logical vulnerability critical thinking

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 29580

Golden West College via NGE Far Press

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. It is the sort of thing that one intuitively or naturally understands, and yet cannot describe to others without great difficulty. Many people believe that logic is very abstract, dispassionate, complicated, and even cold. But in fact the study of logic is nothing more intimidating or obscure than this: the study of good thinking.

1.1: Prelude to Chapter
1.2: Introduction and Thought Experiments- The Trolley Problem
1.3: Truth and Its Role in Argumentation - Certainty, Probability, and Monty Hall Only certain sorts of sentences can be used in arguments. We call these sentences propositions, statements or claims.
1.4: Distinction of Proof from Verification; Our Biases and the Forer Effect
1.5: The Scientific Method The procedure that scientists use is also a standard form of argument. Its conclusions only give you the likelihood or the probability that something is true (if your theory or hypothesis is confirmed), and not the certainty that it’s true. But when it is done correctly, the conclusions it reaches are very well-grounded in experimental evidence.
1.6: Diagramming Thoughts and Arguments - Analyzing News Media
1.7: Creating a Philosophical Outline

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, critical thinking.

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at something to understand what it really means.

Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers do not simply accept all ideas, theories, and conclusions as facts. They have a mindset of questioning ideas and conclusions. They make reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out by assessing the evidence that supports a specific theory or conclusion.

When presented with a new piece of new information, critical thinkers may ask questions such as;

“What information supports that?”

“How was this information obtained?”

“Who obtained the information?”

“How do we know the information is valid?”

“Why is it that way?”

“What makes it do that?”

“How do we know that?”

“Are there other possibilities?”

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Many people perceive critical thinking just as analytical thinking. However, critical thinking incorporates both analytical thinking and creative thinking. Critical thinking does involve breaking down information into parts and analyzing the parts in a logical, step-by-step manner. However, it also involves challenging consensus to formulate new creative ideas and generate innovative solutions. It is critical thinking that helps to evaluate and improve your creative ideas.

Elements of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves:

Gathering relevant information
Evaluating information
Asking questions
Assessing bias or unsubstantiated assumptions
Making inferences from the information and filling in gaps
Using abstract ideas to interpret information
Formulating ideas
Weighing opinions
Reaching well-reasoned conclusions
Considering alternative possibilities
Testing conclusions
Verifying if evidence/argument support the conclusions

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, inference, reason, and evaluation. In order to demonstrate critical thinking, you would need to develop skills in;

Interpreting : understanding the significance or meaning of information

Analyzing : breaking information down into its parts

Connecting : making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating : connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Evaluating : judging the value, credibility, or strength of something

Reasoning : creating an argument through logical steps

Deducing : forming a logical opinion about something based on the information or evidence that is available

Inferring : figuring something out through reasoning based on assumptions and ideas

Generating : producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability

Related Papers

: Perceptions and Analysis of Digital Risks

Gilles Sahut

his chapter focuses on how an objective approach to fake news is perceived by a specific segment of the population: teenagers. It first proposes a synthesis of studies on the production and dissemination processes of fake news and how it is identified and assessed by the public. The aim is to characterize fake news from a scientific point of view to better identify the informational risks it is likely to generate. The chapter then aims to uncover the perceptions held by teenagers on this informational and social phenomenon. It describes the methodology of the authors' study, based on interviews with 14 young people aged 14 to 17. Finally, the results are presented and discussed by comparing them to other studies, particularly those concerning credibility judgments. They are considered in relation to questions on Media and Information Literacy and, more particularly, through reflections on the teaching practices used to enable young people to critically evaluate information.

International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence

Daniele Agostini

The problem of fake news has underscored the importance of stimulating critical thinking skills (i.e., information literacy)in the educationalsetting. Studentsshould be trained in these competencies, which will be useful to them in their schooling, as well as in their later work and lives. The paper presents the findings of an exploratory survey of 185 third- and fourth-year upper secondary school students aged 16 to 18. The findings show students overestimate their critical skills and are overexposed to information flows from the old and new media that make fact-checking difficult. There is also strong demand for an approach that is both technological and humanistic towards educating about fake news.

United International Journal for Research & Technology

UIJRT | United International Journal for Research & Technology , jomell santiago

The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge of the respondents about fake news. Also, to determine how they distinguish the facts from fake news and the relationship of their sociodemographic profile to their knowledge about fake news. A descriptive research design and purposive sampling were used. A questionnaire was utilized to collect data which was composed of the profile, questions regarding their knowledge about fake news, their perception on how they distinguish fact from fake news and their source of knowledge. Permission to conduct and informed consent was obtained. Data were analyzed using various statistical tools. The majority of the respondents had good knowledge about fake news. They agree in all the statements regarding on how they distinguish fact from fake and their main source of knowledge of fake news is the social media. The relationship between their general average to their knowledge and how they distinguish fact from fake were significant. Therefore, an information dissemination campaign against fake news should be done to inform those vulnerable groups especially the young people on how to easily identify the fact from the fake.

Educación XX1

Merce Garcia-Mila

This study draws on literature on argumentation and critical thinking. Its main goal is to analyse teenagers’ critical thinking to manage scientific information in social networks. We analysed 95 ninth graders’ quality of argumentation on their degree of agreement and their degree of credibility of a fake news item. The design included a dependent variable (argumentative competence), two independent variables (degree of agreement, degree of credibility) and a covariate (reading comprehension). A significant correlation was found between the degree of agreement and the degree of credibility. In addition, the degree of credibility decreases significantly as reading comprehension increases. Students who positioned themselves against the claim of the fake news and those who did not believe it showed higher argumentative quality in their texts than those who both agreed with and believed it. These results bring evidence of the confirmation bias claim when we apply it to fake news. We ten...

Media Jagat

Sumit Kumar Pandey

When the World Wide Web (WWW) had been fabricated by Tim Berners Lee, there had not created only the base of the Internet but also had prepared the foundation of spreading information without any boundation and restriction. That is created a way to spread particular information throughout the whole world and wonder is that it is without any cast, without any regulations. Further, after the invention of Social Media began to explode in popularity and from 1997 to 2006 various social sites like Six Degrees, My Space, Linkedin, Photobucket, Flicker, Youtube, Facebook & Twitter came into the existing. In the beginning, nobody thought that these social sites would be such types of big social platforms, where billions of users will provide the contents. In which, there will be millions of content as a Fake News without any authentic source and those contents would create a deceptive & savage effect upon the society. Today in the context of India, where different types of diversity exist on the basis of religion, caste, language, region, culture, and ideology, there is a big issue of fake news. This research paper especially focuses on the causes, consequences, and precautions of fake news. The research design of this paper is descriptive. This paper is of qualitative nature in which narrative method has been applied. Data has been collected through self-experiences & from secondary sources. Keywords: Fake News, Causes, Consequences, Precautions;

Jurnal ASPIKOM

nurhayani saragih

This research aims to determine the extent to which teenagers distinguish true news from fake news and how these fake news affect adolescents’cognition. A lot of hoax information has sprung up on social media, especially during the 2019 Indonesian presidential election. The ability to check on the information spread in online media is influenced by each individual’s cognitive abilities. A person’s cognitive ability is to think rationally, including aspects of knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This study used an explanative survey method with a quantitative positivistic paradigm. The results showed that the most influencing X variable to the Y variable was the Satire variable, which is positive and unidirectional. The Hoax variable has the most influence on cognitive abilities, even though the value is negative and not unidirectional. This means, the lower the understanding of Hoax, the higher the level of cognitive abilities.

ICERI2019 Proceedings

Nídia Salomé Morais

Academia Letters

Andrea Stevens Karnyoto

International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology

Alvie Elma Plaza

To achieve these objectives, a mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. A representative sample of college students from various institutions in Surigao was selected for the study. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires assessing their exposure to and consumption of fake news, along with its perceived impact on their political beliefs, educational pursuits, and general mindset. Furthermore, focus group interviews were conducted to gain deeper insights into how specific demographic characteristics might mediate these effects. The findings of this study provided valuable insights into the repercussions of fake news on college students. It was discovered that exposure to fake news significantly influenced students' political views, often leading to polarization and misinformation-driven beliefs. Moreover, the impact on their educational endeavors was evident, as the spread of fake news could disrupt critical thinkin...

PAMELA MARIE O . TAGUM

Beyond Logical Errors: Preliminary Evidence for the “Looming Vulnerability Distortions Questionnaire” of Cognitive-Perceptual Distortions in Anxiety

Original Article
Published: 21 May 2023
Volume 47 , pages 802–822, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

John H. Riskind ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1565-6021 1 &
Esther Calvete 2

476 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In cognitive models, faulty threat appraisals that are associated with threat cognitions in anxiety are frequently seen as the outcome of logical errors. The looming vulnerability model expands upon such views by emphasizing the role of perceptual and phenomenological distortions in threat estimation. It assumes that anxiety is associated with cognitive-perceptual distortions of time, space, and movement (e.g., space and time compression) that heighten the subjective impression that threats are rapidly approaching, even when they aren’t. The present study was undertaken to develop an easy-to-administer and implement self-report measure to assess such perceptual distortions.

University students ( N = 751; 71% female) completed a battery of online questionnaires that included the Looming Vulnerability Distortions Questionnaire (LVDQ) and measures of the looming cognitive style (LCS), cognitive distortions, social desirability, anxiety, worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and depression.

A bifactor ESEM model displayed excellent fit indices and reliability for the LVDQ. Although the results provided strongest support for the use of a general score over specific subscales, they also support the secondary use of some specific scores for some types of distortions. The LVDQ uniquely predicted variance in LCS, anxiety, worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and depression. Moreover, both the LVDQ and LCS also uniquely predicted scores on a face-valid lab-based task, not explained by logical reasoning distortions.

Conclusions

These results support the idea that the LVDQ is a valid measure of cognitive-perceptual distortions associated with anxiety and indicate that it predicts unique variance in anxiety and other emotional distress not explained by a typical measure of logical errors. Clinical implications and future directions are discussed.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Looming Cognitive Style Contributes to Etiological Processes in Anxiety Disorders

Unscrambling the Dynamics of Danger: Scientific Foundations and Evidence for the Looming Vulnerability Model and Looming Cognitive Style in Anxiety

Looming Cognitive Style and Its Associations with Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-analysis

Adler, A. D., & Strunk, D. R. (2010). Looming maladaptive style as a moderator of risk factors for anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34 , 59–68.

Article Google Scholar

Altan-Atalay, A., & Ayvaşık, H. B. (2019). Antecedents of looming cognitive style: Associations with reported perceived parenting and attachment. Psychological Reports, 122 , 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117750631

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16 (3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Ball, W., & Tronick, E. (1971). Infant response to impending collision: Optical and real. Science, 171 , 818–820.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bar-Haim, Y., Kerem, A., Lamy, D., & Zakay, D. (2010). When time slows down: The influence of threat on time perception in anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 24 (2), 255–263.

Basanovic, J., Dean, L., Riskind, J. H., & MacLeod, C. (2019). High spider-fearful and low spider-fearful individuals differentially perceive the speed of approaching, but not receding, spider stimuli. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 43 , 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-9970-1

Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56 , 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00092-4

Boulet, J., & Boss, M. W. (1991). Reliability and validity of the brief symptom inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3 (3), 433–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.433

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the english version. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 40 , 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00092-4

Calvete, E., Gamez-Guadix, M., & Garcia-Salvador, S. (2015). Social information processing in child-to-parent aggression: Bidirectional associations in a 1-year prospective study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 , 2204–2216.

Calvete, E., Riskind, J. H., Orue, I., & Gonzalez-Diez, Z. (2016). Recursive associations among maladaptive cognitions and symptoms of social anxiety and depression: Implications for sex differences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35 , 807–821.

Card, G., & Dickenson, M. H. (2008). Visually mediated motor planning in the escape response of Drosophila. Current Biology, 18 , 1300–1307.

Carnahan, N. D., Carter, M. M., & Sbrocco, T. (2022). Intolerance of uncertainty, looming cognitive style, and avoidant coping as predictors of anxiety and depression during COVID-19: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 15 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41811-021-00123-9

Carr, A. T. (1974). Compulsive neurosis: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 81 , 311–318.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 , 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (2010). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: Science and practice . Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Clerkin, E., Cody, M. W., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Teachman, B. A. (2009). Imagery and fear influence height perception. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23 , 381–386.

Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2013). Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychological Science., 24 (1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446953

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Covin, R., Dozois, D. J. A., Ogniewicz, A., & Seeds, P. M. (2011). Measuring cognitive errors: Initial development of the cognitive distortions scale (CDS). International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 4 , 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2011.4.3.297

Cox, B. J., Cohen, E., Direnfeld, D. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1996). Does the beck anxiety inventory measure anything beyond panic attack symptoms? Behavior Research and Therapy, 34 , 949–954.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67 (3), 993–1002.

