how does critical thinking affect society

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

The State of Critical Thinking 2020

November 2020.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction Methodology Lessons Learned Conclusion Appendix

Introduction

In 2018, the Reboot Foundation released a first-of-its-kind survey looking at the public’s attitudes toward critical thinking and critical thinking education. The report found that critical thinking skills are highly valued, but not taught or practiced as much as might be hoped for in schools or in public life.

The survey suggested that, despite recognizing the importance of critical thinking, when it came to critical thinking practices—like seeking out multiple sources of information and engaging others with opposing views—many people’s habits were lacking. Significant numbers of respondents reported relying on inadequate sources of information, making decisions without doing enough research, and avoiding those with conflicting viewpoints.

In late 2019, the Foundation conducted a follow up survey in order to see how the landscape may have shifted. Without question, the stakes surrounding better reasoning have increased. The COVID-19 pandemic requires deeper interpretive and analytical skills. For instance, when it comes to news about a possible vaccine, people need to assess how it was developed in order to judge whether it will actually work.

Misinformation, from both foreign and domestic sources, continues to proliferate online and, perhaps most disturbingly, surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis. Meanwhile, political polarization has deepened and become more personal . At the same time, there’s both a growing awareness and divide over issues of racism and inequality. If that wasn’t enough, changes to the journalism industry have weakened local civic life and incentivized clickbait, and sensationalized and siloed content.

Part of the problem is that much of our public discourse takes place online, where cognitive biases can become amplified, and where groupthink and filter bubbles proliferate. Meanwhile, face-to-face conversations—which can dissolve misunderstandings and help us recognize the shared humanity of those we disagree with—go missing. 

Critical thinking is, of course, not a cure-all, but a lack of critical thinking skills across the population exacerbates all these problems. More than ever, we need skills and practice in managing our emotions, stepping back from quick-trigger evaluations and decisions, and over-relying on biased or false sources of information. 

To keep apprised of the public’s view of critical thinking, the Reboot Foundation conducted its second annual survey in late 2019. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a delay in the release of the results. Nevertheless, this most recent survey dug deeper than our 2018 poll, and looked especially into how the public understands the state of critical thinking education. For the first time, our team also surveyed teachers on their views on teaching critical thinking.

General Findings

Support for critical thinking skills remains high, but there is also clearly skepticism that individuals are getting the help they need to acquire improved reasoning skills.

A very high majority of people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. Indeed, 60 percent of the respondents reported not having studied critical thinking in school. And only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that those skills had deteriorated. 

There is also broad support among the public and teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. For example, 90 percent think courses covering critical thinking should be required in K-12. 

Many respondents (43 percent) also encouragingly identified early childhood as the best age to develop critical thinking skills. This was a big increase from our previous survey (just 20 percent) and is consistent with the general consensus among social scientists and psychologists. 

There are worrisome trends—and promising signs—in critical thinking habits and daily practices. In particular, individuals still don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, we would hope that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out some encouraging information. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”) and giving reasons for their opinions (85 percent). These numbers were, in general, higher than in our previous survey (see “Comparing Survey Results” below).

In other areas of critical thinking, responses were more mixed. Almost half of respondents, for example, reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” seeking out people with different opinions to engage in discussion. Many also reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” planning where (35 percent) or how (36 percent) to get information on a given topic. 

These factors are tied closely together. Critical thinking skills have been challenged and devalued at many different levels of society. There is, therefore, no simple fix. Simply cleansing the internet of misinformation, for example, would not suddenly make us better thinkers. Improving critical thinking across society will take a many-pronged effort.

Comparing Survey Results 

Several interesting details emerged in the comparison of results from this survey to our 2018 poll. First, a word of caution: there were some demographic differences in the respondents between the two surveys. This survey skewed a bit older: the average age was 47, as opposed to 36.5. In addition, more females responded this time: 57 percent versus 46 percent.

That said, there was a great deal of consistency between the surveys on participants’ general views of critical thinking. Belief in the importance of critical thinking remains high (94 percent versus 96 percent), as does belief that these skills are generally lacking in society at large. Blame, moreover, was spread to many of the same culprits. Slightly more participants blamed technology this time (29 versus 27 percent), while slightly fewer blamed the education system (22 versus 26 percent). 

Respondents were also generally agreed on the importance of teaching critical thinking at all levels. Ninety-five percent thought critical thinking courses should be required at the K-12 level (slightly up from 92 percent); and 91 percent thought they should be required in college (slightly up from 90 percent). (These questions were framed slightly differently from year to year, which could have contributed to the small increases.)

One significant change came over the question of when it is appropriate to start developing critical thinking skills. In our first survey, less than 20 percent of respondents said that early childhood was the ideal time to develop critical thinking skills. This time, 43 percent of respondents did so. As discussed below, this is an encouraging development since research indicates that children become capable of learning how to think critically at a young age. 

In one potentially discouraging difference between the two surveys, our most recent survey saw more respondents indicate that they did less critical thinking since high school (18 percent versus just 4 percent). But similar numbers of respondents indicated their critical thinking skills had deteriorated since high school (23 percent versus 21 percent).

Finally, encouraging points of comparison emerged in responses to questions about particular critical thinking activities. Our most recent survey saw a slight uptick in the number of respondents reporting engagement in activities like collaborating with others, planning on where to get information, seeking out the opinions of those they disagree with, keeping an open mind, and verifying information. (See Appendix 1: Data Tables.)

These results could reflect genuine differences from 2018, in either actual activity or respondents’ sense of the importance of these activities. But demographic differences in age and gender could also be responsible. 

There is reason to believe, however, that demographic differences are not the main factor, since there is no evident correlation between gender and responses in either survey. Meanwhile, in our most recent survey older respondents reported doing these activities less frequently . Since this survey skewed older, it might have been anticipated that respondents would report doing these activities less. But the opposite is the case.

Findings From Teacher Survey

Teachers generally agree with general survey respondents about the importance of critical thinking. Ninety-four percent regard critical thinking as “extremely” or “very important.” 

Teachers, like general survey participants, also share concerns that young people aren’t acquiring the critical thinking skills they need. They worry, in particular, about the impact of technology on their students’ critical thinking skills. In response to a question about how their school’s administration can help them teach critical thinking education more effectively, some teachers said updated technology (along with new textbooks and other materials) would help, but others thought laptops, tablets, and smartphones were inhibiting students’ critical thinking development. 

This is an important point to clarify if we are to better integrate critical thinking into K-12 education. Research strongly suggests that critical thinking skills are best acquired in combination with basic facts in a particular subject area. The idea that critical thinking is a skill that can be effectively taught in isolation from basic facts is mistaken.

Another common misconception reflected in the teacher survey involves critical thinking and achievement. Although a majority of teachers (52 percent) thought all students benefited from critical thinking instruction, a significant percentage (35) said it primarily benefited high-ability students.

At Reboot, we believe that all students are capable of critical thinking and will benefit from critical thinking instruction. Critical thinking is, after all, just a refinement of everyday thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving. These are skills all students must have. The key is instilling in our young people both the habits and subject-area knowledge needed to facilitate the improvement and refinement of these skills.

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction. In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.”

Others wanted more training, asking directly for additional support in terms of resources and professional training. One educator put it bluntly: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.”

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. Forty-four percent of teachers reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, with just 31 percent reporting required media literacy courses.

This is despite the fact that teachers, in their open responses, recognized the importance of media literacy, with some suggesting it should be a graduation requirement. Many organizations and some governments, notably   Finland’s , have recognized the media literacy deficit and taken action to address it, but the U.S. education system has been slow to act.

Thinking skills have been valuable in all places and at all times. But with the recent upheavals in communication, information, and media, particularly around the COVID-19 crisis, such skills are perhaps more important than ever. 

Part of the issue is that the production of information has been democratized—no longer vetted by gatekeepers but generated by anyone who has an internet connection and something to say. This has undoubtedly had positive effects, as events and voices come to light that might have previously not emerged. The recording of George Floyd’s killing is one such example. But, at the same time, finding and verifying good information has become much more difficult. 

Technological changes have also put financial pressures on so-called “legacy media” like newspapers and television stations, leading to sometimes precipitous drops in quality, less rigorous fact-checking (in the original sense of the term), and the blending of news reports and opinion pieces. The success of internet articles and videos is too often measured by clicks instead of quality. A stable business model for high-quality public interest journalism remains lacking. And, as biased information and propaganda fills gaps left by shrinking newsrooms, polarization worsens. (1)

Traditional and social media both play into our biases and needs for in-group approval. Online platforms have proven ideal venues for misinformation and manipulation. And distractions abound, damaging attention spans and the quality of debate.

Many hold this digital upheaval at least partially responsible for recent political upheavals around the world. Our media consumption habits increasingly reinforce biases and previously held beliefs, and expose us to only the worst and most inflammatory views from the other side. Demagogues and the simple, emotion-driven ideas they advance thrive in this environment of confusion, isolation, and sensationalism. 

