Critical thinking as a core skill: issues and discussion paper

Anita van der Wal

Learning and Development Program, The University of Newcastle
Introduction
While universities identify that graduates need to be good critical thinkers, academic
staff and students in universities generally have difficulty in defining precisely what
critical thinking is, let alone how to integrate this skill into subject curricula. People
often give a conglomerate of sub-skills involved in critical thinking. These skills range
from comprehension skills to persuasive communication skills, and they vary somewhat
across different disciplines.
A number of issues related to defining the concept of critical thinking need to be
addressed more specifically in order to identify appropriate curriculum integration
processes of critical thinking as a core academic skill. These issues are generally
concerned with how critical thinking relates to other skills, to specific disciplines, and to
personality features of the individual, such as:

defining the boundaries of critical thinking and other types of thinking;

identifying the specific relationship between critical thinking and creative thinking,
both of which are relevant core skills for university graduates;
relating critical thinking to subject content;
developing curricula that support the development of critical thinking skills;
assessing the individual students performance as a critical thinker;
identifying the relationship between critical thinking as an academic skill and
personality factors of the individual learner;
identifying the relationship between critical thinking and discipline-specific graduate
skills required by employers and professional bodies;
the relationship between critical thinking and intelligence; and
the relationship between critical thinking and other core academic skills, such as
writing/literacy skills, argumentation and persuasion skills, oral communication skills,
practical problem solving skills, research skills, and skills in the use of relevant
information technologies.

The second section of this issues paper will provide a range of definitions of critical
thinking. In the third section, two specific types of critical thinking and their relevance
to various university disciplines will be discussed. The fourth section will identify issues
relevant to the relationship between the development of critical thinking skills in the
individual learner, since evidence that individual personality factors may affect a learners
motivation to engage in critical thinking processes and related academic skills suggests
that the development of critical thinking as a core skill may be different for different
learners. In the fifth section, some issues related to the assessment of critical thinking
skills will be noted. The sixth section will address some issues concerning the
relationship between critical thinking and some of the other core graduate skills. The
final section will provide an example of the integration of critical thinking skills and
subject content in university curricula.

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Van der Wal

Definitions
Definitions of the concept of critical thinking are wide-ranging. Halpern (1996, pp. 3334) defines critical thinking as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that
increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is purposeful, reasonable, and goaldirected. [It is ] also known as directed thinking. Compare with nondirected thinking,
[which is defined as] daydreams, nightdreams, and other sorts of thinking that are not
engaged in for a specific purpose or do not involve the use of critical thinking skills.
In a more extensive composite definition, Halpern (1996, p.5) captures the main
concepts of critical thinking: critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or
strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe
thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directedthe kind of thinking involved in
solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions
when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context
and type of thinking task. Other definitions include the notions that critical thinking is
the formation of logical inferences (Simon & Kaplan, 1989), the development of
cohesive and logical reasoning patterns (Stahl & Stahl, 1991), and careful and deliberate
determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment (Moore & Parker,
1994). All of these definitions capture the idea of a mental activity that will be useful for
a particular cognitive task.
Thus, critical thinking is outcome-oriented while at the same time incorporating an
evaluation process of reasoned consideration of various factors that are crucial to
decision-making in a situation, or about a proposition. As Halpern (1996, pp. 5-6) says,
when we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes
how good a decision is or how well a problem has been solved. Critical thinking also
involves evaluating the thinking processthe reasoning that went into the conclusion
weve arrived at or the kinds of factors considered in making a decision. Critical thinking
is sometimes called directed thinking because it focuses on obtaining a desired
outcome. In his chapter headings, Halpern (1996) identifies a range of issues relevant
to the issue of critical thinking:
Memory: the acquisition, retention, and retrieval of knowledge;
The relationship between thought and language;
Reasoning: drawing deductively valid conclusions;
Analyzing arguments;
Thinking as hypothesis testing;
Likelihood and uncertainty: understanding probabilities;
Decision making;
Development of problem-solving skills;
Creative thinking.
A similar focus on the evaluative aspect of critical thinking in order to reach a conclusion
is offered by Ruggiero (1998, p. 157), who points out that critical thinking, as we define
it here, means reviewing the ideas we have produced, making a tentative decision about
what action will best solve the problem or what belief about the issue is most reasonable,
and then evaluating and refining that solution or belief.
Weddle, De Capite, and Costa, (1990) point out there is the need to emphasize the
affective dimension of critical thinking, the dimension of values, commitments, and traits
of mind. This does not mean, by the way, that we need to condition or indoctrinate
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Critical thinking as a core skill

