crucial critical thinking attitudes

• 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

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

9 characteristics of critical thinking (and how you can develop them)

It's no secret that critical thinking is essential for growth and success. Yet many people aren't quite sure what it means — it sounds like being a critic or cynical, traits that many people want to avoid.

However, thinking critically isn't about being negative. On the contrary, effective critical thinkers possess many positive traits. Attributes like curiosity, compassion, and communication are among the top commonalities that critical thinkers share, and the good news is that we can all learn to develop these capabilities.

This article will discuss some of the principal characteristics of critical thinking and how developing these qualities can help you improve your decision-making and problem-solving skills. With a bit of self-reflection and practice, you'll be well on your way to making better decisions, solving complex problems, and achieving success across all areas of your life.

What is critical thinking?

Scholarly works on critical thinking propose many ways of interpreting the concept ( at least 17 in one reference! ), making it challenging to pinpoint one exact definition. In general, critical thinking refers to rational, goal-directed thought through logical arguments and reasoning. We use critical thinking to objectively assess and evaluate information to form reasonable judgments.

Critical thinking has its roots in ancient Greece. The philosopher Socrates is credited with being one of the first to encourage his students to think critically about their beliefs and ideas. Socrates believed that by encouraging people to question their assumptions, they would be able to see the flaws in their reasoning and improve their thought processes.

Today, critical thinking skills are considered vital for success in academia and everyday life. One of the defining " 21st-century skills ," critical thinking is integral to problem-solving, decision making, and goal setting.

Why is it necessary to develop critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking skills help us learn new information, understand complex concepts, and make better decisions. The ability to be objective and reasonable is an asset that can enhance personal and professional relationships.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports critical thinking is among the top desired skills in the workplace. The ability to develop a properly thought-out solution in a reasonable amount of time is highly valued by employers. Companies want employees who can solve problems independently and work well in a team. A desirable employee can evaluate situations critically and creatively, collaborate with others, and make sound judgments.

Critical thinking is an essential component of academic study as well. Critical thinking skills are vital to learners because they allow students to build on their prior knowledge and construct new understandings. This will enable learners to expand their knowledge and experience across various subjects.

Despite its importance, though, critical thinking is not something that we develop naturally or casually. Even though critical thinking is considered an essential learning outcome in many universities, only 45% of college students in a well-known study reported that their skills had improved after two years of classes.

9 characteristics of critical thinking

Clearly, improving our ability to think critically will require some self-improvement work. As lifelong learners, we can use this opportunity for self-reflection to identify where we can improve our thinking processes.

Strong critical thinkers possess a common set of personality traits, habits, and dispositions. Being aware of these attributes and putting them into action can help us develop a strong foundation for critical thinking. These essential characteristics of critical thinking can be used as a toolkit for applying specific thinking processes to any given situation.

Curiosity is one of the most significant characteristics of critical thinking. Research has shown that a state of curiosity drives us to continually seek new information . This inquisitiveness supports critical thinking as we need to constantly expand our knowledge to make well-informed decisions.

Curiosity also facilitates critical thinking because it encourages us to question our thoughts and mental models, the filters we use to understand the world. This is essential to avoid critical thinking barriers like biases and misconceptions. Challenging our beliefs and getting curious about all sides of an issue will help us have an open mind during the critical thinking process.

Actionable Tip: Choose to be curious. When you ask “why,” you learn about things around you and clarify ambiguities. Google anything you are curious about, read new books, and play with a child. Kids have a natural curiosity that can be inspiring.

Pique your curiosity

ABLE is the next-level all-in-one knowledge acquisition and productivity app for avid learners and curious minds.

2. Analytical

Investigation is a crucial component of critical thinking, so it's important to be analytical. Analytical thinking involves breaking down complex ideas into their simplest forms . The first step when tackling a problem or making a decision is to analyze information and consider it in smaller pieces. Then, we use critical thinking by gathering additional information before getting to a judgment or solution.

Being analytical is helpful for critical thinking because it allows us to look at data in detail. When examining an issue from various perspectives, we should pay close attention to these details to arrive at a decision based on facts. Taking these steps is crucial to making good decisions.

Actionable Tip: Become aware of your daily surroundings. Examine how things work — breaking things down into steps will encourage analysis. You can also play brain and puzzle games. These provide an enjoyable way to stimulate analytical thinking.

3. Introspective

Critical thinkers are typically introspective. Introspection is a process of examining our own thoughts and feelings. We do this as a form of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. Researchers believe that we can improve our problem-solving skills by using metacognition to analyze our reasoning processes .

Being introspective is essential to critical thinking because it helps us be self-aware. Self-awareness encourages us to acknowledge and face our own biases, prejudices, and selfish tendencies. If we know our assumptions, we can question them and suspend judgment until we have all the facts.

Actionable Tip: Start a journal. Keep track of your thoughts, feelings, and opinions throughout the day, especially when faced with difficult decisions. Look for patterns. You can avoid common thought fallacies by being aware of them.

4. Able to make inferences

Another characteristic of critical thinking is the ability to make inferences, which are logical conclusions based on reviewing the facts, events, and ideas available. Analyzing the available information and observing patterns and trends will help you find relationships and make informed decisions based on what is likely to happen.

The ability to distinguish assumptions from inferences is crucial to critical thinking. We decide something is true by inference because another thing is also true, but we decide something by assumption because of what we believe or think we know. While both assumptions and inferences can be valid or invalid, inferences are more rational because data support them.

Actionable Tip: Keep an eye on your choices and patterns during the day, noticing when you infer. Practice applying the Inference Equation — I observe + I already know = So now I am thinking — to help distinguish when you infer or assume.

5. Observant

Observation skills are also a key part of critical thinking. Observation is more than just looking — it involves arranging, combining, and classifying information through all five senses to build understanding. People with keen observation skills notice small details and catch slight changes in their surroundings.

Observation is one of the first skills we learn as children , and it is critical for problem-solving. Being observant allows us to collect more information about a situation and use that information to make better decisions and solve problems. Further, it facilitates seeing things from different perspectives and finding alternative solutions.

Actionable Tip: Limit your use of devices, and be mindful of your surroundings. Notice and name one thing for each of your five senses when you enter a new environment or even a familiar one. Being aware of what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch allows you to fully experience the moment and it develops your ability to observe your surroundings.

6. Open-minded and compassionate

Open-minded and compassionate people are good critical thinkers. Being open-minded means considering new ideas and perspectives, even if they conflict with your own. This allows you to examine different sides of an issue without immediately dismissing them. Likewise, compassionate people can empathize with others, even if they disagree. When you understand another person's point of view, you can find common ground and understanding.

Critical thinking requires an open mind when analyzing opposing arguments and compassion when listening to the perspective of others. By exploring different viewpoints and seeking to understand others' perspectives, critical thinkers can gain a more well-rounded understanding of an issue. Using this deeper understanding, we can make better decisions and solve more complex problems.

Actionable Tip: Cultivate open-mindedness and compassion by regularly exposing yourself to new ideas and views. Read books on unfamiliar topics, listen to podcasts with diverse opinions, or talk with people from different backgrounds.

7. Able to determine relevance

The ability to assess relevance is an essential characteristic of critical thinking. Relevance is defined as being logically connected and significant to the subject. When a fact or statement is essential to a topic, it can be deemed relevant.

Relevance plays a vital role in many stages of the critical thinking process . It's especially crucial to identify the most pertinent facts before evaluating an argument. Despite being accurate and seemingly meaningful, a point may not matter much to your subject. Your criteria and standards are equally relevant, as you can't make a sound decision with irrelevant guidelines.

Actionable Tip: When you're in a conversation, pay attention to how each statement relates to what you're talking about. It's surprising how often we stray from the point with irrelevant information. Asking yourself, "How does that relate to the topic?" can help you spot unrelated issues.

Critical thinking requires willingness. Some scholars argue that the "willingness to inquire" is the most fundamental characteristic of critical thinking , which encompasses all the others. Being willing goes hand in hand with other traits, like being flexible and humble. Flexible thinkers are willing to adapt their thinking to new evidence or arguments. Those who are humble are willing to acknowledge their faults and recognize their limitations.

It's essential for critical thinking that we have an open mind and are willing to challenge the status quo. The willingness to question assumptions, consider multiple perspectives, and think outside the box allows critical thinkers to reach new and necessary conclusions.

Actionable Tip: Cultivate willingness by adopting a growth mindset. See challenges as learning opportunities. Celebrate others' accomplishments, and get curious about what led to their success.

9. Effective communicators

Being a good critical thinker requires effective communication. Effective critical thinkers know that communication is imperative when solving problems. They can articulate their goals and concerns clearly while recognizing others' perspectives. Critical thinking requires people to be able to listen to each other's opinions and share their experiences respectfully to find the best solutions.

A good communicator is also an attentive and active listener. Listening actively goes beyond simply hearing what someone says. Being engaged in the discussion involves:

• Listening to what they say
• Being present
• Asking questions that clarify their position

Actively listening is crucial for critical thinking because it helps us understand other people's perspectives.

Actionable Tip: The next time you speak with a friend, family member, or even a complete stranger, take the time to genuinely listen to what they're saying. It may surprise you how much you can learn about others — and about yourself — when you take the time to listen carefully.

The nine traits above represent just a few of the most common characteristics of critical thinking. By developing or strengthening these characteristics, you can enhance your capacity for critical thinking.

Get to the core of critical thinking

Critical thinking is essential for success in every aspect of life, from personal relationships to professional careers. By developing your critical thinking skills , you can challenge the status quo and gain a new perspective on the world around you. You can start improving your critical thinking skills today by determining which characteristics of critical thinking you need to work on and using the actionable tips to strengthen them. With practice, you can become a great critical thinker.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Erin E. Rupp

Read more posts by this author

3 critical thinking strategies to enhance your problem-solving skills

5 remedies for poor time management (and how to know if you need them).

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

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

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe.  It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

• Understand the logical connections between ideas.
• Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
• Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
• Solve problems systematically.
• Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
• Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy.  The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a   metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

• I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
• I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
• I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
• I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The  California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory  is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

• Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
• Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
• Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
• Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
• Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
• Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
• Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book  How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The  Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal  (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the  National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

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. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

• Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• StudentInfo
• CRITICAL THINKING

5 ESSENTIAL CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Critical thinking is a habit of mind that helps you explore ideas. It is both an attitude and a set of skills. A critical thinking attitude includes keeping an open mind and a willingness to have any idea questioned. Critical thinking skills include being able to define the idea in front of you clearly, determine the quality of evidence supporting that idea, and understand its’ implications or consequence.

CRAFTING CRITICAL QUESTIONS Pose a precise question that you want to explore.

PERSPECTIVES Collect the perspectives on multiple sides of the idea. Be able to state them fairly such that the people holding them would accept your summary.

INFORMATION LITERACY Test the idea first by examining the evidence or information supporting it. To what degree is the evidence or information the result of a comprehensive, credible and objective process?

ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES  Examine the elements and the structure of the idea. What conclusions and consequences follow from the claims, arguments and elements? Which arguments are the strongest?

REFLECTIVE JOURNEY Be thoughtful about your own thinking. Fight your own biases that cause you to be quick to judge. Be open to new information that may challenge or change your own perspectives.

© The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131, (505) 277-0111 New Mexico's Flagship University

• UNM on Facebook
• UNM on Instagram
• UNM on Twitter
• UNM on YouTube

more at social.unm.edu

• Accessibility
• Contact UNM
• Consumer Information
• New Mexico Higher Education Dashboard

Home > Blog > Tips for Online Students > Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Why Is Critical Thinking Important and How to Improve It

Updated: July 8, 2024

Published: April 2, 2020

Why is critical thinking important? The decisions that you make affect your quality of life. And if you want to ensure that you live your best, most successful and happy life, you’re going to want to make conscious choices. That can be done with a simple thing known as critical thinking. Here’s how to improve your critical thinking skills and make decisions that you won’t regret.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing facts to form a judgment. Essentially, it involves thinking about thinking. Historically, it dates back to the teachings of Socrates , as documented by Plato.

Today, it is seen as a complex concept understood best by philosophers and psychologists. Modern definitions include “reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” and “deciding what’s true and what you should do.”

