barriers of critical thinking

TheBalanceWork

11 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking – A Simple Guide

Critical thinking is the capacity to think in a clear and rational way . It’s a perspective related to what one should do and what one believes.

But what makes critical thinking a harder task to do. There are some barriers that come in the way of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is just not about collecting information. If you have a good IQ and know a lot of things, you can totally nail it.

A person can do critical thinking only if he can conclude results from his knowledge.

11 Most Common Barriers To Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a skill that everyone should have. It helps you make decisions and solve problems, but it can be difficult to use when there are barriers in your way.

In this blog post, we’ll talk about the most common barriers to critical thinking and how you can overcome them.

1. Not Being Able To Tell The Difference Between A Fact And An Opinion

The first barrier to critical thinking is confusing facts with opinions. Facts are indisputable and indubitable , whereas opinions are not.

Everyone has different opinions about things, so it’s important to understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Here are some examples of facts you can easily check:

– The distance from the earth to the sun is approximately 93 million miles.

– The sky is blue.

– The human population was 7 billion in 2012.

2. The Person Is Too Self-Obsessed To See Anything Else:

It is the most difficult barrier that makes a person see nothing but themselves. These people consider themselves as an important asset for the world.

This barrier won’t let you acknowledge other people. 

They just want to create a sense of authority .

Critical thinking demands to analyze different aspects to test their validity. Also, finding good aspects of these perspectives is a portion of critical thinking.

But being self-obsessed is the most difficult barrier to overcome.

SEE ALSO: 7 Barriers To Effective Listening

3. A Trend Of Brainstorming Together – A Barrier To Critical Thinking:

The nature of critical thinking stands on famous objectives, beliefs, and ideas. When people think collectively, it hardens for everyone to think in their own space.

Everyone relies on what the majority decides and thinks in that direction.

Critical thinking requires that people have to think differently while in a group.

To break this barrier, everyone in the group must maintain their individuality .

Everyone should think according to their own style even if they are working in a group.

SEE ALSO: Groupthink Vs Group Polarization – Healthy Discussion

4. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Emotions Are Heavier Than The Logic:

People are becoming more sensitive to the opposite views as time passes. So when people have to face the challenge of disagreement , logic flies out of the window.

And then irrelevant reactions take the place of logic that defies reason and disturbs management.

It’s a barrier to deciding based on emotions and emotion-based decision-making is bad for organizations.

5. The Competition Is Real Hard:

This obstacle treats conversations and discourages competitive sports. The main aim of everyone is to win, not to seek learning.

The greater interest of both sides is in winning the argument than in reaching the truth.

Though this concept has its function in a courtroom. And it has nothing to do with the other real life. But even then this is an important barrier to consider.

6. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Overly Relying On Experiences: 

When this barrier comes to the table of discussion, there are many people who get defensive.

It doesn’t mean that there is no value for the experience. Of course, experience has its own place, but one should not rely only on experience.

An individual’s experience is his own experience. It doesn’t define what others experience or what happens outside his sphere.

Every person is different. Even the geographical regions are different. So you need to consider experience as an individual’s experience.

7. Accepting Statements Of Superhumans:

This barrier occurs when we test statements based on who said it rather than merit. In such cases, people accept statements to be true.

If someone they respect or like said these. They don’t pay attention to whether the statement is true or not.

Contrary to that, people would reject a statement if it comes from a person they don’t like.

Removing this barrier is difficult. Because people have already made up their minds. They would accept something from a respected person and vice versa.

8. Intellect Is Greater Than Excellence:

For a very long period of time, IQ i.e. intelligence quotient was a measure for intelligence.

But the passing time told us that intelligence has a different number of dimensions.

T here is no longer only one perspective to look at intelligence.

Still, some companies consider IQ the only measurement for intelligence. This can be a barrier when companies would miss out on people who could prove to be excellent.

If they got a chance and their intelligence got measured in a correct way.

9. Blindly Going Behind What A Myth Says:

Following myths is something that relates to accepting things based on stereotyping.

As we know that stereotypes and assumptions ignore individualistic thinking. These are the factors that hinder the person’s will to analyze the facts and figures.

It also makes people believe what they are doing is right. So they won’t be able to recognize and accept that they are making assumptions.

In such conditions, people can never identify that their judgments base on stereotypes.