Davis, J. I., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Psychological distance and emotional experience: What you see is what you get. Emotion, 11 , 438–444.

Derogatis, L. R. (1992). The brief symptom inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring & procedures manual-II . Towson: Clinical Psychometric Research.

Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13 (3), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700048017

Dill, L. M. (1990). Distance-to-cover and the escape decisions of an African cichlid fish, Melanochromis chipokae . Environmental Biology of Fishes, 27 , 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00001944

Dreyer-Oren, S. E., Clerkin, E. M., Edwards, C. B., Teachman, B. A., & , Steinman, S.A. (2019). Believing is seeing: Changes in visual perception following treatment for height fear. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 62 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.08.001

Droit-Volet, S., Fayolle, S. L., & Gil, S. (2011). Emotion and time perception: effects of film-induced mood. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00033

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Effron, D. A., Niedenthal, P. M., Gil, S., & Droit-Volet, S. (2006). Embodied temporal perception of emotion. Emotion, 6 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.1

Elwood, L. S., Riskind, J. H., & Olatunji, B. O. (2011). Looming vulnerability: Incremental validity of a fearful cognitive distortion in contamination fears. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35 , 40–47.

Etkin, J., Evangelidis, I., & Aaker, J. (2015). Pressed for time? Goal conflict shapes how time is perceived, spent, and valued. Journal of Marketing Research, 52 , 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0130

Fayolle, S., Gil, S., & Droit-Volet, S. (2015). Fear and time: Fear speeds up the internal clock. Behavioural Processes, 120 , 135–140.

Feusner, J. D., Hembacher, E., Moller, H., & Moody, T. D. (2011). Abnormalities of object visual processing in body dysmorphic disorder. Psychological Medicine, 41 , 2385–2397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000572

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99 , 20–35.

Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2003). Moving and looming stimuli capture attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 65 , 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194829

Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17 , 791–802.

Givon-Benjio, N., & Okon-Singer, H. (2020). Biased estimations of interpersonal distance in non-clinical social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 69 , 102171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102171

González Díez, Z., Calvete, E., Riskind, J. H., & Orue, I. (2015). Test of an hypothesized structural model of the relationships between cognitive style and social anxiety: A 12-month prospective study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 30 , 59–65.

Greenblatt-Kimron, L., & Cohen, M. (2020). The role of cognitive processing in the relationship of posttraumatic stress symptoms and depression among older Holocaust survivors: A moderated-mediation model. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 33 , 59–74.

Gwilliam, G. F. (1963). The mechanism of the shadow reflex in Cirripedia I: Electrical activity in the supraesophageal ganglion and ocellar nerve. The Biological Bulletin, 125 , 470–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/1539360

Haeffel, G. J., Gibb, B. E., Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., Metalsky, G. I., Joiner, T., Hankin, B. L., & Swendsen, J. (2008). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression: Development and validation of the cognitive style questionnaire. Clinical Psychology Review, 28 , 824–836.

Hammer J. & Toland M. (2016). Bifactor analysis in Mplus [Video file]. Retrieved from http://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/upcoming-events/

Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81

Holmes, E. A., & Mathews, A. (2010). Mental imagery in emotion and emotional disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 30 , 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.001 . Epub 2010 Jan 18 PMID: 20116915.

Ji, J. L., Heyes, S. B., MacLeod, C., & Holmes, E. A. (2016). Emotional mental imagery as simulation of reality: Fear and beyond-a tribute to Peter Lang. Behaviour Therapy, 47 , 702–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.11.004

Judd, A., Sim, J., Cho, J., Muhlenen, A., & Lleras, A. (2004). Motion perception, awareness and attention effects with looming motion. Journal of Vision, 4 , 608–608. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.608

Katz, D., Rector, N. A., & Riskind, J. (2017). Reduction in looming cognitive style in cognitive-behavioral therapy: Effect on post-treatment symptoms across anxiety disorders and within generalized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 10 (4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2017.10.4.346

Kleiman, E. M., & Riskind, J. H. (2012). Cognitive vulnerability to comorbidity: Looming cognitive style and depressive cognitive style as synergistic predictors of anxiety and depression symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43 (4), 1109–1114.

Kleiman, E. M., & Riskind, J. H. (2014). Negative cognitive style and looming cognitive style synergistically predict stress generation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 27 , 347–369.

Langer, J., Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1961). The effect of danger upon the perception of time. American Journal of Psychology, 74 , 94–97.

Langer, J., Werner, H., & Wapner, S. (1965). Apparent speed of walking under conditions of danger. Journal of General Psychology, 73 , 291–298.

Leibovich, T., Cohen, N., & Henik, A. (2016). Itsy bitsy spider? Valence and self-relevance predict size estimation. Biological Psychology, 121 , 138–145.

Liu, T., Ode, S., Moeller, S. K., & Robinson, M. D. (2013). Neuroticism as distancing: Perceptual sources of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (5), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031969

Markon, K. E. (2019). Bifactor and hierarchical models: Specification, inference, and interpretation. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15 , 51–69.

McGuire, A., Ciersdorff, A., Gillath, O., et al. (2021). Effects of cognitive load and type of object on the visual looming bias. Attention, Perception and Psychophysiology, 83 , 1508–1517. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02271-8

Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn state worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28 , 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6

Milovanović, T., Ajanović, A., & Živčić-Bećirević, I. (2022). The role of mother’s looming cognitive style, mother’s behaviour and stressful life events in children’s anxiety and depression. Psychological Topics, 31 (2), 259–276.

Mobbs, D., Yu, R., Rowe, J. B., Eich, H., FeldmanHall, O., & Dalgleish, T. (2010). Neural activity associated with monitoring the oscillating threat value of a tarantula. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S a., 107 , 20582–20586. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009076107 . Epub 2010 Nov 8 PMID: 21059963.

Morin, A. J., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23 (1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800

Muhlberger, A., Neumann, R., Wieser, M. J., & Pauli, P. (2008). The impact of changes in spatial distance on emotional responses. Emotion, 8 , 192–198.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2021). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

Özdel, K., Taymur, I., Guriz, S. O., Tulaci, R. G., Kuru, E., & Türkçapar, M. H. (2014). Measuring cognitive errors using the cognitive distortions scale (CDS): Psychometric properties in clinical and non-clinical samples. PLoS ONE, 9 (8), e105956–e105956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105956

Parker, A., & Alais, D. (2007). A bias for looming stimuli to predominate in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 47 , 2661–2674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.06.019

Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding. Retrieved from D. L. Paulhus, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y7

Paulhus, D. L., & Lim, D. T. K. (1994). Arousal and evaluative extremity in social judgements: A dynamic complexity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24 , 89–99.

Pilz, K. S., Vuong, Q. C., Bülthoff, H. H., & Thornton, I. M. (2011). Walk this way: Approaching bodies can influence the processing of faces. Cognition, 118 , 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.004

Rachman, S. J., & Cuk, M. (1992). Fearful distortions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30 , 583–589.

Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35 , 741–756.

Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73 (1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.34.1.41

Riskind, J. H., Abreu, K., Strauss, M., & Holt, R. (1997). Looming vulnerability to spreading contamination in subclinical OCD. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35 , 405–414.

Riskind, J. H., Black, D., & Shahar, G. (2010). Cognitive vulnerability to anxiety in the stress generation process: Interaction between the looming cognitive style and anxiety sensitivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24 , 124–128.

Riskind, J. H., Calvete, E., & Black, D. (2017a). Effects of looming cognitive style and time course on anxiety about an impending speech. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36 , 814–834.

Riskind, J. H., Calvete, E., Gonzalez, Z., Orue, I., Kleiman, E. M., & Shahar, G. (2013). Direct and mediated pathways of looming cognitive style on social anxiety, depression, and hostility: An SEM study. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1 , 73–85.

Riskind, J. H., Kelly, K., Moore, R., Harman, W., & Gaines, H. (1992). The looming of danger: Does it discriminate focal phobia and general anxiety from depression? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16 , 1–20.

Riskind, J. H., Kleiman, E. M., Seifritz, E., & Neuhoff, J. (2014). Influence of anxiety, depression and looming cognitive style on auditory looming perception. Journal of Anxiety Disorders., 28 , 45–50.

Riskind, J. H., Moore, R., & Bowley, L. (1995). The looming of spiders: The fearful perceptual distortion of movement and menace. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33 , 171–178.

Riskind, J. H., & Rector, N. A. (2007). Beyond belief: Incremental prediction of OCD by looming vulnerability illusions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 21 , 243–256.

Riskind, J. H., & Rector, N. A. (2018). Looming vulnerability: Theory, research and practice . Springer Nature.

Book Google Scholar

Riskind, J. H., Rector, N. A., & Taylor, S. (2012). Looming cognitive vulnerability to anxiety and its reduction in psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 22 , 137–162.

Riskind, J. H., Sagliano, L., Trojano, L., & Conson, M. (2016). Dysfunctional freezing responses to approaching stimuli in persons with a looming cognitive style for physical threats. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00521

Riskind, J. H., Sica, C., Bottesi, G., Ghisi, M., & Kashdan, T. D. (2017b). Cognitive vulnerabilities in parents as a risk factor for anxiety symptoms in young adult offspring: An exploration of looming cognitive style. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 54 , 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.08.010

Riskind, J. H., Sica, C., Caudek, C., Bottessi, G., Disabato, D. J., & Ghia, M. (2021). Looming cognitive style more consistently predicts anxiety than depressive symptoms: Evidence from a 3-wave yearlong study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 45 , 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-020-10189-y

Riskind, J. H., Tzur, D., Williams, N., Mann, B., & Shahar, G. (2007). Short-term predictive effects of the looming cognitive style on anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45 , 1765–1777.

Riskind, J. H., & Williams, N. L. (1999). Cognitive case conceptualization and the treatment of anxiety disorders: Implications of the looming vulnerability model. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13 , 295–316.

Riskind, J. H., Williams, N. L., Gessner, T., Chrosniak, L. D., & Cortina, J. (2000). The looming maladaptive style: Anxiety, danger, and schematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 837–852.

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21 (2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045

Shafir, T., Taylor, S. F., Atkinson, A. P., Langenecker, S. A., & Zubieta, J.-K. (2013). Emotion regulation through execution, observation, and imagery of emotional movements. Brain and Cognition, 82 , 219–227.

Shiban, Y., Fruth, M. B., Pauli, P., Kinateder, M., Reichenberger, J., & Mühlberger, A. (2016). Treatment effect on biases in size estimation in spider phobia. Biological Psychology, 121 , 146–152.

Sica, C., Caudek, C., Chiri, L. R., Ghisi, M., & Marchetti, I. (2012). “Not just right experiences” predict obsessive-compulsive symptoms in non-clinical Italian individuals: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 1 , 159–167.

Teachman, B. A., Stefanucci, J. K., Clerkin, E. M., Cody, M. W., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). A new mode of fear expression: Perceptual bias in height fear. Emotion, 8 (2), 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.296

Tolin, D. F., Worhunsky, P., & Maltby, N. (2004). Sympathetic magic in contamination-related OCD. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35 , 193–205.

Vagnoni, E., Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2012). Threat modulates perception of looming visual stimuli. Current Biology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.053 . PMID: 23058796.

Van Wassenhove, V., Wittmann, M., Craig, A. D., & Paulus, M. P. (2011). Psychological and neural mechanisms of subjective time dilation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5 , 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2011.00056

Vasey, M. W., Vilensky, M. R., Heath, J. H., Harbaugh, C. N., Buffington, A. G., & Fazio, R. H. (2012). It was as big as my head, I swear! Biased spider size estimation in spider phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26 , 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.08.009

Waldman, A., Loomes, R., Mountford, V. A., et al. (2013). Attitudinal and perceptual factors in body image distortion: An exploratory study in patients with anorexia nervosa. Journal of Eating Disorders, 1 , 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-2974-1-17

Watkins, M. W. (2013). Omega . [Computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates.

Watts, F. N., & Sharrock, R. (1984). Fear and time estimation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59 (2), 597–598.

Westby, G. W. M., Keay, K. A., Redgrave, P., Dean, P., & Bannister, M. (1990). Output pathways from the rat superior colliculus mediating approach and avoidance have different sensory properties. Experimental Brain Research, 81 , 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02423513

Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2013). Spiders appear to move faster than non-threatening objects regardless of one’s ability to block them. Acta Psychologica, 143 (3), 284–291.

