative of the concept of, an accountant. When research participants are asked to make judgments such as these, the only thing that seems to matter is the representativeness of the description. For example, if told that the person described is in a room that contains 70 attorneys and 30 accountants, participants will still assume that he is an accountant.

inductive reasoning :  a type of reasoning in which we make judgments about likelihood from sets of evidence

inductively strong argument :  an inductive argument in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion that is probably true

heuristic :  a shortcut strategy that we use to make judgments and solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

availability heuristic :  judging the frequency or likelihood of some event type according to how easily examples of the event can be called to mind (i.e., how available they are to memory)

representativeness heuristic:   judging the likelihood that something is a member of a category on the basis of how much it resembles a typical category member (i.e., how representative it is of the category)

Type 1 thinking : fast, automatic, and emotional thinking.

Type 2 thinking : slow, effortful, and logical thinking.

• What percentage of workplace homicides are co-worker violence?

Many people get these questions wrong. The answers are 10%; stairs; skin; 6%. How close were your answers? Explain how the availability heuristic might have led you to make the incorrect judgments.

• Can you think of some other judgments that you have made (or beliefs that you have) that might have been influenced by the availability heuristic?

7.3 Problem Solving

• Please take a few minutes to list a number of problems that you are facing right now.
• Now write about a problem that you recently solved.
• What is your definition of a problem?

Mary has a problem. Her daughter, ordinarily quite eager to please, appears to delight in being the last person to do anything. Whether getting ready for school, going to piano lessons or karate class, or even going out with her friends, she seems unwilling or unable to get ready on time. Other people have different kinds of problems. For example, many students work at jobs, have numerous family commitments, and are facing a course schedule full of difficult exams, assignments, papers, and speeches. How can they find enough time to devote to their studies and still fulfill their other obligations? Speaking of students and their problems: Show that a ball thrown vertically upward with initial velocity v0 takes twice as much time to return as to reach the highest point (from Spiegel, 1981).

These are three very different situations, but we have called them all problems. What makes them all the same, despite the differences? A psychologist might define a  problem   as a situation with an initial state, a goal state, and a set of possible intermediate states. Somewhat more meaningfully, we might consider a problem a situation in which you are in here one state (e.g., daughter is always late), you want to be there in another state (e.g., daughter is not always late), and with no obvious way to get from here to there. Defined this way, each of the three situations we outlined can now be seen as an example of the same general concept, a problem. At this point, you might begin to wonder what is not a problem, given such a general definition. It seems that nearly every non-routine task we engage in could qualify as a problem. As long as you realize that problems are not necessarily bad (it can be quite fun and satisfying to rise to the challenge and solve a problem), this may be a useful way to think about it.

Can we identify a set of problem-solving skills that would apply to these very different kinds of situations? That task, in a nutshell, is a major goal of this section. Let us try to begin to make sense of the wide variety of ways that problems can be solved with an important observation: the process of solving problems can be divided into two key parts. First, people have to notice, comprehend, and represent the problem properly in their minds (called  problem representation ). Second, they have to apply some kind of solution strategy to the problem. Psychologists have studied both of these key parts of the process in detail.

When you first think about the problem-solving process, you might guess that most of our difficulties would occur because we are failing in the second step, the application of strategies. Although this can be a significant difficulty much of the time, the more important source of difficulty is probably problem representation. In short, we often fail to solve a problem because we are looking at it, or thinking about it, the wrong way.

problem :  a situation in which we are in an initial state, have a desired goal state, and there is a number of possible intermediate states (i.e., there is no obvious way to get from the initial to the goal state)

problem representation :  noticing, comprehending and forming a mental conception of a problem

Defining and Mentally Representing Problems in Order to Solve Them

So, the main obstacle to solving a problem is that we do not clearly understand exactly what the problem is. Recall the problem with Mary’s daughter always being late. One way to represent, or to think about, this problem is that she is being defiant. She refuses to get ready in time. This type of representation or definition suggests a particular type of solution. Another way to think about the problem, however, is to consider the possibility that she is simply being sidetracked by interesting diversions. This different conception of what the problem is (i.e., different representation) suggests a very different solution strategy. For example, if Mary defines the problem as defiance, she may be tempted to solve the problem using some kind of coercive tactics, that is, to assert her authority as her mother and force her to listen. On the other hand, if Mary defines the problem as distraction, she may try to solve it by simply removing the distracting objects.

As you might guess, when a problem is represented one way, the solution may seem very difficult, or even impossible. Seen another way, the solution might be very easy. For example, consider the following problem (from Nasar, 1998):

Two bicyclists start 20 miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 miles per hour. At the same time, a fly that travels at a steady 15 miles per hour starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner until he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover?

Please take a few minutes to try to solve this problem.

Most people represent this problem as a question about a fly because, well, that is how the question is asked. The solution, using this representation, is to figure out how far the fly travels on the first leg of its journey, then add this total to how far it travels on the second leg of its journey (when it turns around and returns to the first bicycle), then continue to add the smaller distance from each leg of the journey until you converge on the correct answer. You would have to be quite skilled at math to solve this problem, and you would probably need some time and pencil and paper to do it.

If you consider a different representation, however, you can solve this problem in your head. Instead of thinking about it as a question about a fly, think about it as a question about the bicycles. They are 20 miles apart, and each is traveling 10 miles per hour. How long will it take for the bicycles to reach each other? Right, one hour. The fly is traveling 15 miles per hour; therefore, it will travel a total of 15 miles back and forth in the hour before the bicycles meet. Represented one way (as a problem about a fly), the problem is quite difficult. Represented another way (as a problem about two bicycles), it is easy. Changing your representation of a problem is sometimes the best—sometimes the only—way to solve it.

Unfortunately, however, changing a problem’s representation is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Often, problem solvers get stuck looking at a problem one way. This is called  fixation . Most people who represent the preceding problem as a problem about a fly probably do not pause to reconsider, and consequently change, their representation. A parent who thinks her daughter is being defiant is unlikely to consider the possibility that her behavior is far less purposeful.

Problem-solving fixation was examined by a group of German psychologists called Gestalt psychologists during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Karl Dunker, for example, discovered an important type of failure to take a different perspective called  functional fixedness . Imagine being a participant in one of his experiments. You are asked to figure out how to mount two candles on a door and are given an assortment of odds and ends, including a small empty cardboard box and some thumbtacks. Perhaps you have already figured out a solution: tack the box to the door so it forms a platform, then put the candles on top of the box. Most people are able to arrive at this solution. Imagine a slight variation of the procedure, however. What if, instead of being empty, the box had matches in it? Most people given this version of the problem do not arrive at the solution given above. Why? Because it seems to people that when the box contains matches, it already has a function; it is a matchbox. People are unlikely to consider a new function for an object that already has a function. This is functional fixedness.

Mental set is a type of fixation in which the problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past, even though the solution may no longer be useful. It is commonly seen when students do math problems for homework. Often, several problems in a row require the reapplication of the same solution strategy. Then, without warning, the next problem in the set requires a new strategy. Many students attempt to apply the formerly successful strategy on the new problem and therefore cannot come up with a correct answer.

The thing to remember is that you cannot solve a problem unless you correctly identify what it is to begin with (initial state) and what you want the end result to be (goal state). That may mean looking at the problem from a different angle and representing it in a new way. The correct representation does not guarantee a successful solution, but it certainly puts you on the right track.

A bit more optimistically, the Gestalt psychologists discovered what may be considered the opposite of fixation, namely  insight . Sometimes the solution to a problem just seems to pop into your head. Wolfgang Kohler examined insight by posing many different problems to chimpanzees, principally problems pertaining to their acquisition of out-of-reach food. In one version, a banana was placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage and a short stick inside the cage. The stick was too short to retrieve the banana, but was long enough to retrieve a longer stick also located outside of the cage. This second stick was long enough to retrieve the banana. After trying, and failing, to reach the banana with the shorter stick, the chimpanzee would try a couple of random-seeming attempts, react with some apparent frustration or anger, then suddenly rush to the longer stick, the correct solution fully realized at this point. This sudden appearance of the solution, observed many times with many different problems, was termed insight by Kohler.