10. Barriers To Critical Thinking – Grinding In The Same Cycle:

It happens when an individual falls into a routine. Even the most open-minded people can fell prey to this.

We don’t mean that routine is a bad thing. But it lessens one’s ability to think in an analytical way.

If a person has to do the same thing day after day, week after week, or even for his whole life.

He would forget how to respond to new situations and lose leadership. Moreover, he would begin to shy away from new situations.

So convenience can be great but it can take a toll on the capability of critical thinking.

11. Following The Power:

This barrier is about accepting someone’s view or assertion based on their level of authority.

You may be accepting your boss’ views about a certain topic and you think the opposite to that.

But you are doing so because of the authority of the boss and the discipline of the organization.

It involves the factor of respect or admiration while the former involves accepting views based on authority.

Now the problem is not with accepting the view of a boss or an expert. The real problem comes when we are not allowed to question it.

Conclusion:

Remember neither to confuse critical thinking with being argumentative. Nor it relates to being critical about others.

Critical thinking is so important because it exposes fallacies and bad reasoning.

It also plays an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks.

The barriers discussed in this article are important to note. But it’s not impossible or difficult at all to remove these barriers.

Do mention in a comment which barrier you think you are facing.

Last Updated on 9 months by Assma Riaz

• Recent Posts

• 7 Great Signs Your Boss Wants to Help You - October 8, 2023
• How To Explain Dropping Out Of Law School? Detailed Guide - September 6, 2023
• 10 Reasons Employees Get Fired in Workplace - August 27, 2023

5 Levels Of Communication – A Proceeding Guide

What Is Behavioral Skills Training? – 7 Skills To Develop

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

At TheBalanceWork, we always put our readers first. Simply reach out to us and we’ll do everything we can to assist you.

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Condition
• Communication
• Office Address
• Postal Address
• Operation Manager

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

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

Christopher p dwyer.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Received 2023 Apr 18; Revised 2023 May 19; Accepted 2023 May 24; Collection date 2023 Jun.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).

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

Keywords: critical thinking, reflective judgment, epistemology, emotion, bias

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

2. Barriers to Critical Thinking

2.1. inadequate skills and dispositions.

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

2.2. Epistemological (Mis)Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3. Intuitive Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4. Bias and Emotion

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

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

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

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

3. Discussion

3.1. interpretations.

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

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

3.2. Further Implications and Future Research

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

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

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

Acknowledgments

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

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement.

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

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

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

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

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

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

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

• View on publisher site
• PDF (440.2 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Hard skills
• Soft skills
• Life skills
• People skills
• Social skills
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

7 barriers to critical thinking and how to overcome?

Critical thinking is a skill that lets one understand and evaluate an issue or situation logically. All available facts and information related or likely to be related to the issue are analyzed. It involves sorting, organizing, and analyzing facts and information to define a problem and then find an effective solution. It is a mindset that is crucial for the desired development of our personal and professional life. In this article, we will discuss critical thinking and process, barriers of critical thinking, and how to overcome it.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the quality of Thinking clearly and thoroughly. It’s a Careful application of reason to explain an issue. It is the ability to define and analyze facts to understand a problem deeply. It often involves a few steps that start from identifying and characterizing a problem and continues through analysis, interpretation, and ends up with developing a solution. 

A critical thinker questions any idea or assumption rather than accepting it blindly. They approach the problem consistently and systematically rather than by intuition. Identify, make, and evaluate arguments and use the facts, arguments, and findings to build the real picture.

Examples of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be applied in every sphere of our life. Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, Politicians, and business Professionals always using the Critical thinking approach. Few examples of Critical thinking are given bellow.

Evaluating news

Today we are confronting with plenty of news and events every day. We are getting information from various media e.g., newspapers, radio, television, and online media like the internet and social media. With the blessing of these media, it has become effortless to get information from anywhere anytime today.

At the same time, it is tough to say whether any news we came across is authentic or not. Doubt regarding online news is increasing nowadays, as fake news is widespread there today. While we think to find a solution to this problem, critical thinking is the only one that can apply.

Whenever we come across any news or information, we should not take it as a divine word. We should try to find or guess the answer to few questions like “From whom it came, what is the place it came from, why did he make it, is there any interest of him or anyone else and so on.”

By analyzing the answers to these questions, we can justify the news’s reliability and authenticity.