Yeo, G. C., Hong, R. Y., & Riskind, J. H. (2020). Looming cognitive style and its associations with anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 44 , 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-020-10089-1

Zamani, E., Akbari, M., Mohammadkhani, S., Riskind, J. H., Drake, C. L., & Palagini, L. (2021). The relationship of neuroticism with sleep quality: The mediating role of emotional. Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors, Behavioral Sleep Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2021.1888730

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Julian Basanovic for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the Basque Country (Ref. IT1532-22).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

John H. Riskind

University of Deusto, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain

Esther Calvete

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Riskind .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

John H. Riskind and Esther Calvete declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (national and institutional).

Animal Rights Statements

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 KB)

Appendix: lvdq questionnaire.

Instructions:

In this questionnaire, we are studying different types of thinking that people have when are anxious or worry about situations. For every type of thinking listed below, there will be three examples–one dealing with social relationships, one dealing with personal achievement (in jobs, school, or career), and one dealing with physical threats. We would like you to do your best to read and understand what each of these types of thinking is like. You will be asked to estimate how often you engage in each type of thinking in the three categories described above (social, achievement, and physical). Please consider each of your answers carefully.

* Size Distortion

When people see something or someone that is possibly threatening or makes them uncomfortable (e.g., an angry boss, a spider, a stain on their shirt when in public), they sometimes perceive the threat to be physically larger or bigger in size than it is.

Social Situation Example. Clark sees a stain on his shirt when in public and sees the stain as much bigger than it actually is.

Please estimate how often you engage in size distortion when in social situations (like when you’re with friends, partners, family or in public).

Achievement Situation Example. Jack is called into his boss’ office to talk about a recent mistake that he just made. Jack sees his boss is much bigger in size than is true. Please estimate how often you engage in size distortion when in achievement situations (such as in school or work).

Physical Threat Situation. When Kelly sees a spider on the other side of the room, the spider seems much bigger in size than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in size distortion when in when in situations that seem physically threatening.

* Space Compression

People sometimes perceive the amount of distance or physical space between themselves and something or someone that is threatening as being smaller and closer than it is.

To illustrate this, please read the following passages:

Social Situation Example. While at a party, Neil sees the romantic partner that he just broke-up with glaring angrily at him from 10 feet away. She looks like she is ready to start a fight and Neil sees her as standing much closer than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in Space Compression when in social situations (like when you’re with friends, partners, family or in public)).

Achievement Situation Example. Phil gets called into his boss’ office to talk about Phil’s recent mistakes. He experiences boss as sitting closer than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in Space Compression when in achievement situations (such as in school or work).

Physical Threat Situation Example. When leaving her tent while camping, Nora sees a large snake. The snake is several yards away, but she sees it as being much closer than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in Space Compression when in situations that seem physically threatening.

*Misperceiving Threats as Physically Moving Closer

People may see potentially threatening things as moving closer and physically approaching them when this is not the case.

Social Example. While grocery shopping, Beth sees someone who recently said ugly and insulting things to her. She sees the person as physically moving in her direction even though they aren’t.

Please estimate how often you engage in the misperceiving threats as approaching distortion when in social situations (like when you’re with friends, partners, family or in public)).

Achievement Example. Rick’s boss moves into the hallway by his office as Rick is playing a game on his computer. Rick sees her as walking towards him more than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in the misperceiving threats as approaching distortion when in achievement situations (such as in school or work).

Potential Physical Threat Example. When visiting a neighborhood park, Brad notices a large stray dog and is unsure whether it is dangerous. Brad sees it as moving closer to him more than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in the misperceiving threats as approaching when in situations that seem physically threatening.

* Time Compression

People sometimes experience the closeness (or distance) in time between themselves and an event that is threatening to them as or that makes them uncomfortable as smaller than it is.

Social Situation Example. Monty just remembers that he has forgotten to get his good friend a gift for his wedding that is coming up in three weeks. Despite the fact that Monty has plenty of time, he experiences the wedding as if it were going to occur more soon than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in time compression when in social situations (like when you’re with friends, partners, family or in public)).

Achievement Situation Example. Erica has weeks to finish a project for work that is important to her career. Despite the fact that she has plenty of time, she experiences the deadline as it were only a week away.

Please estimate how often you engage in time compression when in achievement situations (such as in school or work).

Potential Physical Threat Example. Julia is terrified of flying and has an airplane flight ticket to fly in three weeks. Despite the three weeks, she experiences the date of her flight as if it were much closer than is true.

Please estimate how often you engage in time compression when in situations that seem physically threatening.

*ALL-at-Once Distortion

People may experience a number of independent or unique things that they are worried about in the future, as though they will come all at once.

Social Situation Example. Sarah has an important date with someone new next week, a party she needs to plan for her friend’s graduation in a month, and a difficult visit with family members in six months. DESPITE the distance in time between the different events Sarah experiences them as if she has to deal with them all- at- once.

Achievement Situation Example. Larry has a work project due next week, a job review he’s concerned about in a month, and is getting a new boss he doesn’t know in six months. Despite the distance in time between the events, Larry feels as if he has to deal with all of the events at the same time.

Physical Threat Situation. Jonah will be going on a difficult fitness test he is nervous about during the next two weeks, a long and uncomfortable trip in a month, and major surgery in six months. In spite of the distance in time between the events, Jonah experiences the events as if he has to deal with them all at the same time.

* Experiencing Times as Moving Faster Than It Is

When confronted with a potentially threatening or unpleasant situation, people often experience time as passing far more quickly than is actually the case.

Social Situation Example. Jim agreed to speak at his best friend’s wedding despite a fear of public speaking. As the date approaches, he feels like time is going by much faster than it is.

Achievement Situation Example. Jane could fail to make the course grade she needs if she doesn’t get a good grade on an exam that is coming up. As she thinks about the coming exam, she experiences time as passing by faster than is true.

Physical Threat Situation. Jake is in the middle of the street and sees a car coming. Despite the fact that Jake has plenty of time to get across the street to safety, he experiences time as passing by much faster than it is.

* Odds Rising Too Rapidly

People sometimes see the odds (or chances) of feared or dreaded things occurring as increasing faster than is true as the events approach.

Achievement Situation Example. Shelly waits for someone to arrive for their first date which starts in 20 min. As each minute passes, she feels more and more convinced that the date will probably go badly.

Becky is about to take a big exam in 30 min that she must pass to get a job. She has the skill, but as each minute passes she gets more convinced that she will probably fail.

Dan is waiting for test results that will determine whether or not he needs to go to the hospital for a painful surgery. As each minute passes while he waits, he becomes increasingly convinced that he will probably need the surgery.

*Time Moving Too Slowly

When facing threatening or uncomfortable situations, people may experience time as passing more slowly than appears natural, causing them to perceive time as practically stationary and standing still.

Social Situation Example. Diana has delivered some painful news to a friend. While waiting for the friend to respond, she experiences time as if is moving is standing still and moving in extreme slow motion.

Achievement Situation Example. While Andrew is waiting for a job interview to begin, he experiences time as if it is standing still and each moment as it is taking forever.

Physical Threat Situation. As Allison finds that her car is skidding and sliding on a wet road, see sees that she is just about to hit a bus. As she watches, she experiences time as if it is moving in extreme slow motion.

* Minimizing Intervening Events

When people worry that an event could happen in the future, they sometimes overlook many other factors that could affect the outcome.

Social Situation Example. Mark hears the beginnings of a rumor that could cause harm to his reputation. He doesn’t consider that others may not hear the rumor or believe the rumor or keep spreading the rumor.

Achievement Situation Example. After failing her first-class exam, Anne feels she is sure to fail the whole class. She overlooks the fact that she would need to fail all her other exams and well as neglect all her future homework and final project to fail the course.

Physical Threat Situation. After Bailey hears about a house robbery nearby, she fears sure that the robber will break into her house. She doesn’t consider that the there are many other houses in the neighborhood that the robber can break into, and that the robber can move on to other neighborhoods or caught soon.

* Minimizing Coping Time

People sometimes perceive that they don’t have enough time to influence events when, in fact, they do.

Social Situation Example. Sally will host her sister’s graduation party in a month. She has plenty of time but experiences herself as having less time than is true.

Achievement Situation Example. Sean has to pass an upcoming exam. Although he has plenty of time, he experiences self as having too little time to prepare.

Physical Threat Situation. Carla sees a large wasp at rest on the wall on the other side of the room. She has plenty of time to get away, but she experiences herself as not having enough time to do this.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Riskind, J.H., Calvete, E. Beyond Logical Errors: Preliminary Evidence for the “Looming Vulnerability Distortions Questionnaire” of Cognitive-Perceptual Distortions in Anxiety. Cogn Ther Res 47 , 802–822 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-023-10370-z

Download citation

Accepted : 26 March 2023

Published : 21 May 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-023-10370-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Looming vulnerability distortions
Estimation biases
Threat estimation
Cognitive-perceptual distortions in anxiety
Perceptual distortions in anxiety
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning in Relation to (Dis)trust in Conspiracy Theories

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The tendency to believe in conspiracy theories (implying secret and malevolent plots by scheming groups or individuals), incites growing decennial interest among psychological researchers (exploring the associated personality traits, worldviews and cognitive styles of people). The link between the conspiratorial beliefs and the cognitive styles remains of particular interest to scholars, requiring integrated theoretical considerations. This perspective article will focus on the relationship between the propensity to (dis)trust conspiracy theories and three cognitive styles: analytic thinking, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. Analytic thinking (inclination toward slow and deliberate processing of information in a conscious effort to mitigate biases and reach objective understanding of facts), is a well-studied concept in the context of conspiratorial beliefs, while the negative mutual relationship seems well-evidenced. On the other hand, the evidence on the link with the critical thinking (readiness to consider, reason, appraise, review, and interpret facts to update existing beliefs) has only started to emerge in the last years. Finally, scientific reasoning (ability to apply principles of scientific inquiry to formulate, test, revise and update knowledge in accordance with new evidence), is the least studied of the three cognitive styles in relation to conspiracy theories. The present article will: (a) revise the (lack of) scientific consensus on the definitional and conceptual aspects (by providing theoretical framework); (b) summarize the state of the art on the subject (by providing overview of empirical evidence); (c) discuss directions for future research (especially in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic). An integrated perspective on the relationship between conspiratorial beliefs and cognitive styles of people, may serve to inspire future behavioral interventions.

1. Introduction

One of the powerful academic portrayals of a world filled with conspiracies, depicts an inhospitable environment, dominated by “ a gigantic and yet subtle machinery of influence set in motion to undermine and destroy a way of life ” (Hofstadter, 1964 , p. 29). This portrait however, pertains less to the external world, and more to some internal worldviews. Hence, it is not a depiction, but a reflection of sorts, offering a glimpse into the mental states of people with pronounced tendency to endorse conspiratorial narratives as explanations for important events, and cultivate persistent beliefs that powerful others are secretly plotting to harm them (Hofstadter, 1964 ; Moscovici, 1987 ; Goertzel, 1994 ; Swami et al., 2011 ; Bruder et al., 2013 ; Wood and Douglas, 2015 ; van der Linden et al., 2021 ).

Interestingly, conspiratorial narratives are often regarded as both a most probable scenario (by people who subscribe to conspiratorial beliefs) and a least probable account of events (by others). In a similar fashion, people who are inclined toward conspiratorial thinking might believe to be “critical freethinkers” themselves (Lantian et al., 2021 ), while being regarded as gullible by others (van Prooijen, 2019 ). Psychological researchers have intensified their effort to understand the complexities of these radically opposing perceptions, and in doing so have amassed an impressive body of knowledge on personality traits, cognitive styles and worldviews that are frequently associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories (for an overview see Douglas et al., 2017 ; Goreis and Voracek, 2019 ; Lantian et al., 2020 ). However, the topic remains complex, multilayered and intricate, with real-life implications for individuals, groups and whole societies. This has been especially evident in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic during which the so-called “contagious conspiracism” has been a prominent feature of the global cultural landscape (Sturm and Albrecht, 2021 ) and has negatively affected the health of many citizens worldwide (Freeman et al., 2020 ; Jolley and Paterson, 2020 ; Marinthe et al., 2020 ). To adequately tackle the problem, it is the belief of this author that a joint effort by experts in several psychological disciplines (including social, political, educational, personality, and cognitive psychology) is required. Thus far, cognitive and educational psychologists together with philosophers have mainly focused on postulating conceptual frameworks of cognition and rationality (Stanovich and Stanovich, 2010 ; Díaz et al., 2021 ), while social and political psychologists have mainly directed their effort toward experimental investigations of the conspiratorial beliefs.