students in an affective way, for the critical spirit can be nurtured only while actually
practicing critical thinking in some (cognitive) way. One cannot develop ones
fairmindedness, for example, without actually thinking fairmindedly. One cannot develop
ones intellectual independence, without actually thinking independently. This is true of
all the essential critical thinking traits, values, or dispositions. The crucial need is to
develop instruction in such a way that, for example, fairminded and independent thinking
are required by the very nature of what is done. (Weddle, De Capite, and Costa, 1990,
pp. 20-21).
McKowen (1986, p. 278) defines critical thinking as clear, human, organic, wholebrained, and deliberate thought. It means using everything we have as well as possible.
McKowan (1986, p. 278) also introduces the importance of emotion and affect in the
process of critical thinking, when he points out that in law or logic, an argument is
supposed to be emotionless. Since we think with our whole minds and not with our left
brains only, that is impossible. To understand a line of reasoning, [we need to] get the
feeling of it as well as its surface features. The role of affect in critical thinking is
extended to the inclusion of awareness of personal bias by Chaffee (1998, p. 28), who
says that critical thinkers are people who have developed thoughtful and well-founded
beliefs that guide their choices in every area of their lives. In order to develop the
strongest and most accurate beliefs possible, you need to become aware of your own
biases, explore situations from many different perspectives, and develop sound reasons to
support your points of view. These abilities are the tools you need to become more
enlightened and reflectivea critical thinker.
Finally, academic staff and students at various universities generally define critical
thinking by listing a range of sub-skills that people identify as being significant to the
concept of critical thinking:
Critical thinking includes the ability to:
solve practical and situational problems;
identify all the relevant issues in an argument;
identify persuasive techniques that are being used in presenting an argument;
identify bias and subjective evaluations;
identify how a person supports his or her views;
develop a personal concept of the truth in an argument;
use logical reasoning skills;
present a convincing argument;
apply appropriate rhetorical strategies to present a persuasive argument;
remain as objective as possible;
be able to identify affective influences on the interpretation of an argument;
identify personal bias;
bring different ideas together and synthesise them into a new idea;
do something new or creative with an idea and take an idea forward
Types of critical thinking
In many of the definitions of critical thinking, there is reference to two types of skills:
the skill involved in solving problems and identifying appropriate strategies in practical
situations, and the skill of mentally identifying the logic or truth in a theoretical or
epistemological argument. For instance, Ruggiero (1998, p. 157) refers to two main
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Van der Wal

types of application of critical thinking skills: critical thinking serves to make a decision
about what action will best solve the problem or what belief about the issue is most
reasonable, and then evaluating and refining that solution or belief. [my italics].
Based on this dual focus, we canfor the purposes of identifying how to develop critical
thinking skills in university students enrolled in a diverse range of disciplinesidentify
between two different types of critical thinking, which are loosely related to different
knowledge bases in different disciplines:

Situational critical thinking: the type of critical thinking needed for decision-making
used in practical situations in practice-based professions, such as social work,
nursing, police studies and other subjects with a practical, situational knowledge
component;

Epistemological critical thinking: used in disciplines where critical thinking is

primarily applied to epistemological/theoretical positions and arguments, such as
disciplines in the humanities, sciences, and other disciplines where the knowledge
base is more theoretically oriented than situational oriented.