It’s not only our public discourse that suffers. Some studies have suggested that digital media may be partially responsible for rising rates of depression and other mood disorders among the young. (2)

Coping with this fast-paced, distraction-filled world in a healthy and productive manner requires better thinking and better habits of mind, but the online world itself tends to encourage the opposite. This is not to suggest our collective thinking skills were pristine before the internet came along, only that the internet presents challenges to our thinking that we have not seen before and have not yet proven able to meet.

There are some positive signs, with more attention and resources being devoted to neglected areas of education like civics and media literacy ; organizations trying to address internet-fueled polarization and extremism; and online tools being developed to counter fake news and flawed information.

But we also need to support the development of more general reasoning skills and habits: in other words, “critical thinking.”

Critical thinking has long been a staple of K-12 and college education, theoretically, at least, if not always in practice. But the concept can easily appear vague and merely rhetorical without definite ideas and practices attached to it.

When, for example, is the best age to teach critical thinking? What activities are appropriate? Should basic knowledge be acquired at the same time as critical thinking skills, or separately? Some of these questions remain difficult to answer, but research and practice have gone far in addressing others.

Part of the goal of our survey was to compare general attitudes about critical thinking education—both in the teaching profession and the general public—to what the best and most recent research suggests. If there is to be progress in the development of critical thinking skills across society, it requires not just learning how best to teach critical thinking but diffusing that knowledge widely, especially to parents and educators.

The surveys were distributed through Amazon’s MTurk Prime service. 

For the general survey, respondents answered a series of questions about critical thinking, followed by a section that asked respondents to estimate how often they do certain things, such as consult more than one source when searching for information. The questions in the “personal habit” section appeared in a randomized order to reduce question ordering effects. Demographic questions appeared at the end of the survey.

For the teacher survey, respondents were all part of a teacher panel created by MTurk Prime. They also answered a series of questions on critical thinking, especially focused on the role of critical thinking in their classrooms. After that, respondents answered a series of questions about how they teach—these questions were also randomized to reduce question ordering effects. Finally, we asked questions related to the role of media literacy in their classrooms.

To maintain consistency with the prior survey and to explore relationships across time, many of the questions remained the same from 2018. In some cases, following best practices in questionnaire design , we revamped questions to improve clarity and increase the validity and reliability of the responses.

For all surveys, only completed responses coming from IP addresses located in the U.S. were analyzed. 1152 respondents completed the general survey; 499 teachers completed the teacher survey.

The complete set of questions for each survey is available upon request

Detailed Findings and Discussion

As summarized above, the survey produced a number of noteworthy findings. One central theme that emerged was a general pessimism about the state of critical thinking and uncertainty about how to improve it. That is, despite the near-universal acknowledgment of the importance of critical thinking, respondents generally think society at large is doing a bad job of cultivating critical thinking skills. Respondents were, moreover, divided about what needs to be done.

Almost all the people surveyed (94 percent) believe that critical thinking is “extremely” or “very important.” But they generally (86 percent) find those skills lacking in the public at large. These numbers don’t come as a huge surprise—and they echo the 2018 results—but they do suggest broad public support for initiatives that advance critical thinking skills, both inside and outside of schools.

Respondents also reported deficits in their own critical thinking training and practices. They tended not to think critical thinking had been a point of emphasis in their own education, with a substantial majority of over 63 percent reporting that they had not studied critical thinking in school. Around 20 percent said their schools had provided no background in critical thinking at all, and another 20 percent said the background in critical thinking they gained from school was only slight.

There were significant differences among age groups in these self-reports. Around half of respondents in both the 0-19 and 20-39 age groups reported having studied critical thinking in school. Those numbers dwindled among older groups, bottoming out at 11 percent among 80 to 100-year-olds.

This result is likely in part due to the increased popularity of the phrase “critical thinking”: prior generations may have spent a substantial amount of time on reasoning skills without it coming under the same vocabulary. The young are also closer to school-age, of course, so may simply have sharper memories of critical thinking activities. But the differences in responses might also reflect genuine differences in education.

In any case it’s clear that, even recently, many—if not most—students come out of school feeling as if they have not learned how to think critically, despite the fact that there is broad consensus on the importance of these skills. Only around 25 percent of respondents reported receiving an “extremely” or “very” strong background in critical thinking from their schools.

There are a number of potential causes—technology, social norms, misguided educational priorities—but perhaps the most salient is that, as cognitive scientist Tim van Gelder puts it, “critical thinking is hard.” As van Gelder emphasizes, we don’t naturally think reasonably and rationally; instead we tend to rely on narrative, emotion, and intuition—what feels right. (3)   Teaching students to think critically requires much more guidance and practice, throughout the curriculum, than is currently being provided.

There is broad support among the public and among teachers for critical thinking education, both at the K-12 and collegiate levels. 

Around 90 percent of respondents in the general public said that courses covering critical thinking should be required at the K-12 level, while 94 percent of teachers said critical thinking is important.

And schools usually echo this sentiment as well, citing the phrase “critical thinking” frequently in curricula and other materials. But it remains unclear if, in practice, critical thinking is really the priority it’s made out to be rhetorically.

One problem is a tendency to think critical thinking and reasoning are too complex for younger students to tackle. But research has shown that children start reasoning logically at a very young age. (4)   Critical thinking through activities like open-ended dialogue, weighing opposing perspectives, and backing up opinions with reasoning can have a positive effect even at the K-5 level. For example, philosophy for kids courses have shown some  positive effects on students’ reading and math skills (gains were even more substantial for disadvantaged students). (5)

Our survey respondents generally agreed that critical thinking skills should be taught from an early age. Forty-three percent favored beginning critical thinking instruction during early childhood (another 27 percent favored beginning at ages 6-12). This was more than a twofold increase over the results from 2018’s survey, in which just 20 percent thought it was best to begin instruction in critical thinking before the age of 6. This increase is encouraging since it’s consistent with recent research that understands critical thinking as part of general cognitive development that starts even before children enter school. (6)

Many teachers likewise support critical thinking instruction beginning at a young age. In the open response, for example, one wrote, “Critical thinking should be explicitly taught in earlier grades than late middle school and high school.”

Another wrote: “By the time students get to high school they should have this skill [critical thinking] well tuned. The pressure to meet standards earlier and earlier makes it harder to teach basic skills like critical thinking.” 

Many teachers (55 percent) also thought the emphasis on standardized testing has made it more difficult to incorporate critical thinking instruction in the classroom. For example, one wrote, “Standardized testing has created an environment of quantitative results that don’t always represent qualitative gains.” 

Moreover, a plurality of teachers (25 percent) believe that state standardized tests do not assess critical thinking skills well at all, while just 13 percent believe they assess critical thinking skills extremely well. Teachers generally (52 percent) believe that their own tests do a better job of measuring critical thinking skills.

The survey also found some worrisome trends—as well as some promising signs—in how people evaluated their own critical thinking skills and daily practices. In particular, individuals don’t do enough to engage people with whom they disagree. 

Given the deficits in critical thinking acquisition during school, it might be hoped that respondents’ critical thinking skills continued to improve after they’ve left school. But only about 55 percent reported that their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with almost a quarter reporting that their skills had actually deteriorated since then. 

This is especially alarming because thinking critically, unlike say learning about calculus or the Russian Revolution, is generally thought to be a lifelong endeavour. We are supposed to become better with age and experience. Research into adult education suggests that it’s never too late to make gains in critical thinking.  (7)

Questions about respondents’ critical thinking habits brought out more detailed information. Some of these responses were encouraging. People reported using more than one source of information when making a decision at a high rate (around 77 percent said they did this “always” or “often”), giving reason for their opinions (85 percent), supporting their decisions with information (84 percent), and listening to the ideas of those they disagree with (81 percent). Participants generally reported engaging in more critical thinking activities this time than in our initial survey. (See “Comparing Survey Results” above.)

In other areas of critical thinking, responses were more mixed. Almost half of respondents, for example, reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” seeking out people with different opinions to engage in discussion. Many also reported only “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” planning where (35 percent) or how (36 percent) to get information on a given topic.

It’s difficult to totally identify the drivers of these figures. After all, all humans are prone to overestimating the amount and quality of reasoning we do when we come to decisions, solve problems, or research information. But, at the very least, these numbers indicate that people acknowledge that these various critical thinking habits are admirable goals to shoot for. 

At the same time and unsurprisingly, these results suggest a reluctance to engage in the more demanding aspects of critical thinking: difficult or unpleasant tasks like seriously considering the possibility that our opponents might be right or thinking carefully about how to approach information-gathering before we engage in it.

Weaknesses in these areas of critical thinking can be especially easily exploited by emotionalized, oversimplified, and sensationalistic news and rhetoric. If people jump in to information-gathering without even a rough plan or method in mind they’re more likely to get swept up by clickbait or worse.