The present article outlines a unified perspective on susceptibility to (dis)trust conspiracy theories, in relation to three distinctive cognitive styles: analytic thinking, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Specifically, the study addresses three crucial questions:

What is the appropriate scientific model to use when researching the three cognitive styles, considered in reference to the psychological research on conspiratorial beliefs? An integrated theoretical framework (with clear and delineated definitions), will be introduced in response to this question. This is as a novel perspective on the explored subject matter.
What are some of the most important contributions in psychological literature on the link between the conspiratorial beliefs and the three cognitive styles? A broad overview of existing evidence (highlighting most important findings), will be offered in response to this question.
What is the potential for applying findings from psychological research on conspiracy theories to benefit our daily lives? In the concluding section, existing methodology and potential implications will be discussed, with hopes they will serve to inspire future behavioral interventions and inform public policies.

Henceforth, the term “conspiratorial beliefs” (Goertzel, 1994 ) will be used as an umbrella for other labels that are frequently utilized in psychological literature on conspiracy theories including: “conspiracist ideation” (Swami et al., 2011 ), “conspiracy mentality” (Bruder et al., 2013 ), “conspiratorial mindset” (Moscovici, 1987 ; van der Linden et al., 2021 ), or “conspiratorial worldview” (Wood and Douglas, 2015 ). Therefore, the term will imply a “monological belief system,” Goertzel ( 1994 ) marked by a general propensity to believe in conspiracy theories, rather than a content-specific belief (Sternisko et al., 2020 ) in a particular conspiracy theory (Sutton and Douglas, 2020 ).

The term “cognitive styles” is also used in a variety of related contexts within psychological research on conspiracy theories (Georgiou et al., 2019 ; Ballová Mikušková and Čavojová, 2020 ; Lantian et al., 2020 ). The basic description however, is borrowed from a comprehensive review of psychological studies on cognitive styles (Kozhevnikov, 2007 ) to outline “a psychological dimension representing consistencies in an individual's manner of cognitive functioning” (ibid, p. 464). As such, cognitive styles are relatively stable, partly fixed and innate. However, they are not entirely “inborn structures, dependent only on an individual's internal characteristics, but, rather, are interactive constructs that develop in response to social, educational, professional, and other environmental requirements” (ibid, p. 477). Hence, they are “complex, multifaceted psychological variables that affect the way a person prefers to process information” and refer “to the way people solve problems, make decisions and undertake tasks” (Peterson et al., 2009 , p. 521). In the present article the label will be used in reference to analytic thinking, critical thinking and scientific reasoning .

Each of the three cognitive styles is guided by rationality and goals for reliable information processing, decision making, and problem solving , and they all rely on thinking dispositions, metacognitive strategies, and advanced cognitive skills (Halpern, 1998 ; Dunbar and Fugelsang, 2005 ; Ku and Ho, 2010 ). The dispositional tendencies direct the execution of tasks, metacognitive strategies regulate execution of tasks, while advanced cognitive skills enable acquisition, retention and transfer of knowledge from executed tasks (Ku and Ho, 2010 ). In this regard, metacognitive strategies and advanced cognitive skills are highly reminiscent of the term “mindware” that is used in reference to “rules, knowledge, procedures, and strategies” that can be retrieved from memory to assist in decision making and problem solving processes (Stanovich and Stanovich, 2010 , p. 215).

2. Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning: An Integrated Theoretical Framework

First, let us focus on the three cognitive styles, by providing definitions of terms, clear descriptions of their meanings, and delineation of mutual relationships.

Analytic thinking predominantly implies proneness to engage in a slow, controlled and deliberate processing of information. The thinking disposition is engaged to mitigate biases and establish reliable understanding of facts (Sloman, 1996 ; Kahneman and Frederick, 2002 ; Kozhevnikov, 2007 ; Franssens and De Neys, 2009 ; Kahneman, 2011 ).
Critical thinking implies readiness and willingness to (re)consider, reason, (re)appraise, review and interpret facts, in order to facilitate good judgment, and secure reliable updating of beliefs (Lai, 2011 ). It contains the three components (Halpern, 1998 ), but is probably most reliant on the disposition toward analytic thinking and the metacognitive strategies for repeated engagement in analytic thinking . This might be the reason why critical thinking is described as “a self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking” (Elder and Paul, 2000 , p. 29).
Scientific reasoning also comprises of the three components, but is especially dependent on the advanced cognitive skills . It includes induction, deduction, analogy, causal reasoning, and other competencies which are employed for the purposes of scientific inquiry and problem solving during the critical thinking processes. They help people formulate, test, and revise hypotheses to solve problems, as a way to integrate new evidence into their existing system of knowledge (Dunbar and Fugelsang, 2005 ; Han, 2013 ; Díaz et al., 2021 ).

The proposed theoretical framework is informed by existing social psychological research, and conceptualized in consultation with related literature from cognitive psychology, educational psychology and philosophy (see corresponding references above). Most notably, the proposed tripartite model of cognitive styles (including analytic thinking, critical thinking and scientific reasoning), could be considered as complementary to the existing tripartite model of the mind (including the autonomous, algorithmic and reflective mind) by Stanovich and Stanovich ( 2010 ). Specifically, the three cognitive styles rise above the basic cognitive abilities as “microstrategies for cognitive operations” (Stanovich and Stanovich, 2010 , p. 215), since they are driven by goals, beliefs and general knowledge. Therefore, the three cognitive styles are also related to the concept of rationality, providing an upgraded and fine-grained perspective on the properties of the reflective mind.

In addition to advancing the existing model by Stanovich and Stanovich ( 2010 ), the proposed framework is useful in shedding light on the hierarchical organization of cognitive styles and their hypothetical relationships ( Figure 1 ). Namely, the three cognitive styles can be represented within a nested structure, with analytic thinking considered as a lowest-order and broadest construct (comprising of most general set of dispositions, metacognitive strategies and advanced skills), while the scientific reasoning considered as a narrowest and highest-order construct (comprising a most specialized subset of the three).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-736838-g0001.jpg

Conceptual framework of cognitive styles: analytic thinking (the broadest and lowest in order), critical thinking, and scientific reasoning (the narrowest and highest in order) are conceptualized as related and nestled constructs.

Specifically, analytic thinking and critical thinking can be considered as neighboring but distinct cognitive styles (Lantian et al., 2021 ), with the former usually referred as a broader set of the latter. In critical thinking, the general tendency for slow, deliberate, explicit (Kahneman and Frederick, 2002 ; Kahneman, 2011 ), detail-oriented (Kozhevnikov, 2007 ) and resource-demanding analysis (Franssens and De Neys, 2009 ), is coupled with more elaborate dispositions and metacognitive strategies, sometimes referred as a “mindware” (Stanovich and Stanovich, 2010 ). These include the critical thinking dispositions for persistent, honest, clear, caring and concerned pursuit of the truth (Ennis, 1996 ), the instrumental rationality (as motivation to achieve one's goals) and the epistemic rationality (as motivation to endorse evidence-based beliefs, but refrain from beliefs that are unfounded) (Kelly, 2003 ).

In this framework, and as seen on Figure 1 , critical thinking and scientific reasoning can also be considered as related yet separate constructs, with the latter understood as a subset of the former (Dowd et al., 2018 ). Broadly speaking, the acts of thinking and reasoning differ in that thinking involves more general cognitive processes for systemic transformation of mental representation of knowledge, while reasoning includes specialized cognitive processes aimed at drawing conclusions from initial premises (Holyoak and Morrison, 2005 ; Díaz et al., 2021 ). More specifically, the acts of critical thinking and scientific reasoning also differ from each other. The former is related to interpretation of facts, updating of beliefs, making sound judgments and delivering reliable decisions . On the other hand, scientific reasoning is related to evaluation of facts, updating of knowledge and problem solving strategies . Overall, critical thinking is grounded in principles of logical inquiry, while scientific reasoning in scientific principles and methods (Zimmerman, 2007 ).

Scientific reasoning in particular, encompasses a specialized subset of advanced cognitive abilities, metacognitive strategies and thinking dispositions that permeate the field of science, and include (but may not be limited to) the following operations: exploration of a problem (i.e., identification of main variables and their mutual relationships via inductive and deductive reasoning), generation of hypotheses (i.e., concept formation, formulation of premises and expected outcomes), hypothesis testing (i.e., isolation, controlling and manipulation of variables via experimentation), and evaluation of consequences (Dunbar and Fugelsang, 2005 ; Han, 2013 ). Scientific reasoning is important for individuals, because it improves their ability to formulate, test, revise and update knowledge. The societal benefits are evident across all levels of education, career opportunities and daily social interactions that require problem solving competencies (Han, 2013 ). Nonetheless, its relationship with conspiratorial beliefs remains scarcely explored (as explained in the following section).

3. Cognitive Styles and Conspiratorial Beliefs: An Overview of Empirical Evidence

Next, let us consider the link between the cognitive styles described in section 2 and conspiratorial beliefs. All three styles are essential for reliable interpretation of events, and making sense of one's environment. Broadly speaking, analytic thinking helps us to discern a truth from a lie or a fact from a fiction (in everyday processing of information), critical thinking helps us to decide whether to believe or not an (un)reliable information (when making decisions and judgments), while scientific reasoning helps us to gain wholesome understanding of the observed subject matter (by solving problems and finding solutions). A failure in any of these domains might be associated with increased conspiracism, because it is a signal of “crippled epistemology” (Vermeule and Sunstein, 2009 ). This has already been evidenced in literature on flawed heuristics, cognitive biases and logical fallacies. The prominent examples include the tendency to perceive illusory patterns (Prooijen et al., 2018 ; van der Wal et al., 2018 ), the illusion of explanatory depth (Vitriol and Marsh, 2018 ), and the proneness toward conjunction fallacy (Brotherton and French, 2014 ), all of which have been associated with conspiratorial beliefs. On a more complex level, people with pronounced propensity toward conspiracy theories, also exhibited a tendency to endorse belief systems that are epistemically unsubstantiated. These include supernatural, superstitious, spiritualistic, paranormal, pseudo-scientific beliefs, paranoid and schizotypal ideations (Hofstadter, 1964 ; Darwin et al., 2011 ; Barron et al., 2014 ; Lobato et al., 2014 ; Georgiou et al., 2019 ; van Prooijen, 2019 ).

The (bi)directionality and the causality of these relationships is still unclear, given the limitations of the conducted studies (as explained in the discussion). On one hand, it seems plausible to assume that flawed heuristics and faulty reasoning, would result with increased tendency to believe in conspiratorial narratives. In this case, many strategies to improve analytic, critical and scientific thinking or reasoning, would serve to protect from such beliefs by enhancing observation, examination, checking, and rejection of unwarranted claims. On the other hand, the reverse causality also seems possible, where pronounced (pre)disposition toward conspiratorial beliefs, negatively affects information processing, decision making and problem solving, thus leading to faulty reasoning and flawed beliefs or knowledge systems.

We highlight findings that support the notion that analytic thinking reduces the tendency to engage in overly religious, paranormal (Pennycook et al., 2012 ) and conspiratorial beliefs (Swami et al., 2014 ). Overall, the link between the analytic thinking and the conspiratorial beliefs is negative, well-evidenced and robust (Ståhl and van Prooijen, 2018 ; van der Wal et al., 2018 ; Georgiou et al., 2019 ; Wagner-Egger et al., 2019 ).

A number of studies have gone further, analyzing the link between conspiratorial beliefs and: (a) beliefs about the nature of knowledge i.e., epistemic beliefs (Garrett and Weeks, 2017 ); (b) open-minded beliefs about the importance of evidence (Pennycook et al., 2020a ); and (c) motivation to endorse beliefs that are calibrated with evidence i.e., epistemic rationality (Ståhl and van Prooijen, 2018 ; Adam-Troian et al., 2019 ). Research on epistemic rationality, in particular, has shown that it moderates the relationship between conspiratorial beliefs and lower-level constructs in the following way: (a) it strengthens the negative relationship with general cognitive abilities (Adam-Troian et al., 2019 ); and also (b) it strengthens the negative relationship with analytic thinking (Ståhl and van Prooijen, 2018 ). Overall, these studies have highlighted the pivotal role of the so-called “mindware” and various metacognitive strategies for the enhanced resistance toward conspiratorial narratives. In a recent study, Lantian et al. ( 2021 ), the authors utilized Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test (Ennis, 1996 ) and the generic conspiracist beliefs scale (Brotherton et al., 2013 ) to directly test the link, concluding that “conspiracy believers have less developed critical thinking ability.”

Lastly, research on the relationship between conspiracy theories and scientific reasoning (usually assessed via the scientific reasoning scale) Drummond and Fischhoff ( 2017 ) is still scarce. In fact, it remains limited to a single research group, reporting several findings over the last few years and confirming the negative correlation between this cognitive style and susceptibility toward cognitive biases (Čavojová and Brezina, 2019 ) or COVID-19 related conspiratorial beliefs (Čavojová and Brezina, 2019 ; Čavojová et al., 2020 ).