Lest you think it pertains to chimpanzees only, Karl Dunker demonstrated that children also solve problems through insight in the 1930s. More importantly, you have probably experienced insight yourself. Think back to a time when you were trying to solve a difficult problem. After struggling for a while, you gave up. Hours later, the solution just popped into your head, perhaps when you were taking a walk, eating dinner, or lying in bed.

fixation :  when a problem solver gets stuck looking at a problem a particular way and cannot change his or her representation of it (or his or her intended solution strategy)

functional fixedness :  a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver cannot think of a new use for an object that already has a function

mental set :  a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past

insight :  a sudden realization of a solution to a problem

Solving Problems by Trial and Error

Correctly identifying the problem and your goal for a solution is a good start, but recall the psychologist’s definition of a problem: it includes a set of possible intermediate states. Viewed this way, a problem can be solved satisfactorily only if one can find a path through some of these intermediate states to the goal. Imagine a fairly routine problem, finding a new route to school when your ordinary route is blocked (by road construction, for example). At each intersection, you may turn left, turn right, or go straight. A satisfactory solution to the problem (of getting to school) is a sequence of selections at each intersection that allows you to wind up at school.

If you had all the time in the world to get to school, you might try choosing intermediate states randomly. At one corner you turn left, the next you go straight, then you go left again, then right, then right, then straight. Unfortunately, trial and error will not necessarily get you where you want to go, and even if it does, it is not the fastest way to get there. For example, when a friend of ours was in college, he got lost on the way to a concert and attempted to find the venue by choosing streets to turn onto randomly (this was long before the use of GPS). Amazingly enough, the strategy worked, although he did end up missing two out of the three bands who played that night.

Trial and error is not all bad, however. B.F. Skinner, a prominent behaviorist psychologist, suggested that people often behave randomly in order to see what effect the behavior has on the environment and what subsequent effect this environmental change has on them. This seems particularly true for the very young person. Picture a child filling a household’s fish tank with toilet paper, for example. To a child trying to develop a repertoire of creative problem-solving strategies, an odd and random behavior might be just the ticket. Eventually, the exasperated parent hopes, the child will discover that many of these random behaviors do not successfully solve problems; in fact, in many cases they create problems. Thus, one would expect a decrease in this random behavior as a child matures. You should realize, however, that the opposite extreme is equally counterproductive. If the children become too rigid, never trying something unexpected and new, their problem solving skills can become too limited.

Effective problem solving seems to call for a happy medium that strikes a balance between using well-founded old strategies and trying new ground and territory. The individual who recognizes a situation in which an old problem-solving strategy would work best, and who can also recognize a situation in which a new untested strategy is necessary is halfway to success.

Solving Problems with Algorithms and Heuristics

For many problems there is a possible strategy available that will guarantee a correct solution. For example, think about math problems. Math lessons often consist of step-by-step procedures that can be used to solve the problems. If you apply the strategy without error, you are guaranteed to arrive at the correct solution to the problem. This approach is called using an  algorithm , a term that denotes the step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution. Because algorithms are sometimes available and come with a guarantee, you might think that most people use them frequently. Unfortunately, however, they do not. As the experience of many students who have struggled through math classes can attest, algorithms can be extremely difficult to use, even when the problem solver knows which algorithm is supposed to work in solving the problem. In problems outside of math class, we often do not even know if an algorithm is available. It is probably fair to say, then, that algorithms are rarely used when people try to solve problems.

Because algorithms are so difficult to use, people often pass up the opportunity to guarantee a correct solution in favor of a strategy that is much easier to use and yields a reasonable chance of coming up with a correct solution. These strategies are called  problem solving heuristics . Similar to what you saw in section 6.2 with reasoning heuristics, a problem solving heuristic is a shortcut strategy that people use when trying to solve problems. It usually works pretty well, but does not guarantee a correct solution to the problem. For example, one problem solving heuristic might be “always move toward the goal” (so when trying to get to school when your regular route is blocked, you would always turn in the direction you think the school is). A heuristic that people might use when doing math homework is “use the same solution strategy that you just used for the previous problem.”

By the way, we hope these last two paragraphs feel familiar to you. They seem to parallel a distinction that you recently learned. Indeed, algorithms and problem-solving heuristics are another example of the distinction between Type 1 thinking and Type 2 thinking.

Although it is probably not worth describing a large number of specific heuristics, two observations about heuristics are worth mentioning. First, heuristics can be very general or they can be very specific, pertaining to a particular type of problem only. For example, “always move toward the goal” is a general strategy that you can apply to countless problem situations. On the other hand, “when you are lost without a functioning gps, pick the most expensive car you can see and follow it” is specific to the problem of being lost. Second, all heuristics are not equally useful. One heuristic that many students know is “when in doubt, choose c for a question on a multiple-choice exam.” This is a dreadful strategy because many instructors intentionally randomize the order of answer choices. Another test-taking heuristic, somewhat more useful, is “look for the answer to one question somewhere else on the exam.”

You really should pay attention to the application of heuristics to test taking. Imagine that while reviewing your answers for a multiple-choice exam before turning it in, you come across a question for which you originally thought the answer was c. Upon reflection, you now think that the answer might be b. Should you change the answer to b, or should you stick with your first impression? Most people will apply the heuristic strategy to “stick with your first impression.” What they do not realize, of course, is that this is a very poor strategy (Lilienfeld et al, 2009). Most of the errors on exams come on questions that were answered wrong originally and were not changed (so they remain wrong). There are many fewer errors where we change a correct answer to an incorrect answer. And, of course, sometimes we change an incorrect answer to a correct answer. In fact, research has shown that it is more common to change a wrong answer to a right answer than vice versa (Bruno, 2001).

The belief in this poor test-taking strategy (stick with your first impression) is based on the  confirmation bias   (Nickerson, 1998; Wason, 1960). You first saw the confirmation bias in Module 1, but because it is so important, we will repeat the information here. People have a bias, or tendency, to notice information that confirms what they already believe. Somebody at one time told you to stick with your first impression, so when you look at the results of an exam you have taken, you will tend to notice the cases that are consistent with that belief. That is, you will notice the cases in which you originally had an answer correct and changed it to the wrong answer. You tend not to notice the other two important (and more common) cases, changing an answer from wrong to right, and leaving a wrong answer unchanged.