The Importance Of Critical Thinking

Why is critical thinking important? Good question! Here are a few undeniable reasons why it’s crucial to have these skills.

1. Critical Thinking Is Universal

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. What does this mean? It means that no matter what path or profession you pursue, these skills will always be relevant and will always be beneficial to your success. They are not specific to any field.

2. Crucial For The Economy

Our future depends on technology, information, and innovation. Critical thinking is needed for our fast-growing economies, to solve problems as quickly and as effectively as possible.

3. Improves Language & Presentation Skills

In order to best express ourselves, we need to know how to think clearly and systematically — meaning practice critical thinking! Critical thinking also means knowing how to break down texts, and in turn, improve our ability to comprehend.

4. Promotes Creativity

By practicing critical thinking, we are allowing ourselves not only to solve problems but also to come up with new and creative ideas to do so. Critical thinking allows us to analyze these ideas and adjust them accordingly.

5. Important For Self-Reflection

Without critical thinking, how can we really live a meaningful life? We need this skill to self-reflect and justify our ways of life and opinions. Critical thinking provides us with the tools to evaluate ourselves in the way that we need to.

Photo by Marcelo Chagas from Pexels

6. the basis of science & democracy.

In order to have a democracy and to prove scientific facts, we need critical thinking in the world. Theories must be backed up with knowledge. In order for a society to effectively function, its citizens need to establish opinions about what’s right and wrong (by using critical thinking!).

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

We know that critical thinking is good for society as a whole, but what are some benefits of critical thinking on an individual level? Why is critical thinking important for us?

1. Key For Career Success

Critical thinking is crucial for many career paths. Not just for scientists, but lawyers , doctors, reporters, engineers , accountants, and analysts (among many others) all have to use critical thinking in their positions. In fact, according to the World Economic Forum, critical thinking is one of the most desirable skills to have in the workforce, as it helps analyze information, think outside the box, solve problems with innovative solutions, and plan systematically.

2. Better Decision Making

There’s no doubt about it — critical thinkers make the best choices. Critical thinking helps us deal with everyday problems as they come our way, and very often this thought process is even done subconsciously. It helps us think independently and trust our gut feeling.

3. Can Make You Happier!

While this often goes unnoticed, being in touch with yourself and having a deep understanding of why you think the way you think can really make you happier. Critical thinking can help you better understand yourself, and in turn, help you avoid any kind of negative or limiting beliefs, and focus more on your strengths. Being able to share your thoughts can increase your quality of life.

4. Form Well-Informed Opinions

There is no shortage of information coming at us from all angles. And that’s exactly why we need to use our critical thinking skills and decide for ourselves what to believe. Critical thinking allows us to ensure that our opinions are based on the facts, and help us sort through all that extra noise.

5. Better Citizens

One of the most inspiring critical thinking quotes is by former US president Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” What Jefferson is stressing to us here is that critical thinkers make better citizens, as they are able to see the entire picture without getting sucked into biases and propaganda.

6. Improves Relationships

While you may be convinced that being a critical thinker is bound to cause you problems in relationships, this really couldn’t be less true! Being a critical thinker can allow you to better understand the perspective of others, and can help you become more open-minded towards different views.

7. Promotes Curiosity

Critical thinkers are constantly curious about all kinds of things in life, and tend to have a wide range of interests. Critical thinking means constantly asking questions and wanting to know more, about why, what, who, where, when, and everything else that can help them make sense of a situation or concept, never taking anything at face value.

8. Allows For Creativity

Critical thinkers are also highly creative thinkers, and see themselves as limitless when it comes to possibilities. They are constantly looking to take things further, which is crucial in the workforce.

9. Enhances Problem Solving Skills

Those with critical thinking skills tend to solve problems as part of their natural instinct. Critical thinkers are patient and committed to solving the problem, similar to Albert Einstein, one of the best critical thinking examples, who said “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” Critical thinkers’ enhanced problem-solving skills makes them better at their jobs and better at solving the world’s biggest problems. Like Einstein, they have the potential to literally change the world.

10. An Activity For The Mind

Just like our muscles, in order for them to be strong, our mind also needs to be exercised and challenged. It’s safe to say that critical thinking is almost like an activity for the mind — and it needs to be practiced. Critical thinking encourages the development of many crucial skills such as logical thinking, decision making, and open-mindness.

11. Creates Independence

When we think critically, we think on our own as we trust ourselves more. Critical thinking is key to creating independence, and encouraging students to make their own decisions and form their own opinions.

12. Crucial Life Skill

Critical thinking is crucial not just for learning, but for life overall! Education isn’t just a way to prepare ourselves for life, but it’s pretty much life itself. Learning is a lifelong process that we go through each and every day.

How To Improve Your Critical Thinking

Now that you know the benefits of thinking critically, how do you actually do it?

• Define Your Question: When it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to always keep your goal in mind. Know what you’re trying to achieve, and then figure out how to best get there.
• Gather Reliable Information: Make sure that you’re using sources you can trust — biases aside. That’s how a real critical thinker operates!
• Ask The Right Questions: We all know the importance of questions, but be sure that you’re asking the right questions that are going to get you to your answer.
• Look Short & Long Term: When coming up with solutions, think about both the short- and long-term consequences. Both of them are significant in the equation.
• Explore All Sides: There is never just one simple answer, and nothing is black or white. Explore all options and think outside of the box before you come to any conclusions.

How Is Critical Thinking Developed At School?

Critical thinking is developed in nearly everything we do, but much of this essential skill is encouraged and practiced in school. Fostering a culture of inquiry is crucial, encouraging students to ask questions, analyze information, and evaluate evidence.

Teaching strategies like Socratic questioning, problem-based learning, and collaborative discussions help students think for themselves. When teachers ask questions, students can respond critically and reflect on their learning. Group discussions also expand their thinking, making them independent thinkers and effective problem solvers.

How Does Critical Thinking Apply To Your Career?

Critical thinking is a valuable asset in any career. Employers value employees who can think critically, ask insightful questions, and offer creative solutions. Demonstrating critical thinking skills can set you apart in the workplace, showing your ability to tackle complex problems and make informed decisions.

In many careers, from law and medicine to business and engineering, critical thinking is essential. Lawyers analyze cases, doctors diagnose patients, business analysts evaluate market trends, and engineers solve technical issues—all requiring strong critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also enhances your ability to communicate effectively, making you a better team member and leader. By analyzing and evaluating information, you can present clear, logical arguments and make persuasive presentations.

Incorporating critical thinking into your career helps you stay adaptable and innovative. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, which are crucial for professional growth and success in a rapidly changing job market.

Photo by Oladimeji Ajegbile from Pexels

Critical thinking is a vital skill with far-reaching benefits for personal and professional success. It involves systematic skills such as analysis, evaluation, inference, interpretation, and explanation to assess information and arguments.

By gathering relevant data, considering alternative perspectives, and using logical reasoning, critical thinking enables informed decision-making. Reflecting on and refining these processes further enhances their effectiveness.

The future of critical thinking holds significant importance as it remains essential for adapting to evolving challenges and making sound decisions in various aspects of life.

What are the benefits of developing critical thinking skills?

Critical thinking enhances decision-making, problem-solving, and the ability to evaluate information critically. It helps in making informed decisions, understanding others’ perspectives, and improving overall cognitive abilities.

How does critical thinking contribute to problem-solving abilities?

Critical thinking enables you to analyze problems thoroughly, consider multiple solutions, and choose the most effective approach. It fosters creativity and innovative thinking in finding solutions.

What role does critical thinking play in academic success?

Critical thinking is crucial in academics as it allows you to analyze texts, evaluate evidence, construct logical arguments, and understand complex concepts, leading to better academic performance.

How does critical thinking promote effective communication skills?

Critical thinking helps you articulate thoughts clearly, listen actively, and engage in meaningful discussions. It improves your ability to argue logically and understand different viewpoints.

How can critical thinking skills be applied in everyday situations?

You can use critical thinking to make better personal and professional decisions, solve everyday problems efficiently, and understand the world around you more deeply.

What role does skepticism play in critical thinking?

Skepticism encourages questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and distinguishing between facts and opinions. It helps in developing a more rigorous and open-minded approach to thinking.

What strategies can enhance critical thinking?

Strategies include asking probing questions, engaging in reflective thinking, practicing problem-solving, seeking diverse perspectives, and analyzing information critically and logically.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

critical thinking

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
• Boston University - Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
• Monash University - Student Academic Success - What is critical thinking?
• Oklahoma State University Pressbooks - Critical Thinking - Introduction to Critical Thinking
• University of Louisville - Critical Thinking

critical thinking , in educational theory, mode of cognition using deliberative reasoning and impartial scrutiny of information to arrive at a possible solution to a problem. From the perspective of educators, critical thinking encompasses both a set of logical skills that can be taught and a disposition toward reflective open inquiry that can be cultivated . The term critical thinking was coined by American philosopher and educator John Dewey in the book How We Think (1910) and was adopted by the progressive education movement as a core instructional goal that offered a dynamic modern alternative to traditional educational methods such as rote memorization.

Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to

• break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions
• recognize and account for one’s own biases in judgment and experience
• collect and assess relevant evidence from either personal observations and experimentation or by gathering external information
• adjust and reevaluate one’s own thinking in response to what one has learned
• form a reasoned assessment in order to propose a solution to a problem or a more accurate understanding of the topic at hand

Theorists have noted that such skills are only valuable insofar as a person is inclined to use them. Consequently, they emphasize that certain habits of mind are necessary components of critical thinking. This disposition may include curiosity, open-mindedness, self-awareness, empathy , and persistence.

Although there is a generally accepted set of qualities that are associated with critical thinking, scholarly writing about the term has highlighted disagreements over its exact definition and whether and how it differs from related concepts such as problem solving . In addition, some theorists have insisted that critical thinking be regarded and valued as a process and not as a goal-oriented skill set to be used to solve problems. Critical-thinking theory has also been accused of reflecting patriarchal assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing that are inherently biased against women.

Dewey, who also used the term reflective thinking , connected critical thinking to a tradition of rational inquiry associated with modern science . From the turn of the 20th century, he and others working in the overlapping fields of psychology , philosophy , and educational theory sought to rigorously apply the scientific method to understand and define the process of thinking. They conceived critical thinking to be related to the scientific method but more open, flexible, and self-correcting; instead of a recipe or a series of steps, critical thinking would be a wider set of skills, patterns, and strategies that allow someone to reason through an intellectual topic, constantly reassessing assumptions and potential explanations in order to arrive at a sound judgment and understanding.

In the progressive education movement in the United States , critical thinking was seen as a crucial component of raising citizens in a democratic society. Instead of imparting a particular series of lessons or teaching only canonical subject matter, theorists thought that teachers should train students in how to think. As critical thinkers, such students would be equipped to be productive and engaged citizens who could cooperate and rationally overcome differences inherent in a pluralistic society.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, critical thinking as a key outcome of school and university curriculum leapt to the forefront of U.S. education policy. In an atmosphere of renewed Cold War competition and amid reports of declining U.S. test scores, there were growing fears that the quality of education in the United States was falling and that students were unprepared. In response, a concerted effort was made to systematically define curriculum goals and implement standardized testing regimens , and critical-thinking skills were frequently included as a crucially important outcome of a successful education. A notable event in this movement was the release of the 1980 report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities that called for the U.S. Department of Education to include critical thinking on its list of “basic skills.” Three years later the California State University system implemented a policy that required every undergraduate student to complete a course in critical thinking.

Critical thinking continued to be put forward as a central goal of education in the early 21st century. Its ubiquity in the language of education policy and in such guidelines as the Common Core State Standards in the United States generated some criticism that the concept itself was both overused and ill-defined. In addition, an argument was made by teachers, theorists, and others that educators were not being adequately trained to teach critical thinking.

• Product overview
• All features
• Latest feature release
• App integrations
• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• asana-intelligence icon Asana AI
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Capacity planning
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• Permissions
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Project intake
• Resource planning
• Product launches
• View all uses arrow-right icon

• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Collaboration |
• How to build your critical thinking ski ...