4. Discussing Implications and Future Perspectives

The framework proposed (in section 2) integrates theoretical considerations on three distinct cognitive styles (analytic thinking, critical thinking and scientific reasoning), into an organized system (with concise definitions of terms, clear description of meanings, and delineated mutual relationships). It is consistent with past psychological research, while at the same time providing fresh insights on the following aspects:

The constructs: they can be thought of as nested within each other, with analytic thinking comprising the broadest set, and scientific reasoning as the narrowest and most specialized subset.
The heuristics: analytic thinking relies on the dispositions for slow and conscious processing of information, critical thinking on the dispositions and the metacognitive strategies for reliable decision making, while scientific reasoning on the advanced cognitive skills and competencies for problem solving.
The goals: analytic thinking is oriented toward unbiased and objective understanding of facts in daily situations, critical thinking toward reliable update of beliefs, while scientific reasoning toward updates of knowledge systems.

The overview on past research (in section 3) has revealed that the investigations have been: partial (because they explored the link between conspiratorial beliefs and separate cognitive styles in separate research contexts), sporadic (especially with regards to the research on the link with the critical thinking), or even accidental (especially with regards to the research on the link with the scientific reasoning). Furthermore, the investigations were predominantly cross-sectional and correlational, and therefore with limited ability to make conclusions on the causal inference. In addition, there has been little progress in standardizing methodology and empirical approaches across studies. For instance, most analyses in this area rely on self-reported measures (i.e., scales and questionnaires), and rarely on experimental designs (e.g., studies on cognitive biases and logical fallacies). While most of the studies employed quantitative analyses for assessment of results, the measurement of the variables (e.g., the conspiratorial beliefs) has been conducted on differing scales, and some of the scales had unknown psychometric properties.

Integrated theoretical considerations can serve as basis for a unified approach in empirical studies. Specifically, they can shape future psychological research to: (a) build models that will account for all presented variables; (b) conduct experiments with ecologic validity preferably outside of laboratory settings; (c) perform complex statistical analyses (e.g., hierarchical regressions and structural equation modeling) that explore mutual relations between all proposed variables and test the overall model. More realistic models and improved experimental designs can inspire future behavioral interventions in the fight against misinformation and conspiracy theories, by cultivating the capacity for analytic, critical and scientific thinking (van der Linden et al., 2020 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2021 ). This is especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic where millions across the globe are inundated by conspiracy theories that have been linked to engagement in non-normative prevention behaviors (Marinthe et al., 2020 ), decreased trust in government and lack of compliance with official public health recommendations (Freeman et al., 2020 ), or even engagement in risky and violent behaviors (Jolley and Paterson, 2020 ).

Emerging evidence regarding pandemic-related conspiratorial beliefs and various cognitive markers, suggests that: (a) they are positively linked with a group of cognitive biases, marked by an increased tendency to make premature conclusions (delivered on basis of low subjective probability estimates, lack of sufficient evidence, or even in the face of disconfirmatory evidence) (Kuhn et al., 2021 ); (b) they are negatively linked with scientific reasoning (Čavojová et al., 2020 ); and most importantly (c) they can be reduced by nudging individuals to consider accuracy of presented statements (Pennycook et al., 2020b ). In this respect, strategies that aim to enhance rationality seem to have potential in reducing prevalence of conspiratorial beliefs. For example, asking participants to judge the accuracy of a piece of information (in order to secure more reliable analysis and enhanced analytical thinking), or to judge subjective importance of an information (in order to secure more accurate interpretation and enhance critical thinking), or just providing digital literacy tips (for improved scientific reasoning) have been shown to reduce the spread of COVID-19 misinformation (Epstein et al., 2021 ).

5. Conclusions

The present article offers a perspective on the current scientific consensus, and opens a perspective toward future investigations of the link between the conspiratorial beliefs and three cognitive styles: analytic thinking, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. It does so, by outlining a clear perspective on others' works, and conceptualizing the author's perspective in an integrated theoretical framework. The literature overview is given in a condensed format, to serve as a basis for future systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Also, the theoretical framework is quite broad, and could be further advanced in a study focused exclusively on theoretical improvements and hypothesis development. This study will hopefully inspire a dialogue between researchers from different disciplines seeking to develop unified and multidisciplinary approach in the fight against misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

BG has conceptualized the study, drafted the manuscript, and thoroughly revised the contents before submitting. The style and language were checked by native English speaker.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Adam-Troian J., Caroti D., Arciszewski T., Ståhl T. (2019). Unfounded beliefs among teachers: the interactive role of rationality priming and cognitive ability . Appl. Cogn. Psychol . 33 , 720–727. 10.1002/acp.3547 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ballová Mikušková E., Čavojová V. (2020). The effect of analytic cognitive style on credulity . Front. Psychol . 11 :584424. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584424 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barron D., Morgan K., Towell T., Altemeyer B., Swami V. (2014). Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation . Pers. Individ. Differ . 70 , 156–159. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brotherton R., French C., Pickering A. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale . Front. Psychol . 4 :279. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brotherton R., French C. C. (2014). Belief in conspiracy theories and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy . Appl. Cogn. Psychol . 28 , 238–248. 10.1002/acp.2995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bruder M., Haffke P., Neave N., Nouripanah N., Imhoff R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: conspiracy mentality questionnaire . Front. Psychol . 4 :225. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Čavojová V., Brezina I. (2019). “Why do we believe weird things? Recent trends in cognitive failures research in Slovakia,” in ICERI2019 Proceedings, 12th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (Seville: IATED; ), 2267–2276. 10.21125/iceri.2019.0617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Čavojová V., Šrol J., Ballová Mikušková E. (2020). How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic? J. Health Psychol . 10.1177/1359105320962266. [Epub ahead of print]. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Darwin H., Neave N., Holmes J. (2011). Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy . Pers. Individ. Differ . 50 , 1289–1293. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Díaz C., Dorner B., Hussmann H., Strijbos J.-W. (2021). Conceptual review on scientific reasoning and scientific thinking . Curr. Psychol . 10.1007/s12144-021-01786-5. [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Douglas K. M., Sutton R. M., Cichocka A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories . Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci . 26 , 538–542. 10.1177/0963721417718261 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dowd J. E., Thompson R. J., Schiff L. A., Reynolds J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex relationship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers . CBE Life Sci. Educ . 17 :ar4. 10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Drummond C., Fischhoff B. (2017). Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale . J. Behav. Decis. Mak . 30 , 26–38. 10.1002/bdm.1906 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dunbar K., Fugelsang J. (2005). “Scientific thinking and reasoning,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning , eds Holyoak K. J., Morrison R. G. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; ), 705–725. [ Google Scholar ]
Elder L., Paul R. (2000). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
Ennis R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: their nature and assessability . Inform. Logic . 18 , 165–182. 10.22329/IL.V18I2.2378 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Epstein Z., Berinsky A. J., Cole R., Gully A., Pennycook G., Rand D. G. (2021). Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online . Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev . 2. 10.37016/mr-2020-71 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Franssens S., De Neys W. (2009). The effortless nature of conflict detection during thinking . Think. Reason . 15 , 105–128. 10.1080/13546780802711185 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman D., Waite F., Rosebrock L., Petit A., Causier C., East A., et al.. (2020). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England . Psychol. Med . 10.1017/S0033291720001890. [Epub ahead of print]. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Garrett R. K., Weeks B. E. (2017). Epistemic beliefs' role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation . PLoS ONE 12 :e0184733. 10.1371/journal.pone.0184733 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Georgiou N., Delfabbro P., Balzan R. (2019). Conspiracy beliefs in the general population: the importance of psychopathology, cognitive style and educational attainment . Pers. Individ. Diff . 151 :109521. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109521 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goertzel T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories . Polit. Psychol . 15 , 731–742. 10.2307/3791630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goreis A., Voracek M. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits . Front. Psychol . 10 :205. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring . Am. Psychol . 53 , 449–455. 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Han J. (2013). Scientific reasoning: research, development, and assessment (doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. [ Google Scholar ]
Hofstadter R. (1964). The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Holyoak K. J., Morrison R. G. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning , Vol. 137 . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Jolley D., Paterson J. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence . Brit. J. Soc. Psychol . 59 , 628–640. 10.1111/bjso.12394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow . New York, NY: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman D., Frederick S. (2002). “Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgement,” in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , eds Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 49–81. 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelly T. (2003). Epistemic rationality as instrumental rationality: a critique . Philos. Phenomenol. Res . 66 , 612–640. 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00281.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kozhevnikov M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style . Psychol. Bull . 133 , 464–481. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ku K. Y. L., Ho I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking . Metacogn. Learn . 5 , 251–267. 10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kuhn S. A. K., Lieb R., Freeman D., Andreou C., Zander-Schellenberg T. (2021). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs in the German-speaking general population: endorsement rates and links to reasoning biases and paranoia . Psychol. Med . 1–15. 10.1017/S0033291721001124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lai E. R. (2011). Critical Thinking: A Literature Review. Pearson's Research Reports . Available online at: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf
Lantian A., Bagneux V., Delouvée S., Gauvrit N. (2021). Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: high conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability . Appl. Cogn. Psychol . 35 , 674–684. 10.1002/acp.3790 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lantian A., Wood M., Gjoneska B. (2020). “Personality traits, cognitive styles and worldviews associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories,” in Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories , eds Butter M., Knight P. (Abingdon: Routledge; ), 155–167. 10.4324/9780429452734-2_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lewandowsky S., Cook J., Schmid P., Holford D. L., Finn A., Leask J., et al.. (2021). The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A Practical Guide for Improving Vaccine Communication and Fighting Misinformation . Available online at: https://sks.to/c19vax
Lobato E., Mendoza J., Sims V., Chin M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population . Appl. Cogn. Psychol . 28 , 617–625. 10.1002/acp.3042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Marinthe G., Brown G., Delouvae S., Jolley D. (2020). Looking out for myself: Exploring the relationship between conspiracy mentality, perceived personal risk, and COVID-19 prevention measures . Brit. J. Health Psychol . 25 , 957–80. 10.1111/bjhp.12449 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moscovici S. (1987). “The conspiracy mentality,” in Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy , eds Graumann C. F., Moscovici S. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 151–169. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4618-3_9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pennycook G., Cheyne J. A., Koehler D. J., Fugelsang J. A. (2020a). On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs . Judgm. Decis. Mak . 15 , 476–498. 10.31234/osf.io/a7k96 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pennycook G., Cheyne J. A., Seli P., Koehler D. J., Fugelsang J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief . Cognition 123 , 335–346. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pennycook G., McPhetres J., Zhang Y., Lu J. G., Rand D. G. (2020b). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-Nudge intervention . Psychol. Sci . 31 , 770–780. 10.1177/0956797620939054 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peterson E. R., Rayner S. G., Armstrong S. J. (2009). Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: is there really a future? Learn. Individ. Diff . 19 , 518–523. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Prooijen J.-W., Douglas K. M., Inocencio C. D. (2018). Connecting the dots: Illusory pattern perception predicts belief in conspiracies and the supernatural . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol . 48 , 320–335. 10.1002/ejsp.2331 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sloman S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning . Psychol. Bull . 119 :3. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ståhl T., van Prooijen J. W. (2018). Epistemic rationality: skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational . Pers. Individ. Diff . 122 , 155–163. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich K. E., Stanovich P. J. (2010). “A framework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence,” in Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development . eds Preiss D., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company; ), 195–237. [ Google Scholar ]
Sternisko A., Cichocka A., Van Bavel J. J. (2020). The dark side of social movements: social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories . Curr. Opin. Psychol . 35 , 1–6. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sturm T., Albrecht T. (2021). Constituent Covid-19 apocalypses: contagious conspiracism, 5G, and viral vaccinations . Anthropol. Med . 28 , 122–139. 10.1080/13648470.2020.1833684 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sutton R. M., Douglas K. M. (2020). Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology . Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci . 34 , 118–122. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.02.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swami V., Coles R., Stieger S., Pietschnig J., Furnham A., Rehim S., et al.. (2011). Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories . Br. J. Psychol . 102 , 443–463. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swami V., Voracek M., Stieger S., Tran U. S., Furnham A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories . Cognition 133 , 572–585. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van der Linden S., Panagopoulos C., Azevedo F., Jost J. T. (2021). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: an ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking . Polit. Psychol . 42 , 23–51. 10.1111/pops.12681 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van der Linden S., Roozenbeek J., Compton J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19 . Front. Psychol . 11 :566790. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van der Wal R. C., Sutton R. M., Lange J., Braga J. P. N. (2018). Suspicious binds: conspiracy thinking and tenuous perceptions of causal connections between co-occurring and spuriously correlated events . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol . 48 , 970–989. 10.1002/ejsp.2507 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van Prooijen J. W. (2019). “Belief in conspiracy theories: gullibility or rational skepticism?” in The Social Psychology of Gullibility (Abingdon: Routledge; ), 319–332. 10.4324/9780429203787-17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vermeule C. A., Sunstein C. R. (2009). Conspiracy theories: causes and cures . J. Polit. Philos . 17 , 202–227. 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vitriol J. A., Marsh J. K. (2018). The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol . 48 , 955–969. 10.1002/ejsp.2504 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wagner-Egger P., Bronner G., Delouvée S., Dieguez S., Gauvrit N. (2019). Why ‘healthy conspiracy theories’ are (oxy) morons: statistical, epistemological, and psychological reasons in favor of the (ir) rational view . Soc. Epistemol. Rev. Reply Collect . 8 , 50–67. Available online at: https://wp.me/p1Bfg0-47v [ Google Scholar ]
Wood M. J., Douglas K. M. (2015). Online communication as a window to conspiracist worldviews . Front. Psychol . 6 :836. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00836 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zimmerman C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school . Dev. Rev . 27 , 172–223. 10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