Deciding to Purchase a product

Deciding to purchase a product also requires to think critically today. A few years back, we didn’t need to overthink to buy something. It was easy to go to the mall or market, look for the item we need, choose one from the available item, and buy it.

As we are living in a digital age, there is also scope to apply a critical thinking approach to decide to buy something. If you would like to purchase something, you first justify the need for the thing, i.e., do you need the item, or can another way meet it.

If you feel the need, then search the product on the internet to find the model and brand available in the market and know each one’s merits and demerits. Ask your friends and others within your network to see the product’s experience if you find anyone having a good experience to collect further details of the product from him and the internet.

If you do this, there is a low chance of having a bad experience with this product.

Taking care of Health

Health is one of the prime concern to every conscious people today. Most of us try to keeping well, try to get rid of obesity, etc. And there Is no scarcity of suggestions and information around us regarding this. Some of these are not scientific, exaggerated, and rumor.

Moreover, any time information is continually changing. So we need to apply critical thinking to decide how to lead our lives, choose a healthy diet, eat, and what not to eat. 

Presently we are facing the COVID-19 situation throughout the world. And this Pandemic disease is somewhat different from other diseases. Even the scientists are getting baffled to suggest what to do.

Suggestions and information regarding the disorders are frequently changing. A recognized treatment yet to be discovered. If we apply critical thinking, we can be benefitted at least a bit. 

Risk assessment

Business organizations today are undergoing various risks. Economic uncertainty, Political agitation, Climate change, Cyberattack, etc. are continuously pushing the business organization into a threat. To survive within such an environment, business organizations need to assess the risk and threat it abounds with. And it is the employee’s critical thinking ability, which can evaluate the risk with the right approximate.

It involves the activity like listing the risk, defining the nature and extent of each, finding out the factor that influences the risk, whether it is a temporary or permanent risk, and finally to take measures to mitigate the risks.

Some industries are more risk involved e.g., a construction company where the working environment is risky for workers’ lives. So here, addressing and assessing the risk factor is essential.

Otherwise, there could be injuries or even deaths that cause workforce shortage and negatively impact its reputation. Similarly, a financial organization is much more prone to be affected by some financial index.

For example, the introduction of a new law affects overall business activities and customers. It requires critical thinking skills, such as analysis, creativity, and problem-solving. If the financial institution doesn’t apply these critical thinking skills, it could result in losing profit or will suffer legal consequences from regulatory non-compliance.  

Elements of Critical thinking process

Critical thinking is a process that compromises some elements and requires a few steps to follow.

1. Problem Identification

critical thinking process begins with the identification of a problem. Note abnormalities and indications that are likely to cause a problem. Consider it is a problem, why is it a problem. Determine why this problem is there and the possible consequences if no attempt is taken to solve it.

2. Information Gathering

Once something is considered as a problem, gather information about it. Engage yourself to learn as much as possible about the problem. Look for possible reasons, facts, and evidence; Ask other people’s opinions and perspectives regarding the issue. Gather information from multiple sources.

3. Evaluation

In this step, evaluate the information collected in the previous stage. Assess the validity and reliability of the information and ensure that they are accurate. Evaluate the source of information and check whether it is from a single source or more than one source.

4. Find solutions

After evaluating the information and evidence collected, try to deduce solutions to the problem. Plan several solutions based on the conclusions made in the evaluation. List the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.

5. Choose the best solution and Implement

This is the final stage where each solution already suggested is evaluated by considering all the advantages and disadvantages. Consider the risk a solution pose and think whether a solution is easy or difficult to implement. Finally, a practical solution is chosen and implemented.

What are the barriers to critical thinking and how to overcome?

Critical thinking is an important mindset that can help improve our personal life and our professional life. But in reality, very few among us can think critically. Most people don’t have Critical thinking skills because of some reason.

The following are the barriers to critical thinking that prevent us from thinking critically. Also, how to get around this barrier is discussed here.

1. Egocentric behavior

It is the tendency of a person to relate everything to himself and leads to the inability to evaluate others’ perspectives and feelings. He can not tolerate anything beyond his philosophy. He wants others to think of an issue in the same way he thinks.

As a result, he can not broaden his thinking, and the Peoples surrounding him dishearten to think critically. It is one of the most significant Barriers to Critical Thinking and many a time challenging to overcome. 