How to build your critical thinking skills in 7 steps (with examples)

Critical thinking is, well, critical. By developing critical thinking skills, you improve your ability to analyze information and come to the best decision possible. In this article, we cover the basics of critical thinking, as well as the seven steps you can use to implement the full critical thinking process.

Critical thinking comes from asking the right questions to come to the best conclusion possible. Strong critical thinkers analyze information from a variety of viewpoints in order to identify the best course of action.

Don’t worry if you don’t think you have strong critical thinking skills. In this article, we’ll help you build a foundation for critical thinking so you can absorb, analyze, and make informed decisions. 

See Asana in action

Drive clarity and impact at scale by connecting work and workflows to company-wide goals.

What is critical thinking? 

Critical thinking is the ability to collect and analyze information to come to a conclusion. Being able to think critically is important in virtually every industry and applicable across a wide range of positions. That’s because critical thinking isn’t subject-specific—rather, it’s your ability to parse through information, data, statistics, and other details in order to identify a satisfactory solution. 

Definitions of critical thinking

Various scholars have provided definitions of critical thinking, each emphasizing different aspects of this complex cognitive process:

Michael Scriven , an American philosopher, defines critical thinking as "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."

Robert Ennis , professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, describes critical thinking as "reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do."

Diane Halpern , a cognitive psychologist and former president of the American Psychological Association, defines it as "the use of cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome."

8 essential critical thinking skills to develop

Critical thinking is essential for success in everyday life, higher education, and professional settings. The handbook "Foundation for Critical Thinking" defines it as a process of conceptualization, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information.

In no particular order, here are eight key critical thinking abilities that can help you excel in any situation:

1. Analytical thinking

Analytical thinking involves evaluating data from multiple sources in order to come to the best conclusions. Analytical thinking allows people to reject cognitive biases and strive to gather and analyze intricate subject matter while solving complex problems. Analytical thinkers who thrive at critical thinking can:

Identify patterns and trends in the data

Break down complex issues into manageable components

Recognize cause-and-effect relationships

Evaluate the strength of arguments and evidence

Example: A data analyst breaks down complex sales figures to identify trends and patterns that inform the company's marketing strategy.

2. Open-mindedness

Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider new ideas, arguments, and information without prejudice. This critical thinking skill helps you analyze and process information to come to an unbiased conclusion. Part of the critical thinking process is letting your personal biases go, taking information at face value and coming to a conclusion based on multiple points of view .

Open-minded critical thinkers demonstrate:

Willingness to consider alternative viewpoints

Ability to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is gathered

Receptiveness to constructive criticism and feedback

Flexibility in updating beliefs based on new information

Example: During a product development meeting, a team leader actively considers unconventional ideas from junior members, leading to an innovative solution.

3. Problem-solving

Effective problem solving is a cornerstone of critical thinking. It requires the ability to identify issues, generate possible solutions, evaluate alternatives, and implement the best course of action. This critical thinking skill is particularly valuable in fields like project management and entrepreneurship.

Key aspects of problem-solving include:

Clearly defining the problem

Gathering relevant information

Brainstorming potential solutions

Evaluating the pros and cons of each option

Implementing and monitoring the chosen solution

Reflecting on the outcome and adjusting as necessary

Example: A high school principal uses problem-solving skills to address declining student engagement by surveying learners, consulting with higher education experts, and implementing a new curriculum that balances academic rigor with practical, real-world applications.

4. Reasoned judgment

Reasoned judgment is a key component of higher order thinking that involves making thoughtful decisions based on logical analysis of evidence and thorough consideration of alternatives. This critical thinking skill is important in both academic and professional settings. Key aspects reasoned judgment include:

Objectively gathering and analyzing information

Evaluating the credibility and relevance of evidence

Considering multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions

Making decisions based on logical inference and sound reasoning

Example: A high school science teacher uses reasoned judgment to design an experiment, carefully observing and analyzing results before drawing conclusions about the hypothesis.

5. Reflective thinking

Reflective thinking is the process of analyzing one's own thought processes, actions, and outcomes to gain deeper understanding and improve future performance. Good critical thinking requires analyzing and synthesizing information to form a coherent understanding of a problem. It's an essential critical thinking skill for continuous learning and improvement.

Key aspects of reflective thinking include:

Critically examining one's own assumptions and cognitive biases

Considering diverse viewpoints and perspectives

Synthesizing information from various experiences and sources

Applying insights to improve future decision-making and actions

Continuously evaluating and adjusting one's thinking processes

Example: A community organizer reflects on the outcomes of a recent public event, considering what worked well and what could be improved for future initiatives.

6. Communication

Strong communication skills help critical thinkers articulate ideas clearly and persuasively. Communication in the workplace is crucial for effective teamwork, leadership, and knowledge dissemination. Key aspects of communication in critical thinking include:

Clearly expressing complex ideas

Active listening and comprehension

Adapting communication styles to different audiences

Constructing and delivering persuasive arguments

Example: A manager effectively explains a new company policy to her team, addressing their concerns and ensuring everyone understands its implications.

7. Research

Critical thinkers with strong research skills gather, evaluate, and synthesize information from various sources of information. This is particularly important in academic settings and in professional fields that require continuous learning. Effective research involves:

Identifying reliable and relevant sources of information

Evaluating the credibility and bias of sources

Synthesizing information from multiple sources

Recognizing gaps in existing knowledge

Example: A journalist verifies information from multiple credible sources before publishing an article on a controversial topic.

8. Decision-making

Effective decision making is the culmination of various critical thinking skills that allow an individual to draw logical conclusions and generalizations. It involves weighing options, considering consequences, and choosing the best course of action. Key aspects of decision-making include:

Defining clear criteria for evaluation

Gathering and analyzing relevant information

Considering short-term and long-term consequences

Managing uncertainty and risk

Balancing logic and intuition

Example: A homeowner weighs the costs, benefits, and long-term implications before deciding to invest in solar panels for their house.

How to develop critical thinking skills in 7 steps

Critical thinking is a skill that you can build by following these seven steps. The seven steps to critical thinking help you ensure you’re approaching a problem from the right angle, considering every alternative, and coming to an unbiased conclusion.

First things first: When to use the 7 step critical thinking process

There’s a lot that goes into the full critical thinking process, and not every decision needs to be this thought out. Sometimes, it’s enough to put aside bias and approach a process logically. In other, more complex cases, the best way to identify the ideal outcome is to go through the entire critical thinking process. 

The seven-step critical thinking process is useful for complex decisions in areas you are less familiar with. Alternatively, the seven critical thinking steps can help you look at a problem you’re familiar with from a different angle, without any bias. 

If you need to make a less complex decision, consider another problem solving strategy instead. Decision matrices are a great way to identify the best option between different choices. Check out our article on 7 steps to creating a decision matrix .

1. Identify the problem or question

Before you put those critical thinking skills to work, you first need to identify the problem you’re solving. This step includes taking a look at the problem from a few different perspectives and asking questions like: 

What’s happening? 

Why is this happening? 

What assumptions am I making? 

At first glance, how do I think we can solve this problem? 

A big part of developing your critical thinking skills is learning how to come to unbiased conclusions. In order to do that, you first need to acknowledge the biases that you currently have. Does someone on your team think they know the answer? Are you making assumptions that aren’t necessarily true? Identifying these details helps you later on in the process. 

2. Gather relevant information

At this point, you likely have a general idea of the problem—but in order to come up with the best solution, you need to dig deeper. 

During the research process, collect information relating to the problem, including data, statistics, historical project information, team input, and more. Make sure you gather information from a variety of sources, especially if those sources go against your personal ideas about what the problem is or how to solve it.

Gathering varied information is essential for your ability to apply the critical thinking process. If you don’t get enough information, your ability to make a final decision will be skewed. Remember that critical thinking is about helping you identify the objective best conclusion. You aren’t going with your gut—you’re doing research to find the best option

3. Analyze and evaluate data

Just as it’s important to gather a variety of information, it is also important to determine how relevant the different information sources are. After all, just because there is data doesn’t mean it’s relevant. 

Once you’ve gathered all of the information, sift through the noise and identify what information is relevant and what information isn’t. Synthesizing all of this information and establishing significance helps you weigh different data sources and come to the best conclusion later on in the critical thinking process. 

To determine data relevance, ask yourself:

How reliable is this information? 

How significant is this information? 

Is this information outdated? Is it specialized in a specific field? 

4. Consider alternative points of view

One of the most useful parts of the critical thinking process is coming to a decision without bias. In order to do so, you need to take a step back from the process and challenge the assumptions you’re making. 

We all have bias—and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Unconscious biases (also known as cognitive biases) often serve as mental shortcuts to simplify problem solving and aid decision making. But even when biases aren’t inherently bad, you must be aware of your biases in order to put them aside when necessary. 

Before coming to a solution, ask yourself:

Am I making any assumptions about this information? 

Are there additional variables I haven’t considered? 

Have I evaluated the information from every perspective? 

Are there any viewpoints I missed?

5. Draw logical conclusions

Finally, you’re ready to come to a conclusion. To identify the best solution, draw connections between causes and effects. Use the facts you’ve gathered to evaluate the most objective conclusion. 

Keep in mind that there may be more than one solution. Often, the problems you’re facing are complex and intricate. The critical thinking process doesn’t necessarily lead to a cut-and-dry solution—instead, the process helps you understand the different variables at play so you can make an informed decision. 

6. Develop and communication solutions

Communication is a key skill for critical thinkers. It isn’t enough to think for yourself—you also need to share your conclusion with other project stakeholders. If there are multiple solutions, present them all. There may be a case where you implement one solution, then test to see if it works before implementing another solution. 

This process of communicating and sharing ideas is key in promoting critical thinking abilities within a team or organization. By encouraging open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving, you create an environment that fosters the development of critical thinking skills in others.

7. Reflect and learn from the process

The seven-step critical thinking process yields a result—and you then need to put that solution into place. After you’ve implemented your decision, evaluate whether or not it was effective. Did it solve the initial problem? What lessons—whether positive or negative—can you learn from this experience to improve your critical thinking for next time? 

By engaging in this metacognitive reflective thinking process, you're essentially teaching critical thinking skills to yourself, refining your methodology with each iteration. This reflective practice is fundamental in developing a more robust and adaptable approach to problem-solving.

Depending on how your team shares information, consider documenting lessons learned in a central source of truth. That way, team members that are making similar or related decisions in the future can understand why you made the decision you made and what the outcome was.

Decision-making tools for agile businesses

In this ebook, learn how to equip employees to make better decisions—so your business can pivot, adapt, and tackle challenges more effectively than your competition.

Critical thinking examples in the workplace

Imagine you work in user experience design (UX). Your team is focused on pricing and packaging and ensuring customers have a clear understanding of the different services your company offers. Here’s how to apply the critical thinking process in the workplace in seven steps: 

Step 1: Start by identifying the problem

Your current pricing page isn’t performing as well as you want. You’ve heard from customers that your services aren’t clear, and that the page doesn’t answer the questions they have. This page is really important for your company, since it’s where your customers sign up for your service. You and your team have a few theories about why your current page isn’t performing well, but you decide to apply the critical thinking process to ensure you come to the best decision for the page. 

Gather information about how the problem started

Part of identifying the problem includes understanding how the problem started. The pricing and packaging page is important—so when your team initially designed the page, they certainly put a lot of thought into it. Before you begin researching how to improve the page, ask yourself: 

Why did you design the pricing page the way you did? 

Which stakeholders need to be involved in the decision making process? 

Where are users getting stuck on the page?

Are any features currently working?

Step 2: Then gather information and research

In addition to understanding the history of the pricing and packaging page, it’s important to understand what works well. Part of this research means taking a look at what your competitor’s pricing pages look like. 

Ask yourself: 

How have our competitors set up their pricing pages?

Are there any pricing page best practices? 

How does color, positioning, and animation impact navigation? 

Are there any standard page layouts customers expect to see? 

Step 3: Organize and analyze information

You’ve gathered all of the information you need—now you need to organize and analyze it. What trends, if any, are you noticing? Is there any particularly relevant or important information that you have to consider? 

Step 4: Consider alternative viewpoints to reduce bias

In the case of critical thinking, it’s important to address and set bias aside as much as possible. Ask yourself: 

Is there anything I’m missing? 