Developing technical and problem-solving skills
Engaging in more active listening
Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
Seeking out more diversity of thought
Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

What information should be included?
Which information resources should the author look to?
What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
What is the most effective way to show information?
How should the report be organized?
How should it be designed?
What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

Artificial Intelligence
Generative AI
Business Operations
IT Leadership
Application Security
Business Continuity
Cloud Security
Critical Infrastructure
Identity and Access Management
Network Security
Physical Security
Risk Management
Security Infrastructure
Vulnerabilities
Software Development
Enterprise Buyer’s Guides
United States
United Kingdom
Newsletters
Foundry Careers
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Member Preferences
About AdChoices
E-commerce Links
Your California Privacy Rights

Our Network

Computerworld
Network World

“Thinking About Thinking” is Critical to Cybersecurity

Most cybersecurity vulnerabilities are created by human decisions—many of which aren’t made consciously. here’s why understanding the mental shortcuts we use in decision-making can help strengthen cybersecurity..

Humans make a lot of decisions each day, whether we are aware of them or not. Research shows that people make approximately 200 decisions about food every single day 1 . And, depending on how we define the word “decision,” the daily number can creep into the tens of thousands. Although we may believe our decisions are rational, cognitive scientists argue that we are far less objective than we think. Cognitive biases shape our cybersecurity decisions from the keyboard to the boardroom, and these decisions ultimately determine the effectiveness of our cybersecurity solutions.

Seeing isn’t always believing

Consider the following question: 2

Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

Cannot be determined

Up to 80% of respondents select “C.” But the correct answer is actually “A.”

It doesn’t matter whether Anne is married or not. If she is married, she is looking at an unmarried person: George. If she is not married, then Jack is looking at an unmarried person: Anne. The reason people often choose “C” is that Anne’s marital status is not provided in the question. In this example, people use a mental shortcut to link Anne’s missing information and “cannot be determined” rather than thinking through multiple options.

Taking mental shortcuts is not limited to tricky logic questions. We use shortcuts so frequently and effortlessly that we do not even realize we’re doing it. However, humans are also capable of engaging in complex analytic thoughts and solving extraordinarily difficult problems.

The Dual Process Theory explains human thought by separating it into two modes: 3

System 1 is aligned with human intuition. It is characterized by fast, effortless, and emotional thoughts that we unconsciously link with past experiences, thoughts, and patterns.
System 2 is aligned with analytical and logical thought. It is characterized by effortful thinking and reasoning that we are typically aware of.

Whether we like (or realize) it or not, we spend the vast majority of our lives immersed in System 1 thinking. Our brains use System 1 to optimize the body’s energy—20% of which is going toward brain function. System 1 makes it possible to quickly and effortlessly complete the many simple tasks we engage in throughout the day, such as tying shoes, locating sounds, or avoiding potholes while driving. If we had to depend completely on System 2 and engage in effortful, exact thinking for every decision we faced throughout a day, we might never make it out the front door in the morning.

Although System 1 allows us to function and conserve valuable brainpower, it also creates problems. Our automatic thoughts frequently influence decisions without our awareness—decisions that would be far better suited for a full System 2 analysis. These subconscious influences, or cognitive biases, are systematic departures from logic where rules of thumb supersede the facts at hand.

Decide to do cybersecurity better

Our daily cybersecurity decisions are influenced by our cognitive biases, and while we won’t ever completely escape bias, we can prepare ourselves to make better decisions by thinking about thinking . When we think about thinking, we build awareness of cognitive bias across our organizations, so we can better identify situations where critical decisions and the behaviors they drive are susceptible to increased risk.

Scaling your security strategy to protect remote workers means understanding how workers behave in a remote environment. And Forcepoint is here to help. Visit us to learn more about how risk-adaptive cybersecurity driven by behavioral analytics can secure people and data everywhere.

Wasink, B. & Sobal, J. (2007). Mindless Eating: The 200 Daily Food Decisions We Overlook. Environment & Behavior, 39, 106-123
Hector Levasque, as cited by Keith Stanovich, “ Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking that IQ Tests Miss ”
Daniel Kahneman, “ Dual Processing Theory, Heuristics, and Bias”

London hospitals face days of disruption after ransomware attack on supply chain partner

Cloud security challenges are growing. Here’s why traditional SOC tools are failing to address them

CSO Executive Sessions: The new realities of the CISO role - whistleblowing and legal liabilities

CSO Executive Sessions India with Pradipta Kumar Patro, Global CISO and Head IT Platform, KEC International

CSO Executive Sessions: The personality of cybersecurity leaders

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Open access journal.

ISSN: 2222-6990

Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability

Jerald c. moneva, rena mae n. yaun, ismaelita desabille.

Pages 761-774
Received: 02 Feb, 2020
Revised: 22 Feb, 2020
Published Online: 29 Mar, 2020

http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i3/7090

Open access

Logical reasoning ability refers to the students’ ability to understand logical work through concepts and problems. Logical reasoning is one of the fundamental skill that is used for effective thinking. Fake news is a spread of inaccurate information in the internet and other forms of media. It is made either to misinform or deceive the reader most inevitably the students. The researcher aims to assess the relationship between logical reasoning ability and students’ vulnerability towards fake news. There are 240 respondents to answer the given survey questionnaire. All grade 11 and grade 12 students in the strand of STEM, HUMSS, GAS, ABM and TVL-Drafting in Jagobiao National High School- Senior High School Department were requested to answer the questionnaire in rating scale. The methodology in this study is quantitative survey using a check-list and NCAE result to gather data. The data have been analyzed using chi-square to determine if there is an association between logical reasoning ability and students’ vulnerability towards fake news. The result showed that there are no significant association between logical reasoning ability and students vulnerability towards fake news. Based on these findings, it was recommended that the parents, teachers, and school should put their guard on their children for them not to be easily deceit by fake news. It has been recommended that they should provide facts to students and encourage them to combat against the spread of false information.

Agah, J. J., & Lamido, S. (2015). Determinants of students logical reasoning and mathematics achievement. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 5(5), 40-44. https://www.iiste.org/journals/index.php/JLLL/article/view/17781 Albright, J. (2017). Welcome to the era of fake news. Media and Information, 5(2), 87- 89. Doi: 10.17649/mac-V5i2.977 Alcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research and Politics, 6(2), 1-8. Doi:10.117712053/1680/19848554 Al-Rawi, A. (2018). Gatekeeping fake news discourses on mainstream media versus social media. Social Science Computer Review, 37(6), 1-17. Doi:10.117710894439318795849 Aymanns, C., Foerster, J., & George, C.P. (2017). Fake news in social networks. arXiv preprint: 1708.06233. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3023320. Bektasli, B., & White, A. L. (2012). The relationship between logical thinking, gender, and kinematics graph interpretation skills. Egitim Arastimalari-Eurosian Journal of Educational Research. 48, 1-20. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1057377 Bouhnik, D., & Giat, Y. (2009). Teaching high school students applied logical reasoning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 8(1), 1-16. Doi: 10.28945/169 Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H. & Albarracin, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531-1546. Doi: 10.117/0956797617714579 Changwong, K., Sukkamart, A., & Sisan, B. (2018). Critical thinking skill development: Analysis of a new learning management model for Thai high schools. Journal of International Studies, 11(2), 37-38. Cullen, S., Fan, J., Van de Brugge, E. & Elga, A. (2018). Improving the analytical reasoning and argument understanding: A quasi-experimental field of study of argument visualization. NPT Science of Learning, 3(1), 1-6. https://www.nature.com/article/541539-018-0038-5 Cunha, E., Magno, G., Caetano, J., Teixeira, D., & Almeida, V. (2018). Fake news as we feel it: Perception and conceptualization of the term fake news in the media. International Conference on Social Informatics, 151-166. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06926 Epp, S. (2003). The role of logic and teaching proof. The American Mathematical Monthly, 110(10), 886-899. Doi:10.1080/00029890.2003.1192009 Emeka, C. G., & Chukwudi, E. E. (2018). Logic and critical thinking: The missing link in higher education in Nigeria. International Journal of History and Philosophical Research, 6(3), 1-13. https://www.eajournals.org/journals/international-journal-of-history-and-philosophical-research-ijhphr/vol-6-issue-3-july-2018/ Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), 1-8. Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 Jung, N., Wranke, C., Hamburger, K., & Knauff, M. (2014). How emotions affect logical reasoning: Evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 570, 1-12. Doi: 1-.3389/fpsyg.2014.00570 Kumar, S., & Shah, N. (2018). False information on web and social media: A survey, 1(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnn-nnn-nnnn-nnn Lubis, A., & Nasution, A. A. (2017). How do higher-education student use their initial understanding to deal with contextual logic-based problems in discrete mathematics?. International Education Studies, 10(5), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.vlon-5p72 Marchi, R. (2012). With Facebook, blogs, and fake news teens reject journalistic objectivity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(3), 246-262. Doi: 10.117/0196859912458700 Marou, A. P., & Kalospyros, N. A. (2011). The role of logic in teaching, learning, and analyzing proof. In Congress of the European for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 9.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?custer=71829566596279252&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt-o,5#d=gs_9abs&u=%23p%

In-Text Citation: (Moneva et al., 2020) To Cite this Article: Moneva, J. C., Yaun, R. M. N., & Desabille, I. (2020). Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(3), 761–774.

Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com) This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Further Information

Article Processing Charges

Our Journals

Get intouch with us.

Explore Jobs

Jobs Near Me
Remote Jobs
Full Time Jobs
Part Time Jobs
Entry Level Jobs
Work From Home Jobs

Find Specific Jobs

$15 Per Hour Jobs
$20 Per Hour Jobs
Hiring Immediately Jobs
High School Jobs
H1b Visa Jobs

Explore Careers

Business And Financial
Architecture And Engineering
Computer And Mathematical

Explore Professions

What They Do
Certifications
Demographics

Best Companies

Health Care
Fortune 500

Explore Companies

CEO And Executies
Resume Builder
Career Advice
Explore Majors
Questions And Answers
Interview Questions

The Most Important Logical Thinking Skills (With Examples)

Logical Skills
Promotional Skills
Bookkeeping Skills
Typing Skills
Sales Skills
Science And Math Skills
Physical Strength And Dexterity Skills
Customer Service Skills
Instructional Skills
Logical-Thinking Skills
Mechanical Skills
Memorization Skills
Motivational Skills
Artistic Talent

Find a Job You Really Want In

Logical thinking skills like critical-thinking, research, and creative thinking are valuable assets in the workplace. These skills are sought after by many employers, who want employees that take into account facts and data before deciding on an important course of action. This is because such solutions will ensure the organization’s processes can continue to operate efficiently.

So, if you’re a job seeker or employee looking to explore and brush up on your logical thinking skills, you’re in luck. This article will cover examples of logical thinking skills in the workplace, as well as what you can do to showcase those skills on your resume and in interviews.

Key Takeaways:

Logical thinking is problem solving based on reasoning that follows a strictly structured progression of analysis.

Critical thinking, research, creativity, mathematics, reading, active listening, and organization are all important logical thinking skills in the workplace.

Logical thinking provides objectivity for decision making that multiple people can accept.

Deduction follows valid premises to reach a logical conclusion.

It can be very helpful to demonstrate logical thinking skills at a job interview.

The Most Important Logical Thinking Skills

What is logical thinking?

10 examples of logical thinking skills, examples of logical thinking in the workplace, what is deductive reasoning, logical thinking in a job interview, logical thinking skills faq, final thoughts.

