Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Nurturing critical thinking for implementation beyond the

T
classroom: Implications from social psychological theories of
behavior change
Yekyung Lisa Lee
Sogang University, J hall 717, 35 Baekbeom-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04107, Republic of Korea

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Critical thinking is a higher order mental function influenced by social factors and performed
Critical thinking within a social context. The aim of this paper is to suggest guidelines for critical thinking edu-
Behavior change cation on the grounds of social psychological theories of behavior change. Based on reviews of
Reasoned action approach literature on the Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011), and Social Cognitive
Modeling
Theory (Bandura, 1986), this paper suggests that educators should direct learners’ attention to
Self-efficacy
concrete and good models of critical thinking as well as their positive consequences through
various sources. Guiding learners to be mindful about social pressures and their own personal
biases that inhibit critical thinking should also facilitate critical thinking in actual circumstances.

1. Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) refers to the ability and will to be open-minded to ideas regardless of one’s beliefs, and engage in reflective,
balanced thinking (Ennis, 1993). It is essential not only for academic studies but also for solving social, political, and ethical problems
as well (Abrami et al., 2008; Paul, 1995). Developing critical thinking abilities has been an important educational goal for nurturing
intelligent, reasonable humans (Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1999; Paul, 1995) and even sustaining democracy (Dewey, 1993). The
functional value of CT in our society implies that critical thinking is a holistic and composite ability including not only skills and
dispositions, but also one’s actions as well (Davies, 2015).
Educators and researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of various instructional methods for nurturing CT (Browne &
Freeman, 2000; Yang, Newby, & Bill, 2008). However, a crucial point that previous CT education research seem to have neglected is
that CT is a higher order mental function influenced by social factors and performed within social contexts which make the transfer of
CT skills learned in classrooms to real life situations to be quite a challenge (Halpern, 1999; Sternberg, 1985). Despite the social
nature of CT, classroom teaching of CT mostly confines the social context of CT to interactions within the boundaries of the class-
room. For example, facilitating offline/online interactions among students through discussions and collaborative work is a narrow
interpretation of social interaction as it only targets the increase of CT abilities directly involved with the learning task. Research on
creating CT learning experiences that prepare learners for the complexities in society are hard to find.
Such being the case, this paper will recognize critical thinking as a socially embedded action, and explore effective CT education
methods which incorporate this aspect. Specifically, socio psychological theories of behavior change emphasizing environmental
influences that inhibit or stimulate our behaviors should be useful for this purpose. The point of adopting this approach is to
overcome the limitations of existing methods which assume the smooth transfer of classroom learning to life, even when that
transition turns out to be difficult due to the social nature of our behaviors. By assuming the definition of critical thinking to include

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.003
Received 22 September 2017; Received in revised form 12 January 2018; Accepted 3 February 2018
Available online 07 February 2018
1871-1871/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

‘action’ (Davies, 2015) carried out in our social environment, and by adopting the implications from behavior change theories, this
paper aims to identify educational methods accommodating the complexities of performing actions reflecting CT in real life. In
particular, this paper will focus on the two most highly applied theories in behavior change studies which are most applicable to
education: Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). After reviewing the meaning of
CT, its educational practices, and the main ideas of both behavior change theories, their implications for CT education will be
discussed.