Critical thinking and the individual learner in the discipline

Various factors influence a persons engagement in critical thinking processes, including
individual personality traits, individual willingness to engage in cognitive processes, as
well as discipline-related factors. The relationship between personality traits of the
individual and the ability or willingness to engage in critical thinking is important.
Halpern (1996, p 34) refers to the significance of the critical thinking attitude, which
entails the willingness to plan, flexibility in thinking, persistence, willingness to selfcorrect, mindful attention to the thought process, and the seeking of consensus. It is not
possible to be a critical thinker without this sort of attitude. As Halpern (1996, pp. 2527) points out, an essential component of critical thinking is developing the attitude and
disposition of a critical thinker. Good thinkers are motivated and willing to exert the
conscious effort needed to work in a planful manner, to check for accuracy, to gather
information, and to persist when the solution is not obvious or requires several steps.
[] A critical thinker will exhibit the following dispositions or attitudes:
Willingness to plan.
Flexibility
Persistence
Willingness to self-correct
Being mindful, that is, having metacognition or metacognitive monitoring.
Consensus-seeking: A critical thinker will need to be disposed to ways in which
consensus can be achieved. Consensus-seekers will need high-level communication
skills, but they will also need to find ways to compromise and to achieve agreement.
The willingness to plan identified by Halpern (1996) is related to the individuals
willingness to engage in cognitive processes in general. Cacioppo and Petty (1982),
using the Need for Cognition scale, identify that there are significant individual
differences in peoples willingness to engage in effortful cognitive processes. The Need
for Cognition scalean 18-item scale which assesses individuals motivation to engage
in and to enjoy effortful cognitive processesidentifies the degree to which adults
naturally tend to engage in and enjoy thinking about issues. The Need for Cognition scale
has been used in well over a hundred empirical studies (cf. Cacioppo & Petty, 1982;
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Critical thinking as a core skill

Waters & Zakrasjsek, 1990; Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996) which
investigate the relationship between an individuals need to engage in effortful thinking
processes and other relevant cognitive constructs, such as:
field dependence and cognitive innovativeness (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982;
Venkatramen & Price, 1990);
logical reasoning (Allen, Walker, Schroeder, & Johnson, 1987);
the need to evaluate issues (Jarvis & Petty, 1996);
openness to experience (Berzonsky and Sullivan, 1992);
problem solving (Heppner, Reeder, & Larson, 1983);
simplification (Venkatramen, Marlino, Kardes, & Sklar, 1990a);
the ability to make and evaluate judgements about information (Jarvis & Petty,
1996);
the ability to incorporate new information into existing conceptual knowledge bases
(Jarvis & Petty, 1996);
the ability to make inferences about relationships between concepts (Weary and
Edwards, 1994).
Various studies of individual differences relate traits such as flexibility to the
personality trait of openness on assessment scales such as the NEO-PI. Schouwenburg
(1996; 1998), for instance, shows significant correlations between individuals need for
cognition and scores on the openness scale of the NEO-PI. Likewise, Kreber (1998)
identifies a significant relationship between personality traits and inclination to engage in
critical thinking.
Individual differences also exist in relation to preference of mode of thought (cf. Halpern,
1996): some people prefer visual modes of processing information, others prefer verbal
modes of information processing, and various other information-processing preferences
have been identified (cf. Gardner, 1983). In educational settings in particularas in life
in generalsome tasks are particularly well suited to a particular thinking mode and, as
Halpern (1996, p. 14 ff.) points out, the ability to use multiple modes of thinking, and the
ability to switch between different modes of thinking is an essential strategy in effective
critical thinking.
Schouwenburg (1998) has also found statistically significant differences between
individuals score on the Need for Cognition scale and the discipline studied. Thus,
differences between individuals willingness to engage in cognitive processes are related
to a significant degree with the discipline chosen as major field of study.
The relationship between the ability to engage in critical thinking processes and
intelligence of the individual has been explored (cf. Halpern, 1996). While there is a
lively and ongoing debate about the definition and assessment of the concept of
intelligence, most would agree with Sternberg (1981, 1982) that intelligence and
cognitive and conceptual reasoning abilities are intricately connected and dependent on
each other (cf. Halpern, 1996).
Two questions arise from this: first, whether learning to be a critical thinker will make
you more intelligent, and second, whether critical thinkingand, by implication,
intelligenceis a learnable skill (Halpern, 1996). Sternberg (1985) proposes a Triarchic
Theory of Intelligence, in which intelligence is seen as being comprised of a)
metacomponents, which are used to plan, evaluate, and monitor how we are thinking; b)
knowledge acquisition components, which include the ability to utilize information we
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Van der Wal