Logical thinking is the ability to reason out an issue after observing and analyzing it from all angles . You can then form a conclusion that makes the most sense. It also includes the ability to take note of reactions and feedback to aid in the formation of the conclusion.

Logical thinking skills enable you to present your justification for the actions you take, the strategies you use, and the decisions you make. You can easily stand in front of your clients, peers, and supervisors and defend your product, service, and course of action if the necessity arises.

Logical thinking is an excellent way of solving complex problems. You can break the problem into smaller parts; solve them individually in a sequence, then present the complete solution. However, it is not infallible.

So, when a problem in the workplace feels overwhelming, you may want to think about it logically first.

Logical thinking skills are a skill set that enables you to reason logically when solving problems. They enable you to provide well-reasoned answers to any issues that arise. They also empower you to make decisions that most people will consider rational.

Critical-thinking skills. If you are a critical thinker, then you can analyze and evaluate a problem before making judgments. You need to improve your critical thinking process to become a logical thinker.

Your critical thinking skills will improve your ability to solve problems. You will be the go-to employee concerning crises. People can rely on you to be reasonable whenever an issue arises instead of letting biases rule you.

Research skills. If you are a good researcher , then you can search and locate data that can be useful when presenting information on your preferred subject.

The more relevant information you have about a particular subject, the more accurate your conclusions are likely to be. The sources you use must be reputable and relevant.

For this reason, your ability to ferret out information will affect how well you can reason logically.

Creative thinking skills. If you are a creative thinker , then you can find innovative solutions to problems.

You are the kind of person that can think outside the box when brainstorming ideas and potential solutions. Your thinking is not rigid. Instead, you tend to look at issues in ways other people have not thought of before.

While logical thinking is based on data and facts, that doesn’t mean it is rigid. You can creatively find ways of sourcing that data or experimenting so that you can form logical conclusions. Your strategic thinking skills will also help enable you to analyze reactions or collect feedback .

Mathematical skills. If you are skilled in mathematics , then you can work well with numbers and represent mathematical ideas using visual symbols. Your brain must be able to compute information.

Business is a numbers game. That means you must have some knowledge of mathematics. You must be able to perform basic mathematical tasks involving addition, subtractions, divisions, multiplications, etc.

So, to become a logical thinker, you must be comfortable working with numbers. You will encounter them in many business-related complex problems. And your ability to understand them will determine whether you can reach an accurate logical conclusion that helps your organization.

Reading skills. If you are a good reader , then you can make sense of the letters and symbols that you see. Your ability to read will determine your competency concerning your logical thinking and reasoning skills.

And that skill set will come in handy when you are presented with different sets of work-related statements from which you are meant to conclude. Such statements may be part of your company policy, technical manual, etc.

Active listening skills. Active listening is an important communication skill to have. If you are an active listener, then you can hear, understand what is being said, remember it, and respond to it if necessary.

Not all instructions are written. You may need to listen to someone to get the information you need to solve problems before you write it down. In that case, your active listening skills will determine how well you can remember the information so that you can use it to reason things out logically.

Information ordering skills. If you have information ordering skills, then you can arrange things based on a specified order following the set rules or conditions. These things may include mathematical operations, words, pictures, etc.

Different organizations have different business processes. The workflow in one organization will be not similar to that of another organization even if both belong to the same industry.

Your ability to order information will depend on an organization’s culture . And it will have a major impact on how you can think and reason concerning solutions to your company problems.

If you follow the wrong order, then no matter how good your problem-solving techniques are your conclusions may be wrong for your organization.

Persuasion skills. Logical thinking can be useful when persuading others, especially in the workplace.

For example, lets say one of your co-workers wants to take a project in an impulsive direction, which will increase the budget. However, after you do your research, you realize a budget increase would be impossible.

You can then use your logical thinking skills to explain the situation to your co-worker , including details facts and numbers, which will help dissuade them from making an uninformed decision.

Decision making skills. Decision making skills go hand and hand with logical thinking, as being able to think logically about solutions and research topics will make it far easier to make informed decisions.

After all, no one likes making a decision that feels like a shot in the dark, so knowing crucial information about the options aviable to you, and thinking about them logically, can improve your confidence around decision making.

Confidence skills. Confidence that stems from an emotional and irrational place will always be fragile, but when you have more knowledge available to you through logical thinking, you can be more confident in your confidence skills.

For instance, if an employee asked you to answer an important question, you will have a lot more confidence in your answer if you can think logically about it, as opposed to having an air of uncertainty.

To improve your logic skills, it would be wise to practice how to solve problems based on facts and data. Below are examples of logical thinking in the workplace that will help you understand this kind of reasoning so that you can improve your thinking:

The human resource department in your organization has determined that leadership skills are important for anyone looking to go into a senior management position. So, it decides that it needs proof of leadership before hiring anyone internally. To find the right person for the senior management position , every candidate must undertake a project that involves a team of five. Whoever leads the winning team will get the senior managerial position.

This example shows a logical conclusion that is reached by your organization’s human resource department. In this case, your HR department has utilized logical thinking to determine the best internal candidate for the senior manager position.

It could be summarized as follows:

Statement 1: People with excellent leadership skills that produce winning teams make great senior managers. Statement 2: Candidate A is an excellent leader that has produced a winning team. Conclusion: Candidate A will make an excellent senior manager .

A marketing company researches working women on behalf of one of their clients – a robotics company. They find out that these women feel overwhelmed with responsibilities at home and in the workplace. As a result, they do not have enough time to clean, take care of their children, and stay productive in the workplace. A robotics company uses this research to create a robot cleaner that can be operated remotely . Then they advertise this cleaner specifically to working women with the tag line, “Working women can do it all with a little bit of help.” As a result of this marketing campaign, their revenues double within a year.

This example shows a logical conclusion reached by a robotics company after receiving the results of marketing research on working women. In this case, logical thinking has enabled the company to come up with a new marketing strategy for their cleaning product.

Statement 1: Working women struggle to keep their homes clean. Statement 2: Robot cleaners can take over cleaning duties for women who struggle to keep their homes clean. Conclusion: Robot cleaner can help working women keep their homes clean.

CalcX. Inc. has created a customer survey concerning its new finance software. The goal of the survey is to determine what customers like best about the software. After reading through over 100 customer reviews and ratings, it emerges that 60% of customers love the new user interface because it’s easy to navigate. CalcX. Inc. then decides to improve its marketing strategy. It decides to train every salesperson to talk about the easy navigation feature and how superior it is to the competition. So, every time a client objects to the price, the sales rep could admit that it is expensive, but the excellent user interface makes up for the price. At the end of the year, it emerges that this strategy has improved sales revenues by 10%.

The above example shows how logical thinking has helped CalcX. Sell more software and improve its bottom line.

Statement 1: If the majority of customers like a particular software feature, then sales reps should use it to overcome objections and increase revenues. Statement 2: 60% of the surveyed customers like the user interface of the new software, and; they think it makes navigation easier. Conclusion: The sales reps should market the new software’s user interface and the fact that it is easy to navigate to improve the company’s bottom line.

A political candidate hires a focus group to discuss hot-button issues they feel strongly about. It emerges that the group is torn on sexual reproductive health issues, but most support the issue of internal security . However, nearly everyone is opposed to the lower wages being paid due to the current economic crisis. Based on the results of this research, the candidate decides to focus on improving the economy and security mechanisms in the country. He also decides to let go of the sexual productive health issues because it would potentially cause him to lose some support.

In this case, the political candidate has made logical conclusions on what topics he should use to campaign for his seat with minimal controversies so that he doesn’t lose many votes.

This situation could be summarized as follows:

Statement 1: Most people find sexual reproductive health issues controversial and cannot agree. Statement 2: Most people feel that the internal security of the country is in jeopardy and something should be done about it. Statement 3: Most people want higher wages and an improved economy. Statement 4: Political candidates who want to win must avoid controversy and speak up on things that matter to people. Conclusion: To win, political candidates must focus on higher wages, an improved economy, and the internal security of the country while avoiding sexual reproductive health matters.

Deductive reasoning is an aspect of logical reasoning. It is a top-down reasoning approach that enables you to form a specific logical conclusion based on generalities. Therefore, you can use one or more statements, usually referred to as premises, to conclude something.

For example:

Statement 1: All mothers are women Statement 2: Daisy is a mother. Conclusion: Daisy is a woman.

Based on the above examples, all mothers are classified as women, and since Daisy is a mother, then it’s logical to deduce that she is a woman too.

It’s worth noting though, that deductive reasoning does not always produce an accurate conclusion based on reality.

Statement 1: All caregivers in this room are nurses. Statement 2: This dog, Tom, is a caregiver . Conclusion: This dog, Tom, is a nurse .

From the above example, we have deduced that Tom, the dog, is a nurse simply because the first statement stated that all caregivers are nurses. And yet, in reality, we know that dogs cannot be nurses. They do not have the mental capacity to become engaged in the profession.

For this reason, you must bear in mind that an argument can be validly based on the conditions but it can also be unsound if some statements are based on a fallacy.

Since logical thinking is so important in the workplace, most job interviewers will want to see you demonstrate this skill at the job interview. It is very important to keep in mind your logical thinking skills when you talk about yourself at the interview.

There are many ways in which an interviewer may ask you to demonstrate your logical thinking skills. For example:

You may have to solve an example problem. If the interviewer provides you a problem similar to one you might find at your job, make sure to critically analyze the problem to deduce a solution.

You may be asked about a previous problem or conflict you had to solve. This classic question provides you the opportunity to show your skills in action, so make sure to highlight the objectivity and logic of your problem solving.

Show your logic when talking about yourself. When given the opportunity to talk about yourself, highlight how logic comes into play in your decision making. This could be in how you picked the job position, why you choose your career or education, or what it is about yourself that makes you a great candidate.

Why is it important to think logically?

It’s important to think logically because it allows you to analyze a situation and come up with a logical solution. It allows for you to reason through the important decisions and solve problems with a better understanding of what needs to be done. This is necessary for developing a strong career.

Why is logic important?

Logic is important because it helps develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are important because they help you analyze and evaluate a problem before you make a decision. It also helps you improve your problem-solving skills to allow you to make better decisions.

How do you improve your logical thinking skills?

When improving your logical thinking skills make sure you spend time on a creative hobby and practice questioning. Creative hobbies can help reduce stress levels, and lower stress leads to having an easier time focusing on tasks and making logical thinking. Creative hobbies can include things like drawing, painting, and writing.

Another way to improve your logical thinking is to start asking questions about things. Asking questions allows for you to discover new things and learn about new topics you may not have thought about before.

What are logical thinking skills you need to succeed at work?

There are many logical thinking skills you need to succeed in the workplace. Our top four picks include:

Observation

Active Listening

Problem-solving

Logical thinking skills are valuable skills to have. You need to develop them so that you can become an asset to any organization that hires you. Be sure to include them in your resume and cover letter .

And if you make it to the interview, also ensure that you highlight these skills. You can do all this by highlighting the career accomplishments that required you to use logical thinking in the workplace.

It’s Your Yale – Consider Critical Thinking Skills to Articulate Your Work Quality

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

Roger Raber has been a content writer at Zippia for over a year and has authored several hundred articles. Having retired after 28 years of teaching writing and research at both the high school and college levels, Roger enjoys providing career details that help inform people who are curious about a new job or career. Roger holds a BA in English from Cleveland State University and a MA from Marygrove college.

Recent Job Searches

Registered Nurse Jobs Resume Location
Truck Driver Jobs Resume Location
Call Center Representative Jobs Resume Location
Customer Service Representative Jobs Resume
Delivery Driver Jobs Resume Location
Warehouse Worker Jobs Resume Location
Account Executive Jobs Resume Location
Sales Associate Jobs Resume Location
Licensed Practical Nurse Jobs Resume Location
Company Driver Jobs Resume

What Is Work-Life Balance? (And How To Improve It)

The Most Important Sales Skills (With Examples)

The Most Important Dedication and Devotion Skills (With Examples)

15 Time Management Techniques That Work

Career Advice >
Resume Skills >
Defined Skills >
Logical Thinking Skills

Customer Reviews

Niamh Chamberlain

Write my essay for me frequently asked questions

What we guarantee.

No Plagiarism
On Time Delevery
Privacy Policy
Complaint Resolution

More From Forbes

Is critical thinking a superpower in the ai era.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Critical thinking skills are crucial for AI.

AI, particularly generative AI, is having an immediate and dramatic impact on our lives, both personally and professionally. AI enables everyone to become better writers, content creators, coders, and artists. Interestingly, to derive effective value from AI systems, we must also develop our "soft skills”, of which critical thinking becomes one of the most important.