2. Critical thinking: its meaning, educational methods, and challenges

Critical thinking has been mostly defined as a combination of skills and dispositions. As a skill, CT is “self-directed, self-dis-
ciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking” (Scriven & Paul, 2008, para 2). It is also the analysis and evaluation of ar-
guments/claims in a reasonable/inquisitive/open-minded manner (Ennis, 1993; Facione, 1990, Halpern, 1999). A disposition or-
iented view defines CT as the inclination to think in an open and fair-minded way (Ennis, 1993; Facione, 1990), the attitude to
explore various perspectives (Facione, 1990), and the propensity to make reasonable judgments (Ennis, 1993; Paul, 1995). Siegel
(1988) provided a definition of CT integrating both aspects by stating CT as “thinking appropriately moved by reasons” (p. 23).
Davies (2015) developed the idea of CT by stating that CT is more than mental processes (e.g., rational decision making), and should
involve actions of the critical thinker. Davies used the term criticality to describe critical thinking as a trait which encompasses
thinking, reflecting, and acting according to the aforementioned skills and dispositions. Thus, criticality is not a competency existing
only in the mentality of the individual, but is a way of life that should be comprehended from a socio-cultural perspective.
Philosophically oriented definitions of CT provide a valid criteria and framework for understanding the nature of CT. Nonetheless,
in order to develop effective interventions for nurturing CT, it is necessary to understand CT in light of its cognitive mechanisms as
well. Research on rational decision making shed light on the cognitive mechanisms of CT. According to scholars such as Evans (2008),
there are two types of thinking: Type 1(unconscious, automatic), and type 2 (conscious, intentional) thinking. CT is considered as
type 2 thinking, while biased thinking is considered to be type 1. Biased thinking, the lack of balanced, reasonable, critical thinking,
is automatic, and difficult to correct even under conscious awareness. One way of looking at the difficulties with using critical
thinking behaviors in many aspects of life is that regulating type 1 thinking by type 2 does not come easily, nor can instruction
guarantee its behavior (Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & Landfield, 2009).
Educational methods for nurturing critical thinking mostly fall into the following categories (Lee, 2012): Discussions (argu-
mentation, debate, etc.), questioning, problem solving, experiencing cognitive dissonance, and role playing. Discussions are carried
out to stimulate critical thinking by exposing learners to different opinions in the process of clarifying or validating their ideas
(Garside, 1996). An interactive environment filled with discussions among peers and parents have also been shown to increase
critical thinking abilities (Murphy, Rowe, Ramani, & Silverman, 2014). Questioning methods are used to help learners recognize their
ignorance in the face of questions about their beliefs (King, 1995). Educators can create cognitive dissonance presenting opposite
beliefs to the learner with the aim of stimulating evaluative thinking (Browne & Freeman, 2000). Role playing enables learners to
enact authentic situations so that they can view an issue from others’ perspectives and engage in deep reflection. Problem based
learning usually requires analysis of the problem, evaluation of the quality of evidence, and debates that increase argumentation
skills, which have been shown to increase CT competence (Byrnes & Dunbar, 2014).
Despite positive results of CT strategies used in previous research, and the constant effort of educators to nurture CT, the diffi-
culties of engaging in CT in our everyday lives has been pointed out through various sources (Halpern, 1999; Lee, 2012; Sternberg,
1985). There are even studies indicating that popular CT education methods such as argumentation, debates, and presenting opposite
evidence may even fortify personal biases detrimental to CT (Lilienfeld et al., 2009). The reason why strategies for CT instruction
actually stimulate uncritical thinking could be that they focus on the ‘process’ of the instructional methods and the performance of
students without due consideration of socio psychological factors influencing critical thinking. In other words, existing methods tend
to fall short of incorporating the complex nature of human behaviors involved in critical thinking, especially in socially authentic
contexts (Lee, 2012).

3. Theories of behavior change

With the exception of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) which will be discussed later, models and methods for inducing
behavior change have been studied mostly in non-educational areas such as physical health (e.g., AIDS prevention, weight control),
and marketing (e.g., purchasing behaviors of consumers). Although one might contest the use of theories rarely applied in education,
similarities between behaviors studied in theories of behavior change and critical thinking behaviors exist as such: 1) in both cases
our actions are not just the result of who we are and what we know, but also the consequences of the environment that inhibits or
stimulates our behaviors, 2) the individual will have to make a choice regarding whether one will carry out the activity or not, and 3)
both require the involvement of the whole person emotionally and intellectually, as well as knowledge and skills. On the basis of
these similarities it would be worthwhile to identify the characteristics and implications of theories of behavior change relevant to
educational research. The following section will discuss two major theories of behavior change, the Reasoned Action Approach
(RAA), and Social Cognition Theory1 (SCT).

1
Other theories include Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), Theory or Reasoned Action (TRA), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Health Belief Model (HBM),

140
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

Fig. 1. The reasoned action model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011, p. 22).