The current media environment requires a mindful and deliberate approach if it is to be navigated successfully. And one’s own opinions will remain under-nuanced, reactive, and prone to groupthink if they’re influenced by the extreme opinions and caricatures that are often found online and on television instead of by engagement with well-reasoned and well-intentioned perspectives.

Poor media consumption habits can have a distorting effect on our political perceptions, especially. Recent research, for example, has identified wildly inaccurate stereotypes among the general public about the composition of political parties. One study found that “people think that 32% of Democrats are LGBT (versus 6% in reality) and 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year (vs. 2% in reality).” (8) The study also suggested, alarmingly, that “those who pay the most attention to political media may […] also [be] the likeliest to possess the most misinformation about party composition.” (9)

The public is worried about the impact of technology on the acquisition of critical thinking skills. They also blamed deficits in critical thinking on changing societal norms and the education system.

Modern technology was the most cited reason for a lack of critical thinking skills among the general public, with “changing societal norms” coming in a close second. Over 200 respondents also cited the educational system (see chart below).

A number of the teachers also mentioned potential drawbacks of technology in the classroom environment. For example, in the open response portion of the survey, which allowed teachers to voice general concerns, one teacher wrote: “Get rid of the laptops and tablets and bring back pencil and paper because the students aren’t learning anything using technology.” Another said: “Personal Electronic devices need to be banned in schools.”

In our own work at the Reboot Foundation, the research team found evidence of negative correlations between technology use at schools and achievement. For example, an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) showed that fourth graders using tablets “in all or almost all” classes performed significantly worse (the equivalent of a full grade level) than their peers who didn’t use them.

Another recent study the foundation supported also suggested students benefited from using pencil and paper as opposed to technology to do math homework. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found similar results a few years ago in their international study of 15-year-olds and computer usage. (10)

There is a great deal the field still doesn’t know about the effects of different kinds of technology on different kinds of learning. But a growing stock of research suggests that schools should be cautious about introducing technology into classrooms and the lives of students in general, especially young students. (11)

It would also be a mistake to slip into simple Luddism though. Technology, obviously, provides benefits as well—making education more accessible, reducing costs, helping teachers to fine-tune instruction to student needs, to name a few. During the coronavirus crisis, moreover, educators have had no choice but to rely and hopefully help improve these tools.

Still, too often in the past schools have turned to technology without properly weighing the costs against the benefits, and without determining whether technology is truly needed or effective. A recent RAND Corporation paper, for example, discussed programs “seeking to implement personalized learning” but without “clearly defined evidence-based models to adopt.” (12)

The Reboot survey suggests that members of the public as well as teachers generally share these concerns, both about educational technology specifically and about the general impact of technology on student learning.

While teachers support critical thinking instruction, they are divided about how to teach it, and some educators have beliefs about critical thinking instruction that conflict with established research.

One central question in the research about how to best instill critical thinking skills in students is whether critical thinking should be taught in conjunction with basic facts and knowledge or separated from it.

Teachers were split on this question, with 41 percent thinking students should engage in critical thinking practice while learning basic facts, while 42 percent thought students should learn basic facts first then engage in critical thinking practice. A further 16 percent believe that basic facts and critical thinking should be taught separately. (However, only about 13 percent of teachers surveyed say that content knowledge either doesn’t matter at all or only matters slightly for critical thinking skills.)

The view that knowledge and critical thinking skills can and should be taught separately is mistaken. There is a common view that since information is so widely accessible today, learning basic facts is no longer important. According to this view, it’s only cognitive skills that matter. But the two cannot be so neatly divorced as is often assumed. (13)

Research in cognitive science strongly suggests that critical thinking is not the type of skill that can be divorced from content and applied generically to all kinds of different contexts. As cognitive scientist Daniel T. Willingham argues, “The ability to think critically […] depends on domain knowledge and practice.” (14)

This means students need to practice critical thinking in many different kinds of contexts throughout the curriculum as they acquire the background knowledge needed to reason in a given context. There are of course general skills and habits that can be extrapolated from these various kinds of practice, but it is very unlikely that critical thinking can be taught as a skill divorced from content. “It […] makes no sense,” Willingham writes, “to try to teach critical thinking devoid of factual content.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean standalone critical thinking courses should be rejected. Students can still gain a lot from learning about formal logic, for example, and from learning about metacognition and the best research practices. But these standalone courses or programs should include acquisition of basic factual knowledge as well, and the skills and habits learned in them must be applied and reinforced in other courses and contexts.

Students, moreover, should be reminded that being “critical” is an empty slogan unless they have the requisite factual knowledge to make a cogent argument in a given domain. They need background knowledge to be able to seek out evidence from relevant sources, to develop reliable and nuanced interpretations of information, and to back the arguments they want to make with evidence.

Reboot also asked teachers about which students they thought benefited from critical thinking instruction. A majority (52 percent) thought it benefits all students, but 35 percent said (with the remaining 13 percent thinking it primarily benefits lower-ability students).

The view that critical thinking instruction is only effective for higher achieving students is another common misconception. Everyone is capable of critical thinking, and even, to a certain extent, engages in critical thinking on their own. The key is for students to develop metacognitive habits and subject-area knowledge so that they can apply critical thought in the right contexts and in the right way. Educators should not assume that lower-achieving students will not benefit from critical thinking instruction.

Teachers need more support when it comes to critical thinking instruction, though at least some teacher training and professional development programs do seem to help.

In the survey, educators repeatedly mentioned a lack of resources and updated professional development. In response to a question about how administrators could help teachers teach critical thinking more effectively, one teacher asked for “better tools and materials for teaching us how to teach these things.”

Another said, “Provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and cross train across subject areas, as well as providing professional development that is not dry or outdated.” Another characteristic comment: “Provide extra professional development to give resources and training on how to do this in multiple disciplines.”

Overall teachers were relatively satisfied that teacher training and professional development programs were helping them teach critical thinking. Forty-six percent said that their teacher training helped them a lot or a great deal, while 50 percent said professional development programs help them a lot or a great deal.

But other teachers reported burdensome administrative tasks and guidelines were getting in the way of teacher autonomy and critical thinking instruction. For example, one teacher wrote, “Earlier in my career I had much more freedom to incorporate instruction of critical thinking into my lessons.”

Media literacy is still not being taught as widely as it should be. 

In our survey, teachers rightly recognized that media literacy is closely bound up with critical thinking. One said, “I believe that media literacy goes hand in hand with critical thinking skills and should be a requirement […] especially due to the increase in use of technology among our youth.” Another offered that “media literacy should be a graduation requirement like economics or government.”

But schools, at least judging by teachers’ responses in the survey, have been slow in prioritizing media literacy. More than 44 percent reported that media literacy courses are not offered at their schools, and just around 30 percent reported that media literacy courses are required. That said, the majority of teachers did report teaching typical media literacy skills occasionally in their classes.

For example, over 60 percent said that, in at least one class, they “teach students how to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate sources,” and over two-thirds said they “teach students how to find reliable sources.” (15)

Despite the assumption sometimes made that young people (“digital natives”) must be adept navigators of the internet, recent studies have found that students have trouble evaluating the information they consume online. They have problems recognizing bias and misinformation, distinguishing between advertising and legitimate journalism, and verifying information using credible sources.

Our age is one in which unreliable information proliferates; nefarious interests use the internet to influence public opinion; and social media encourages groupthink, emotional thinking, and pile-on. New skills and training are required to navigate this environment. Our schools must adapt.

This means generating and implementing specific interventions that help students learn to identify markers of misinformation and develop healthy information-gathering habits. The Reboot Foundation’s own research suggests that even quick and immediate interventions can have a positive impact. But it also means instilling students with life-long critical thinking habits and skills which they’ll be able to apply to an ever-changing media landscape.

Despite its importance, which is widely acknowledged by the general public, critical thinking remains a somewhat vague and poorly understood concept. Most people realize that it is of vital importance to individual success and educational attainment, as well as to civic life in a liberal democracy. And most seem to realize that 21st-century challenges and changes make acquiring critical thinking skills of even more urgent importance. But when it comes to instilling them in children and developing them in adults, we are, in many ways, still at square one. 

Over the course of the last few decades, K-12 educators have been urged to teach critical thinking, but they have been given conflicting and inconsistent advice on how to do it. There remains a lack of proven resources for them to rely on, a lack of administrative support—and sometimes even a lack of a clear sense of what exactly critical thinking is. Perhaps most importantly, teachers lack the time and freedom within the curriculum to teach these skills.

But there have been a number of insights from cognitive science and other disciplines that suggest a way forward. Perhaps the most important is that critical thinking cannot be understood as a skill on par with learning a musical instrument or a foreign language. It is more complicated than those kinds of skills, involving cognitive development in a number of different areas and integrated with general knowledge learned in other subject areas. Critical thinking courses and interventions that ignore this basic fact may produce some gains, but they will not give students the tools to develop their thinking more broadly and apply critical thought to the world outside of school.