have in memory as well as the information provided in the environment; and c)

performance components, which are the thinking skills [we teach when we teach critical
thinking skills] (Halpern, 1996, p.25).
The link between critical thinking and intelligence can then be captured in the equation
proposed by Russell (cited in Halpern, 1996, p. 25.), in which the individual attitude is
linked with subject knowledge of a field, as well as with individual cognitive abilities, to
create intelligent thinking:
Attitude + Knowledge + Thinking Skills = Intelligent Thinking.
Assessment of critical thinking
Two main approaches can be taken to the assessment of critical thinking, each of which
have their advantages and disadvantages:
1. By assessing critical thinking in relation to other relevant academic skills, such as
writing, oral presentation, or practical problem solving.

Advantages: in this integrated approach, it is easy for a lecturer to assess the

degree to which the learner has processed relevant content knowledge. It is a
practical approach, which uses clearly defined and tangible assessment items
(eg. an essay, a presentation, etc.);

Disadvantages: the learners lack of skills in other academic activities may

obfuscate the learners actual skills as a critical thinker, since the assessment
through other mediasuch as writing and presentation skillsdepends to a
degree on skill levels in those other tasks, which may confound the assessment of
critical thinking ability in its own right.

2. By assessing critical thinking skills as a trait or individual feature of the learner, by

inviting the learner to complete an assessment scale such as the Need for Cognition
scale, the NEO-PI, or other scales that assess cognitive skills and motivations
independently of other traits or skills.

Advantages: this approach gives the learner useful metacognition of how he or

she approaches the learning process, and allows for development of personally
relevant skills. This approach also provides metacognition to the lecturer and
allows for a more learner-centred approach to curriculum development and
assessment, for instance by using individual learners contracts in which learning
objectives are identified.

Disadvantages: with increased concerns about the application of psychological

and educational tests, the learner may not understand the relevance of completing
personality-type tests to their engagement in academic studies, especially if the
learner is not interested in information about his or her personal learning style.

The assessment of the learners skills as a critical thinker needs to be identified as a

clearly stated objective, so that learners can identify how they engage critically with
subject content and with knowledge fields in general (Halpern, 1996). The most useful
approach to assessing critical thinking skills would be through applying both assessment
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Critical thinking as a core skill

strategies, as this would give the learner metacognition of how he or she engages with
the subject material and with the learning process, and it would enable the integration of
cognitive skills with other core skills such as writing skills, presentation skills, research
skills, use of appropriate technologies, with the purpose of developing intelligent
thinkers (Russell, cited in Halpern, 1996, p. 25).
Critical thinking and other core skills
Critical thinking is a core skill that relates intricately to other academic skills, such as:

the writing process (that is, issues concerning discourse-level structuring, information
processing, as well as issues concerning procrastination, blocking, and other processrelated skills);

language-usage skillsthat is, vocabulary skills and linguistic (structural and/or

thematic) awareness;

ability to target audiences;

argumentation and persuasion skills;

clear verbal presentation skills;

practical problem solving skills;

broader cognitive skills such as reasoning, memory, information processing, attention

directing, probability testing, decision making, creative thinking, etc.;

research skills; and

use of appropriate information technologies.