3.1. The reasoned action approach

The reasoned action approach (RAA) proposed by Fishbein & Ajzen (2011), is a model developed to explain and predict human
behavior under the assumption that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control direct our intentions and behavior.
These three factors stem from a combination of background factors composed of individual (personality, mood, values, etc.), social
(education, age, gender, income, religion, race, culture, etc.), and informational (knowledge, media, intervention) factors which
guide our behavioral, normative, and control beliefs about our behaviors. Fig. 1 summarizes the relationships of these constructs.
Attitude towards a behavior comes from our beliefs about the positive/negative consequences of the targeted behavior. If a
behavior is perceived to yield positive outcomes, attitude toward the behavior will become more positive (e.g., I’m sure taking a
30 min walk is great for eliminating stress → taking a 30 min walk is a favorable behavior to me). The possibility of a behavior to
occur is influenced by the strength of the expectancy and the evaluation regarding the positive/negative consequences of the be-
havior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). Fishbein and Ajzen (2011) also clarify that attitude toward behavior (e.g., attitude toward ex-
ercising) is different from attitude toward the object (e.g., physical health), and that the former is a better predictor of behaviors than
the latter.
Subjective norms are the perceptions of whether or not people important to you will approve or disapprove of the target behavior.
Subjective norm is also the perceived social pressure of performing or not performing a behavior. When the pressure is high, the
intention and the possibility of the behavior to occur grows stronger. Fishbein and Ajzen (2011) conceptualize subjective norm as the
overall normative influence derived from perceived injunctive and descriptive norms. A descriptive norm is what most people ty-
pically or normally do in a given situation, while an injunctive norm is the “perception about what is commonly approved or
disapproved within a culture” (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007, p.430). The former is about what ‘is’, while
the latter is about what ‘ought to’ from a moral perspective (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991).
Perceived control refers to the level of belief that one has about his/her capability to perform a behavior and control the barriers
for performing that behavior. This factor is identical to Bandura’s (1986) concept of self-efficacy. If a person thinks that there are too
many obstacles for carrying out the behavior, the perceived control is low. This construct is formed through the perceptions about the
availability of information, skills, opportunities, and resources for the target behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). While attitudes and
subjective norms predict behaviors indirectly through intentions, this construct has both a direct and indirect effect for influencing
behaviors (Ajzen, 1991).
When designing interventions for behavior change based on this theory, it is important to make a distinction between behavior
categories (e.g., exercise 3 times a week), and particular behaviors (e.g., go to gym after work this evening and exercise for 50 min).
Fishbein and Ajzen (2011) suggest targeting the particular behavior rather than a behavior category is more likely to increase
behavior change. Once the specific behavior is defined it is easier to identify the beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived

(footnote continued)
and Stage Models, etc. A meta-analysis by Webb & Sheeran (2006) revealed that PMT, TRA, TPB, HBM, and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) were used the most for
behavior change interventions. Among these, PMT, TRA, and TPB were most useful as fundamental theories underlying behavior interventions (Webb & Sheeran,
2006). However, PMT mainly relates to avoiding risk taking or negative behaviors. TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is an extension of TRA. Ultimately, Ajzen and Fishbein unified
their models under the term “reasoned action approach” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). HBM, as the name implicates, has its origins in health management, and focuses on
issues such as disease prevention which is remote from issues pertaining to developing thinking skills. Lastly, stage models describe behavior change in terms of stages
during the change process, which is beneficial for understanding the behavior change process but not quite applicable for deriving implications for teaching and
learning.

141
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

control more likely to predict the target behavior.

Overall, this model has been considered to be a valid framework for predicting human behavior in various areas such as health
related behaviors (Chatzisarantis, Kamarova, Kawabata, Wang, & Hagger, 2015; Gharlipour et al., 2015), pro-environmental beha-
vior (de Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2015), and academic misconduct (Stone, Jawahar, & Kisamore, 2010). However, the RAA
model has been attacked in terms of its lack of predictive validity, its inability to explain the unconscious mechanisms affecting
behaviors, and its shortcomings for providing a valid basis for behavior change interventions (Sniehotta, Presseau, & Araújo-Soares,
2014). Ajzen (2015) recognizes that these issues may come from the imperfections of the model, such as the difference of accessible
beliefs between real and hypothetical situations, or reliability issues of the measures of the constructs. But he also argues that the
model makes no assumptions about the irrationality of beliefs and behaviors, and emphasized that the purpose of this model is to
predict behaviors rather than prescribe effective interventions. Despite the criticisms, the model has been used as an effective fra-
mework for behavior change programs as indicated in a meta-analysis by Steinmetz, Knappstein, Ajzen, Schmidt, and Kabst (2016)
which demonstrated the general effectiveness of this model for changing behaviors.
Examples of interventions based on this model include an educational program for making healthy food choices developed by
Gharlipour et al. (2015), and the effective use of persuasive messages targeting control beliefs by Chatzisarantis et al. (2015). The
limitation of these interventions is that they rely heavily on verbal persuasion, such as lectures and talks (Hardeman et al., 2002).
From a pedagogical perspective, these types of information delivery methods are effective for introducing complex and novel ideas,
but they put the learner in a passive mode when active engagement is the key to meaningful learning. Reflective and self-directed
learning through strategies such as problem based learning, collaborative learning, discussions, and real life simulations reflecting the
social nature of CT are worthy methods to incorporate into intervention programs.
Despite some limitations of the model and intervention methods, the RAA model can help educators view learning from a broader
perspective. Educators have tended to put too much faith on the acquisition of knowledge and skills for future transfer, thus attri-
buting failure of conducting a behavior to lack of effort, ineffective teaching, or learning strategies. For instance, motivation has
always been considered an important factor for learning. But in reality, motivational strategies are usually focused on giving rewards/
punishments, or verbal persuasion, which are relevant to factors in the model but still reflect a narrow perspective of the learner
whose actions carry socio-cultural meanings. That is, a holistic view encompassing learners’ attitudes, social pressure, and perceived
control regarding behaviors should be necessary to understand why certain skills and attitudes are acquired through education but
not transferred to actual behaviors in real life.