It is complicated to correct this behavior for a person as he can not find this character flaw. One thing that can help eliminate this tendency is to bring them to an environment where everyone can exchange their views, respect others’ opinions, and question any ideas. Arrange debates, open question-answer session, and group discussion to make them accustomed to open thinking.

2. Group thinking

It is another harmful thing or one of the barriers to Critical thinking. In this case, most of the group people don’t give their views or ask any questions. They remain idle and support whatever other says without any argument. 

To overcome this obstacle, each group member should stand apart and question and argue ideas and opinions presented before him and give his thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Only suggesting to do such is not sufficient; also inspire them to think and ask questions, help them grow thinking capability, bring context, and create a situation before him to believe and ask questions easily.

3. Drone mentality

It can be described as a person’s inability to pay attention to what’s going on around him. These kinds of people cannot be attentive in a class meeting or discussion. It becomes a habit for them, and as a result, they cannot think so much.

This habit grows when a person gets exhausted from working a long time and find work tedious. To overcome this barrier, Teachers, supervisors, or hosts Should aware of their audience or officials, make things interesting to them, change topics and tasks.

4. Social condition

The society we live in has some values, thoughts, and assumptions prevailing. Therefore many of us think in a particular way. Their thinking is related to society’s values, beliefs, and assumptions. Usually, it is challenging for them to think beyond this spectrum. 

Again, this is one of the significant barriers to critical thinking as it confined our thinking to a limit. This barrier is also tough to overcome as most people do not realize they are being conditioned to think in a certain way.

Only social and cultural awareness can help to overcome this barrier.

5. Personal Biases

Personal Biases hinder Critical thinking because they influence a person’s justice, and It also prevents one from using experience, reasoning, and common sense to make correct decisions.

To overcome this decision, everyone should practice honesty and integrity.

6. Work pressure

We often are swamped in the workplace. We don’t have much time to accomplish the work assigned. It does affect our skill of critical thinking awfully. When the time is short, and the deadline is knocking the door, most of us walk in a way that does not involve any strategic thinking to complete the job. And here is when the barrier arises to think critically.

To overcome this barrier, we should have a plan and schedule for each job, whether small or big. Also, we should not keep work piled for the future.

It hinders the overall growth and development of a person. As an effect, it is also a barrier to critical thinking. Fear makes a person unconfident and demotivated, and he is not willing to think beyond his circle.

To remove fear from people’s minds, managers, supervisors, or heads of the workplace can play an essential role by ensuring the right working environment.

How can I apply critical thinking to my life ?

In our everyday life, we frequently face various situations, problems, or difficulties. And many a time we conventionally get around this. But if we apply critical thinking, we can quickly meet that moreover, the solution we find here would be more effective than anyone we get otherwise.

Whatever types of situations or problems we encounter and whatever professional we are, student, teacher, doctor, engineer, lawyer, and so on, we first treat everything that we face or everything that we do a problem. And we have the determination or passion for having a solution to it.

Then we try to collect information on this. To do so, we should fond of acquiring knowledge. We always keep our sense alert to receive information from our surroundings.

Next, we must have a certain level of analytical ability to deduce facts from data. However, this requires practice. If we start thinking in this way and continue, hopefully, we could apply critical thinking in our life.

The human being is the best of creations because of the incredible power of its brain. Critical thinking is nothing but to utilize the brain more effectively. We could realize how powerful our brain is if we start thinking critically.

Critical thinking has tremendous value to the employer. Already it is in the list of top seeking soft skills in the world. So it is time for all of us to start thinking critically and make the future generations habituated with this.

But there are some barriers to critical thinking process and If we try, we will be able to overcome them.

Refferences

• balance careers

• Public Speaking Training
• Effective Communication Training
• Storytelling with Data
• AI Pitch Deck Generator
• Venture Capital Investor Mindset
• Startup Funding
• Small Business Startup Financing
• Creating the Winning Pitch Deck
• Startup Funding for Entrepreneurs
• Go To Market Strategy
• Terms of Service

Identifying and overcoming critical thinking barriers

Critical thinking is a vital skill in our complex, fast-paced world. It empowers us to make informed decisions, solve problems, and navigate the sea of information that surrounds us.

Yet, it’s not always easy to think critically. Various barriers can hinder our ability to analyze information objectively and make rational judgments.

In this article, we delve into the question: what are the six barriers to critical thinking? We’ll explore each barrier in detail, providing real-world examples and practical strategies for overcoming them.