College and continuing education deserve attention too. It should be considered a red flag that only 55 percent of respondents didn’t think they’d made any strides in critical thinking skills since high school. Colleges have long been moving away from a traditional liberal arts curriculum . The critical thinking skills acquired across those disciplines have likely suffered as a result.

In recent years, we’ve seen smart people who should know better time and again exhibit poor judgment online. It is important to remind each other of the importance of stepping back, managing emotions, engaging with others charitably, and seriously considering the possibility that we are wrong. This is especially important when we are searching for information online, an environment that can easily discourage these intellectual virtues. Ramping up media literacy—for both adults and young people—will be a vital part of the solution.

But, ultimately, critical thinking, which touches on so many different aspects of personal and civic life, must be fostered in a multitude of different ways and different domains. A secure, prosperous, and civil future may, quite literally, depend on it.

Appendix 1: Data Tables

[table id=72 /]

[table id=73 /]

[table id=74/]

[table id=75 /]

[table id=76 /]

To download the PDF of this report,

( please click here )

Table of Contents Introduction General Findings Background Methods Detailed Findings and Discussion Conclusion

(1)* W Gandour, R. (2016) A new information environment: How digital fragmentation is shaping the way we produce and consume news. Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/books/NewInfoEnvironmentEnglishLink.pdf

(2)* Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology .

(3)*  Gelder, T. V. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching , 53 (1), 41-48.

(4)*  Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23 , 183-209.

(5)*  Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N., & See, B. H. (2015). Philosophy for Children: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/ Projects/Evaluation_Reports/EEF_Project_Report_PhilosophyForChildren.pdf

(6)*  Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher , 28 (2), 16-46.

(7)*  Dwyer, C. P., & Walsh, A. (2019). An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-19.

(8)*  Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80 (3), 964-981. 964.

(9)*  Ibid., 965.

(10)*  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

(11)*  Madigan, S., Browne, D., Racine, N., Mori, C., & Tough, S. (2019). Association between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA pediatrics, 173(3), 244-250.

(12)*  Pane, J. F. (2018). Strategies for implementing personalized learning while evidence and resources are underdeveloped. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE314.html

(13)*  Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system–and how to fix it. Avery.

(14)*  Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Federation of Teachers (Summer 2007) 8-19.

(15)*  Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository, 8, 2018.

To download the PDF of this survey,

please click here.

Free Critical Thinking Resources​

Subscribe to get updates and news about critical thinking, and links to free resources.

Reboot Foundation, 88 Rue De Courcelles, Paris, France 75008

[email protected], ⓒ 2024 - all rights are reserved, privacy overview.

Our mission is to develop tools and resources to help people cultivate a capacity for critical thinking, media literacy, and reflective thought.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Critical Thinking in Psychology
• > Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives

Book contents

• Critical Thinking in Psychology
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• Chapter 1 An Introduction to Critical Thinking: Maybe It Will Change Your Life
• Chapter 2 Nobelists Gone Wild
• Chapter 3 Why Science Succeeds, and Sometimes Doesn’t
• Chapter 4 Critical Thinking and the Rejection of Unsubstantiated Claims
• Chapter 5 Promoting Critical Thinking by Teaching, or Taking, Psychology Courses
• Chapter 6 Avoiding and Overcoming Misinformation on the Internet
• Chapter 7 Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives
• Chapter 8 Research Suffers When We All Agree
• Chapter 9 When All Is Just a Click Away
• Chapter 10 Critical Thinking
• Chapter 11 Evaluating Experimental Research
• Chapter 12 Critical Thinking as Scientific Reasoning
• Chapter 13 Critical Thinking in STEM Disciplines
• Chapter 14 Why Would Anyone Do or Believe Such a Thing?
• Chapter 15 Conclusion: How to Think Critically about Politics … and Anything Else!

Chapter 7 - Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

Critical thinking impacts many outcomes in our everyday lives, from making trivial decisions about whether or not to forward a news story on Facebook to making important decisions about which cancer treatment to undergo. This chapter defines critical thinking and gives readers a list of critical thinking skills and dispositions to aspire to. Outcomes in numerous domains of life such as science, health, education, politics, and social media, and how those outcomes might be impacted by critical thinking, are discussed. The chapter also touches on contemporary issues, such as echo chambers, which might limit thinking and the deep comprehension of important issues.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives
• By Heather A. Butler , Diane F. Halpern
• Edited by Robert J. Sternberg , Cornell University, New York , Diane F. Halpern , Claremont McKenna College, California
• Book: Critical Thinking in Psychology
• Online publication: 19 December 2019
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684354.008

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Global Cognition

Critical thinking in everyday life.

by Winston Sieck updated September 19, 2021

Have you ever been listening to one of your teacher’s lessons and thought that it had no relevance to your own life?

You’re not alone. Just about every student has felt the same way.

Sure, you use critical thinking skills in the classroom to solve word problems in math, write essays in English, and create hypotheses in science.

But how will you use critical thinking in everyday life?

First, keep in mind that critical thinking is simply a “deliberate thought process.”

Basically, it means that you are using reason and logic to come to a conclusion about an issue or decision you are tangling with.

And clear, sound reasoning is something that will help you every day.

To help you make the leap from classroom to real world, here are 3 concrete examples of critical thinking in everyday life.

Fake News vs. Real News

Take a moment to reflect on your media skills. Do you think you have what it takes to sort out a real news source from a piece of clever advertising?

According to a recent study from Stanford University, a whopping 82% of the teens surveyed could not distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and a legitimate news story.

Part of the problem may come from schools cutting back on formal instruction of critical thinking skills and an assumption that today’s “digital native” teens can automatically tell the difference without practice or instruction.

You are good at lots of things. But, you know, you’ve practiced those things you’re good at. So, how can you practice telling fact from fiction?

One way (outside of school) is to chat with your family and friends about media sources. Find out how they stay informed, and why they choose those outlets. Ask each other routine questions for evaluating sources .

Do your Friends Know Everything?

It’s tempting to believe that the world begins and ends with your friends. Don’t get me wrong. Friends are definitely important. However, it pays to reflect a little on how a group influences our lives.

To practice critical thinking in everyday life, take a close look at your group of friends. Are there things that are “forbidden” in your social circle? Are you expected to act a certain way, dress a certain way?

Think a certain way?

It’s natural that when a group defines something as “cool”, all the people in the group work to fit into that definition. Regardless of what they individually believe.

The problem is that virtually every situation can be defined in multiple ways. What is “dumb” to one person may be “cool” to another.

Develop your ability to redefine the way you see the world around you. On your own terms.

Find a time when your friend group sees the negative in a situation. Is there a positive way to view it instead? Or at least a way that makes it seem not quite so bad?

You may not be ready to speak up with your independent view. And that’s ok. Just practice thinking differently from the group to strengthen your mind.

Critical Thinking in the Driver’s Seat

One of the core critical thinking skills you need every day is the ability to examine the implications and consequences of a belief or action. In its deepest form, this ability can help you form your own set of beliefs in everything from climate change to religion.

But this skill can also save your life (and your car insurance rate) behind the wheel.

Imagine you are cruising down the freeway when your phone alerts you to an incoming text message. The ability to examine your potential actions and their accompanying consequences will help you make the best choice for how to handle the situation.

Do you look at the text and risk getting into an accident? Do you wait and risk not responding to an urgent matter? Or do you pull over to look at the text and risk being late for your appointment?

The same skill can be applied when you are looking for a place to park, when to pull onto a busy street, or whether to run the yellow light.

Better yet, the more practiced you are at looking at the implications of your driving habits, the faster you can make split second decisions behind the wheel.

Why Critical Thinking in Everyday Life Matters

Literally everyone can benefit from critical thinking because the need for it is all around us.

In a philosophical paper , Peter Facione makes a strong case that critical thinking skills are needed by everyone, in all societies who value safety, justice, and a host of other positive values:

“Considered as a form of thoughtful judgment or reflective decision-making, in a very real sense critical thinking is pervasive. There is hardly a time or a place where it would not seem to be of potential value. As long as people have purposes in mind and wish to judge how to accomplish them, as long as people wonder what is true and what is not, what to believe and what to reject, strong critical thinking is going to be necessary.”

So, in other words, as long as you remain curious, purposeful, and ambitious, no matter what your interests, you’re going to need critical thinking to really own your life.

About Winston Sieck

Dr. Winston Sieck is a cognitive psychologist working to advance the development of thinking skills. He is founder and president of Global Cognition, and director of Thinker Academy .

Reader Interactions

July 27, 2019 at 7:20 am

Wonderful article.. Useful in daily life… I have never imagined the way critical thinking is useful to make judgments

December 9, 2020 at 9:38 pm

My name is Anthony Lambert I am student at miller Motte. Critical Thinking is one my classes. I thank you for giving me the skills of critical thinking.