Have I connected with the right stakeholders? 

Are there any other viewpoints I should consider? 

Step 5: Determine the most logical solution for your team

You now have all of the information you need to design the best pricing page. Depending on the complexity of the design, you may want to design a few options to present to a small group of customers or A/B test on the live website.

Step 6: Communicate your solution to stakeholders

Critical thinking skills can help you in every element of your life, but in the workplace, you must also involve key project stakeholders . Stakeholders help you determine next steps, like whether you’ll A/B test the page first. Depending on the complexity of the issue, consider hosting a meeting or sharing a status report to get everyone on the same page. 

Step 7: Reflect on the results

No process is complete without evaluating the results. Once the new page has been live for some time, evaluate whether it did better than the previous page. What worked? What didn’t? This also helps you make better critical decisions later on.

Tools and techniques to improve critical thinking skills

Understanding how to improve critical thinking skills has become a cornerstone of personal and professional growth in the 21st century. Recognizing the importance of critical thinking, experts across various disciplines have contributed valuable insights and methodologies. Here are some notable contributions from experts and institutions in the field:

Mind mapping: A visual approach to critical thinking skills

Mind mapping is a visual technique that helps organize and structure information. It's particularly useful for synthesizing complex ideas and identifying connections between different concepts. The benefits of mind mapping include:

Enhancing creativity by encouraging non-linear thinking

Improving memory and retention of information

Facilitating brainstorming and idea generation

Providing a clear overview of complex topics

To create a mind map:

Start with a central idea or concept.

Branch out with related sub topics or ideas.

Use colors, symbols, and images to enhance visual appeal and memorability.

Draw connections between related ideas across different branches.

Mind mapping can be particularly effective in project planning , content creation, and studying complex subjects.

The Socratic Method: Deepening critical thinking skills

The Socratic Method, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, involves asking probing questions to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. This technique is widely used in higher education to teach critical thinking. Key aspects of the Socratic Method include:

Asking open-ended questions that encourage deeper reflection

Challenging assumptions and preconceived notions

Exploring the implications and consequences of ideas

Fostering intellectual curiosity and continuous inquiry

The Socratic Method can be applied in various settings:

In education, to encourage students to think deeply about subject matter

In business, it is important to challenge team members to consider multiple points of view.

In personal development, to examine one's own beliefs and decisions

Example: A high school teacher might use the Socratic Method to guide students through a complex ethical dilemma, asking questions like "What principles are at stake here?" and "How might this decision affect different stakeholders?"

SWOT analysis: Comprehensive critical thinking skills

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis is a strategic planning tool that can be applied to critical thinking. It helps in evaluating situations from multiple angles, promoting a more thorough understanding of complex issues. The components of SWOT analysis are:

Strengths: internal positive attributes or assets

Weaknesses: internal negative attributes or limitations

Opportunities: External factors that could be beneficial

Threats: External factors that could be harmful

To conduct a SWOT analysis:

Clearly define the subject of analysis (e.g., a project, organization, or decision).

Brainstorm and list items for each category.

Analyze the interactions between different factors.

Use the analysis to inform strategy or decision-making.

Example: A startup might use SWOT analysis to evaluate its position before seeking investment, identifying its innovative technology as a strength, limited capital as a weakness, growing market demand as an opportunity, and established competitors as a threat.

Critical thinking resources

The Foundation for Critical Thinking : Based in California, this organization offers a wide range of resources, including books, articles, and workshops on critical thinking.

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking : This council provides guidelines and standards for critical thinking instruction and assessment.

University of Louisville : Their Critical Thinking Initiative offers various resources and tools that teach people how to develop critical thinking skills.

The New York Times Learning Network provides lesson plans and activities to help develop critical thinking skills through current events and news analysis.

Critical thinking frameworks and tools

Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework : Developed by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, this framework provides a comprehensive approach to developing critical thinking skills.

Bloom's Taxonomy : While not exclusively for critical thinking, this classification system is widely used in education to promote higher-order thinking skills.

The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) : This assessment tool measures the disposition to engage in problems and make decisions using critical thinking.

The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test : Developed by Robert Ennis, this test assesses a person's ability to appraise an argument and to formulate a written argument.

By incorporating these tools and techniques into regular practice, individuals can learn how to improve critical thinking skills, which leads to more effective problem-solving, decision-making, and overall cognitive performance.

The power of critical thinking skills

Critical thinking skills take time to build, but with effort and patience you can apply an unbiased, analytical mind to any situation. Critical thinking makes up one of many soft skills that makes you an effective team member, manager, and worker. If you’re looking to hone your skills further, read our article on the 25 project management skills you need to succeed .

FAQ: Critical thinking skills

What is being a critical thinker?

Being a critical thinker means possessing strong critical thinking skills that allow you to analyze information objectively and make reasoned judgments. It involves developing analytical skills and the capacity for critical thought. A critical thinker questions assumptions, considers multiple perspectives, and bases decisions on evidence rather than emotions or biases.

What are the 5 C's of critical thinking?

The 5 C's of critical thinking are the core skill sets that make you a better critical thinker:

Curiosity: Asking questions and seeking new information

Creativity: Generating innovative solutions and ideas

Clarity: Expressing thoughts and ideas clearly and precisely

Consistency: Maintaining logical coherence in arguments and reasoning

Commitment: Dedicating oneself to ongoing learning and improvement

These skills directly improve critical thinking and strengthen overall cognitive abilities. Understanding and practicing these 5 C's is a fundamental aspect of how to develop critical thinking skills effectively.

How do you demonstrate critical thinking?

Demonstrating critical thinking involves applying your skill set in various situations. This includes analyzing problems, evaluating information sources, considering multiple perspectives, and using evidence-based reasoning. Many employers highlight these qualities in job descriptions, as they value employees who can apply critical thought to workplace challenges.

What is a real-life example of critical thinking?

A real-life critical thinking example could be making a major purchase decision, such as buying a car. Here's how you might apply critical thinking skills:

Research: Gather information about different car models, prices, and features

Analysis: Compare and contrast options based on your needs and budget

Evaluation: Assess the reliability of information sources (e.g., consumer reports, user reviews)

Questioning: Ask car dealers probing questions about warranties, maintenance costs, and resale value

Consideration of alternatives: Explore options like leasing or public transportation

Decision-making: Weigh pros and cons to make an informed choice

Reflection: After the purchase, evaluate your decision-making process for future improvement

This critical thinking example demonstrates how critical thought can be applied to everyday situations.

Related resources

How Asana’s digital team used work management to refresh our brand

How to streamline compliance management software with Asana

10 tips to improve nonverbal communication

Scaling clinical trial management software with PM solutions

Why the Clock Counts with Critical Thinking

Timing matters when it comes to accepting extraordinary claims..

Posted September 24, 2023 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• Embracing a strong belief in the right thing at the wrong time is a deceptive victory.
• Strange possibilities should not be ruled out.
• The core power and most exciting aspect of science is not what we know now, but what we might learn next.
• The best we can do is strive to be correct according to the best evidence available now.

It may seem counterintuitive, but being correct in the long run is not the only consideration when it comes to extraordinary claims. It’s a detail often missed, but when one decides to accept or believe something matters—even if it eventually proves true.

This is important to recognize because embracing a strong belief in the right thing at the wrong time is a deceptive victory. It can encourage overconfidence in unreliable hunches and obscure flawed and dangerous thinking processes, all of which are likely to create problems throughout life.

Consider the factor of timing regarding UFOs. Anyone who “knows” today that some of them are extraterrestrial visitors has had their mind probed and abducted by an irrational belief because there is nothing close to credible confirmation for it. But what if aliens were to land on the rooftop of the United Nations building tomorrow and confess that they have been buzzing us for decades?

UFO believers would say, “told you so,” and deservedly so. But their prior position still would have been the result of extraordinarily poor thinking skills. And those skills won’t improve without a personal reckoning that includes acknowledging the significance of timing and a new commitment to thinking before believing.

It would be no different if Bigfoot were captured or a quirk of quantum physics proved the claims of homeopathy. Feelings of vindication aside, the unjustified embrace of an extremely dubious position that later turns out to be correct is not much more impressive than that of a broken clock being precisely accurate twice per day. A supervolcano might choke out civilization next year, but it wouldn’t mean the guy on a street corner yelling, “The end is near,” knew what he was talking about.

Some will argue that being proven right over time is enough, regardless of how unjustified the conclusion or belief once was. But this ignores the dangers of habitual sloppy thinking. If skepticism and quality of evidence are unimportant for one claim, then what is the standard for others? If one believes the Apollo Moon landings were faked, why not trust a chiropractor to treat a serious health issue? If reflexology is valid, why not Assyrian haruspicy, too? Where does it end? Sadly, of course, there is no end for some who seem to live almost entirely in a state of cognitive chaos.

To help premature believers, advocates of critical thinking might add the role of timing to their list of essential talking points. I consistently emphasize to others that the safer and more efficient way to mentally navigate the world is to consistently side with the best knowledge currently available—and be prepared to change course the moment new evidence demands it. I also make a point to concede that a given extraordinary and unlikely claim could be true, but quickly add that it doesn’t matter if currently there are no good reasons to believe it.

I understand that this burden of waiting for sufficient evidence can be inconvenient or uncomfortable, but it is crucial when it comes to important and unusual claims. There are exceptions, of course. Sometimes the stakes are high, there is legitimate urgency, and a hunch is all you have. For example, if I’m walking in a dark alley and someone in the shadows appears to be waving a knife and seems to be whispering something about my wallet, I’m running and not hanging around for scientific confirmation. In most cases, however, we have the luxury of waiting to see if good evidence ever arrives.

Drawing attention to this timing component of critical thinking is not a blanket rejection of fringe ideas. It is important to consider unlikely things and maintain appropriate humility before strange possibilities. The core power and most exciting aspect of science is not what we know now, but what we might learn next. A nagging intuition , compelling flash of insight, or gut feeling can be a fruitful starting point toward spectacular discovery.

But the hunch itself is not enough, and certainly should not be the endpoint. For example, my love of science fiction and the compressed version of the Drake Equation that lives in my head biases me with a strong inclination to think that we are not alone in a universe with this much time, space, matter, and energy. But until SETI holds the greatest press conference in history, it would be an appalling breach of reason if I were to take any stance other than “I don’t know.” The critical-thinking clock is clear on this. It’s too early to be sure.

An important technical point is that waiting for sufficient evidence is not an absolute denial of the claim. Neither is it a sign of being closed-minded, the standard cheap shot lobbed at critical thinkers. I suppose it can feel like a contradiction, but good thinking demands that we c onsider anything and doubt everything .

The late astronomer Carl Sagan mentioned this in his book The Demon Haunted World : “As I’ve tried to stress , at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.”

I have learned from experience that openly noting the possibility of improbable things can aid communication between believer and skeptic. I readily admit that giant primates and interstellar visitors are not impossible, only that declaring them to be real phenomena right now is a problem. It demonstrates the same kind of muddled judgment that leads people into dangerous medical quackery, financial scams, predatory organizations, and destructive political loyalties.

The best we can do is strive to be correct according to the best evidence available now . Mind the clock and keep steering toward the best current version of reality. Take positions that are most reasonable today . We can always change our minds tomorrow if the aliens land and say hello.

Guy P. Harrison is the author of Think: Why You Should Question Everything.

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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

15 Attitudes of Critical Thinking in Nursing (Explained W/ Examples)

Last updated on August 19th, 2023

Critical thinking is a powerful tool that nurses use to make informed decisions, provide top-notch care, and untangle complex problems.

Think of it as a toolbox filled with skills that let nurses dig deeper, understand better, and think smarter.

In this article, we’re going to explore the 15 super-important attitudes of critical thinking in nursing .

Each attitude is like a special key that helps nurses unlock the best care for their patients. Let’s dive in and learn about each attitude.

How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills In Nursing? 24 Strategies With Examples

15 Attitudes of Critical Thinking in Nursing

1. Independence

Independence is like thinking for yourself and making your own choices. Imagine you’re deciding what book to read, and you pick one that interests you, not just what others like – that’s being independent.

In nursing, independence means using your own judgment to provide the best care.