Because heuristics by definition do not guarantee a correct solution to a problem, mistakes are bound to occur when we employ them. A poor choice of a specific heuristic will lead to an even higher likelihood of making an error.

algorithm :  a step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution to a problem

problem solving heuristic :  a shortcut strategy that we use to solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

confirmation bias :  people’s tendency to notice information that confirms what they already believe

An Effective Problem-Solving Sequence

You may be left with a big question: If algorithms are hard to use and heuristics often don’t work, how am I supposed to solve problems? Robert Sternberg (1996), as part of his theory of what makes people successfully intelligent (Module 8) described a problem-solving sequence that has been shown to work rather well:

• Identify the existence of a problem.  In school, problem identification is often easy; problems that you encounter in math classes, for example, are conveniently labeled as problems for you. Outside of school, however, realizing that you have a problem is a key difficulty that you must get past in order to begin solving it. You must be very sensitive to the symptoms that indicate a problem.
• Define the problem.  Suppose you realize that you have been having many headaches recently. Very likely, you would identify this as a problem. If you define the problem as “headaches,” the solution would probably be to take aspirin or ibuprofen or some other anti-inflammatory medication. If the headaches keep returning, however, you have not really solved the problem—likely because you have mistaken a symptom for the problem itself. Instead, you must find the root cause of the headaches. Stress might be the real problem. For you to successfully solve many problems it may be necessary for you to overcome your fixations and represent the problems differently. One specific strategy that you might find useful is to try to define the problem from someone else’s perspective. How would your parents, spouse, significant other, doctor, etc. define the problem? Somewhere in these different perspectives may lurk the key definition that will allow you to find an easier and permanent solution.
• Formulate strategy.  Now it is time to begin planning exactly how the problem will be solved. Is there an algorithm or heuristic available for you to use? Remember, heuristics by their very nature guarantee that occasionally you will not be able to solve the problem. One point to keep in mind is that you should look for long-range solutions, which are more likely to address the root cause of a problem than short-range solutions.
• Represent and organize information.  Similar to the way that the problem itself can be defined, or represented in multiple ways, information within the problem is open to different interpretations. Suppose you are studying for a big exam. You have chapters from a textbook and from a supplemental reader, along with lecture notes that all need to be studied. How should you (represent and) organize these materials? Should you separate them by type of material (text versus reader versus lecture notes), or should you separate them by topic? To solve problems effectively, you must learn to find the most useful representation and organization of information.
• Allocate resources.  This is perhaps the simplest principle of the problem solving sequence, but it is extremely difficult for many people. First, you must decide whether time, money, skills, effort, goodwill, or some other resource would help to solve the problem Then, you must make the hard choice of deciding which resources to use, realizing that you cannot devote maximum resources to every problem. Very often, the solution to problem is simply to change how resources are allocated (for example, spending more time studying in order to improve grades).
• Monitor and evaluate solutions.  Pay attention to the solution strategy while you are applying it. If it is not working, you may be able to select another strategy. Another fact you should realize about problem solving is that it never does end. Solving one problem frequently brings up new ones. Good monitoring and evaluation of your problem solutions can help you to anticipate and get a jump on solving the inevitable new problems that will arise.

Please note that this as  an  effective problem-solving sequence, not  the  effective problem solving sequence. Just as you can become fixated and end up representing the problem incorrectly or trying an inefficient solution, you can become stuck applying the problem-solving sequence in an inflexible way. Clearly there are problem situations that can be solved without using these skills in this order.

Additionally, many real-world problems may require that you go back and redefine a problem several times as the situation changes (Sternberg et al. 2000). For example, consider the problem with Mary’s daughter one last time. At first, Mary did represent the problem as one of defiance. When her early strategy of pleading and threatening punishment was unsuccessful, Mary began to observe her daughter more carefully. She noticed that, indeed, her daughter’s attention would be drawn by an irresistible distraction or book. Fresh with a re-representation of the problem, she began a new solution strategy. She began to remind her daughter every few minutes to stay on task and remind her that if she is ready before it is time to leave, she may return to the book or other distracting object at that time. Fortunately, this strategy was successful, so Mary did not have to go back and redefine the problem again.

Pick one or two of the problems that you listed when you first started studying this section and try to work out the steps of Sternberg’s problem solving sequence for each one.

a mental representation of a category of things in the world

an assumption about the truth of something that is not stated. Inferences come from our prior knowledge and experience, and from logical reasoning

knowledge about one’s own cognitive processes; thinking about your thinking

individuals who are less competent tend to overestimate their abilities more than individuals who are more competent do

Thinking like a scientist in your everyday life for the purpose of drawing correct conclusions. It entails skepticism; an ability to identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions; and excellent deductive and inductive reasoning, and problem solving skills.

a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided

an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice

a type of reasoning in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true any time the statements leading up to it are true

a set of statements in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion

an argument for which true beginning statements guarantee that the conclusion is true

a type of reasoning in which we make judgments about likelihood from sets of evidence

an inductive argument in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion that is probably true

fast, automatic, and emotional thinking

slow, effortful, and logical thinking

a shortcut strategy that we use to make judgments and solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

udging the frequency or likelihood of some event type according to how easily examples of the event can be called to mind (i.e., how available they are to memory)

judging the likelihood that something is a member of a category on the basis of how much it resembles a typical category member (i.e., how representative it is of the category)

a situation in which we are in an initial state, have a desired goal state, and there is a number of possible intermediate states (i.e., there is no obvious way to get from the initial to the goal state)

noticing, comprehending and forming a mental conception of a problem

when a problem solver gets stuck looking at a problem a particular way and cannot change his or her representation of it (or his or her intended solution strategy)

a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver cannot think of a new use for an object that already has a function

a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past

a sudden realization of a solution to a problem

a step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution to a problem

The tendency to notice and pay attention to information that confirms your prior beliefs and to ignore information that disconfirms them.

a shortcut strategy that we use to solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Ken Gray; Elizabeth Arnott-Hill; and Or'Shaundra Benson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Campus Life
• ...a student.
• ...a veteran.
• ...an alum.
• ...a parent.
• ...faculty or staff.
• Class Schedule
• Crisis Resources
• People Finder
• Change Password

UTC RAVE Alert

Critical thinking and problem-solving, jump to: , what is critical thinking, characteristics of critical thinking, why teach critical thinking.

• Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking Skills

References and Resources

When examining the vast literature on critical thinking, various definitions of critical thinking emerge. Here are some samples:

• "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action" (Scriven, 1996).
• "Most formal definitions characterize critical thinking as the intentional application of rational, higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, problem recognition and problem solving, inference, and evaluation" (Angelo, 1995, p. 6).
• "Critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996b).
• "Critical thinking is the ability to think about one's thinking in such a way as 1. To recognize its strengths and weaknesses and, as a result, 2. To recast the thinking in improved form" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996c).

Perhaps the simplest definition is offered by Beyer (1995) : "Critical thinking... means making reasoned judgments" (p. 8). Basically, Beyer sees critical thinking as using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper. In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something (statements, news stories, arguments, research, etc.).

Back        

Wade (1995) identifies eight characteristics of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves asking questions, defining a problem, examining evidence, analyzing assumptions and biases, avoiding emotional reasoning, avoiding oversimplification, considering other interpretations, and tolerating ambiguity. Dealing with ambiguity is also seen by Strohm & Baukus (1995) as an essential part of critical thinking, "Ambiguity and doubt serve a critical-thinking function and are a necessary and even a productive part of the process" (p. 56).

Another characteristic of critical thinking identified by many sources is metacognition. Metacognition is thinking about one's own thinking. More specifically, "metacognition is being aware of one's thinking as one performs specific tasks and then using this awareness to control what one is doing" (Jones & Ratcliff, 1993, p. 10 ).

In the book, Critical Thinking, Beyer elaborately explains what he sees as essential aspects of critical thinking. These are:

• Dispositions: Critical thinkers are skeptical, open-minded, value fair-mindedness, respect evidence and reasoning, respect clarity and precision, look at different points of view, and will change positions when reason leads them to do so.
• Criteria: To think critically, must apply criteria. Need to have conditions that must be met for something to be judged as believable. Although the argument can be made that each subject area has different criteria, some standards apply to all subjects. "... an assertion must... be based on relevant, accurate facts; based on credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical fallacies; logically consistent; and strongly reasoned" (p. 12).
• Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments.
• Reasoning: The ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data.
• Point of View: The way one views the world, which shapes one's construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view.
• Procedures for Applying Criteria: Other types of thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking makes use of many procedures. These procedures include asking questions, making judgments, and identifying assumptions.

Oliver & Utermohlen (1995) see students as too often being passive receptors of information. Through technology, the amount of information available today is massive. This information explosion is likely to continue in the future. Students need a guide to weed through the information and not just passively accept it. Students need to "develop and effectively apply critical thinking skills to their academic studies, to the complex problems that they will face, and to the critical choices they will be forced to make as a result of the information explosion and other rapid technological changes" (Oliver & Utermohlen, p. 1 ).