From egocentrism to emotional influences, these barriers can subtly influence our thinking processes. They can skew our perceptions, limit our perspectives, and lead us to flawed conclusions.

But by recognizing these barriers, we can start to dismantle them. We can learn to question our assumptions, broaden our viewpoints, and think more critically.

We’ll also share case studies that illustrate these barriers in action. These real-life scenarios will help you understand the impact of these barriers and how to navigate them effectively.

Join us as we journey through the landscape of critical thinking, identifying obstacles and charting a path towards clearer, more effective thinking.

The Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is more than just a buzzword. It’s a fundamental skill that underpins our ability to function effectively in society. It’s about analyzing information, questioning assumptions, and making reasoned decisions.

In our information-saturated world, the ability to think critically is invaluable. We’re constantly bombarded with data, news, and opinions. Without critical thinking, we risk being swayed by misinformation, biased viewpoints, or flawed logic.

Moreover, critical thinking is key to personal and professional success. It enhances problem-solving abilities, boosts creativity, and fosters informed decision-making. Whether you’re a student, a professional, or simply a curious individual, honing your critical thinking skills can open up new perspectives and opportunities.

What is Critical Thinking?

So, what exactly is critical thinking? It’s a cognitive process that involves careful analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information. It’s about questioning assumptions, seeking evidence, and making reasoned judgments.

Critical thinking is not about accepting information at face value. It’s about digging deeper, challenging the status quo, and seeking truth. It’s a mindset that values curiosity, skepticism, and open-mindedness.

In essence, critical thinking is a tool for discerning truth from falsehood, making sense of complex issues, and making informed decisions. It’s a skill that empowers us to navigate the complexities of the modern world with clarity and confidence.

The Six Barriers to Critical Thinking

Despite its importance, critical thinking is not always easy. There are several barriers that can hinder our ability to think critically. These barriers often stem from cognitive biases, social pressures, and emotional influences.

Understanding these barriers is the first step towards overcoming them. Let’s delve into the six key barriers to critical thinking: Egocentrism, Groupthink, Resistance to Change, Selective Perception, Confirmation Bias, and Emotional Influences.

1. Egocentrism: The Self-Centered Barrier

Egocentrism is the tendency to view the world from our own perspective, often to the exclusion of others. It’s a barrier that can limit our understanding and lead to biased judgments.

To overcome egocentrism, we need to actively seek out different perspectives. This involves listening to others, considering alternative viewpoints, and challenging our own assumptions.

It’s about stepping outside of our own experiences and trying to see the world through the eyes of others. It’s a process that requires empathy, open-mindedness, and humility.

2. Groupthink: The Peer Pressure Barrier

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where the desire for harmony in a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. It’s a barrier that can stifle independent thinking and lead to poor decisions.

Overcoming groupthink involves promoting diversity of thought within a group. It’s about encouraging individuals to voice their opinions, even if they differ from the majority.

It also involves creating a safe space where dissenting views are not only tolerated but welcomed. It’s a process that requires courage, respect, and a commitment to truth over consensus.

3. Resistance to Change: The Comfort Zone Barrier

Resistance to change is a natural human tendency. We often prefer the familiar to the unknown, even when the familiar is not serving us well. This resistance can be a significant barrier to critical thinking.

To overcome this barrier, we need to embrace adaptability. This involves being open to new ideas, willing to change our minds, and ready to step out of our comfort zones.

It’s about recognizing that change is a part of life and that growth often comes from discomfort. It’s a process that requires flexibility, courage, and a willingness to learn.

4. Selective Perception: The Filter Barrier

Selective perception is the tendency to filter information based on our existing beliefs and expectations. It’s a barrier that can limit our understanding and lead to biased judgments.

Overcoming selective perception involves broadening our perspectives. This means actively seeking out diverse sources of information, challenging our assumptions, and being open to new ideas.

It’s about recognizing that our perception is not always reality and that there’s often more to the story than meets the eye. It’s a process that requires curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to truth.

5. Confirmation Bias: The Agreement Barrier

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs and to disregard information that contradicts them. It’s a barrier that can distort our understanding and lead to biased decisions.

Overcoming confirmation bias involves challenging our assumptions. This means actively seeking out evidence that contradicts our beliefs, being open to changing our minds, and valuing truth over comfort.