For, example, consider Rachel, a nurse, who considers various options to treat a patient’s pain, not just following what others do. Rachel’s independence helps her find solutions tailored to each patient’s needs.

 Just like choosing your own book, independent nurses think critically and make decisions based on what’s best for their patients.

2. Confidence

Confidence is like believing in yourself and your abilities, even when faced with challenges. Imagine you’re trying a new activity, and you trust that you can learn and do well – that’s having confidence.

In nursing, confidence means having faith in your skills and judgment to provide excellent care. Example: For instance, think of Ava, a nurse, who remains composed when a patient’s condition suddenly worsens.

She knows she can handle the situation because of her training and experience. Ava’s confidence allows her to make quick and effective decisions during critical moments.

Just like trusting yourself in a new activity, confident nurses trust their expertise to deliver top-notch care to their patients.

3. Fair-Mindedness

Fair-mindedness is like treating everyone equally and making judgments based on facts, not personal feelings. Imagine you’re playing a game, and you give every player the same chance to win – that’s being fair-minded.

In nursing, fair-mindedness means being impartial and considering all viewpoints without bias.

For example, picture Liam, a nurse, who listens to both the patient and the family when making a decision about treatment.

He doesn’t let his own opinions influence his judgment. Liam’s fair-mindedness ensures that he provides balanced and patient-focused care.

Just like being fair in a game, fair-minded nurses make decisions that are just and unbiased, promoting the best outcomes for their patients.

4. Insight into Personal Biases

Insight into personal biases is like looking at yourself from the outside to see if your own feelings might affect your decisions. Imagine you have a favorite color, and you realize you tend to choose things in that color even if other options might be better – that’s being aware of your bias.

In nursing, insight into personal biases means being mindful of your own preferences and not letting them cloud your judgment.

For instance, think of Maya, a nurse, who knows she might prefer a particular treatment because it worked for her family member.

However, she steps back and considers what’s truly best for her patient’s situation. Maya’s insight helps her provide care that’s unbiased and patient-centered.

Just like being aware of your color preference, insight into personal biases helps nurses make decisions that are based on what’s right for their patients, not influenced by their own feelings.

5. Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility is like knowing that you don’t have all the answers and being open to learning from others. Imagine you’re playing a video game, and you ask a friend for tips because they’re better at it – that’s being humble about your skills.

In nursing, intellectual humility means recognizing that you can always learn more and considering others’ expertise.

Picture James, a nurse, who seeks advice from experienced colleagues when faced with a complex case.

He knows that learning from others can lead to better patient care. James’s intellectual humility helps him grow as a nurse and keeps him open to new perspectives.

Just like seeking gaming tips, intellectual humility encourages nurses to value knowledge from various sources and continuously improve their practice.

6. Intellectual Courage to Challenge the Norms

Intellectual courage to challenge the norms is like having the bravery to question things that everyone believes are true. Imagine you’re playing a game with your friends, and everyone agrees on the rules – but you speak up and suggest a new way to play.

In nursing, intellectual courage means daring to question established practices and seeking innovative solutions.

For instance, think of Sarah, a nurse, who notices that a routine procedure might be improved for patient comfort.

Instead of staying silent, she speaks up and proposes a change, backed by research and careful thought. Sarah’s intellectual courage drives her to challenge the status quo for the sake of better patient care.

Just like suggesting a new game rule, nurses with this attitude challenge norms to advance healthcare practices and outcomes.

7. Integrity

Integrity is like being honest and doing the right thing, even when nobody’s watching. Imagine finding a lost wallet on the street – instead of keeping it, you return it to its owner because it’s the right thing to do.

In nursing, integrity means always acting ethically and responsibly, even in challenging situations.

Picture Emma, a nurse, who follows protocols and makes decisions based on what’s best for her patients, not personal gain.

 Emma’s integrity shines when she prioritizes honesty, fairness, and patient well-being in every action she takes.

Just like returning that wallet, integrity is a nurse’s commitment to uphold high moral standards and maintain the trust placed in them by patients and their families.

8. Perseverance

Perseverance is like having a never-give-up attitude, even when things get tough. Imagine you’re trying to solve a challenging puzzle – even if it takes time and effort, you keep going until you find the solution.

In nursing, perseverance means facing obstacles and difficulties head-on without giving up.

For example, consider Mark, a nurse, who’s dealing with a complex patient case. Despite encountering roadblocks and uncertainties, Mark doesn’t lose hope.

He keeps researching, consulting colleagues, and trying different approaches until he finds the right solution for his patient.

Just like working through a tough puzzle, perseverance empowers nurses to keep pushing forward and find the answers that lead to the best care outcomes.

9. Curiosity

Curiosity is like having a hunger for knowledge that never goes away. Imagine you’re exploring a new place, and every corner seems to hide something interesting – you want to know what’s around the next bend.

In nursing, curiosity means having a strong desire to learn and discover.

Picture Anna, a nurse, who’s always asking questions like “Why?” and “How?” She’s not content with just knowing the basics; she wants to dive deeper and understand the “whys” behind patient conditions and treatments.

Anna’s curiosity drives her to stay updated with the latest research and innovative methods. Just like an explorer seeking new horizons, curious nurses seek new ways to provide better care for their patients.

10. Open-Mindedness

Open-mindedness is like having a door in your mind that’s always ready to welcome new ideas. Imagine you’re reading a book, and suddenly you come across a different way of thinking – instead of dismissing it, you consider it with interest.

In nursing, open-mindedness means being willing to listen to various viewpoints and explore different approaches.

For instance, think of Rachel, a nurse, who’s used to a specific way of treating wounds. But when a colleague suggests a new method, Rachel doesn’t shut the idea down.

Instead, she’s open to trying it out and seeing if it might work better for her patients. Just like being curious about new stories, open-minded nurses are curious about new ways to improve patient care.

11. Skepticism

Skepticism is like being a curious investigator who asks questions to make sure things are true. Imagine you hear about a magical potion that promises to make you fly – you might be skeptical and ask, “Is that really possible?”

In nursing, skepticism means not accepting things blindly but investigating to find the truth.

Picture Sarah, a nurse, who reads about a new treatment for pain relief. Instead of immediately believing it, she looks for evidence and checks if other experts agree.

Sarah’s skepticism helps her make sure that the treatments she uses are safe and effective for her patients.

Just like asking questions about that magical potion, nurses use skepticism to make informed decisions based on facts.

12. Reflective Thinking

Reflective thinking is like looking back at your day and thinking about what went well and what you could improve. Imagine you finished playing a game and you think about how you did – that’s reflective thinking!

In nursing, it’s when nurses take a moment to think about their actions, decisions, and interactions with patients.

For example, let’s say Jessica, a nurse, had a challenging day where she had to juggle multiple tasks. At the end of her shift, she takes a few minutes to reflect.

She thinks about what she did right, like comforting a worried patient, and what she could do better, like managing her time more efficiently.

This reflection helps Jessica learn from her experiences and become an even better nurse.

Just like looking in a mirror to see yourself, reflective thinking helps nurses see their actions and grow from them.

13. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is like putting together the pieces of a puzzle to see the bigger picture. It’s about thinking step by step to reach a smart conclusion.

Imagine you have a math problem to solve. You start with the information you know and use logical steps to find the answer.

Similarly, nurses use logical reasoning to understand their patients’ situations

Let’s say Emily, a nurse, has a patient with a high fever and a sore throat. She gathers information about the symptoms, asks questions, and puts all the clues together.

By using logical steps, Emily figures out that the patient might have a throat infection and can recommend the right treatment.

Just like solving a puzzle, logical reasoning helps nurses connect the dots and make decisions that make sense for their patient’s health.

14. Evidence-Based Decision Making

Evidence-based decision-making is like being a detective who gathers clues before solving a mystery.

For instance, imagine Alex, a nurse, who wants to find the best way to help patients with diabetes manage their blood sugar levels.

Instead of guessing, he reads research studies and talks to experts in the field. Alex uses the facts he collects to choose treatments that are proven to work.

Just like a detective uses evidence to solve a case, Alex uses evidence to make informed decisions that lead to better patient outcomes.

15. Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is like being a detective on a mission. Think of it like when you have to figure out how to fix a broken toy.

For instance, Linda, a nurse, faces a challenge when a patient’s pain medication isn’t working well. Instead of giving up, she gathers information, talks to the patient, and works with the medical team to find a better solution.

Linda’s problem-solving skills help her piece together the right treatment plan, just like solving a tricky puzzle.

• What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (Explained W/ Examples)
• What is the “5 Whys” Technique?
• What Are Socratic Questions?
• Clinical Reasoning In Nursing (Explained W/ Example)
• 8 Stages Of The Clinical Reasoning Cycle

Critical thinking is a powerful tool that nurses use every day. These 15 attitudes are like a treasure map that guides nurses through the world of healthcare.

From being independent thinkers to having the courage to challenge norms, these attitudes help nurses provide the best care possible.

Comments are closed.

Medical & Legal Disclaimer

All the contents on this site are for entertainment, informational, educational, and example purposes ONLY. These contents are not intended to be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or practice guidelines. However, we aim to publish precise and current information. By using any content on this website, you agree never to hold us legally liable for damages, harm, loss, or misinformation. Read the  privacy policy  and  terms and conditions.

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

© 2024 nurseship.com. All rights reserved.

• Open access
• Published: 07 October 2024

Are nurses and patients willing to work with service robots in healthcare? A mixed-methods study

• Heba Emad El-Gazar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0185-859X 1 ,
• Shymaa Abdelhafez 1 ,
• Amira Mohammed Ali 2 ,
• Mona Shawer 3 , 4 ,
• Talal Ali F. Alharbi 5 , 6 &
• Mohamed Ali Zoromba 7  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  718 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Introduction

Scholars have become increasingly interested in incorporating robots into healthcare. While there is a growing body of research examining nurses’ and patients’ attitudes towards using robots in healthcare, no prior research has specifically explored their willingness to integrate service robots within the Egyptian healthcare context.

The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to explore the behavioral intentions of nurses to accept robots in their workplace, and (b) to examine the willingness of patients to use service robots in healthcare settings.

A mixed-methods study was conducted. Quantitative data were collected from 301 nurses using the Behavioral Intention to Accept Robots in the Workplace Scale and from 467 patients using the Service Robot Integration Willingness Scale through convenience sampling at three tertiary public hospitals in Port Said, Egypt. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 nurses, focusing on their perspectives and concerns regarding robot integration. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.

Quantitative results indicated a moderate level of behavioral intention to use robots among nurses. Patients demonstrated low willingness to use service robots. In the qualitative analysis of the data obtained from the interviews with nurses, three categories (Concerns about Robots, Roles and Competencies, and Potential Benefits) and eight themes (interaction and emotions, maintenance and reliability, job insecurity, role clarity, competence in critical care, trustworthiness, reducing physical strain, and specialized applications) were identified.

The results of this study indicate that nurses’ behavioral intention to accept service robots in healthcare settings is moderate and their acceptance is influenced by various factors related to their concerns about robots, roles and competencies, and potential benefits they could gain. Patients showed a low level of willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings.

Implication

Providing targeted educational programs to nurses and patients, assuring them with the provision of robust maintenance protocols, enhancing their confidence in the capabilities of robots, and defining clear roles for robots are crucial for the successful integration of robots into healthcare settings.

Peer Review reports

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare settings is progressively expanding worldwide. AI is playing an increasingly pivotal role in transforming health service deliveries, enhancing quality, efficiency, and setting new expectations [ 1 ]. Global expenditures on these technologies in healthcare are projected to exceed $36 billion by the year 2025, and they are expected to be available to everyone, everywhere [ 2 ]. Within the realm of AI, the use of service robots—software-programmed machines capable of sensing and interacting with their environment to perform a variety of tasks—marks a significant shift in healthcare delivery [ 3 ]. Robots can perform tasks autonomously based on their programming, operating independently without human intervention [ 4 ]. There are various applications for robots in healthcare, from participating in exercise programs to potentially providing companionship and emotional support [ 5 ].