As mentioned in the section, Characteristics of Critical Thinking , critical thinking involves questioning. It is important to teach students how to ask good questions, to think critically, in order to continue the advancement of the very fields we are teaching. "Every field stays alive only to the extent that fresh questions are generated and taken seriously" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996a ).

Beyer sees the teaching of critical thinking as important to the very state of our nation. He argues that to live successfully in a democracy, people must be able to think critically in order to make sound decisions about personal and civic affairs. If students learn to think critically, then they can use good thinking as the guide by which they live their lives.

Teaching Strategies to Help Promote Critical Thinking

The 1995, Volume 22, issue 1, of the journal, Teaching of Psychology , is devoted to the teaching critical thinking. Most of the strategies included in this section come from the various articles that compose this issue.

• CATS (Classroom Assessment Techniques): Angelo stresses the use of ongoing classroom assessment as a way to monitor and facilitate students' critical thinking. An example of a CAT is to ask students to write a "Minute Paper" responding to questions such as "What was the most important thing you learned in today's class? What question related to this session remains uppermost in your mind?" The teacher selects some of the papers and prepares responses for the next class meeting.
• Cooperative Learning Strategies: Cooper (1995) argues that putting students in group learning situations is the best way to foster critical thinking. "In properly structured cooperative learning environments, students perform more of the active, critical thinking with continuous support and feedback from other students and the teacher" (p. 8).
• Case Study /Discussion Method: McDade (1995) describes this method as the teacher presenting a case (or story) to the class without a conclusion. Using prepared questions, the teacher then leads students through a discussion, allowing students to construct a conclusion for the case.
• Using Questions: King (1995) identifies ways of using questions in the classroom:
• Reciprocal Peer Questioning: Following lecture, the teacher displays a list of question stems (such as, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of...). Students must write questions about the lecture material. In small groups, the students ask each other the questions. Then, the whole class discusses some of the questions from each small group.
• Reader's Questions: Require students to write questions on assigned reading and turn them in at the beginning of class. Select a few of the questions as the impetus for class discussion.
• Conference Style Learning: The teacher does not "teach" the class in the sense of lecturing. The teacher is a facilitator of a conference. Students must thoroughly read all required material before class. Assigned readings should be in the zone of proximal development. That is, readings should be able to be understood by students, but also challenging. The class consists of the students asking questions of each other and discussing these questions. The teacher does not remain passive, but rather, helps "direct and mold discussions by posing strategic questions and helping students build on each others' ideas" (Underwood & Wald, 1995, p. 18 ).
• Use Writing Assignments: Wade sees the use of writing as fundamental to developing critical thinking skills. "With written assignments, an instructor can encourage the development of dialectic reasoning by requiring students to argue both [or more] sides of an issue" (p. 24).
• Written dialogues: Give students written dialogues to analyze. In small groups, students must identify the different viewpoints of each participant in the dialogue. Must look for biases, presence or exclusion of important evidence, alternative interpretations, misstatement of facts, and errors in reasoning. Each group must decide which view is the most reasonable. After coming to a conclusion, each group acts out their dialogue and explains their analysis of it.
• Spontaneous Group Dialogue: One group of students are assigned roles to play in a discussion (such as leader, information giver, opinion seeker, and disagreer). Four observer groups are formed with the functions of determining what roles are being played by whom, identifying biases and errors in thinking, evaluating reasoning skills, and examining ethical implications of the content.
• Ambiguity: Strohm & Baukus advocate producing much ambiguity in the classroom. Don't give students clear cut material. Give them conflicting information that they must think their way through.
• Angelo, T. A. (1995). Beginning the dialogue: Thoughts on promoting critical thinking: Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6-7.
• Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996a). The role of questions in thinking, teaching, and learning. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996b). Structures for student self-assessment. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univclass/trc.nclk
• Center for Critical Thinking (1996c). Three definitions of critical thinking [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7-8.
• Jones, E. A. & Ratcliff, G. (1993). Critical thinking skills for college students. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University Park, PA. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 358 772)
• King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum: Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (1) , 13-17.
• McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 9-10.
• Oliver, H. & Utermohlen, R. (1995). An innovative teaching strategy: Using critical thinking to give students a guide to the future.(Eric Document Reproduction Services No. 389 702)
• Robertson, J. F. & Rane-Szostak, D. (1996). Using dialogues to develop critical thinking skills: A practical approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 552-556.
• Scriven, M. & Paul, R. (1996). Defining critical thinking: A draft statement for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk
• Strohm, S. M., & Baukus, R. A. (1995). Strategies for fostering critical thinking skills. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 50 (1), 55-62.
• Underwood, M. K., & Wald, R. L. (1995). Conference-style learning: A method for fostering critical thinking with heart. Teaching Psychology, 22(1), 17-21.
• Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 24-28.

Other Reading

• Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, & active learning in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
• Bernstein, D. A. (1995). A negotiation model for teaching critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 22-24.
• Carlson, E. R. (1995). Evaluating the credibility of sources. A missing link in the teaching of critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 39-41.
• Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
• Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 82-83.
• Isbell, D. (1995). Teaching writing and research as inseparable: A faculty-librarian teaching team. Reference Services Review, 23(4), 51-62.
• Jones, J. M. & Safrit, R. D. (1994). Developing critical thinking skills in adult learners through innovative distance learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on the practice of adult education and social development. Jinan, China. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 373 159)
• Sanchez, M. A. (1995). Using critical-thinking principles as a guide to college-level instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 72-74.
• Spicer, K. L. & Hanks, W. E. (1995). Multiple measures of critical thinking skills and predisposition in assessment of critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED 391 185)
• Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23-39.

On the Internet

• Carr, K. S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking. Eric Digest. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/eece/pubs/digests/1990/carr90.html
• The Center for Critical Thinking (1996). Home Page. Available HTTP: http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/
• Ennis, Bob (No date). Critical thinking. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/for442/ct.htm
• Montclair State University (1995). Curriculum resource center. Critical thinking resources: An annotated bibliography. [On-line]. Available HTTP: http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html
• No author, No date. Critical Thinking is ... [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://library.usask.ca/ustudy/critical/
• Sheridan, Marcia (No date). Internet education topics hotlink page. [On-line], April 4, 1997. Available HTTP: http://sun1.iusb.edu/~msherida/topics/critical.html

Walker Center for Teaching and Learning

• 433 Library
• Dept 4354
• 615 McCallie Ave
•   423-425-4188

Rational Thinking Definition: Unleashing the Power of Reason

The Power of Rational Thinking: Navigating the Waves of Mass Psychology

July 9, 2024

In a world of complexities, the ability to reason has become an indispensable tool for navigating life’s intricate challenges. As the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates wisely proclaimed, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Rational thinking empowers us to scrutinize situations objectively, weigh options judiciously, and ultimately make sound decisions. However, in an era of information overload and rapid social influence, the path to rational thinking is increasingly intertwined with the powerful forces of mass psychology and herd mentality.

The bandwagon effect, a phenomenon where people adopt beliefs or behaviours simply because others are doing so, significantly shapes our collective decision-making processes. As social psychologist Robert Cialdini notes, “We view a behaviour as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.” This tendency to follow the crowd can lead to positive and negative outcomes, from viral charitable campaigns to dangerous social media challenges.

The herd mentality that often drives the bandwagon effect is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. As social creatures, humans have long relied on group cohesion for survival. In modern times, this instinct manifests in our desire to conform and seek social approval. The fear of missing out (FOMO) further amplifies this effect, creating a potent cocktail of emotions that can override rational thought.