3.2. Social cognitive theory

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory has been considered one of the most significant theories for predicting behavior. Ban-
dura argued that humans interact with their social environment, and their behaviors are not simply the product of their environment,
but the outcomes of dynamic interactions of the individual, behaviors, and the environment. People evaluate the consequences of
their behaviors by taking cues from the environment and change their environment and their personal factors. These changes go on to
alter future thought and actions (Pajares, 2006). This model of triadic reciprocal relationship helped psychologists explain behavior
change within dynamic social contexts (Bandura, 1986). It also forms the basis of Bandura’s concept of modeling and self-efficacy.

3.2.1. Modeling and learning behaviors

According to Bandura (1986), learning does not necessarily occur by direct reinforcement of external behaviors, but by observing
other’s behaviors. Vicarious experiences of the consequences of the model’s behavior bring about cognitive changes to the learner and
the acquisition of new behaviors. The modeling process is comprised of four stages: 1) Attention, 2) Retention, 3) Motor reproduction,
and 4) Motivation (Bandura, 1986). At the attention stage, the observer selectively recognizes certain qualities of the model and
decides which behaviors to acquire. At the retention stage, for future performance, the observer stores information about the model’s
actions as a symbolic representation. It is at this stage that the observer performs and develops the behavior in various contexts.
Lastly, at the motivation stage, if positive consequences are expected for the modeled behavior, that behavior will be carried out, but
not if negative consequences are expected. Symbolic representations, cognitive practice, and vicarious experiences about the con-
sequences of the behavior are the defining factors for learning behaviors (Sherwood & Lee, 2003).
According to Bandura (1986), modeling is beyond mimicry, and it is one of the most powerful means of transmitting values,
attitudes, and patterns of thought and behavior. Studies in education have repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness for various areas
such as experts’ cognitive strategies (Pedersen & Liu, 2002), and learning attitudes (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Modeling enables
people to learn not only simple explicit behaviors but also complex behaviors such as reasoning, problem solving, and ethical
judgments. It also influences the observer’s behavior by inhibiting or disinhibiting previous behaviors, and can also prompt the
observer to perform certain actions that have been learned but not explicitly carried out.

3.2.2. Self-efficacy beliefs

Self-efficacy is the belief in oneself that he or she can successfully perform a specific task. It is important to note that this is not an
objective evaluation of one’s abilities, but a judgment coming from that person’s point of view. It is also the key that links knowledge
and action (Bandura, 1986). Research has proven over time that self-efficacy is one of the most powerful factors predicting human
behavior (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pajares, 2006). The importance of self-efficacy comes from the fact that it determines how much
perseverance and self-regulation one will expend in the face of difficulties. Thus, self-efficacy beliefs strongly influence a person’s
level of achievements and the choice of behavior (Pajares, 2006).