• Save Your Ammo
• Publications

GC Blog Topics

• Culture & Communication
• Thinking & Deciding
• Learning Skills
• Learning Science

Online Courses

• Thinker Academy
• Study Skills Course
• For Parents
• For Teachers

The Wide World of Science

Critical thinking in modern society, object(wp_term)#17721 (10) { ["term_id"]=> int(778) ["name"]=> string(10) "jamie hale" ["slug"]=> string(10) "jamie-hale" ["term_group"]=> int(0) ["term_taxonomy_id"]=> int(778) ["taxonomy"]=> string(7) "authors" ["description"]=> string(529) "jamie hale is a college instructor, and he is associated with eastern kentucky university's cognitive neuroscience lab and perception & cognition lab. he has published articles and books on a wide range of topics. jamie is the director of www.knowledgesummit.net and author of in evidence we trust: the need for science, rationality and statistics. his future articles will address models for improved scientific thinking, popular myths, and rationality in terms of cognitive science." ["parent"]=> int(0) ["count"]=> int(5) ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } } --> jamie hale.

Critical thinking is important; most people agree with that statement. Research in cognitive science conceptualizes and measures (that is, operationalizes) critical thinking. There are myriad studies examining components of critical thinking (Stanovich, West, and Toplak 2016).

Educators often pay lip service to the idea of teaching “critical thinking.” But, when asked to define critical thinking , answers are often weak and ambiguous. Common responses to the defining critical thinking include: “teaching them how to think,” “teaching them formal logic,” “teaching them to be thinkers,” “teaching them how to think for themselves,” or “teaching them how to solve problems.” They already know how to think ; logic is only a portion of what is needed to increase critical thinking, independent thinking doesn’t necessarily imply critical thinking and teaching them how to solve problems are hard to measure assertions.

Stanovich argues “that the super-ordinate goal we are actually trying to foster is that of rationality” (Stanovich 2010, 198). Educators are concerned with critical thinking as it reflects rational thought, in both the epistemic sense and the practical, instrumental sense.Certain thinking dispositions and cognitive abilities are valued because they help us base our beliefs on available evidence and assist us in achieving our goals. Educators, science writers, and evidence based practitioners express to students, administrators, readers, clients, and patients the importance of critical thinking. Yet many of those expressing the importance of critical thinking don’t have a firm grip on rationality or critical thinking, or what it includes. Promoting critical thinking is important; promoting critical thinking through the lenses of cognitive science presents a clearer picture of exactly what critical thinking advocates are trying to promote. A key characteristic of science is precision, and critical thinking includes scientific thinking. A scientific concept is one derived from converging evidence; critical thinking demonstrates that type of convergence (evidence from various theoretical underpinnings and research). Critical thinking is a concept-complex (it involves various concepts, connections, and interactions). To reiterate, critical thinking is synonymous with rationality in the context of cognitive science.

Rationality

Rational thinking is not synonymous with rationalizing thought . These phrases are often mistakenly used interchangeably. Rationalizing thought has an Aristotelian flavor, in that it involves putting forth reason for essentially any behavior or thought. Rationality is a weak concept, when conceptualized in this sense. Most people are rational, if rational means an ability to provide some form of a reason for their behavior or actions. Cognitive science provides a different conceptualization of rationality—one that is consistent and subject to testing.

Rationality is concerned with what is true and what to do (Manktelow 2004). In order for beliefs to be rational they must be in agreement with evidence. In order for actions to be rational they must maximize potential in attaining goals. I suspect everyone agrees that both of these requirements are important. Cognitive scientists generally identify two types of rationality: instrumental and epistemic (Stanovich 2009) . Instrumental rationality can be defined as adopting appropriate goals, and behaving in a manner that optimizes one’s ability to achieve goals. Epistemic rationality is defined as holding beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence. This type of rationality is concerned with how well our beliefs map onto the structure of the world. Epistemic rationality is sometimes called evidential rationality or theoretical rationality. Instrumental and epistemic rationality are related; there is overlap.In order to optimize rationality one needs adequate knowledge in the domains of logic, scientific thinking, and probabilistic thinking. It is also essential that reflective processing (overriding fast thinking that leads to incorrect responses) occur at appropriate times. A wide variety of cognitive skills (cognitive style / thinking dispositions and cognitive ability) fall within these domains of knowledge. 

Components of critical thinking have been operationalized in a wide range of studies. In a 2012 study (Hale 2012), I presented students with questions derived from critical thinking tests. The critical thinking tasks were cover tasks; the primary concern of the study was expectation and food liking. In regards to the critical thinking tasks (three questions) the performances were not good. No one correctly answered all three of the problems, and many participants missed all three. Total percentage of correct answers was 19 percent. The tasks used were similar to the ones often used by Stanovich, Kahneman, and Frederick (Stanovich 2009; Kahneman 2011; Frederick 2005). The questions used on the test are presented here: Confused About Critical Thinking , https://jamiehalesblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/confused-about-critical-thinking.html.

In 2016, a prototype for a comprehensive assessment of rationality was made public: CART (Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking). The assessment was constructed by the Stanovich, West, and Toplak Research Lab. CART assesses epistemic and instrumental rationality. The assessment involves twenty subtests. Stanovich discussing the importance of a comprehensive assessment of rationality (Interview with Stanovich, Hale 2016):

“Why does society need a comprehensive assessment of rational thinking? To be globally rational in our modern society you must have the behavioral tendencies and knowledge bases that are assessed on the CART to a sufficient degree.Our society is sometimes benign, and maximal rationality is not always necessary, but sometimes—in important situations—our society is hostile. In such hostile situations, to achieve adequate degrees of instrumental rationality in our present society the skills assessed by the CART are essential.In Chapter 15 of The Rationality Quotient we include a table showing that rational thinking tendencies are linked to real-life decision making.In that table, for each of the paradigms and subtests of the CART, an association with a real-life outcome is indicated.The associations are of two types.Some studies represent investigations where a laboratory measure of a bias was used as a predictor of a real-world outcome. Others are reports of real-world analogues of biases that were originally discovered in the lab. Clearly more work remains to be done on tracing the exact nature of the connections—that is, whether they are causal. The sheer number of real-world connections, however, serves to highlight the importance of the rational thinking skills in our framework. Now that we have the CART, we could in theory begin to assess rationality as systematically as we do IQ.If not for professional inertia and psychologists’ investment in the IQ concept, we could choose tomorrow to more formally assess rational thinking skills, focus more on teaching them, and redesign our environment so that irrational thinking is not so costly.  Whereas just thirty years ago we knew vastly more about intelligence than we knew about rational thinking, this imbalance has been redressed in the last few decades because of some remarkable work in behavioral decision theory, cognitive science, and related areas of psychology. In the past two decades cognitive scientists have developed laboratory tasks and real-life performance indicators to measure rational thinking tendencies such as sensible goal prioritization, reflectivity, and the proper calibration of evidence. People have been found to differ from each other on these indicators. These indicators are structured differently from the items used on intelligence tests. We have brought this work together by producing here the first comprehensive assessment measure for rational thinking, the CART.”

In order for educators to successfully teach critical thinking / rational thinking it is imperative that they understand what critical thinking actually is and why it matters. Questions that should be asked: What are the goals of critical thinking? How can critical thinking be tested? Does my curriculum contain information regarding scientific reasoning, logic, heuristic processing, and probabilistic thinking? 

Critical thinking is about what is true (epistemic rationality) and what to do (instrumental rationality).I recommend reading the works of Keith Stanovich, Daniel Kahneman, Richard West, Shane Frederick, and Jonathan Baron to name a few, in an effort to enhance critical thinking.

Rationality vs. Intelligence

Note that developing measures of rationality are a result of a plethora of research showing that intelligence and rationality are different concepts and are often weakly associated. Good thinking requires more than intelligence. Intelligence is important, but so is rationality (Stanovich 2009). Intelligence reflects reasoning abilities across a wide variety of domains (particularly novel ones) and processing speed. In addition, intelligence reflects general declarative knowledge acquired through acculturated learning. The type of cognitive skills required for rationality are not measured by intelligence tests and their proxies (GRE, SAT, standard IQ tests, etc.).

Society is complex, and requires complex thinking. Critical thinking is learnable; being a better critical thinker will assist humans in navigating the world much better, that is much better in the sense of making better judgments and better decisions, being more rational.