Yet, as Marcus Aurelius wisely observed, “The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.” To cultivate rational thinking in the face of mass movements, we must remain vigilant, question our assumptions, and embrace a growth mindset that welcomes new perspectives and evidence. By understanding the psychological underpinnings of the bandwagon effect and herd mentality , we can better equip ourselves to navigate the complex decision-making landscape in the 21st century.

As we delve deeper into the power of rational thinking, we must acknowledge the delicate balance between individual cognition and collective behaviour . The challenge lies not in completely isolating ourselves from social influences but in developing the mental fortitude to evaluate information and critically make well-informed decisions, even when they counter prevailing trends.

 Rational Thinking Definition

Rational thinking is the judicious application of logic, evidence, and reason to guide our judgments and actions. As the legendary investor Warren Buffett sagely advised, “Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.” Rational thinking equips us with the mental fortitude to assess information objectively, weigh options judiciously, and ultimately make well-informed decisions.

This cognitive process transcends mere instinct or emotion , enabling us to discern truth from falsehood and separate fact from fiction. As the eminent physicist Richard Feynman eloquently stated, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” To cultivate rational thinking, we must remain vigilant, question our assumptions, and embrace a growth mindset that welcomes new perspectives and evidence.

Rational thinking relies on basing conclusions and choices on sound reasoning and empirical evidence rather than personal feelings or subjective beliefs. It emphasizes logical coherence, consistency, and the relentless pursuit of truth. As the renowned mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell wisely observed, “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” By employing rational thinking, we can minimize the impact of cognitive biases and irrational thought patterns that can cloud judgment and hinder effective decision-making.

Ultimately, rational thinking is a conscious effort to overcome the limitations of human cognition, allowing individuals to approach problems with clarity, objectivity, and a commitment to reasoned analysis.

Example of Rational Thinking in Action

To illustrate rational thinking in action, consider the following scenario: Sarah, a marketing executive, is presented with two potential advertising strategies for an upcoming product launch. Sarah evaluates the options using rational thinking rather than relying solely on instincts or personal preferences. As the renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman wisely noted, “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.”

Sarah carefully analyzes the target audience, market research data, and cost projections, considering each strategy’s potential benefits and drawbacks. She consults diverse perspectives, heeding the advice of the great philosopher Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” After weighing all available evidence through reason and logic, Sarah makes an informed decision, selecting the plan that best aligns with the company’s goals and objectives.

This exemplifies the essence of rational thinking – a conscious effort to overcome cognitive biases and subjective impulses, favouring a reasoned analysis grounded in empirical data and sound argumentation instead. As the influential economist John Maynard Keynes eloquently stated, **”When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Rational thinking e mpowers individuals to adapt their perspectives in the face of new evidence, fostering a growth mindset and enabling well-informed decision-making.

The Importance of Rational Thinking

Rational thinking is a crucial cognitive technique that may improve many parts of our lives. Adopting a sensible approach can enhance our problem-solving abilities, make better decisions, and improve our overall well-being. Here are some key reasons why rational thinking is essential:

• Improved Decision-Making

By engaging in rational thinking, individuals can make decisions based on objective analysis and reasoning rather than impulsive or biased tendencies. This approach allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of available options, leading to better choices and outcomes.

• Minimization of Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases are inherent tendencies that distort our thinking and lead to irrational judgments. By practising rational thought, we can identify and minimize these biases, enabling a more precise and accurate assessment of information.

• Enhanced Problem-Solving Skills

Rational thinking equips us with the tools to approach problems systematically and analytically. It encourages a logical evaluation of the issues at hand, leading to more effective problem-solving strategies and solutions.

• Better Conflict Resolution

In situations where conflicts arise, rational thinking can help resolve disputes by promoting open-mindedness, empathy, and a focus on objective facts. It enables individuals to consider multiple perspectives and find mutually beneficial resolutions.

Strengthened Analytical Abilities

By engaging in rational thinking regularly, individuals can sharpen their analytical skills, allowing them to assess and interpret information more effectively. Rational thinking enhances our ability to analyze complex data, identify patterns, and draw logical conclusions.

• Promotes Objectivity

Rational thinking encourages objectivity by separating personal biases and emotions from decision-making. It enables individuals to assess situations impartially and choose based on facts and evidence rather than subjective preferences.

• Empowers Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is closely intertwined with rational thought. Individuals develop the necessary thinking skills to question assumptions, evaluate arguments, and make well-reasoned judgments by engaging in logical thinking.

• Facilitates Long-Term Plannin g

Rational thinking emphasizes foresight and the consideration of long-term consequences. By applying rationality to planning, individuals can anticipate potential challenges, weigh pros and cons, and develop strategic plans that align with their goals.

• Cultivates Intellectual Growth

Rational thinking fosters a curious mindset, encouraging individuals to seek knowledge, explore different perspectives, and continuously learn. It nurtures intellectual growth and a deeper understanding of the world around us.

• Enables Adaptability

In a rapidly changing world, adaptability is crucial. Rational thinking allows individuals to adjust their thinking and approach based on new information and changing circumstances. It promotes agile decision-making and adaptability to navigate uncertain situations.

How to Develop Rational Thinking Skills

Rational thinking is a crucial cognitive skill that enables us to make sound decisions based on logic and evidence rather than emotions or biases. To cultivate this skill, consider the following strategies:

1. Question Assumptions: Challenge your beliefs and preconceived notions. This opens you up to new perspectives and deeper understanding.

2. Seek Evidence and Evaluate Information: Review reliable sources and critically analyze data before concluding.

3. Identify and Minimize Biases: Recognize common cognitive biases and work to minimize their impact on your decision-making.

4. Consider Alternative Explanations: Explore different possibilities and potential outcomes to broaden your perspective.

5. Practice Reflective Thinking: Step back from situations to examine them objectively, promoting clarity in your thoughts.

6. Utilize Decision-Making Tools: Employ structured frameworks like cost-benefit analysis or decision trees to evaluate options systematically.

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Rational Thinking

While rational thinking is often associated with pure logic, emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in its development and application. Emotional intelligence involves recognizing, understanding, and managing our own emotions and those of others. This skill complements rational thinking in several ways:

1. Self-awareness: Understanding your emotional stat e helps you recognize when emotions might cloud your judgment, allowing you to take a step back and approach decisions more rationally.

2. Empathy: Considering others’ perspectives and emotions can lead to more comprehensive and nuanced rational analysis, especially in social or interpersonal contexts.

3. Emotional Regulation: The ability to manage your emotions prevents impulsive decisions and allows for more thoughtful, rational responses to challenging situations.

4. Social Skills: Effective communication and collaboration, key aspects of emotional intelligence, can enhance the collective rational thinking process in group settings.

By developing rational thinking skills and emotional intelligence , individuals can achieve a more balanced and practical approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

Rational thinking is a powerful cognitive tool that allows individuals to approach problems and decisions with clarity, objectivity, and logical reasoning. By utilizing evidence, questioning assumptions, and considering alternative perspectives, rational thinking enhances our decision-making abilities, minimizes cognitive biases , and cultivates intellectual growth. It empowers us to make informed choices that align with our goals and values, ultimately leading to better outcomes and a more fulfilling life.

So, let us embrace the power of rational thinking and unlock our potential to think critically, analyze effectively, and make well-reasoned decisions. By harnessing this invaluable skill, we can confidently navigate life’s complexities and seize opportunities.

Remember, rational thinking is not a one-time achievement but a continuous process of growth and refinement. So, keep exploring, questioning, and sharpening your analytical thinking skills to unleash the power of reason in every aspect of your life.

Articles You’ll Love: Our Top Picks for Curious Minds

When is the Best Time to Buy Stocks? During a Market Crash

Investment Pyramid: A Strategic Blueprint or High-Stakes Gamble?