142
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

SCT based intervention programs focusing on self-efficacy have been applied in many areas of human life, such as, overcoming
addiction (Litt & Kadden, 2015), and developing healthy lifestyles (Fitzgerald, Heary, Kelly, Nixon, & Shevlin, 2013). In education,
studies have demonstrated its crucial role in areas such as academic achievement, self-regulation, and academic motivation
(Komarraju & Nadler, 2013; Pajares, 2006; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011).
Bandura (1997) identified four sources of self-efficacy: 1) Mastery experience – past experiences of successfully performing the
task, 2) Vicarious learning – modeling, 3) Verbal persuasion – persuasive talks encouraging the person, and 4) Physiological responses
– somatic and emotional states in judging capabilities. Of the four the first two are the most powerful sources of self-efficacy. The
actual experience of completing a task makes it much easier for the person to perform the task later on. Vicarious experience is
effective when the model’s qualities are not too above the person. Verbal persuasion is used most commonly but turns out to be quite
ineffective (Bandura, 1997).
Major implications derived from SCT for education practices are: First, create an environment in which learners can experience
small but actual experiences of success on the task. At the same time provide opportunities for practice and feedback. Second,
modeling is an important source of learning, so provide examples that the learner can relate to. Third, provide information about the
outcomes of the behavior to increase expectancy. Instant rewards or punishments may work in the short term, but their effects will
differ among individuals (Bandura, 1997).
Although SCT is one of the most comprehensive and effective framework for explaining human behavior, it does have its lim-
itations. His theory has been criticized for its broad and loose organization, and its lack of explaining the influences of biological,
hormonal, emotional differences, and psychological problems on behaviors. Bandura argues that the comprehensiveness of his theory
does not mean that studies have to account for all the elements of SCT, and it is possible to observe the relationships between selected
factors within this framework (Bandura, 1986). His theory emphasizes that although biological factors influence our behaviors, they
are not the defining cause of our actions. Personal beliefs and social experiences are more decisive factors in our lives. Limitations of
the theory do exist, but it is hard to deny that his theory and concepts provide a valid framework for predicting behaviors. Especially,
the predictive power of self-efficacy beliefs on academic achievement has been validated through a wide range of studies, and is
known to have a large effect size across various studies (.25 from Pajares, 2006, and 58 from Zimmerman & Schunk, 2014).

4. Methods for transferring critical thinking skills to critical action

4.1. Facilitate self-initiated discovery and conceptualization of authentic CT behaviors from personally meaningful contexts

According to the RAA model, an intervention should be directly relevant to the target behavior. Thus, the target behavior would
be how a good critical thinker actually executes CT in authentic contexts, rather than critical thinking in an abstract sense. Bandura’s
theory of modeling implies the necessity of identifying specific traits of desirable patterns of CT for symbolic representations of the
behavior to be retained. Both theories emphasize that the learner’s attention should be directed to CT in authentic situations. In a
typical classroom, to engage learners, educators usually introduce cases/problems, ask questions, or provide guidelines so that
learners may hone their CT skills. However, the actual presentation of a person engaging in good CT in real life is hardly brought up
to the learner. Although direct guidance and practice of CT skills are necessary, providing learners with the opportunity to identify
and model good critical thinking displayed in authentic environments should be emphasized as well.
As much as a clear idea of CT is necessary, so is how that idea is incorporated into the learner’s experiences. An exemplary case
may be introduced to the learner, but if it is externally imposed it cannot be a meaningful behavioral reference for the learner. If CT
behaviors are to guide and keep learners aware of situations requiring CT, in other words, to increase sensitivity, the “bottle neck of
effective intellectual performance” (Perkins, Tishman, Ritchhart, Donis, & Andrade, 2000, p. 281), learners must take an active role
for identifying and reflecting on what CT behaviors are. This goes beyond providing learners with demonstrations, and carefully
constructed examples to increase scholastic achievement levels, a method recommended by researchers in instructional design and
cognitive psychology (Merrill, 2002; Shafto, Goodman, & Griffiths, 2014), and calls for a constructivist method of learning in which
the meaning of CT behaviors is constructed by the learner. Specifically, when applying authentic problem-solving activities within
real world contexts, educators should guide learners to question and reflect on what meaningful behaviors of CT are at a conceptual
and experiential level so that the self-constructed meanings of CT behaviors are integrated within the learner’s mental framework.
To summarize, directing learners’ attention to the specific aspects of CT in meaningful situations has not been given much
consideration in previous CT education. However, if the factors affecting behaviors should be salient to the target behavior, the
learner must be guided to be reflective and take an active role when constructing concrete and meaningful ideas about critical
thinking behaviors.