• Frederick, S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 25–42.
• Hale, J. 2012. “Expectations Do Not Always Influence Food Liking.” Online Theses and Dissertations . 129. Available online at https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/129 .
• ———. 2016. Rationality Quotient: Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking. Knowledge Summit . Retrieved on July, 12 2018 from http://jamiehalesblog.blogspot.com/2016/11/rationality-quotient-comprehensive.html .
• Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow . New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Manktelow, K. I. 2004. Reasoning and rationality: The pure and the practical. In K. I. Manktelow and M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 157–177). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
• Stanovich, K. 2009. What Intelligence Tests Miss: the psychology of rational thought .London: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
• Stanovich, K. E., and P. J. Stanovich. 2010. A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. In D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 195–237). New York, NY: Springer.
• Stanovich, K., R. West, and M. Toplak. 2016. The Rationality Quotient: Toward A Test of Rational Thinking . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Jamie Hale is a college instructor, and he is associated with Eastern Kentucky University's Cognitive Neuroscience Lab and Perception & Cognition Lab. He has published articles and books on a wide range of topics. Jamie is the director of www.knowledgesummit.net and author of In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics. His future articles will address models for improved scientific thinking, popular myths, and rationality in terms of cognitive science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

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

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

The process

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

Improving your critical thinking

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

Real-world applications

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

Rethinking critical thinking for social justice: Introducing a new measure of critical being that emphasizes thought, reflection, and action

• Original Paper
• Published: 30 September 2022
• Volume 2 , article number  218 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• K. C. Culver   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7929-2680 1 ,
• Benjamin Selznick 1 , 2 &
• Teniell L. Trolian 1 , 3  

208 Accesses

2 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

While postsecondary stakeholders agree that critical thinking is an essential college outcome, it is challenging to measure this outcome using rigorous and equitable theoretically derived instruments. Assessment of critical thinking in the US tends to focus on argument and evaluation, privileging individualistic, capitalist values. This study introduces a measure of critical being which expands notions of critical thinking beyond these cognitive skills to include affective and action-oriented lines of development. Close attention is paid to the creation of this measure, which utilized items from the Wabash National Study—a longitudinal study of over 17,000 undergraduates at 49 institutions. Analyses include item response techniques, confirmatory factor analysis, and robust validity testing. In addition to describing the development and validation of a critical being scale, we examine identity-based equity in students’ scores on critical being compared to their scores on a critical thinking test. Results provide support for use of this new measure and indicate its potential to improve equity in measuring this crucial college outcome. Discussion and implications for use are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Do critical thinkers drink too much alcohol, forget to do class assignments, or cheat on exams using a critical thinking measure to predict college students’ real-world outcomes.

The Nature and Development of Critical-Analytic Thinking

Data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the University of Iowa’s Center for Research on Undergraduate Education but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Center’s director.

Code availability

Stata code is available from the corresponding author, KC Culver, upon reasonable request.

American College Testing Program (ACT) (2010) ACT CAAP- Technical Handbook. http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/CAAP-TechnicalHandbook.pdf

Arum R, Roksa J (2011) Academically adrift: limited learning on college campuses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Google Scholar  

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011) The LEAP vision for learning: Outcomes, practices, impact, and employers’ views. https://gened.psu.edu/sites/default/files/docs/leap_vision_summary.pdf

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2013) It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf

Astin AW, Astin HS, Boatsman KC, Bonous-Hammarth M, Chambers T, Goldberg LS (1996) A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook Version III. University of California, Los Angeles

Barnett R (1997) Higher education: a critical business. McGraw-Hill Education, New York

Bologna Working Group (2005) A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Group Report on Qualifications Frameworks. Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. http://ecahe.eu/w/index.php/Framework_for_Qualifications_of_the_European_Higher_Education_Area#Source

Brown TA (2014) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York

Burbules NC, Berk R (1999) Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: relations, differences, and limits. In: Popkewitz T (ed) Critical theories in education: changing terrains of knowledge and politics. Routledge, London

Byrne BM (2006) Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, London

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:116–131

Article   Google Scholar  

Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New York

Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row, Manhattan

Davies M (2015) A model of critical thinking in higher education. In: Paulsen MB (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research 30. Springer, New York, pp 41–92

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken

Dugan JP (2006) Explorations using the social change model: leadership development among college men and women. J Coll Stud Dev 47:217–225

Ellerson S (2008) UWSP ACT CAAP critical thinking test results 2007–2008: Critical thinking assessment report. https://www.uwsp.edu/oire/Documents/surveys/Critical%20Thinking%20Report%202008.pdf

Embretson SE, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park

Ennis RH (1985) A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educ Leadersh 43(2):44–48

Ennis RH (2008) Nationwide testing of critical thinking for higher education: vigilance required. Teach Philos 31(1):1–26

Facione PA (1990) The Delphi report: critical thinking—a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. California Academic Press, Oakland

Facione P (1998) Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts? California Academic Press, Oakland

Freire P (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin, New York

Fuertes J, Miville M, Mohr J, Sedlacek W, Gretchen D (2000) Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Meas Eval Couns Dev 33:157–169

Grant CA, Sleeter CE (2012) Doing multicultural education for achievement and equity. Routledge, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Groves RM, Fowler FJ Jr, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2011) Survey methodology, 561. Wiley, Hoboken

Hooks B (2014) Teaching to transgress. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London

Kim KH, Zabelina D (2015) Cultural bias in assessment: can creativity assessment help? Int J Crit Pedagogy 6(2):129–148

Kline R (2016) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York

Krosnick JA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol 5(3):213–236

Ku KY (2009) Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: urging for measurements using multi-response format. Think Skills Creat 4(1):70–76

Labaree DF (1997) Public goods, private goods: the American struggle over educational goals. Am Educ Res J 34(1):39–81

Lai ER (2011) Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports. http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research

Leppa CJ (1997) Standardized measures of critical thinking: experience with the California critical thinking tests. Nurse Educ 22:29–33

Loo R, Thorpe K (1999) A psychometric investigation of scores on the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal new forms. Educ Psychol Measur 59:995–1003

Lun VMC, Fischer R, Ward C (2010) Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn Individ Differ 20(6):604–616

Markle R, Brenneman M, Jackson T, Burrus J, Robbins S (2013) Synthesizing frameworks of higher education student learning outcomes. Educational Testing Service, Princeton

Mayhew MJ, Rockenbach AN, Bowman NA, Seifert TA, Wolniak GC (2016) How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works, vol 3. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

McLaren P, Hammer R (1989) Critical pedagogy and the postmodern challenge. Educ Found 3(3):29–62

Miville M, Gelso C, Pannu R, Liu W, Touradji P, Holloway P, Fuertes J (1999) Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. J Couns Psychol 46(3):291–307

National Center for Education Statistics (2008) Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/tables.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2010) Digest of education statistics: Table 155, ACT score averages, 1995–2010. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_155.asp

Nelson-Laird TF, Shoup R, Kuh GD (2006) Measuring deep approaches to learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL

Nelson-Laird TF, Shoup R, Kuh GD, Schwarz M (2008) The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Res High Educ 49(6):469–494

Noble J, Davenport M, Schiel J, Pommerich M (1999a) Relationships between the noncognitive characteristics, high school course work and grades, and test scores for ACT-tested students. ACT

Noble J, Davenport M, Schiel J, Pommerich M (1999b) High school academic and noncognitive variables related to the ACT scores of racial/ethnic and gender groups. ACT

Norenzayan A, Smith EE, Kim BJ, Nisbett RE (2002) Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cogn Sci 26(653):684

Padilla AM, Borsato GN (2008) Issues in culturally appropriate psychoeducational assessment. In: Suzuki LA, Ponterotto JG (eds) Handbook of multicultural assessment. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 5–21

Pascarella ET, et al (2007) Methodological report for the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. https://education.uiowa.edu/sites/education.uiowa.edu/files/documents/centers/crue/research_methods_draft_march2008.pdf

Pike GR (2006) Value-added measures and the collegiate learning assessment. Assess Update 18(4):5–7

Rest J, Narvaez D, Thoma S, Bebeau M (1999) DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. J Educ Psychol 91:644–659

Ryff C (1989) Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. J Educ Psychol 57:1069–1081

Ryff C, Keyes C (1995) The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:719–727

Samejima F (1997) Graded response model. In: Hand DJ (ed) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, Cham, pp 85–100

Selznick BS, Mayhew MJ (2018) Measuring undergraduates’ innovation capacities. Res High Educ 59(6):744–764

Sharkness J, DeAngelo L (2011) Measuring student involvement: a comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in the construction of scales from student surveys. Res High Educ 52(5):480–507

Smith DG (2020) Diversity’s promise for higher education: making it work. JHU Press, Baltimore

Sternberg RJ (1986) Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement National Institute of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED272882.pdf

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2019) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, London

Taube KT (1997) Critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written critical thinking test. J Gen Educ 46(2):129–164

Templin J (n.d.) Introduction to latent trait measurement models (LTMM). Lecture slides. https://jonathantemplin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EPSY906_Lecture01_Intro_Items.pdf

The Council for Aid to Education (2017) Why CLA+ and CWRA+. http://cae.org/flagship-assessments-clacwra/why-cla-and-cwra

Verburgh A, François S, Elen J, Janssen R (2013) The assessment of critical thinking critically assessed in higher education: a validation study of the CCTT and the HCTA. Education Research International, London

Watson G, Glaser EM (1980) Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal, forms A and B manual. The Psychological Corporation, New York

Download references

The Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education was conducted through generous support from the Center of Inquiry on the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

K. C. Culver, Benjamin Selznick & Teniell L. Trolian

James Madison University, Harrisonburg, USA

Benjamin Selznick

University at Albany, Albany, USA

Teniell L. Trolian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. C. Culver .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Culver, K.C., Selznick, B. & Trolian, T.L. Rethinking critical thinking for social justice: Introducing a new measure of critical being that emphasizes thought, reflection, and action. SN Soc Sci 2 , 218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00531-4

Download citation

Received : 13 April 2022

Accepted : 21 September 2022

Published : 30 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00531-4

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

• Critical thinking
• Critical being
• Measurement
• Critical quantitative
• Latent construct development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Politics of Critical Thinking

Redefining critical thinking and encouraging its widespread adoption could lead to a healthier and more productive public discourse.