Lessons from Financial Crisis History: Turning Chaos into Opportunity

What is the Bandwagon Effect? Exploring Its Impact

Disposition Effect: Why Investors Sell Winners and Cling to Losers

Mob Mentality Psychology: Outsmart the Masses and Win Big

Normalcy Bias Example: The Perils of Buying at the Peak

Outsmart Your Brain: Defeat Behavioural Biases in Investing

The Lemming Effect Enigma: Unraveling the Hive Mind

May 6 2010 Flash Crash: How the Uninformed Lost Money

Examples of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: Stock Market Frenzy

Master the Investment Game with Cognitive Dissonance Psychology

The Yen ETF: A Screaming Buy for Long-Term Investors

What Happens If the Market Crashes? Smart Moves vs. Panic Runs

Logical vs. Emotional Thinking: Deciphering the Dominant Force

• 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

How to encourage and train students to think rationally

We all like to think of ourselves as rational actors, but much of what we do is guided by habit, emotion, and cognitive biases that encourage us to take mental shortcuts. For students, this can result in faulty conclusions and ineffective learning strategies. Thus, training students’ rational thinking skills — the ability to draw measured conclusions from data, rules, and logic — can have some very real benefits.

Promoting rational thinking can improve students’ problem-solving skills, making them more capable learners across various subjects. Competent rational thinkers have extra tools to help them focus and manage their emotions , benefits that extend far beyond the classroom. Although there is no quick fix for developing skilled rational thinkers, there are several broad techniques you can use to help students cultivate these abilities over time, many of which can be employed in a Kialo Edu discussion.

Five techniques to encourage students to think rationally

1. welcome questions from students — no matter how big or small.

It might be obvious, but encouraging and welcoming student questions is an essential step towards making them better, clearer thinkers. Rational thinkers are those that take the time to think about things from different angles and explore gaps in knowledge where they find them. Impress upon students that there are no “stupid questions,” and create a space where it is safe for them to think aloud as they come up with new ideas or question existing ones.

Use tricky questions as an opportunity to find the answers together, either through discussion or research. While it’s not always possible to diverge from the lesson plan, student curiosity should be rewarded with time and attention as much as possible!

2. Focus on systematic problem-solving to train trial-and-error process

One of the key principles of rational thinking is that many problems can be solved through thinking, with enough time and effort. The inverse of this is the binary attitude that students either know or don’t know how to do something (until they are shown).

Prompt students to work things out on their own through trial and error before testing their conclusions against those of their classmates. Remind students that making errors is an important part of the learning process, as it provides a chance for them to learn from their mistakes.

If you want to try this out in your classroom, consider assigning a Kialo Edu discussion as an essay alternative . Students can use the comment section to help their classmates sharpen their arguments through multiple rounds of peer feedback.

Rather than assigning a grade yourself, tell students they can choose their own grade once they are happy with their work. Activities like this encourage students to actively seek out constructive criticism as a way of strengthening their own ideas.

3. Allow students to explore the range of potential solutions to a problem

Jonathan Baron, a notable philosopher on the subject of thinking, identifies “insufficient search” as a major obstacle to thinking effectively. 1 He deems this as the failure to consider more than one possible approach or answer to a given problem.

To train students to think “outside of the box,” give them lots of opportunities to tackle complex topics for which there are no easy — or singularly correct — answers. Open-ended classroom discussions on social and philosophical problems can stimulate this kind of thinking, which some studies have even linked to improvements across foundational skills like reading and math.

If you’re looking for ideas on where to start, Kialo Edu is designed to facilitate this type of wide-ranging discussion, with countless ideas in our library of debate topics to help spark inspiration.

Educators should also take steps to create a classroom culture where students can discuss their ideas freely and won’t feel personally attacked when those ideas are challenged. Emphasize that winning is not the goal of classroom debates, but rather learning something new together.

4. Talk about thinking with your students

For students to develop their rational faculties, they need to be aware of their own thinking. By being more aware, students can train themselves to recognize — and avoid — careless thinking. Reflective practices like learning journals prompt students to visualize how their understanding has progressed with practice and contribute to a growth mindset .

“Showing your work” is also universally applicable, whether students are tackling math problems or defending their position on an ethical question.

5. Practice what you teach by modeling rational thinking

It’s essential that educators model the kind of thinking practices they want students to develop. Be honest about the gaps in your knowledge when they come up, and be willing to change your mind when faced with new evidence. Students should learn that a sign of true intellectual strength is not having been right all along, but having the curiosity and perseverance to work towards the correct answer.

Here at Kialo Edu, we’re passionate about helping to build the next generation of accomplished rational thinkers. That’s why we designed our platform to encourage civil discourse, collaborative learning , and systematic thinking as students work together to build out the different aspects of a debate.

How do you teach your students to think rationally? If you have a technique that works, feel free to reach out and tell us about it on social media, or directly at [email protected] . 

Looking for more inspiration on how to teach critical thinking in your classroom? We’ve got lots of other resources!

• Baron, J. (2006). Thinking and Deciding (4th ed., pp.6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840265

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

• Announcements
• Editorial Board
• Submit a Paper
• Publication Ethics
• ##PAPER TEMPLATE##
• ##Retraction Policy##

Project-Based Learning in Fostering Creative Thinking and Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills: Evidence from Primary Education in Indonesia

The interdependence between the Project-Based Learning (PjBL) Model and the growth and enhancement of Creative Thinking and Mathematical Problem Solving Skills in Elementary Schools is unquestionable nowadays. Prior studies have yet to discover concrete evidence regarding the interdependence being discussed. This study highlighted cognitive abilities related to creative thinking and mathematics problem-solving by implementing the Project-Based Learning Model. This research was a quasi-experiment with a pretest-posttest control group design involving 43 students in the sixth grade of two elementary schools; data was collected through test and classroom observation, and then the data was analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Conversely, students exposed to project-based learning models exhibit higher skill levels in creative thinking and problem-solving than those instructed using conventional learning models. The project-based learning model significantly impacted elementary school children’s creative thinking and mathematics problem-solving skills. These findings suggest that the Project-Based Learning Model is acceptable for instructors seeking to foster creativity in teaching mathematics at the primary school level in Indonesia or other countries with comparable settings.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.8.15

Adijaya, M. A., Widiana, I. W., Parwata, I. G. L. A., & Antara, I. G. W. S. (2023). Bloom’s taxonomy revision-oriented learning activities to improve procedural capabilities and learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(1), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.1.261

Albab, U., Budiyono, & Indriati, D. (2020). Metacognition skills and higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613(1), Article 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012017

Almulla, M. A. (2020). The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as a way to engage students in learning. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938702

Amerstorfer, C. M., & Münster-Kistner, C. F. V. (2021). Student perceptions of academic engagement and student-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713057

Arends, R. I. (2013). Learning to teach (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Arici, F. (2023). An examination of the effectiveness of problem-based learning method supported by augmented reality in science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 446–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12752

Astuti, P., Qohar, A., & Hidayanto, E. (2019). Proses berpikir siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal higher order thinking skills berdasarkan pemahaman konseptual dan prosedural [Students’ thinking process in solving higher order thinking skills questions based on conceptual and procedural understanding]. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, 4(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v4i1.11910

Astutik, S., Mahardika, I. K., Indrawati, Sudarti, & Supeno. (2020). HOTS student worksheet to identification of scientific creativity skill, critical thinking skill and creative thinking skill in physics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1465(1), Article 012075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1465/1/012075

Aziz, A. A. M. A. (2021). The development of the HOTS mathematical problem-solving framework using the Bar model strategy: A need analysis. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(4), 972–981. https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.8006811

Babakr, Z. H., Mohamedamin, P., & Kakamad, K. (2019). Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory: Critical review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.84

Benraghda, A. (2022). Self-assessment as a self-regulated learning approach in English oral presentations: College students’ choices and perceptions. Cogent Education, 9(1), Article 2123472. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2123472

Cammies, C., Cunningham, J. A., & Pike, R. K. (2022). Not all Bloom and gloom: Assessing constructive alignment, higher order cognitive skills, and their influence on students’ perceived learning within the practical components of an undergraduate biology course. Journal of Biological Education, 58(3), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2092191

Chen, J., Kolmos, A., & Du, X. (2021). Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: A review of literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1718615

Cheng, L., Wang, M., Chen, Y., Niu, W., Hong, M., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Design my music instrument: A project-based science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics program on the development of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763948

C?r?t, D. K., & Aydemir, S. (2023). Online scratch activities during the COVID-19 pandemic: Computational and creative thinking. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(4), 2111–2120. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i4.24938

Cook, S. C. (2020). Schema-based instruction for mathematical word problem solving: An evidence-based review for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718823080

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publication.