4.2. Promote attitude formation based on deep processing of the consequences of critical thinking

Both RAA and SCT indicate that recognizing the positive consequences of the target behavior is necessary for change to occur. TPB
suggests that attitude toward a behavior, generated by beliefs regarding the consequences of the behavior, is a major factor ex-
plaining behavioral intention. In terms of SCT, people tend to exhibit behaviors learned through modeling if those behaviors are
rewarded rather than punished. Complex behavior such as higher order thinking can be modeled when selective behaviors bring
about effective solutions (Bandura, 1986). However, most traditional CT education methods will mention to students that CT is an
important skill, but hardly link the positive or negative outcomes with CT. For instance, when using role playing to help students
understand others’ views of an issue, feedback is centered on whether or not one has made an effort to understand the other. In other

143
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

words, the actions conducted within the classroom are the focus of feedback, but the thoughts and emotions about the behaviors from
a social/personal perspective are hardly brought up.
Both theories draw attention to the link between positive attitudes of behaviors and the acquirement of new behaviors, but lack in
detailed explanation regarding the cognitive mechanisms of attitude change which lead to effective interventions. In order to derive
practical solutions for forming positive attitudes about CT, it would be useful to refer to theoretic models from research on attitude
change. Specifically, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Briñol, 2010) for explaining attitude change provides a
comprehensive framework for understanding how attitude change occurs. According to Petty & Briñol (2010), attitude change occurs
when one puts in much mental effort, and even when one does not. Of the two, attitude change occurring after a considerable amount
of mental effort is longer lasting, stronger, and better for predicting behaviors compared to situations in which low level mental effort
is made. In order to elicit mental effort, the learner should be highly motivated to scrutinize new information or arguments about the
attitude, and also perceive that he/she possesses the ability and necessary knowledge to process information about the attitude (Petty
& Briñol, 2010). Some critical factors known to enhance this motivation are, high personal relevance with the attitude object,
repetitive information presentation, and active message generations about attitudes one already possesses (McGuire & McGuire,
1996; Petty & Briñol, 2010).
Although the RAA model indicates that forming a positive attitude about the behavior is necessary, interventions based on this
theory have usually implemented verbal persuasions in the form of statements emphasizing the importance of the behavior
(Hardeman et al., 2002). ELM theory implies that activities requiring high mental effort are more effective than verbal persuasion for
long term attitude change. Specifically, instructional strategies facilitating high mental effort include those such as role playing,
student initiated storytelling, and problem based learning. The purpose of using these methods are to stimulate the generation of rich
personal reflections and genuine emotions that form the bases of attitudes. If positive attitudes are to be integrated into the learner’s
cognitive system for eliciting CT behaviors by using these strategies, educators should facilitate learners to recognize and utilize their
individual differences regarding their perceptions of the consequences of CT. Learners should also be guided to incorporate active
investigation, reflective thought about one’s emotions/experiences, and personal interpretations of behaviors.

4.3. Develop sensitivity to the norms of meaningful groups to separate one’s social identity based beliefs from the process of critical thinking

Critical thinking education must help learners realize that feelings of membership with social groups and the identity based on
that group may limit their ability to make rational decisions even when CT skills are acquired. This is possible since the cuing of social
identities is context specific and instinctive, meaning that the norms of a group we strongly affiliate with, and the following actions
can be carried out without much thought (Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). The triadic reciprocal model of Bandura (1986) also tells us
that as much as we are active agents in our world, we cannot be totally free from the impact of our surroundings.
The strong impact of perceived social norms has been demonstrated by various studies. An interesting study regarding the
influence of social norms conducted by Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, and Griskevicius (2008), suggest that people tended to
downplay the influence of others (e.g., behaviors of neighbors) while in reality the data indicates that it had the strongest impact on
energy conservation behaviors. A study about recycling behaviors by White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, and McKimmie (2009) de-
monstrated the significant role of injunctive norms for behavioral intentions and behaviors, and suggested that stimulating people’s
morality and obligation to the environment should be considered as an effective intervention method. Studies as such support the
validity of the influence of normative beliefs on behaviors.
Studies about the subjective nature of norms indicate that social norms are a part of a person’s social identity which influences
one’s behaviors. Social identity is the “part of the individual’s self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership
of a social group (or groups)” (Tajfel, 2010, p. 3). Identity defines who one is, provides meaning, and makes people focus on certain
aspects of the context one is involved in (Oyserman, 2009). The term ‘identity-based motivation’ implies that a person’s identity
prepares one for action and to make meaning out of the world (Oyserman, 2009). Perceptions of social identity have been shown to
induce behaviors representative of a group if a person strongly identifies oneself with that group (Terry et al., 1999). For example,
smoking and other unhealthy lifestyles are perceived less negatively if they are considered to be an in-group behavior (Oyserman,
2007). From an identity-based motivation framework, behaviors are chosen or avoided not because it is perceived to be good, but
because it is congruent with the norms of the society important to the individual (Oyserman, 2009).
The extent to which educators can influence the formation of an individual’s identity and affiliation to a group differs from
situation to situation and is considered beyond the scope of this paper. It is practical for people to conform to social norms in many
situations. However, a critical thinker will have to separate oneself from those norms imposed by society, and free oneself from group
thinking to think about issues in an objective, balanced, and deliberate manner. To separate one’s thoughts from socially imposed
norms and perform behaviors accordingly is not an easy task. In the classroom, educators can nurture this sensitivity by helping
students recognize that their thoughts are not purely their own, but influenced by information provided by society. This implies the
necessity of questioning and challenging the rationale for the learner’s decisions to the point that they become fully aware of their
socially influenced biases. Further on, fundamental and epistemological questions such as how one should accept new information, or
how does one acquire/build knowledge are necessary to stimulate independent thinking.