By Ilana Redstone

If there were a single, low-cost strategy we could implement that could both soften the sharper edges of our political divide and diminish the hostility in our national conversations, would we do it? And if the same strategy might lead to a more engaged and productive discourse, would we jump at the chance? I would love to say yes, but I’d be wrong.

People of different political convictions don’t agree on much these days. From minor issues—whether Ellen’s apology was heartfelt—to major ones— how to proceed with filling the Supreme Court spot left vacant by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—there’s precious little common ground.

Given how far apart the two sides are, one would be forgiven for assuming we’d do everything possible to move forward in any area where we found common ground. One of those rare areas, at least in principle, is the need for a populace capable of critical thinking. Critical thinking is necessary for businesses to remain competitive by fostering innovation, and it’s essential for the health of our society through supporting democratic norms of debate and dissent. However, it turns out that this most fundamental skill has itself fallen victim to politics.

And yet it’s clear that, when it comes to our conversations on sensitive social and political issues, we have a real problem—one that critical thinking could help solve. Too often, conversations deteriorate into name-calling and bad-faith assessments of the other person’s motivations. These interactions can only be productive when advocates of the ideas in question allow them to be subject to criticism and debate rather than placing them on a pedestal. Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, examined, and challenged.

The antidote to treating ideas as though they’re exempt from scrutiny—the discourse-killing approach referenced above—is critical thinking. But critical thinking is a slippery term. How else could we describe something that everyone thinks should be a priority, yet somehow few people seem to be able to do? (More on that claim in a minute.) It’s probably not due to a lack of goodwill. After all, I’d be shocked to find any educator who doesn’t value or encourage critical thinking by students. So, what’s going on?

In articles and studies in which authors express concern about low levels of critical thinking skills, they’re usually referring to something specific. Frequently, it’s folded in with the related skills of reasoning and problem-solving. This is almost certainly the definition used in the 2011 book Academically Adrift . In that study, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa used data from student surveys and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to evaluate what exactly students are learning in college. According to a review in “Inside Higher Education,” the authors found that, “45 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ during the first two years of college” and “36 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ over four years of college.” In that same review, Arum states his concern as follows: “You can't have a democratic society when the elite—the college-educated kids—don't have these abilities to think critically.”

Yet, as grim as Arum and Roksa’s portrait is, the situation is arguably even worse. The CLA measured critical thinking and problem-solving together, using well-known sample performance tasks. In these tasks, students were given a set of information and asked to solve a problem drawing on the information provided. As shocking as it is to learn that many students struggled with this charge, an even more alarming finding with direct political implications has become apparent: Many students lack a basic ability to criticize ideas .

A Forbes.com article from Sept. 21, 2020, puts this in perspective while spotlighting an important asymmetry. The headline reads “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons Or Critical Thinking: You Can’t Have Both.” The article referred to an executive order to create the 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic education” in U.S. schools. This commission is widely seen as a countermove to the popular 1619 Project , which some see as advocating a wrong-headed view of America that runs counter to its founding values.

The Forbes.com author is, of course, correct. You can’t have both. Imbuing school curricula with a reflexively patriotic and hagiographic view of this country’s history isn’t accurate. But neither is the view put forth by the 1619 Project, which has itself been adopted by various schools and received no analogous criticism by the Forbes.com author.

Critical thinking has to cut both ways—through all the political posturing, not just the posturing of the side you don’t agree with. The reason the author cited above is correct about “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons” being incompatible with critical thinking is because such an approach doesn’t leave room for people to learn to debate the spin being put on history and learning. However, that same logic has to be applied universally.

My evidence for how well (or poorly, in this case) we’re teaching this skill comes from my experience as an educator. In several of my classes, we look at a few controversial ideas as critical thinking test cases. For instance, when I ask students to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the idea of a meritocracy, they can usually do so with little trouble. They describe how the idea that people are compensated or rewarded based on their contributions or their competence makes sense.

Sometimes, they’ll give the example of grades—they get the grade they earned in a particular class. The grade reflects the effort and the degree of mastery. At least that’s the hope. They also can describe the ways in which the meritocracy falls short. They talk in detail about the barriers faced by members of underrepresented groups and how they don’t always have the same opportunities to succeed. All in all, they do a decent job of describing the advantages and disadvantages of the concept.

However, there are clear constraints to how widely this is applied. For example, I get very different responses when, instead of asking about a meritocracy, I ask students about microaggressions, colorblind racism, or white privilege. To be sure, they are able to speak comfortably and with depth about the advantages of each of these concepts. Microaggressions provide a language for people to talk about the small instances of racism that members of minority groups face every day. Colorblind racism denies the true experiences of oppression and discrimination that minorities face. And white privilege is crucial to our collective understanding of inequality because it helps people recognize some of their unearned advantage and gives a way to have conversations about what that advantage means. All reasonable responses as far as I am concerned.

The evidence of our collective failure is on display when I ask them whether they can criticize any of those topics. The vast majority of students I encounter, in the multiple times I have posed this question, are unable to come up with a clear answer or one that they don’t dismiss out loud before it has become a completed sentence. Sometimes they raise points like “White privilege might be viewed as denying the difficulties that some white people face,” but more often than not, they’re stumped. Apparently, they are only taught to criticize certain ideas. But this is unsustainable if for no other reason than the following: Reasonable people can and do think differently about these topics. When it comes to instruction, if critical thinking won out over facts, then now we’re doing neither well.

True critical thinking would involve a deeper understanding of these issues. For instance, what assumptions does a particular perspective make? Is that assumption controversial? Why might two people of reasonable minds come to different conclusions about it? What are the implications of pursuing any particular line of thinking? These questions should be applied universally and with vigor. We need a citizenry that understands that even—or especially—the most cherished ideas need to be held up to the light, examined, inspected, and challenged.

Changing the norms about how we think and talk about ideas is central to shifting how we think and talk about social problems more broadly. After all, the more time we spend talking about the relative merits of different ideas, the less focused we are on impugning the motives of others. If they took this lesson to heart, our political and cultural leaders could transform the dialogue on issues that really matter—whether it’s how to respond to a crisis or how to solve a seemingly intractable problem. And that shift would leave us all better off.

Ready for more?

Are We Getting Worse at Critical Thinking?

Critically thinking about the effects of increasing information..

Posted March 2, 2021

I had an interesting email correspondence recently with a reader of this blog, wherein they made the observation that, in their professional field, individuals (and perhaps, even the companies they work for) have been exhibiting a shrinking — maybe even loss — of their knowledge base; seemingly getting less competent over time.

At first, as the reader suggests, it didn’t make sense, but as more information was transferred back and forth among relevant individuals, patterns in their thinking emerged, leading the reader to infer that there may be a loss of critical thinking (CT) in their industry; thus, emphasising the importance of CT in real-world scenarios.

What the reader postulated as a potential cause for all of this was that people are perhaps becoming less and less able to filter out "noisy," peripheral information from the "good" stuff (i.e. relevant, accurate information). For example, the rise of social media begets a rise in people processing novel information in a fast, simple thread-like manner, in which accurate, reliable "critical data" may get filtered out, thus facilitating the making of critical decisions or judgments with only a fraction of the data required for such a task.

I agree with quite a bit of what this reader has observed and inferred. However, there are a number of caveats and exceptions that are important to make; and, at the same time, these would be interesting to discuss in this blog as a post in its own right!

Are we getting worse at CT?

Simply, no . As you might recall from a previous piece on this blog, there is no such thing as good critical thinking or bad critical thinking ; rather, a case-by-case basis of asking whether or not CT has been conducted. Just because a person generally thinks critically about an important issue, does not mean that they will use it for all topics. Some people use it more often than not for important issues and some don’t use it at all — not because they lack the capability, but maybe because they don’t know how or are not disposed to apply it. Though CT and having a knowledge base are dependent on one another to some extent, they are distinct concepts (i.e. one is a cognitive process associated with organising and storing knowledge — consider long-term memory — and the other is the application of various cognitive processes, metacognitively speaking [Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014]).

To better understand this distinction, consider the "New Knowledge Economy." In all honesty, there is nothing new about the "New" Knowledge Economy — the exponential increase in the annual output of knowledge has been growing for about 20 years now, given the constant evolution of the internet and how information is transferred.