It’s about recognizing that our beliefs are not always accurate and that it’s okay to be wrong. It’s a process that requires humility, courage, and a commitment to learning.

6. Emotional Influences: The Feeling Barrier

Emotions can significantly influence our thinking. While emotions are a vital part of our human experience, they can cloud our judgment and lead to irrational decisions when unchecked.

Overcoming emotional influences involves maintaining objectivity. This means recognizing our emotions, understanding their impact on our thinking, and making decisions based on reason rather than feelings.

It’s about finding a balance between our emotional and rational selves. It’s a process that requires self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and a commitment to rational decision-making.

Case Studies: Barriers in Action

Understanding the barriers to critical thinking is one thing. Seeing them in action is another. Real-life case studies can provide valuable insights into how these barriers manifest and how they can be overcome.

Let’s explore two case studies that illustrate the impact of groupthink and confirmation bias in a corporate and educational setting, respectively.

Case Study 1: Overcoming Groupthink in a Corporate Setting

In a multinational corporation, a team was tasked with developing a new marketing strategy. The team leader had a strong personality and often dominated discussions. As a result, groupthink set in, and team members were hesitant to voice dissenting opinions.

To overcome this, the company introduced a policy of anonymous feedback. This allowed team members to express their views without fear of reprisal. The result was a more diverse range of ideas and a more robust marketing strategy.

This case study illustrates the importance of creating a safe space for diverse opinions in overcoming groupthink.

Case Study 2: Challenging Confirmation Bias in Education

In a high school science class, a teacher noticed that students often clung to their initial hypotheses during experiments, even when the data contradicted them. This was a clear example of confirmation bias in action.

To address this, the teacher introduced a new approach. Students were encouraged to make multiple hypotheses and to actively seek out data that challenged their initial assumptions. This helped students to understand the importance of evidence-based reasoning and to overcome their confirmation bias.

This case study highlights the role of education in challenging confirmation bias and fostering critical thinking.

Strategies for Overcoming Critical Thinking Barriers

Identifying the barriers to critical thinking is the first step. The next is to develop strategies to overcome these barriers. This involves fostering a mindset that values critical thinking and creating an environment that supports it.

Let’s explore some strategies that can help in overcoming the barriers to critical thinking.

Developing Self-Awareness

Self-awareness is key to overcoming many of the barriers to critical thinking. It involves recognizing our own biases and understanding how they can influence our thinking.

By developing self-awareness, we can challenge our own assumptions and open our minds to new ideas and perspectives. This can help us overcome barriers such as egocentrism, confirmation bias, and emotional influences.

Encouraging Open Dialogue and Debate

Open dialogue and debate can help challenge groupthink and promote independent thinking. By encouraging diverse viewpoints and constructive criticism, we can broaden our perspectives and enhance our critical thinking skills.

Creating a safe space for open dialogue and debate can help overcome the fear of dissent and foster a culture of critical thinking.

Embracing Continuous Learning

Continuous learning is another important strategy for enhancing critical thinking. By constantly seeking new knowledge and challenging our existing beliefs, we can overcome resistance to change and selective perception.

Continuous learning also involves developing a curiosity for understanding different viewpoints and a willingness to revise our beliefs in the light of new evidence.

Fostering a Culture of Critical Thinking

Creating an environment that values and encourages critical thinking is crucial. This involves promoting open dialogue, encouraging diverse viewpoints, and fostering a culture of continuous learning.

By creating such an environment, we can help individuals overcome their personal barriers to critical thinking and foster a collective culture of critical thinking.

Conclusion: The Path to Enhanced Critical Thinking

Overcoming the barriers to critical thinking is not a one-time task. It’s a continuous journey of self-awareness, open dialogue, continuous learning, and fostering a culture that values critical thinking. By recognizing and addressing these barriers, we can enhance our ability to think critically and make better decisions.

In a world filled with information and complexity, critical thinking is more important than ever. It’s a skill that can help us navigate the complexities of the modern world, make informed decisions, and ultimately lead a more fulfilling and successful life.

• Overcoming mental blocks to critical thinking
• Understanding the six key thinking barriers
• Breaking down the barriers to critical thinking
• Common obstacles hindering critical thinking skills
• Identifying and breaking down cognitive barriers

©  2024 Kelvin Michael. Built using WordPress and the Materialis Theme