Integration of these skills is best achieved through curricula that encourage the learner to
focus on the whole process of academic communication, such as is offered through
Problem Based Learning curricula, or through the processed, hands-on writing and
critical thinking tuition as offered through programs such as the Writing and Critical
Thinking Program at Stanford University. Instruction materials that encourage the
learner to identify relevant communication techniques targetted to specific audiences and
genres, and to communicate persuasively (cf. Ross, 1995) are useful components of such
curricula.
Critical thinking as a graduate skill: implications for curriculum development
In 1933, John Dewey identified learning to think as the primary purpose of education
(Halpern, 1996). This raises the question whether people can learn to think beyond their
innate abilities and motivations. From numerous studies, there is empirical evidence that
thinking skills courses have positive effects that are transferable to a wide variety of
situations (Halpern, 1996; Weddle, De Capite, & Costa, 1990). There is substantial
evidence for the conclusion that it is possible to use education to improve the ability to
think critically, especially when instruction is specifically designed to encourage the
transfer of these skills to different situations and different domains of knowledge. In
fact, it is difficult to identify any aspect of critical thinking that could not be taught and
learned. (Halpern, 1996, p. 8). Halpern (1996, pp. 9-10) provides a useful summary of
findings that support the conclusion that critical thinking skills can be learned in
educational settings.
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Van der Wal

In the teaching process, there often is a concern about the comparative importance of the
actual skill of critical reasoning and the ability to grasp factual content information of a
knowledge field. Weddle, De Capite, and Costa (1990, p. 19) point out that this is a
false dichotomy, which is based on the misconception that one can absorb content
without thinking, on the one hand, or think about nothing at all, on the other. The fact is
that there is no such thing as content-less thinking or content that can be mastered
without thought. Thus, in the educational process, the development of skills and
content knowledge go side by side.
Weddle, De Capite, and Costa (1990, pp. 20-25) suggest the following recommendations
in regards to the integration of critical thinking skills and subject content into university
curricula:

that a general statement of educational goals as they relate to critical thinking and
basic intellectual skills be formulated and included in the catalogue as well as a
faculty handbook;

that for each area of study, a statement of the ideal student be formulated;

that elements of these subject area statements also be incorporated into the college
catalogue as well as into a student orientation brochure to help students see the
common objectives and skills that underlie all fields of study;

that course descriptions and syllabi make clear how particular courses tie into these
general objectives rather than simply specifying the particular specialized content of
the course;

that the students be informed early in the course as to how the course is being
designed not only to foster subject matter mastery but also critical competencies and
intellectual traits;

that a general critical thinking course be developed that can serve as a core course
for all students and will focus on interdisciplinary issues and general critical thinking
skills. The faculty should have input into what is covered in the course and should
follow up and build upon it in each specialized subject domain;

that a campus-wide critical thinking committee be formed to help facilitate on-going

faculty development in the area of critical thinking, including locating resource
materials, disseminating classroom teaching techniques, organizing follow-up
seminars from time to time, and arranging for conference participation that facilitates
development in this area;

that a faculty critical thinking handbook be developed with submissions from many of
the faculty leaders in the area of critical thinking. Faculty should be identified who
have developed teaching and grading strategies that can be the basis for a shift of
emphasis in instruction from a lecture-based, memory-based mode of instruction to
one which more actively engages students in their learning and forces them to think
their way through course material.

Conclusion
Universities of today need to identify how they will ensure that their graduates are good
critical thinkers. To do this, staff and students need to have clarity and consensus
about the definition of the concept of critical thinking. Issues concerning individual
differences between learners need to be understood and addressed, and relevant and
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Critical thinking as a core skill