Recently, the integration of robots in nursing practice has garnered increasing scholarly interest [ 1 , 4 ]. Previous research has demonstrated that robots can assist nurses in delivering efficient patient care, such as handling supplies, materials, and medications [ 6 ], and monitoring patient mobility and activities [ 7 ]. Additionally, robots could help in job crafting by reducing workload and maximizing job resources [ 8 ], which in turn increases passion for work [ 9 ]. This support could improve nurses’ health and job satisfaction, thereby potentially reducing turnover rates [ 3 ].

The integration of robots into healthcare settings is not without its controversies [ 10 ]. Despite recognition in the literature for their precision and efficiency, robots in nursing practice face certain limitations [ 3 ]. For example Stokes and Palmer have raised ethical concerns regarding the use of robots in healthcare [ 11 ], while Tu et al. have highlighted potential issues such as loss of autonomy and negative psychological outcomes [ 12 ]. These issues have prompted scholars to question whether nurses and patients would feel comfortable entrusting their well-being to robots [ 13 ]. Given these concerns, it is crucial to investigate nurses’ and patients’ intentions and apprehensions about working with robots. Therefore, this study aims to (a) explore the behavioral intentions of nurses to accept robots in their workplace, and (b) examine the willingness of patients to use service robots in healthcare settings.

This study contributes to the nursing literature by identifying the actual level of acceptance among nurses and patients toward robot integration in nursing practice. Additionally, it pinpoints the concerns nurses have regarding robot integration, which may hinder nurse-robot cooperation. By effectively addressing these concerns, this research responds to scholarly calls for exploring barriers to the acceptance of robots [ 14 ]. As a result, nurses and patients might become more welcoming of the integration of robots in nursing practice.

Theoretical background and prior research

Robotic technology is rapidly expanding across healthcare environments, propelled by innovations and the pressing requirement for enhanced healthcare efficiency [ 15 ]. Robots, defined as programmable machines capable of performing complex actions autonomously or semi-autonomously, are now common in various medical applications, from surgery to routine care [ 16 ]. In nursing, the transformative potential of robots in care practices has attracted significant scholarly and practical attention. Empirical research has identified several ways in which robots can enhance nursing practices. For example, prior studies have demonstrated that robots assist nurses by delivering medication, monitoring patients, and providing routine nursing treatments, which can extend and enrich the scope of nursing work [ 4 ]. Additionally, robots are recognized for their effectiveness in minimizing non-value-added activities [ 7 ]. Another line of research has studied the impact of robots in anticipation of the empathic behavior presented by artificial humanoid robots [ 13 ] and their ethics in robot caring [ 11 ].

Despite these valuable insights, a critical question remains regarding the attitudes and acceptance levels of nurses toward the integration of AI and robotics in healthcare. Most of the existing research has focused on nursing students [ 17 ], which may not fully represent the views of practicing nurses and patients who directly interact with this technology daily. An exception is a cross-sectional study that measured nurse managers’ opinions on AI and robot nurses, identifying literacy as a major concern [ 2 ]. However, comprehensive research that measures actual acceptance levels and practical integration experiences among frontline nurses and patients remains sparse.

Given that nurses are primary care providers and patients are the recipients of such technology, it is crucial to assess their actual acceptance levels. This gap underscores the need for empirical research that captures real-world experiences and responses to robotic technologies in healthcare settings. Hence, this study aims to bridge this gap by empirically examining the behavioral intentions of nurses and the willingness of patients to integrate service robots within the Egyptian healthcare context. By doing so, we respond to scholarly calls for more empirical research to explore the acceptability and effective implementation of AI technologies [ 2 ].

Moreover, this study includes a quantitative analysis that measures the perspectives and concerns of nurses regarding the integration of robotic technologies into healthcare settings. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing acceptance and identifies potential barriers to successful integration. By addressing these specific concerns, the study aims to facilitate smoother adoption of robots in healthcare, ensuring enhanced provider satisfaction and improved patient care quality.

Additionally, this research specifically explored whether nurses’ and patients’ willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings varied based on their demographic characteristics. In the field of healthcare technology acceptance, demographic variables play a pivotal role in shaping nurses’ attitudes and behavioral intentions [ 18 ]. For instance, age and gender differences in the acceptance of artificial technology among nurses have been well-documented, with studies indicating that younger female nurses are more likely to accept AI technologies [ 18 , 19 ]. Similarly, educational background has been linked to varying attitudes towards AI among nurses [ 20 , 21 ]. Nurse acceptance of the use of AI also varies according to their nursing experience [ 22 ] and the department in which they work within the hospital [ 23 ]. Moreover, a study by Liu et al. revealed that individual characteristics significantly influenced patients’ continuance intention to use AI-powered service robots in hospitals [ 10 ]. Furthermore, patients’ attitudes toward the use of AI have been shown to vary according to their marital status [ 24 ]. These findings underscore the importance of considering demographic variables when investigating technology acceptance, such as robots in healthcare.

Study questions

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

What is the level of behavioral intention among nurses to accept robots in their workplace?

What are the perspectives and concerns of nurses regarding the integration of robots into healthcare settings?

What is the level of willingness among patients to use service robots in healthcare settings?

Do nurses’ and patients’ willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings differ based on their demographic characteristics?

Study design

This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach with a convergent parallel design to obtain diverse yet complementary data, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. In this design framework, qualitative and quantitative data are collected simultaneously but independently, ensuring equal emphasis on both types of data. Each dataset is analyzed separately and subsequently integrated during the evaluation phase to enhance the depth and breadth of the findings [ 25 ]. Throughout the research, adherence to the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies and the COREQ guidelines for qualitative research was rigorously maintained.

Participants and setting

The quantitative part of this research aimed to assess the readiness of nurses and patients for the integration of robots in healthcare settings. Data were collected using a convenience sampling method from clinical nurses and patients at three tertiary public hospitals in Port Said, Egypt. To determine the required sample size for nurses, we used Yamane’s (1967) formula for finite population [ 26 ]:

Here, “n” represents the necessary sample size, “N” is the total population size ( N  = 1219), and “e” denotes the error term set at 0.05, yielding a minimum required sample of 301 nurses.

For patients, the appropriate sample size was calculated using Cochran’s formula for infinite population [ 27 ]:

Here, “n” indicates the required sample size, “z” is the standardized normal deviation corresponding to a 95% confidence level and a 5% alpha level (z = 1.96, two-tailed), “σ” is the expected standard deviation in the population (0.68 from the pilot study), and “d” is the acceptable margin of error for the mean (d = 0.062, based on the pilot study mean of 2.08 and a 0.03 margin of error). To account for potential dropout, the sample sizes were increased by 20%, resulting in 361 surveys distributed to nurses and 554 surveys to patients. Of the distributed surveys, 306 from nurses and 467 from patients were validly returned.

We applied Yamane’s formula for the nurse population, as the number of the target population is known and finite. Meanwhile, we used Cochran’s formula for the patient population, which is considered potentially infinite. This approach ensures that the sampling methodology is both robust and appropriate for the diverse conditions of the nurse and patient populations under study.

For the qualitative study, 16 nurses were recruited from two different tertiary public hospitals in Port Said, Egypt. Sample size saturation was achieved when no new information was gleaned from subsequent interviews [ 28 ]. Inclusion criteria for nurses were licensed staff nurses who were on duty during the study period and had at least one year of tenure in the nursing profession. Exclusion criteria were nurses or patients who declined to participate in the study.

Study Instrument – quantitative data

Quantitative data were collected using two distinct scales. The Behavioral Intention to Accept Robots in the Workplace Scale (BIARW) was administered to nurses, and the Service Robot Integration Willingness Scale (SRIW) was used for patients. Both surveys were translated into Arabic through a back-translation procedure [ 29 ]. Participants involved in the pilot testing were excluded from the main sample. All items on both scales were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Developed by Sinha et al., the BIARW is a three-item scale used to assess nurses’ intentions to accept robots in their workplace [ 30 ]. Example items include, “I am willing to accept robots in my workplace” and “I am likely to interact with robotics in my workplace.”

Developed by Lu et al., the SRIW used to measures patients’ willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings [ 31 ]. This scale comprises 36 items distributed across six dimensions: (a) performance efficacy (7 items), (b) intrinsic motivation (6 items), (c) anthropomorphism (7 items), (d) social influence (7 items), (e) facilitating conditions (4 items), and (f) emotions (5 items). Example items include, “Information provided by robots is more accurate with less human errors in healthcare services” and “If I use robots in healthcare settings, I will feel satisfied.”

Study instrument – qualitative data

For the qualitative part, semi-structured interview forms consisting of eight open-ended questions, developed by the researchers specifically for this study (Supplementary file 1 ), were employed to explore nurses’ perspectives and concerns regarding the integration of robots into healthcare settings.

Validity and reliability

Face and content validity of the translated scales used for quantitative data collection were assessed by involving seven experts and professors in nursing. These experts were asked to evaluate whether the scales appeared to measure the intended constructs, thus ensuring face validity. Content validity was assessed by having the experts rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not relevant) to 4 (highly relevant). If the item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was ≥ 0.78 and the scale-level CVI average (S-CVI/Ave) was ≥ 0.90, the content validity of the scale was considered satisfactory [ 32 ]. The expert panel confirmed the face and content validity, with I-CVI scores ranging from 0.94 to 1.00 for the BIARW and 0.93 to 1.00 for the SRIW. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.97 for the BIARW and 0.95 for the SRIW, demonstrating acceptable content validity.

The reliability of the scales was determined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which was 0.853 for the BIARW and 0.966 for the SRIW, indicating acceptable internal consistency [ 33 ].

Data collection

The study was conducted between January and May 2024.

Quantitative data

Quantitative data were collected by three trained research assistants after obtaining permission from hospital administrators. Eligible participants, including nurses and patients, were personally approached and given a thorough orientation about the study’s aims, potential risks, and benefits. Only those who consented to participate and signed informed consent forms were provided with a closed package containing the survey. The questionnaire was administered using a paper-and-pencil format. The surveys were collected immediately upon completion.

Qualitative data

Qualitative data were collected by researchers experienced and trained in qualitative research. Sixteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with nurses. A semi-structured format was chosen to focus on specific dimensions while allowing respondents to introduce new insights related to the topic. Prior to the interviews, written informed consent was obtained from eligible nurses. All interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed by two different researchers upon completion. On average, each interview lasted 60 min. Data collection continued until data saturation was achieved.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis [ 34 ] to explore and categorize nurses’ perspectives and concerns regarding the integration of robots in healthcare settings. Two researchers independently reviewed the transcripts to identify significant words and phrases, which were then coded to generate themes and sub-themes. They met to discuss their initial findings and themes, refining and adjusting them as necessary until reaching a consensus. This iterative process ensured the themes accurately reflected the data. The discussion and analysis process spanned three meetings, each averaging three hours.

Quantitative analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software, with a p -value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Descriptive statistics were used to outline participant characteristics and assess the levels of nurses’ behavioral intentions toward accepting robots in their workplace, as well as patients’ willingness to use service robots. Independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA were utilized to compare nurses’ behavioral intentions and patients’ willingness based on demographic characteristics. When ANOVA indicated statistical significance, subsequent pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests.

Rigor and reflexivity of qualitative analysis

Participation in this research was entirely voluntary. To ensure conformability, a single researcher conducted all the interviews. After each interview, participants were invited to add new information or clarify their responses. To ensure the dependability and validity of the data, two researchers independently identified the main themes and sub-themes, which were then discussed until consensus was achieved. Sample quotes were directly extracted from the interview reports.

Quantitative results

Results from nurses.

As shown in Table  1 , the majority of participants were female ( n  = 218, 71.2%), married ( n  = 200, 65.4%), and held an associate-level education ( n  = 153, 50.0%). Among the 306 participants, 43.8% ( n  = 134) worked in medical or surgical units. Most participants were aged between 30 and 40 years ( n  = 116, 37.9%) and had less than 10 years of professional experience ( n  = 166, 54.3%). The mean score for behavioral intention to accept robots among the participating nurses was 2.65 (SD = 0.89) out of 5, indicating a moderate level of intention.