For example, it’s estimated that about 500,000 times the volume of information contained in the U.S. Library of Congress print collection was created in 2002 alone; and, from the years 1999 to 2002, the amount of new information created equaled the amount of information previously developed throughout the history of the world (Varian & Lyman, 2003). It’s also been suggested that the development of new information is doubling every two years (Jukes & McCain, 2002). However, it has been difficult to assess these almost 20-year-old estimations, possibly as a result of just how much information has actually been developed.

That said, exact figures aren’t important here; rather, what is important to acknowledge is that: A staggeringly higher amount of information is available now than it was 20 years ago; and it can be difficult for many to distinguish accurate, quality information from rubbish. As a result, it is no longer enough to gain domain-specific knowledge in order to achieve a level of expertise — we must also learn to: adapt both to new information and to a variety of novel contexts within which this information can be applied (Dwyer, 2017); and develop a capacity to engage in inquiry and constructively solve problems (Darling-Hammond, 2008). These "musts" are consistent with what we know of as CT.

Are we losing our knowledge base?

Simply, no . If anything, it’s getting better; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish, as addressed above, "noisy," peripheral information from the "good" stuff — which brings us back to the need for CT. Again, we’re not getting worse at CT either — it may even be the case that we’re encountering more and more opportunities to engage it! Yes, "practice makes perfect," and the more we engage in CT, the better we get at it; however, CT is cognitively demanding. It is tiresome. Remember, just because a person generally thinks critically about important issues, doesn’t mean that they will for all scenarios — maybe not even because of a lack of interest, knowledge, or disposition; but maybe because they’re tired! Moreover, we’re cognitively lazy (e.g. see Kahneman, 2011) — our brains work in a manner that conserves as much energy as possible (in case we need it for something important); so, if it’s easier to draw an inference from a social media headline than reading an entire article from The New York Times, then that will often suffice — or "satisfice" as Herbert Simon (1956) might say.

Are we getting worse at CT? No. Are we losing our knowledge base? No. On the contrary, more and more opportunities to practice (and improve) CT have been afforded to us by advances in our knowledge base. However, given the rise in the amount of information out there, it is necessary to utilise our knowledge in tandem with CT for successful information processing outcomes. Years ago, knowledge was king; however, in light of the information explosion over the past few decades, it’s no longer possible to be an expert based on knowledge alone; rather, you need the ability to adapt — through CT — in light of all this available information.

Sure, we see many examples on television and on the internet of people seriously lacking in CT — maybe even just common sense, in many cases. But, I don’t think people are getting worse per se. Rather, we might just be more cognisant of CT "failures" given the increase of people’s online footprint. Nevertheless, we live in a time where we need CT more than ever and because of that, people who once were deemed to be "smart" (i.e. vast knowledge) are being caught out because they may not necessarily have the skills, be disposed or even have the energy to analyse and evaluate information to infer reasonable conclusions and solutions to a requisite standard at a particular point in time.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Powerful Learning, 1-10.

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

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

Jukes, I., & McCain, T. (2002). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context of children’s learning. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Penguin: Great Britain. Simon (1956)

Simon, H. A. (1957) Models of Man. New York: Wiley.

Varian, H., & Lyman, P. (2003). How much information? Berkeley, CA: School of Information Management & Systems, UC Berkeley.

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

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

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

More From Forbes

How critical thinking improves life outcomes.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

We all know the types. The Ivy League professor who lost her driver’s license because she suffered another fender bender. The Fortune 500 CEO who was fired after an affair with his assistant. The brilliant movie producer who fell into bankruptcy after blowing millions at the racetrack.

These are people whose intelligence and talent landed them some of the most coveted jobs on the planet, and, yet, they made huge, forehead-smacking -- possibly career-ending -- mistakes.

A recent study goes a long way in explaining why. It shows that while raw intelligence accounts for certain successes in life, smarts do not guarantee future well-being. Indeed, critical thinking skills are far more predictive of making positive life decisions than raw intelligence, according to the study’s lead, Heather Butler.

Perhaps most important, Butler’s work underscores the idea that critical thinking can be learned and developed — unlike IQ which is largely genetic — and as Butler argues, better reasoning “can improve with training and the benefits have been shown to persist over time.”

So why do only 5% of the K-12 schools in the United States teach critical thinking? Why doesn’t our education system do more to promote richer forms of reasoning?

Before I answer these questions, a few words about Butler’s study. It tested 244 adults, ages 19 to 28, in three areas: IQ, critical thinking, and “an inventory of life events.” The critical thinking survey measured everything from hypothesis testing to problem-solving, and the inventory tallied “negative” events in every aspect of life including borrowing money to gamble, causing a car accident, and having unprotected sex.

The results showed that people with greater critical thinking skills had fewer negative life events than people who had a high degree of smarts, according to Butler. And the reasoning skills paid off in all sorts of ways. In the study, for instance, people with critical thinking skills were far less likely to have large amounts of credit card debt than those who did not.

An 11th grader at Capital City Public Charter School discusses food sustainability during an ... [+] environmental science class.

This brings us back to schools because it is their responsibility to help prepare kids for the future, and one of the goals of our country’s education system should be to provide students the ability to reason through problems and situations in effective ways.

But for the most part, schools aren’t providing instruction in the development of richer thinking skills. Too many institutions don’t teach students how and when to use evidence. Too many schools don’t help students learn to take opposing points of view or think through issues that don’t have clear right or wrong answers.

For employers, the lack of critical thinking has become pressing, and managers regularly complain that recent graduates lack robust reasoning abilities. According to one 2016 survey, more than half of companies say that new employees aren’t sufficiently trained in effective forms of critical thinking.

To address these concerns, some schools are changing their ways. At Two Rivers Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., for instance, educators aim to empower students with improved critical thinking skills. Students engage in a lot of project-based learning and are taught explicitly how “to identify the key questions in a problem, develop possible paths to a solution, and follow through with a solution.”

At St. Mary’s College in Maryland, critical thinking is part of the institution’s core curriculum , and the school describes better reasoning as one of the “cornerstones” of the school’s liberal arts education. The school even goes so far as to require a seminar that gives students a chance to practice the skill of critical thinking within a specific subject.

There remains some debate over how exactly to teach critical thinking skills. For instance, some argue for standalone reasoning courses outside of a specific subject matter area. Others believe in embedding the teaching of critical thinking skills within subject-specific lessons.

I would argue that the distinction is largely arbitrary, and effective schools should deliver instruction in high-quality reasoning within subject areas as well as a stand-alone subject. What’s more, there’s good evidence from a 2015 meta-analysis that both approaches to critical thinking instruction can produce high outcomes.

But in many ways, the first step is to simply recognize that critical thinking has become a crucial life skill — and that we need to do more as a society to make sure that all students have the reasoning skills that they need to succeed in the modern world.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

The impact of social media on critical thinking

by Open Minds Foundation | Uncategorized

Social media can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be a tool used to spread misinformation and disinformation by bad actors. With studies showing that around 80% of young people, aged 18 to 24, receive all of their news from social media , it is not surprising that research by YouGov indicates that people who use social media as a news source do not perform as well on the Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST) .

People who spend two hours or less of recreational time online each day are twice as likely to be in the highest-scoring category (30% vs. 15%) as people who spend 9 or more hours online per day.

Social media platforms such as X or Facebook, use algorithms to determine the content that is prioritised in your social media feeds. Unfortunately, disinformation and fake news are likely to be more sensational, outrageous, or attention-grabbing so get amplified, drowning out credible information and sources. People act based on the information they are exposed to, so when this information is false or misleading, disastrous results can ensue.

With news spreading quickly, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction in such an emotive and high-tension atmosphere. For example, there is a lot of noise on social media currently around the conflict happening between Israel and Hamas, with Elon Musk sharing accounts described as “ well-known spreaders of disinformation .”

But with social media being an everyday part of many people’s lives, how can you think critically and use it more effectively?

Use the SIFT method:

S: Stop to check for accuracy before you hit share. I: Investigate the source. Is it a reputable news outlet or account? F: Find better coverage. Are multiple outlets sharing the same story, where did this story originate from? T: Trace claims, quotes, and media to their original source

Try inverting the problem

It is also a good idea to deliberately diversify your sources or try the inversion technique .

Inversion thinking encourages us to deliberately approach information in a contrary way. By envisioning an alternative scenario, or ‘playing devil’s advocate’, to actively challenge our biases and finding alternative sources, it makes our reasoning much stronger. It helps us to determine fact from fiction and recognise how our own biases can stand in the way of us thinking critically.

How you can help us combat coercive control

• Stop Mandated Shunning: announcement
• Developing critical thinking in primary schools, with the Open Minds Foundation
• Developing critical thinking through play
• How individuals can avoid sharing mis- and disinformation
• The Martyr Complex and Conspiracy Theorists