appropriate assessment measures must be applied. The relationship between the

development of subject content and the development of cognitive skills needs to be
defined. Most importantly, these issues need to inform curriculum development, so that
all learners are equally supported in developing or enhancing their ability to engage
critically with information and knowledge fields.
References
Allen, J.L., Walker, L.D., Schroeder, D.A., & Johnson, D.A. (1987). Attributions and
attribution behavior relations: The effect of level of cognitive development.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1099-1109.
Barnet, S. & H. Bedau (1999). Critical thinking, reading, and writing: a brief guide to
argument. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bersselaar, V. van den, & Hoeksema, K.J. (1995). Discursieve vaardigheden: Leidraad
voor probleemanalyse, argumentatie en onderzoek. [Discourse skills: Guide to
problem analysis, argumentation skills, and research]. Bussum, The Netherlands:
Coutinho.
Berzonski, M.D., & Sullivan, C. (1992). Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: Need
for cognition, experimental openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 7, 140-155.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Morris, K.J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on
message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,45, 805- 818.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Kao, C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for
cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,306-307.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional
differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in
need for cognition. Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 197-253.
Chaffee, J. (1988). Thinking critically. (2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chaffee, J. (1998). The thinkers way. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Fairbairn, G.J., & Winch, C. (1991). Reading, writing and reasoning: A guide for
students. (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Groarke, L.A., Tindale, C.W., & Fisher, L. (1997). Good reasoning matters!: A
constructive approach to critical thinking. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking.
(3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Heppner, P.P., Reeder, B.L., & Larson, L.M. (1983). Cognitive variables associated
with personal problem solving appraisal: implications for counselling. Journal of
counselling Psychology, 30, 537-545.
Huddleston Packer, N. and J. Timpane (1997). Writing worth reading: The critical
process. (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford Books.

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Van der Wal

Jarvis, B., & Petty, R.E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 172-194.
King, M.R. (1996). How people learn. Paper presented at the Animals & Alternatives in
Education Workshops, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. September
1996.
Kreber, C. (1998). The relationship between self-directed learning, critical thinking, and
psychological type, and some implications for teaching in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 71-86.
McKowen, C. (1986). Thinking about thinking: A fifth-generation approach to
deliberate thoughtcrisp thinking, critical thinking, whole-brained thinking. Los
Altos: William Kaufmann, Inc.
Petty, R.E., & Jarvis, B.G. (1996). An individual difference perspective on assessing
cognitive processes. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions:
Methodology for
determining cognitive and communicative processes in
survey research. (Pp. 221-257). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ross, C. (1995). Writing nature: an ecological reader for writers. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Ruggiero, V.R. (1998). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought.
(5th ed). New York: Longman.
Schouwenburg, H.C. (1996). Handleiding bij INTEL 95: een test voor intellectualisme.
[Guide to INTEL 95: A test for intellectualism]. Study Skills Centre,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands.
Schouwenburg, H.C. (1998). Studievaardigheid: Doet de persoonlijkheid van de student
er ook nog toe? [Studyskills: does the personality of the student matter?]. Paper
presented at the National conference on Studyskills, 13 May 1998, Tilburg, the
Netherlands.
http://www.rug.nl/rugcis/.bureau/dsz/studond/topics/research/tilb1.htm
Sternberg, R.J. (1981). Intelligence and nonentrenchment. Journal of educational
psychology, 73, 1-16.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Instrumental and componential approaches to the nature and
training of intelligence. In: Chipman, S.F., Segal, J.W., & Glaser, R. (eds.),
Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Venkatraman, M.P., Marlino, D., Kardes, F.R., & Sklar, K.B. (1990a). Effects of
individual difference variables on response to factual and evaluative ads.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 761-765.
Verplanken, B. (1989). Involvement and need for cognition as moderators of beliefsattitude-intention consistency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 115122.
Verplanken, B. (1991). Persuasive communication of risk information: A test of cue
versus message processing effects in a field experiment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 17, 188-193.
Verplanken, B. (1993). Need for cognition and external information search: Responses
to time pressure during decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality,
27, 238-252.
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

10

Critical thinking as a core skill

Waters, L.K., & Zakrajsek, T. (1990). Correlates of need for cognition total and
subscale scores. Education and Psychological Measurement, 50, 213-217.
Weary, G. & Edwards, J.A. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 308-318.
Weddle, P., De Capite, C., and Costa, A. (1990). Critical thinking: The thinking that
masters the content. Tenth annual conference on critical thinking and
educational reform. Sonoma: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

11