One-way ANOVA with post hoc comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in nurses’ behavioral intention to accept robots based on marital status (F(3, 302) = 3.37, p  = 0.019, \(\:{{\upeta\:}}_{p}^{2}\) = 0.032; mild effect size) and education level (F(2, 303) = 9.94, p < 0.001, \(\:{{\upeta\:}}_{p}^{2}\) = 0.062; moderate effect size). Specifically, single and widowed nurses demonstrated a significantly higher behavioral intention to accept robots compared to married and divorced nurses. Additionally, nurses with an associate degree or higher showed a significantly greater intention to accept robots than those with a diploma. The t-test further indicated that male nurses had a significantly higher behavioral intention to accept robots compared to female nurses (t(304) = 2.68, p = 0.008, d = 0.33; mild effect size).

Results from patients

As shown in Table  2 , most participating patients were male ( n  = 274, 58.7%) and aged between 35 and 44 years ( n  = 175, 37.5%). Among the 467 participants, 61.9% were married ( n  = 289), and 44.1% held an associate degree ( n  = 206). The majority of them ( n  = 374, 80.1%) were suffering from acute health conditions. None of the participants had previous experience with robots. One-way ANOVA with post hoc comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in patients’ willingness to use robots based on marital status (F(3, 463) = 4.25, p  = 0.006, \(\:{{\upeta\:}}_{p}^{2}\) = 0.027; mild effect size), with single patients showing greater willingness than their married counterparts.

Table  3 indicates the mean score of patients’ willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings. The total mean score was 2.16 (SD = 0.78) on a scale of 1–5, which indicates a low willingness to use service robots. Among the dimensions evaluated, emotions scored the highest with a mean of 2.80 (SD = 0.83), followed by social influence at 2.09 (SD = 0.93), while facilitating conditions scored the lowest with a mean of 2.01 (SD = 0.89).

The mean age of the nurses who participated in the qualitative interviews was 34.81 years (SD = 9.21). Of the participants, 75.0% were female ( n  = 12), 43.8% held a diploma ( n  = 7), and 31.3% held a bachelor’s degree or higher ( n  = 5). Additionally, 68.8% were married ( n  = 11), and the average years of professional experience was 15.38 ± 8.72 years.

Categories, themes, and subthemes

As a result of the qualitative analysis of the data obtained from the interviews with nurses, three categories (Concerns about Robots, Roles and Competencies, and Potential Benefits), eight themes, and thirteen subthemes were identified (Table  4 ).

Category 1: concerns about Robots

Theme 1: interaction and emotions.

Nurses (n: 12) mentioned concerns about the interaction and emotional aspects of using robots in patient care. They reported that robots are unable to provide the empathetic and compassionate care that human nurses offer, which is crucial for building trust and rapport with patients. Additionally, robots may strictly follow predefined steps without flexibility, leading to concerns about their ability to address individual patient needs effectively. This standardized approach to care may not cater to the personalized needs of each patient. Furthermore, as systems that cannot be negotiated with, robots may struggle in situations requiring human judgment and adaptability.

……the robot has no ability to interact. It’s a machine that takes inputs and gives results, so it will execute the care plan without adapting to the specific needs of each patient. Patients are not all the same. The robot lacks flexibility; it will always follow predefined steps. (N8. F)

Theme 2: Maintenance and Reliability

Nurses (n: 7) stated concerns regarding the maintenance and reliability of robots in patient care settings. They emphasized the potential for robots to malfunction and require maintenance, which could disrupt the continuity of care. The need for regular maintenance and the possibility of downtime were highlighted as significant issues. Additionally, there were concerns about patients inadvertently damaging robots, raising questions about their durability and the impact on patient safety and care delivery.

…. if the robot malfunctions or needs maintenance during a critical operation, it could cause delays and complications. I also worry about patients accidentally damaging the robot, which would not only be costly but also affect the care we can provide. (N14. F)

Theme 3: Job Security

Nurses (n: 9) expressed concerns about the impact of robots on job security in the nursing profession. They feared that the integration of robots could lead to the replacement of human nurses, reducing job opportunities and altering the traditional roles and responsibilities of nursing staff. This apprehension was tied to the broader uncertainty about how the roles of robots and human nurses would be defined and managed in the healthcare setting.

…. I am worried that robots might take over our jobs. It’s not just about the tasks they can perform, but also about how our roles will change. Will there still be a place for us, or will we be sidelined. (N6. M)

Category 2: concerns about Robots

Theme 4: role clarity.

Nurses (n: 11) expressed uncertainty about how the roles of robots and human nurses will be defined and managed. They were concerned about the division of responsibilities and accountability for errors. It is unclear who would be held responsible for errors caused by robots – whether it would be the nurse overseeing the robot.

“……there is a lot of uncertainty about how the roles will be divided between us and the robots. Who will be accountable if something goes wrong? (N4. F)” .

Theme 5: Competence in Critical Care

Nurses (n: 14) stated they had doubts about whether robots have the necessary skills to manage critical patients and situations effectively. They stated they did not think the robot’s ability to handle complex and unpredictable scenarios could match the human expertise and quick decision-making required in such cases.

……I do not think that the robot’s competence in critical care situations is adequate. Handling critical patients requires nuanced understanding and adaptability, which I don’t believe a robot can provide. In emergencies, quick, informed decisions are crucial, and I’m not confident a robot can meet these demands. (N12. M)

Theme 6: Trustworthiness

Nurses (n: 10) reported skepticism about robots’ ability to make nuanced decisions, especially in critical care scenarios. They are concerned that robots may lack the capacity to exercise the judgment and discernment necessary for complex decision-making in high-stakes situations.

…. robots might be efficient in some tasks, but when it comes to critical decision-making, especially in emergency situations, I am skeptical. The subtlety and depth of understanding required to make the right call in such scenarios is something I believe only a human can provide. (N16. F)

Category 3: potential benefits

Theme 7: reducing physical strain.

Nurses (n: 6) stated that robots could alleviate physical strain by performing repetitive or physically demanding tasks, which could help reduce the risk of injury and fatigue among nursing staff.

…. Robots could be very helpful in taking over some of the more physically demanding tasks, like lifting patients or handling heavy equipment. This would reduce the physical strain on us and help prevent injuries. (N9. F)

Theme 8: Specialized Applications

Nurses (n: 8) stated the potential for robots to be particularly beneficial in specialized applications, such as minimizing staff exposure to radiation and enhancing safety in radiology departments.

…. In departments like radiology, where there’s a risk of radiation exposure, robots could be invaluable. They can handle tasks that would otherwise put us at risk, improving overall safety. (N5. F)

The acceptance of service robots in healthcare settings reveals complex, multifaceted perspectives shaped by practical, emotional, and professional considerations [ 35 ]. This study aimed to explore the behavioral intentions of nurses to accept robots in their workplace and to examine the willingness of patients to use service robots in healthcare settings.

The results indicate a moderate level of behavioral intention among nurses to accept robots in their workplace. This may be due to the integration of new aspects, such as robots, which can encounter resistance to change [ 36 ]. These findings align with previous studies that have shown a moderate readiness among nurses to embrace AI applications in nursing [ 37 , 38 ]. Interestingly, the adoption of robot nurses can be further encouraged [ 39 ]. Therefore, providing in-service training and increasing awareness about the benefits and usage of robot nurses may help healthcare organizations enhance nurses’ acceptance of service robots in healthcare settings.

Furthermore, findings from the quantitative data showed that marital status influences nurses’ willingness to accept robots in the workplace. Specifically, single and widowed nurses exhibit a significantly higher intention to accept robots compared to their married and divorced counterparts. One possible explanation for this finding could be that single and widowed nurses may have fewer family responsibilities, potentially making them more open to new technologies and workplace changes. Meanwhile, married and divorced nurses might be more cautious or resistant to change due to their existing commitments and the stability they seek in both their personal and professional lives. However, this contrasts with previous findings that showed marital status did not influence nurses’ attitudes toward AI in nursing practice [ 19 ].

Additionally, the study found that male nurses with an associate degree or higher exhibited a significantly greater intention to accept robots than female nurses with a diploma. This result is consistent with research by Alruwaili et al. which highlighted variations in attitudes toward AI among nurses based on their education level [ 19 ]. Furthermore, another study showed that nurses with postgraduate education had a more positive attitude toward using AI in nursing practice [ 20 ].

Interviews with nurses support these findings, showing that most nurses have concerns about robots’ ability to interact with and display emotions toward patients. This aligns with a prior study that found intelligent humanoid robots capable of displaying empathy, interacting, and responding in a humanlike manner are essential for integrating robots into nursing practice [ 13 ]. Additionally, it aligns with the findings of Ergin et al., who reported that nurse managers also believe robots cannot meet the social and emotional needs of patients [ 2 ].

Maintenance and reliability were additional concerns among nurses. They highlighted the potential for robots to malfunction and require regular maintenance, which could disrupt the continuity of care. Developing robust maintenance protocols and providing adequate training for staff on troubleshooting and maintaining these machines can help mitigate these issues. This aligns with findings from Kato et al., who revealed that the maintenance of robots is one of the challenges for introducing robotic care equipment [ 40 ]. Nurses also have concerns about job security, fearing that robots might replace human roles. This view contrasts with that of nurse managers, who indicated that robot nurses would not replace human nurses [ 2 ].

Additionally, the specific roles and functions of robots are also a point of confusion among nurses. They expressed concerns about how tasks would be divided between nurses and robots. This concern echoes prior nursing literature, which highlighted the importance of clearly identifying the division of tasks between nurses and robots [ 11 ]. Nurses also expressed doubts about the competence of robots in critical care scenarios, reporting that they find it difficult to trust the system, especially in emergency situations. These results align with previous studies showing that trust in AI plays a crucial role in the intention to use it in healthcare [ 10 , 37 ]. In non-nursing contexts, research has also shown that one pitfall to accepting robots in the workplace is employees’ inability to trust them [ 41 ].

Despite the concerns, several potential benefits of integrating robots in healthcare were identified. Nurses acknowledged that robots could significantly reduce physical strain by taking over repetitive and physically demanding tasks. This could help prevent injuries and reduce fatigue among nursing staff, thereby enhancing their overall efficiency and well-being. Moreover, they stated that robots could be particularly beneficial in specialized applications, such as minimizing staff exposure to radiation in radiology departments and enhancing safety in other high-risk areas. By handling tasks that pose health risks to humans, robots can create a safer working environment for healthcare professionals. This is consistent with an integrative review that indicated robots and automated devices can play a role in alleviating the workload of nurses, thereby facilitating their use [ 4 ]. Additionally, a study by Chang et al. showed that nurses perceive that robots enable them to focus more on professional task engagement [ 3 ].

Regarding patient willingness to use service robots, the study showed a low willingness among patients to use service robots. This is an important finding, as patients are the recipients of these services. If patients are unwilling or unable to work with robots, this could undermine the effectiveness and implementation of robot services in healthcare settings. This aligns with the results of Laakasuo et al., who found that patients were more accepting of human nurses compared to robot nurses [ 1 ]. Additionally, previous studies have shown that patients’ intentions to use robots in hospitals depend on various factors, including ease of use, independent personality, and trust in AI techniques [ 10 ].

The study results also showed a variation in patients’ willingness to use service robots based on their marital status, with single patients demonstrating greater willingness than their married counterparts. This may be because single patients feel more comfortable or open to interacting with new technologies, such as service robots, as they might have fewer immediate concerns about how these technologies could impact family dynamics or caregiving responsibilities. Conversely, married patients might be more cautious or skeptical about relying on robots for care, possibly due to concerns about the quality of care or the potential impact on their family life. Married patients may prioritize human interaction in healthcare settings, which they perceive as more reliable or emotionally supportive. In line with these findings, a study by Liu et al. asserted that personal individual characteristics influence patients’ continuous intention to use service robots in healthcare [ 10 ].

Practical implications

This study reveals numerous practical implications for healthcare organizations seeking to implement service robots into their work processes. Our findings indicate that nurses have a moderate level of behavioral intention to accept robots in their workplace. To increase their willingness, healthcare administrators should provide in-service training on AI applications, including robots, to enhance nurses’ literacy in AI, thereby fostering greater acceptance of service robots in healthcare settings.

Additionally, nurses reported concerns that affect their willingness to work with robots. One major concern among nurses is about robots’ ability to interact with and display emotions toward patients. It is important to inform nurses about intelligent humanoid robots [ 13 ], which can effectively communicate, interact, and respond empathetically and flexibly to patient needs. Educating nurses about these advanced capabilities can help alleviate concerns about the lack of human-like interaction and emotional display.