4.4. Develop learners’ ability to control their cognitive biases in real life situations

The RAA model suggests anticipated difficulty of a task (perceived control) as one of its major factors for explaining behavioral
intentions. If the individual feels that he/she possesses the skills, knowledge, social support, and emotions for overcoming obstacles,

144
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

then he/she is more likely to perform the task. Barriers of CT include external factors, such as social pressures that come from
authority, group thinking, religion, dominant ideologies, or institutional beliefs. Internal barriers would be cognitive factors related
to type 1 (biased, automatic) and type 2 (rational, deliberate) thinking. CT barriers that could be categorized into a type 2 thinking
problem would be those that come from lack of education and training in CT skills. Type 1 thinking barriers are those that exist
despite possessing the skills for CT. These include various cognitive biases, egocentrism, or the inability to think independently. Since
the external barriers have been covered to some extent in the previous section, and assuming that type 2 thinking barriers are dealt
with in existing CT teaching methods, this section will be devoted to type 1 thinking barriers.
Cognitive biases are considered the main obstacles for rational decisions influencing many areas in our lives. This term was
introduced by Tversky and Kahneman in the 1970’s, implying “people’s systematic but purportedly flawed patterns of responses to
judgment and decision problems” (Wilke & Mata, 2012, p.531). Type 1 thinking problems such as egocentrism or the inability to
think independently can be considered cognitive biases in a broad sense since they are the causes of flawed judgments. There are
multiple types of cognitive biases, such as, confirmation bias, hindsight bias, anchoring bias, heuristic thinking, halo effects, just to
name a few. Among these, confirmation bias has been indicated as the most detrimental bias for CT (Lilienfeld et al., 2009). Con-
firmation bias is the tendency to collect information that agrees with one’s beliefs and reject information that goes against them
(Nickerson, 1998). For instance, once a student shows disruptive behavior in the classroom, the teacher and classmates will tend to
see only the negative behaviors of that student, and disregard his/her good behaviors. People tend to choose their beliefs and then
back it up with supporting evidence that fits the logic of their beliefs rather than first collect evidence from various perspectives.
Cognitive biases are detrimental to CT since they influence the selection and use of information when making rational decisions.
Some methods for making learners aware of cognitive biases are, emphasizing the importance of finding alternative perspectives
(Parmley, 2006), training in rational judgment making (Lehman & Nisbett, 1990), and basic education about the specifics of cognitive
biases (Tweney et al., 1980). Kunda (1990) suggests that motivation for accuracy in judgments is crucial for CT. This is so because
when one tries to, let us say, win a debate, one tends to become defensive and limits his/her supporting evidence to those that
coincide with existing beliefs. Kunda notes that emphasizing accuracy of judgments stimulates deeper, elaborate, and logical
thinking. As for in class methods, composing discussion groups consisting of a balanced ratio of various perspectives, and creating a
non-competitive atmosphere are some strategies known to facilitate unbiased critical thinking (Lee, 2012). However, educating bias
reduction alone is not enough to overcome them in real situations. From a constructive perspective, rather than ‘informing’ the
learner, cognitive biases should be personally experienced and identified by the learner, and reflected upon. Having learners discover
on their own the detrimental outcomes of biases along with positive outcomes from avoiding them should stimulate that process. This
is in line with one of the sources of self-efficacy, actual experiences. Once educators educate learners about cognitive biases, they
should provide learners real world tasks involving those biases, and have learners contemplate how their biases were reduced.
Feedback for future performances should also be discussed with the learner as well. Introducing models, whom learners easily relate
to and respect, carrying out unbiased judgment will provide a good source for observational learning and vicarious experiences as
well.