Cruz, S., Lencastre, J. A., & Viseu, F. (2023). Heuristics and usability testing of a project-based learning online course: A case study with structural mathematical concepts. International Journal of Instruction, 16(3), 465–488. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16325a

Diego-Mantecon, J. M., Prodromou, T., Lavicza, Z., Blanco, T. F., & Ortiz-Laso, Z. (2021). An attempt to evaluate STEAM project-based instruction from a school mathematics perspective. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(5), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01303-9

Edwar, E., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, Z., & Darmawijoyo, D. (2023). Developing a workshop model for high school mathematics teachers constructing HOTS questions through the Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia approach. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i4.pp603-626

Gunawardena, M. (2021). Scaffolding students’ critical thinking: A process not an end game. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, Article 100848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100848

Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, Article 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586

Handayani, A. D., & Iswantiningtyas, V. (2020). Javanese traditional games as a teaching and learning media to socialize and introduce mathematics since early age. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032008

Hawari, A. D. M., & Noor, A. I. M. (2020). Project based learning pedagogical design in STEAM art education. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i3.11072

Hidayati, Y. M., Ngalim, A., Sutama, Arifin, Z., Abidin, Z., & Rahmawati, E. (2020). Level of combinatorial thinking in solving mathematical problems. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(3), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.751038

Hujjatusnaini, N. (2020). The effect of blended project-based learning integrated with 21st-century skills on pre-service biology teachers’ higher-order thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 11(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i1.27148

Irdalisa, I., Zulherman, Z., Elvianasti, M., Widodo, W. S., & Hanum, E. (2024). Effectiveness of project-based learning on STEAM-based student’s worksheet analysis with ecoprint technique. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 10(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.10.1.923

Jiang, B., & Li, Z. (2021). Effect of Scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00190-z

Jiang, Y., Xu, N., Xu, S., & Wang, S. (2022). The enlightenment of Piaget’s theory to Chinese primary school education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 670, 878–882. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220704.158

Junianto, J., & Wijaya, A. (2019). Developing students’ mathematical literacy through problem based learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1320(1), Article 012035. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012035

Karan, E. (2022). Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills through project-based learning. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.54337/ojs.jpblhe.v10i1.6887

Kemendikbudristek. (2023). Laporan PISA Kemendikbudristek [PISA report of the Ministry of Education and Culture]. PISA 2022 Dan Pemulihan Pembelajaran Indonesia (pp. 1–25). https://balaibahasariau.kemdikbud.go.id/wpcontent/uploads/2023/12/LAPORAN-PISA-KEMENDIKBUDRISTEK.pdf

Khalid, M., Saad, S., Hamid, S. R. A., Abdullah, M. R., Ibrahim, H., & Shahrill, M. (2020). Enhancing creativity and problem solving skills through creative problem solving in teaching mathematics. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.11027

Kharisma, F. N., Susilowati, S. M. E., & Ridlo, S. (2019). The effective learning models in developing problem-solving skills. KnE Social Sciences, 3(18), 595–604 https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i18.4750

Kim, H. W., & Kim, M. K. (2021). A case study of children’s interaction types and learning motivation in small group project-based learning activities in a mathematics classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), em2051. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11415

Kurniawan, E. S., Mundilarto, M., & Istiyono, E. (2024). Improving student higher order thinking skills using Synectic-HOTS-oriented learning model. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(2), 1132–1140. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i2.25002

Lafmejani, A. Q. (2022). Cognitive evolution of the “Human” concept and its adaptation to Piaget’s theory. Caspian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 8(4), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.32598/CJNS.4.31.355.1

Lazi?, B. D., Kneževi?, J. B., & Mari?i?, S. M. (2021). The influence of project-based learning on student achievement in elementary mathematics education. South African Journal of Education, 41(3), Article 1909. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n3a1909

Leasa, M. (2020). The effect of learning styles on the critical thinking skills in natural science learning of elementary school students. Elementary Education Online, 19(4), 2086–2097. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.763449

Lee, J. S., & Galindo, E. (2021). Examining project-based learning successes and challenges of mathematics preservice teachers in a teacher residency program: Learning by doing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v15i1.28786

Li, Z. (2022). Assessment of scientific thinking and creativity in an electronic educational environment. International Journal of Science Education, 44(3), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2032863

Lin, X. (2021). Investigating the unique predictors of word-problem solving using meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1097?1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09554-w

Liu, M. (2023). Bayesian optimization and ensemble learning algorithm combined method for deformation prediction of concrete dam. Structures, 54, 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.05.136

Lu, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Creativity in students’ modelling competencies: Conceptualisation and measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10055-y

MacLeod, M., & Veen, J. T. V. D. (2020). Scaffolding interdisciplinary project-based learning: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1646210

Marbán, J. M., Radwan, E., Radwan, A., & Radwan, W. (2021). Primary and secondary students’ usage of digital platforms for mathematics learning during the COVID19 outbreak: The case of the Gaza strip. Mathematics, 9(2), Article 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9020110

Menggo, S., Pramesti, P. D. M. Y., & Krismayani, N. W. (2023). Integrating project-based learning in preparing students’ interpersonal communication skills on speaking courses in Indonesia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(9), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.9.12

Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002

Michalsky, T. (2024). Metacognitive scaffolding for preservice teachers’ self-regulated design of higher order thinking tasks. Heliyon, 10(2), e2480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24280

Moma, L. (2015). Pengambangan instrumen kemampuan berpikir kreatif matematis untuk siswa SMP [Development of mathematical creative thinking instruments for junior high school students]. Delta-Pi: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.33387/dpi.v4i1.142

Morteza, T., & Moghaddam, M. Y. (2017). On the plausibility of Bloom’s higher order thinking strategies on learner autonomy: The paradigm shift. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0037-8

Munar, A., Winarti, W., Nai’mah, N., Rezieka, D. G., & Aulia, A. (2022). Improving higher order thinking skill (HOTs) in early children using picture story book. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(3), 4611–4618. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i3.2224

Muttaqin, H., Susanto, Hobri, & Tohir, M. (2021). Students’ creative thinking skills in solving mathematics higher order thinking skills (HOTs) problems based on online trading arithmetic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1832(1), Article 012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1832/1/012036

Ndiung, S., Sariyasa, Jehadus, E., & Apsari, R. A. (2021). The effect of treffinger creative learning model with the use RME principles on creative thinking skill and mathematics learning outcome. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 873–888. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14249a

Newton, K. J. (2020). Mathematical flexibility: Aspects of a continuum and the role of prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Education, 88(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1586629

Nizaruddin, N., & Kusmaryono, I. (2023). Transforming students’ pseudo-thinking into real thinking in mathematical problem solving. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.3.477

Nuryadin, A., Karlimah, K., Lidinillah, D. A. M., & Apriani, I. F. (2023). Blended learning after the pandemic: The flipped classroom as an alternative learning model for elementary classrooms. Participatory Educational Research, 10(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.52.10.3