Another finding related to robot maintenance indicates that robust maintenance protocols could enhance nurses’ willingness to work with robots. Ensuring that nurses are aware of and confident in these protocols can mitigate fears about potential malfunctions and the disruption of care continuity. Nurses also expressed concerns about job security with the presence of robots. Assuring nurses that robots are tools designed to augment human capabilities rather than replace them can help alleviate fears about job displacement. Furthermore, there are concerns about the roles and competencies of robots. It is important to provide clear guidelines about the specific roles and functions of robots in healthcare settings. Identifying the tasks that robots can perform and those that require human supervision can reduce confusion and enhance acceptance among nurses.

Regarding patients, the study showed a low willingness to use service robots. To address this, integrating robots in a pilot phase and ensuring they are user-friendly could be helpful. Providing awareness sessions for patients about the benefits of robots and how to interact with them can enhance their willingness to use these technologies. Educating patients about the ease of use and the potential improvements in care quality, well as building trust in AI technologies can foster a more favorable perception of service robots.

Limitations

The findings of this study are restricted to the views and experiences of nurses and patients who participated in the research. The study, conducted with nurses and patients, was carried out in public tertiary hospitals in Port Said, Egypt, using convenience sampling. Thus, it is difficult to generalize the findings to other regions or types of healthcare facilities, such as private hospitals or clinics. Future studies should include a more diverse range of healthcare settings and employ random sampling methods to enhance the generalizability of the results. Additionally, expanding the research to include different cultural contexts and a broader geographic scope would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the acceptance and integration of service robots in healthcare.

Conclusions

This study aimed to explore the behavioral intentions of nurses to accept robots in their workplace and to examine the willingness of patients to use service robots in healthcare settings. The results of this study indicate that nurses’ behavioral intention to accept service robots in healthcare settings is moderate. Nurses’ acceptance is influenced by various factors, including concerns about interaction and emotions, maintenance and reliability, job security, role clarity, competence in critical care scenarios, and trustworthiness. Additionally, nurses acknowledge potential benefits of robots such as reducing physical strain and specialized applications. Patients showed a low level of willingness to use service robots in healthcare settings. These findings highlight the necessity for targeted educational programs to enhance AI literacy among nurses and patients, robust maintenance protocols, and clear communication about the roles and capabilities of service robots to foster their acceptance and integration in healthcare. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to assess changes in perceptions among nurses and patients over time, especially following direct exposure to service robots. Additionally, further studies in diverse cultural and healthcare contexts are essential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the global readiness for healthcare service robots.

Data availability

Upon request for scientific purposes, the researcher of correspondence will provide researchable information of the research.

Laakasuo M, Palomäki J, Kunnari A, Rauhala S, Drosinou M, Halonen J et al. Moral psychology of nursing robots: Exploring the role of robots in dilemmas of patient autonomy. European Journal of Social Psychology [Internet]. 2023;53:108–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2890

Ergin E, Karaarslan D, Şahan S, Çınar Yücel Ş. Artificial intelligence and robot nurses: From nurse managers’ perspective: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management [Internet]. 2022;30:3853–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13646

Chang H-Y, Huang T-L, Wong M-K, Ho L-H, Wu C-N, Teng C-I. How Robots Help Nurses Focus on Professional Task Engagement and Reduce Nurses’ Turnover Intention. Journal of Nursing Scholarship [Internet]. 2021;53:237–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12629

Kangasniemi M, Karki S, Colley N, Voutilainen A. The use of robots and other automated devices in nurses’ work: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Practice [Internet]. 2019;25:e12739. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12739

Deo N, Anjankar A. Artificial intelligence with robotics in healthcare: a narrative review of its viability in India. Cureus. 2023;15:e39416.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gombolay M, Yang XJ, Hayes B, Seo N, Liu Z, Wadhwania S et al. Robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care. The International Journal of Robotics Research [Internet]. 2018;37:1300–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918778344

Lee J-Y, Song YA, Jung JY, Kim HJ, Kim BR, Do H-K et al. Nurses’ needs for care robots in integrated nursing care services. Journal of Advanced Nursing [Internet]. 2018;74:2094–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13711

Song Y, Zhang M, Hu J, Cao X. Dancing with service robots: The impacts of employee-robot collaboration on hotel employees’ job crafting. International Journal of Hospitality Management [Internet]. 2022;103:103220. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431922000822

El-Gazar HE, Abdelhafez S, Ibrahim N, Shawer M, Zoromba MA. Effect of Job Crafting Intervention Program on Harmonious Work Passion and Career Commitment among Nurses: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Mrayyan MT, editor. Journal of Nursing Management [Internet]. 2023;2023:9623866. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9623866

Liu X, He X, Wang M, Shen H. What influences patients’ continuance intention to use AI-powered service robots at hospitals? The role of individual characteristics. Technology in Society [Internet]. 2022;70:101996. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X22001373

Stokes F, Palmer A. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Nursing: Ethics of Caring as a Guide to Dividing Tasks Between AI and Humans. Nursing Philosophy [Internet]. 2020;21:e12306. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12306

Tu Y, Liu W, Yang Z. Exploring the influence of service employees’ characteristics on their willingness to work with service robots. Journal of Service Management [Internet]. 2023;34:1038–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2022-0174

Pepito JA, Ito H, Betriana F, Tanioka T, Locsin RC. Intelligent humanoid robots expressing artificial humanlike empathy in nursing situations. Nursing Philosophy [Internet]. 2020;21:e12318. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12318

Maalouf N, Sidaoui A, Elhajj IH, Asmar D. Robotics in Nursing: A Scoping Review. Journal of Nursing Scholarship [Internet]. 2018;50:590–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12424

Betriana F, Tanioka R, Gunawan J, Locsin RC. Healthcare robots and human generations: consequences for nursing and healthcare. Collegian. 2022;29:767–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kim J, Gu GM, Heo P. In: Jo H, Jun H-W, Shin J, Lee S, editors. Robotics for healthcare BT - biomedical engineering: Frontier research and converging technologies. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 489–509.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Chang C-Y, Jen H-J, Su W-S. Trends in artificial intelligence in nursing: impacts on nursing management. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2022;30:3644–53.

Özçevik Subaşi D, Akça Sümengen A, Semerci R, Şimşek E, Çakır GN, Temizsoy E. Paediatric nurses’ perspectives on artificial intelligence applications: a cross-sectional study of concerns, literacy levels and attitudes. Journal of Advanced Nursing. n/a.

Alruwaili MM, Abuadas FH, Alsadi M, Alruwaili AN, Elsayed Ramadan OM, Shaban M, et al. Exploring nurses’ awareness and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: implications for nursing practice. Digit HEALTH. 2024;10:20552076241271804.

Google Scholar  

Tuncer GZ, Tuncer M. Investigation of nurses’ general attitudes toward artificial intelligence and their perceptions of ChatGPT usage and influencing factors. Digit HEALTH. 2024;10:20552076241277024.

Lin H-L, Liao L-L, Wang Y-N, Chang L-C. Attitude and utilization of ChatGPT among registered nurses: a cross-sectional study. International Nursing Review. n/a.

Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Fadden SM. Integration of artificial intelligence into nursing practice. Health Technol. 2022;12:1109–15.

Hamedani Z, Moradi M, Kalroozi F, Manafi Anari A, Jalalifar E, Ansari A, et al. Evaluation of acceptance, attitude, and knowledge towards artificial intelligence and its application from the point of view of physicians and nurses: a provincial survey study in Iran: a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6:e1543.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Baghdadi LR, Mobeirek AA, Alhudaithi DR, Albenmousa FA, Alhadlaq LS, Alaql MS, et al. Patients’ attitudes toward the use of artificial intelligence as adiagnostic tool in radiology in Saudi Arabia: cross-sectional study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024;11:e53108.

Plano Clark VL. Mixed methods research. The Journal of Positive Psychology [Internet]. 2017;12:305–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262619

Yamane T, Statistics. An introductory analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Ro; 1967.

Nundy S, Kakar A, Bhutta Z. How to practice academic medicine and publish from developing countries? A practical guide. Singapore: Springer; 2022.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18:179–83.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology [Internet]. 1970 [cited 2021 Jan 5];1:185–216. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/135910457000100301

Sinha N, Singh P, Gupta M, Singh P. Robotics at workplace: An integrated Twitter analytics – SEM based approach for behavioral intention to accept. International Journal of Information Management [Internet]. 2020;55:102210. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401219313441

Lu L, Cai R, Gursoy D. Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management [Internet]. 2019;80:36–51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431918306455

Polit DF, Beck CT. Essential of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

Defi IR, Iskandar S, Charismawati S, Turnip A, Novita D. Healthcare Workers’ Point of View on Medical Robotics During COVID-19 Pandemic – A Scoping Review. International Journal of General Medicine [Internet]. 2022;15:3767–77. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2147/IJGM.S355734

Zeid MAGA, Mostafa B, Zoromba MA, Abdelnaby R, Elsayed M, El-Gazar HE. Effects of organizational agility on readiness for change in nurses: A cross-sectional study. International Nursing Review [Internet]. 2024;71:140–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12869

Salem GMM, El-Gazar HE, Mahdy AY, Alharbi TAF, Zoromba MA. Nursing students’ personality traits and their attitude toward artificial intelligence: A Multicenter cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management [Internet]. 2024;2024:6992824. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6992824

Labrague LJ, Aguilar-Rosales R, Yboa BC, Sabio JB. Factors influencing student nurses’ readiness to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) in their studies and their perceived barriers to accessing AI technology: a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;130:105945.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Karaarslan D, Kahraman A, Ergin E. How does training given to pediatric nurses about artificial intelligence and robot nurses affect their opinions and attitude levels? A quasi-experimental study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2024;77:e211–7.

Kato K, Yoshimi T, Tsuchimoto S, Mizuguchi N, Aimoto K, Itoh N et al. Identification of care tasks for the use of wearable transfer support robots – an observational study at nursing facilities using robots on a daily basis. BMC Health Services Research [Internet]. 2021;21:652. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06639-2

Paluch S, Tuzovic S, Holz HF, Kies A, Jörling M. My colleague is a robot – exploring frontline employees’ willingness to work with collaborative service robots. Journal of Service Management [Internet]. 2022;33:363–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2020-0406

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank all of the responded nurses and patients for their cooperation.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nursing Administration Department, Faculty of Nursing, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt

Heba Emad El-Gazar & Shymaa Abdelhafez

Department of Psychiatric Nursing and Mental Health, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Amira Mohammed Ali

Nursing Education and Advanced Practice Lead, King’s College Hospital London-Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Mona Shawer

Technical Institution of Nursing, Mansoura, Egypt

Department of Psychiatric, Mental Health and Community Health, College of Nursing , Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia

Talal Ali F. Alharbi

College of Nursing, Sulaiman Al Rajhi University, Al Bukayriah, Saudi Arabia

College of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Mohamed Ali Zoromba

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HE, MZ, and SA planned the study. MZ, SA, and MS conducted the literature analysis. HE handled the qualitative data collection, while MA and TE performed the qualitative data analysis. HE performed the quantitative data analysis. HE, MZ, and AA were major contributors to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heba Emad El-Gazar .

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Faculty of Nursing’s Research Ethics Committee at Port Said University, Egypt, approved the study. Conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration, the research ensured that all participants received a detailed explanation of the study’s purpose and procedures. The study strictly adhered to the principles of voluntary participation and anonymity, coding participants to maintain their confidentiality. Additionally, participants were explicitly informed of their right to cease participation in the study at any time without facing any penalties. All participants signed informed consent forms before participating in the research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

El-Gazar, H.E., Abdelhafez, S., Ali, A.M. et al. Are nurses and patients willing to work with service robots in healthcare? A mixed-methods study. BMC Nurs 23 , 718 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02336-7

Download citation

Received : 04 August 2024

Accepted : 09 September 2024

Published : 07 October 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02336-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Healthcare service robots
• Mixed-methods study
• Nurses’ behavioral intentions to accept robots
• Patient willingness to use robots

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]