5. Conclusion

Transforming an individual into a critical thinker requires a broader approach than teaching CT skills within classrooms.
Educational methods reflecting the social psychological aspects of human thinking and behaviors should be implemented. Educators
should consider directing attention to concrete and good models of CT behaviors as well as their positive consequences through
various authentic sources such as news articles, historical events, or self-reflections. It would also help to guide learners to reflect on
the obstacles such as social pressures of people important to them, or their own personal biases, and encourage them to be mindful
about these obstacles. Educators themselves should be good models of CT and also introduce models of good critical thinking
examples and their consequences, but at the same time, rather than imposing models, have learners explore meaningful and relevant
models they can identify with. As the aim of this article was to explore and propose a social psychological perspective regarding the
development of critical thinking, it may have been limited in its practical solutions for classroom teaching. Also, the social psy-
chological factors of the learner are so numerous and complicated that it was challenging for the author to weave them skillfully in
this paper. The author hopes that future studies will look into those factors in depth and develop more practical principles and
guidelines for nurturing critical thinking for life.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review,
9(2), 131–137.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. NJ: Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Browne, M. N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 301–309.
Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 477–493.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Kamarova, S., Kawabata, M., Wang, J., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Developing and evaluating utility of school-based intervention programs in promoting
leisure-time physical activity: An application of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 46(2), 95–116.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.

145
Y.L. Lee Thinking Skills and Creativity 27 (2018) 139–146

Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M. Paulsen (Vol. Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research: vol. 30. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Dewey, J. (1993). In D. Morris, & I. Shapiro (Eds.). The political writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32, 179–186.
Evans, J. B. T., St. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgement, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, DE:
American Philosophical Association [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423].
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Fitzgerald, A., Heary, C., Kelly, C., Nixon, E., & Shevlin, M. (2013). Self-efficacy for healthy eating and peer support for unhealthy eating are associated with adolescents’ food
intake patterns. Appetite, 63, 48–58.
Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45(3),
212–227.
Gharlipour, Z., Ghaffari, M., Hoseini, Z., Heidarabadi, A. B., Tavassoli, E., Hozuri, M., & Sahraiyan, M. (2015). Investigation of educational intervention based on Theory of
Planned Behavior on breakfast consumption among middle school students of Qom City in 2012. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 4, 39.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–84). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
1999(80), 69–74.
Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2002). Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change inter-
ventions: A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17(2), 123–158.
King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13–17.
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25,
67–72.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Lee, Y. (2012). Improving critical thinking skills by overcoming confirmation bias. The Journal of Educational Studies, 43(4), 1–31.
Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 952–960.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398.
Litt, M. D., & Kadden, R. M. (2015). Willpower versus Skillpower: Examining how self-efficacy works in treatment for marijuana dependence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
29(3), 532–540.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.
McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1996). Enhancing self-esteem by directed-thinking tasks: Cognitive and affective positivity asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(6), 1117–1125.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology
Review, 26(4), 561–578.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34(7), 913–923.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 432–453). (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 250–260.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp.
339–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Parmley, M. C. (2006). Effects of the confirmation bias on diagnostic decision making Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philadelphia: Drexel University.
Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3),
269–293.
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2010). Attitude change. In R. F. Baumeister, & E. J. Finkel (Eds.). Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 217–259). Oxford, England:
Oxford University.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological
Science, 18(5), 429–434.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1),
7–25.
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2008). Our concept of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/ourConceptCT.cfm.
Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). A rational account of pedagogical reasoning: Teaching by, and learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 55–89.
Sherwood, D. E., & Lee, T. D. (2003). Schema theory: Critical review and implications for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sports, 74(4), 376–382.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1–7.
Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? Zeitschrift für
Psychologie, 224(3), 216–233.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Teaching critical thinking, part 1: Are we making critical mistakes? The Phi Delta Kappan, 67(3), 194–198.
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 35–45.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3),
225–244.
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Worner, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A., & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980). Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 32, 109–133.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2),
249–268.
White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & McKimmie, B. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and
in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135–158.
Wilke, A., & Mata, R. (2012). Cognitive bias. In (2nd ed.). V. S. Ramachandran (Vol. Ed.), The encyclopedia of human behavior: vol 1, (pp. 531–535). London, UK: Academic Press.
Yang, Y., Newby, T. J., & Bill, R. L. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured Web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical
thinking skills. Computers & Education, 50, 1572–1585.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2014). Albert bandura: The man and his contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Educational
psychology: a century of contributions (pp. 431–458). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
de Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school
students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128–138.
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95–108.

146