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2024). PISA results 2022 (Volume III) – Factsheets: Indonesia. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-results-2022-volume-iii-factsheets_041a90f1-en/indonesia_a7090b49-en.html

Pakpahan, F. H., & Saragih, M. (2022). Theory of cognitive development by Jean Piaget. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.52622/joal.v2i2.79

Palinussa, A. L. (2013). Students’ critical mathematical thinking skills and character: Experiments for junior high school students through realistic mathematics education culture-based. Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.4.1.566.75-94

Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

PISA. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I and II) – Country notes: Indonesia. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/indonesia_c2e1ae0e-en.html

Prastiti, T. D., Tresnaningsih, S., Mairing, J. P., & Azkarahman, A. R. (2020). HOTS problem on function and probability: Does it impact to students’ mathematical literacy in Universitas Terbuka? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613(1), Article 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012003

Puccio, G., Lohiser, A., & Seemiller, C. (2021). Understanding convergent thinking: Developing effective critical thinking. In Creative problem solving: A 21st century workplace skill. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071865637

Purwaningsih, E., Sari, A. M., Yuliati, L., Masjkur, K., Kurniawan, B. R., & Zahiri, M. A. (2020). Improving the problem-solving skills through the development of teaching materials with STEM-PjBL (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-project based learning) model integrated with TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1481(1), Article 012133. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012133

Putri, N., Rusdiana, D., & Suwarma, I. R. (2020). Enhanching physics students’ creative thinking skills using CBL model implemented in STEM in vocational school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521, Article 042045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042045

Rahman, M. S., Juniati, D., & Manuharawati, M. (2023). The quality of mathematical proficiency in solving geometry problem: Difference cognitive independence and motivation. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.03.27

Rehman, N., Zhang, W., Mahmood, A., Fareed, M. Z., & Batool, S. (2023). Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), Article 424. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01914-5

Roble, D. B., Lomibao, L. S., & Luna, C. A. (2021). Developing students’ creative constructs in mathematics with problem-based (PB) and problem posing (PP) tasks. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth, 13(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy29672

Rosidin, U., Suyatna, A., & Abdurrahman, A. (2019). A combined HOTS-based assessment/STEM learning model to improve secondary students’ thinking skills: A development and evaluation study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.518464

Rusilowati, A., Negoro, R. A., Aji, A. P., & Subali, B. (2023). Development of waves critical thinking test: Physics essay test for high school student. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(4), 1781–1794. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.4.1781

Safie, N., & Zakaria, S. (2023). Examining the effectiveness of thinking maps usage by analysing students’ achievement in mathematics subject. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 31(1), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.37934/ARASET.31.1.197209

Sahudra, T. M., Ary, K. K., Ramadhani, D., Asnawi, A., & Handrianto, C. (2021). The impact of project-based flipped learning model on the technological pedagogical content knowledge skill of prospective teachers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(5), Article 2606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052606

Saldo, I. J. P., & Walag, A. M. P. (2020). Utilizing problem-based and project-based learning in developing students’ communication and collaboration skills in physics. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(5), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-8-5-1

Samsudin, M. A., Jamali, S. M., Zain, A. N. M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2020). The effect of STEM project based learning on self-efficacy among high-school physics students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.15

Schindler, M., & Bakker, A. (2020). Affective field during collaborative problem posing and problem solving: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 303?324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09973-0

Schleicher, A. (2018). PISA 2018 insights and interpretations. OECD. Available at https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/pisa/publications/national-reports/pisa-2018/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf

Serin, H. (2023). Teaching mathematics: The role of project-based learning. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(2), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i2p378

Setianingsih, R., Sa’dijah, C., As’ari, A. R., & Muksar, M. (2017). Investigating fifth-grade students’ construction of mathematical knowledge through classroom discussion. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(4), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/619

Shidqi, L., Trisniawati, T., & Rhosyida, N. (2023). The development of kobatar learning media for learning mathematics in elementary school. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 3(2), 886–892. https://doi.org/10.25082/amler.2023.02.015

Simonton, K. L. (2021). Project-based learning and its potential in physical education: An instructional model inquiry. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 12(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1862683

Sofiyan, S., Amalia, R., & Suwardi, A. B. (2020). Development of mathematical teaching materials based on project-based learning to improve students’ HOTS and character. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), Article 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012006

Son, A. L., Darhim, D., & Fatimah, S. (2020). Students’ mathematical problem-solving ability based on teaching models intervention and cognitive style. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.10744.209-222

Suanto, E., Maat, S. M., & Zakaria, E. (2023). The effectiveness of the implementation of three dimensions geometry KARA module on higher order thinking skills (HOTS) and motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 16(3), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1636a

Sukkeewan, P., Songkram, N., & Nasongkhla, J. (2024). Development and validation of a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring innovative thinking in vocational students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 10(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.10.1.835

Suratno, S., Wahono, B., Chang, C. Y., Retnowati, A., & Yushardi, Y. (2020). Exploring a direct relationship between students’ problem-solving abilities and academic achievement: A STEM education at a coffee plantation area. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.22

Syahriridani, M., Susilo, H., & Ibrohim, I. (2022). Developing problem based learning through lesson study. Journal of Learning Improvement and Lesson Study, 1(2), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.24036/jlils.v1i2.20

Syamsuddin, A., Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2020). Understanding the problem solving strategy based on cognitive style as a tool to investigate reflective thinking process of prospective teacher. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(6), 2614?2620. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080644

Tamur, M., Ndiung, S., Nurjaman, A., & Jerito, P. (2020). Do differences in measured mathematical abilities moderate the effectiveness of the realistic mathematics education approach? Meta-analysis studies. Jurnal Math Educator Nusantara, 7(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.29407/jmen.v7i1.15736

Tanjung, H. S., Nababan, S. A., Sa’dijah, C., & Subanji, S. (2020). Development of assessment tools of critical thinking in mathematics in the context of HOTS. Advances in Mathematics: Scientific Journal, 9(10), 8659–8667. https://doi.org/10.37418/amsj.9.10.91

Tanujaya, B., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Mumu, J. (2021). Mathematics instruction to promote mathematics higher-order thinking skills of students in Indonesia: Moving forward. TEM Journal, 10(4), 1945–1954. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM104-60

Vink, I. C. D., Hornstra, L., & Kroesbergen, E. H. (2023). Latent profile analysis of working memory: Relations with creativity and academic achievement. Creativity Research Journal, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2183323

Wang, X. M. (2023). An online progressive peer assessment approach to project-based learning: A constructivist perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(5), 2073–2101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10257-6

Widiatsih, A., Wardani, D. A. R., Royhana, U., Djamali, F., & Septory, B. J. (2020). The development of mathematical problems based on higher order thinking skills (HOTS) on comparative material by implementing PBL and its effect on the teacher’s creative thinking skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1538(1), Article 012110. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1538/1/012110

Widyaningsih, S. W., & Yusuf, I. (2019). The project-based learning model is based on simple teaching tools and critical thinking skills. Kasuari: Physics Education Journal (KPEJ), 1(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.37891/kpej.v1i1.33

Wijaya, T. T., Zhou, Y., Ware, A., & Hermita, N. (2021). Improving the creative thinking skills of the next generation of mathematics teachers using dynamic mathematics software. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(13), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i13.21535

Zubaidah, S., Fuad, N. M., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2017). Improving creative thinking skills of students through differentiated science inquiry integrated with a mind map. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(4), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10214a

Zulyusri, Z., Elfira, I., Lufri, L., & Santosa, T. A. (2023). Literature study: Utilization of the PjBL model in science education to improve creativity and critical thinking skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i1.2555

• There are currently no refbacks.

e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493