Just a few years ago, to get real benefit from AI, you needed to build and train AI systems which required “hard” skills such as math, programming, or data engineering skills. Now, because of generative AI, you no longer need to be an expert in statistics & probability, calculus, or linear algebra to get value from using Generative AI. You also don’t need knowledge of different algorithms & modeling skills. Instead, you need to use soft skills such as communication, curiosity, problem solving, adaptability, and critical thinking.

Why Critical Thinking is Crucial for AI

There’s no doubt that in today's fast-paced business environment, workers will need to use AI tools to stay ahead in the market. While AI systems will let anyone get a basic grasp of hard skills, the soft skills are proving to be the most important to get value from AI systems. In particular, the soft skill of critical thinking is proving indispensable. Put simply, critical thinking is the ability to get a solid, reliable, and as truthful as possible understanding of information, and then use that understanding to make sound decisions based on that knowledge. This means scrutinizing information, questioning assumptions, and ensuring that conclusions are supported by solid evidence.

When it comes to using generative AI systems, being able to observe, analyze, discern, and ask the right questions is what not only allows you to get the required results from the AI, but also to determine if the outputs are credible, lack bias, and truthful. Critical thinking approaches provide the necessary mental tools to iteratively refine prompts and hone in to get more effective results. Trying different approaches using thinking skills leads to clearer, more accurate results. The ability to analyze complex requirements helps in designing effective prompts and assessing the quality of AI-generated responses.

How To Develop Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills will only become more important in our AI-driven organizations. This means that people of all ages will need to make sure to develop and use critical thinking skills to be able to stay ahead of the pack. A key approach to develop and refine critical thinking skills is to always approach interactions with AI systems with a healthy dose of skepticism, and question assumptions, especially your own. Ask yourself whether the information going into and out of AI systems make sense and what assumptions are being made. Look for evidence to support or refute these assumptions.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Additionally, you’ll want to seek evidence. It goes without saying that especially in an AI-generated world, you can’t take what you see, hear, or read at face value. Large language models are known to hallucinate, or confidently provide you with the wrong information. Verify the sources of your information and ensure that your conclusions are backed by solid proof, research, or findings, and dive deeper to find supporting evidence.

Critical thinking also requires you to be aware of potential informational and data biases. Those biases could be represented in your thinking, data, analyses, outputs of LLM systems, or the way in which you utilize or scrutinize AI outputs. Work to observe and identify patterns and trends in data. This involves not just looking at the data, but understanding the context and relationships between different variables.

Key Benefits Of Critical Thinking in an AI-Centric World

As you continue to work on your critical thinking skills, you’ll see many key benefits, especially as more people make use of AI to augment or assist their work. Professionals are often required to make decisions based on various data points and pieces of information. Critical thinking enables you to sift through the mountains of AI-generated information, identify what is relevant, and then make decisions based on accurate interpretations. This is especially the case with generative AI. Without critical thinking, there is a risk of making decisions based on incomplete or incorrect information, which can lead to erroneous, suboptimal, or misleading results.

A key to critical thinking is problem solving skills. Critical thinking helps professionals approach problems systematically, considering all possible solutions and their implications before making decisions. This thorough approach reduces the likelihood of overlooking important factors and increases the chances of finding effective solutions. It also helps you become a better prompt engineer as you’ll not stop until you get a satisfactory response. You are able to evaluate complex situations to make informed decisions. This analytical ability helps in designing effective prompts and assessing the quality of AI-generated responses.

Setting Yourself Apart With Critical Thinking

Individuals who excel in critical thinking will stand out when it comes to the use of AI. These individuals can navigate complex information landscapes, create better results and responses from LLMs, make better informed decisions, iterate more effectively to get desired outcomes, and be more effective when it comes to communicating and sharing results.

The ability to critically evaluate and interpret information is a strategic advantage for those who are working with AI systems. As AI becomes an increasing part of our every day business processes, tools, and interactions, those with strong critical thinking abilities will be better equipped to harness AI’s full potential, driving innovation, better insights, and answers.

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
Content that otherwise violates our site's terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
Actions that otherwise violate our site's terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

Stay on topic and share your insights
Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
Protect your community.
Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.

Rebecca Geach

Customer Reviews

Gustavo Almeida Correia

Finished Papers

Quick links
10 Trends Shaping 2024
Global Private Equity Risk Index Highlights Risky Insight From Digital Chatter
2023 Fraud and Financial Crime Report
Popular topics
Valuation Advisory Services
Compliance and Regulation
Corporate Finance and Restructuring
Investigations and Disputes
Digital Technology Solutions
Business Services
Environmental, Social and Governance Advisory Services (ESG)
Environmental, Social and Governance
Consumer and Retail
Financial Services
Industrials
Technology, Media and Telecom
Energy and Mining
Healthcare and Life Sciences
Real Estate
Our Experts
Client Stories
Transactions
Restructuring Administration Cases
Settlement Administration Cases
Anti-Money Laundering
Artificial Intelligence
Cost of Capital
Cryptocurrency
Financial Crime
M&A Updates
Valuation Outlook
Blogs / Publications
Webcasts and Videos

Fri, May 31, 2024

CVE-2024-24919: Zero-Day Vulnerability Detected in Check Point Products

George Glass

Note: This vulnerability remains under active exploitation, and Kroll experts are investigating. If further details are uncovered by our team, updates will be made to the Kroll Cyber Risk blog.

A critical zero-day vulnerability, being tracked as CVE-2024-24919, has been discovered and patched in a number of Check Point products. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.6 assigned by Check Point and is actively being exploited in the wild with proof of concept (POC) exploits available . It impacts Check Point Quantum Gateway and CloudGuard Network versions R81.20, R81.10, R81, R80.40, and Check Point Spark versions R81.10, R80.20.

Check Point's advisory states: “An information disclosure vulnerability exists in Check Point VPN. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability would allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information.”

The Kroll Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) team assesses that this vulnerability is an arbitrary file read and path traversal vulnerability, which could allow an unauthenticated attacker to read any file on the appliance, including files that contain root credentials to the appliance, and therefore rate it with a score of CVSS: 9.1, Critical. Kroll has observed cases where this vulnerability was leveraged to pivot to the internal network by an unknown threat group.

Kroll assesses that due to the simplicity of exploit, other threat groups will likely leverage this vulnerability. In 2024, ransomware groups have become very adept at leveraging vulnerabilities in edge networking appliances, especially VPN gateways, and therefore it is highly likely that these groups will quickly move to exploit this vulnerability en masse.

Our CTI team recommends following the guidance in the Check Point advisory to install the hotfix.

Incident response, digital forensics, breach notification, managed detection services, penetration testing, cyber assessments and advisory.

Cyber Threat Intelligence

Threat intelligence are fueled by frontline incident response intel and elite analysts to effectively hunt and respond to threats.

Kroll Responder MDR

Stop cyberattacks. Kroll Responder managed detection and response is fueled by seasoned IR experts and frontline threat intelligence to deliver unrivaled response.

24x7 Incident Response

Kroll is the largest global IR provider with experienced responders who can handle the entire security incident lifecycle.

Managed Services

Processes and strategies to manage and optimize information produced through M&A, divestitures and integration.

Digital Risk Protection

Proactively safeguard your organization’s digital assets and accelerate visibility of online threats.

An Introduction To Purple Teaming

AI Security Risks and Recommendations: Demystifying the AI Box of Magic

by Alex Cowperthwaite, Pratik Amin

Threat Intelligence

Q1 2024 cyber threat landscape report: insider threat & phishing evolve under ai auspices.

by Laurie Iacono, Keith Wojcieszek, George Glass

Offensive Security Services: How to Improve Security by Thinking Like an Adversary

Offensive Security Services Improve Security Thinking Adversary

Kroll is headquartered in New York with offices around the world.

More About Kroll

Trending Topics
Find an Expert
Media Inquiry

Accessibility
Code of Conduct
Data Privacy Framework
Kroll Ethics Hotline
Modern Slavery Statement
Privacy Policy

Finished Papers

Customer Reviews

Compare Properties

As we have previously mentioned, we value our writers' time and hard work and therefore require our clients to put some funds on their account balance. The money will be there until you confirm that you are fully satisfied with our work and are ready to pay your paper writer. If you aren't satisfied, we'll make revisions or give you a full refund.

Affiliate program

Refer our service to your friend and receive 10% from every order

Student Feedback on Our Paper Writers

Andre Cardoso

When you write an essay for me, how can I use it?

Allene W. Leflore

Customer Reviews

IMAGES

PPT
Critical Thinking Skills
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking theory, teaching, and practice
Critical Thinking Logical Thinking Quotes
The 5 Most Useful Critical Thinking Flowcharts for Your Learners in

VIDEO

Android Application Hacking with Damn Vulnerable Bank.
The Power of Vulnerability by Brené B in one minute #motivation #lifedevelopment #selfhelpbooks
Hackxpert.com: Business logic vulnerabilities labs
CRITICAL THINKING # LOGICAL TRICK # BRAIN TEST # REASONING TRICK # 🤔🤔
Business Logical vulnerability
High level logic vulnerability (Video solution)

COMMENTS

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic
It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. 'Thinking' is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you 'think' about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. It is the sort of thing that one intuitively or naturally understands, and yet cannot describe to others without great ...
Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of
In recent decades, approaches to critical thinking have generally taken a practical turn, pivoting away from more abstract accounts - such as emphasizing the logical relations that hold between statements (Ennis, 1964) - and moving toward an emphasis on belief and action.According to the definition that Robert Ennis (2018) has been advocating for the last few decades, critical thinking is ...
SW 202
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Antidotes for Points of Logical Vulnerability, Points of Logical Vulnerability, Ways to deal with emotional reasoning and more. ... Critical Thinking Chapter 9. 21 terms. livluvlex. Preview. CT Exam. 50 terms. desireesims. Preview. Psych 2070 Midterm- Leadership & Power. 44 terms ...
Critical Thinking and Communication Flashcards
Start studying Critical Thinking and Communication. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. ... points of logical vulnerability. topics about which a person has difficulty being rational or objective. ... logical organization and reasoning or credible content, logical appeals are made through the use of ...
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice. According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills.
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An
For critical thinkers, being reasonable involves using logical rules, standards of evidence, and other criteria that must be met for a product of thinking to be considered good. Critical thinkers use these to evaluate how strongly reasons or evidence supports one claim versus another, drawing conclusions which are supported by the highest ...
PDF Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. Both logic and critical thinking centrally involve the analysis and assessment of arguments. "Argument" is a word that has multiple distinct meanings, so it is important to be clear from the start about the sense of the word that is relevant to the study of logic.
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, assessing, synthesizing, evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication. It is thinking in a clear, logical, reasoned, and reflective manner to solve problems or make decisions. Basically, critical thinking is taking a hard look at ...
Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability
The findings show students overestimate their critical skills and are overexposed to information flows from the old and new media that make fact-checking difficult. There is also strong demand for an approach that is both technological and humanistic towards educating about fake news. Download Free PDF. View PDF.
Enhancing critical thinking for security problems
The key components of critical thinking include: Asking the right questions. Identifying your assumptions. Reaching out to sources of information beyond those readily available. Evaluating data for accuracy, relevance, and completeness. Assessing the data and forming hypotheses. Evaluating the hypotheses, particularly looking for conflicting data.
Beyond Logical Errors: Preliminary Evidence for the "Looming
Background In cognitive models, faulty threat appraisals that are associated with threat cognitions in anxiety are frequently seen as the outcome of logical errors. The looming vulnerability model expands upon such views by emphasizing the role of perceptual and phenomenological distortions in threat estimation. It assumes that anxiety is associated with cognitive-perceptual distortions of ...
Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on
Broadly speaking, analytic thinking helps us to discern a truth from a lie or a fact from a fiction (in everyday processing of information), critical thinking helps us to decide whether to believe or not an (un)reliable information (when making decisions and judgments), while scientific reasoning helps us to gain wholesome understanding of the ...
Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability
However, the 2015 Thailand Research Fund study that evaluated the logical thinking and analytical skills of 6,235 students in ten provinces of Thailand, found that the average score was 36.5% ...
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process ...
"Thinking About Thinking" is Critical to Cybersecurity
The Dual Process Theory explains human thought by separating it into two modes: 3. System 1 is aligned with human intuition. It is characterized by fast, effortless, and emotional thoughts that we ...
Enhance Team Logical Reasoning Abilities
Embracing diversity within your team is a powerful way to enhance logical reasoning. Different backgrounds bring unique perspectives that can challenge assumptions and lead to more comprehensive ...
Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability
Logical reasoning ability refers to the students' ability to understand logical work through concepts and problems. Logical reasoning is one of the fundamental skill that is used for effective thinking. Fake news is a spread of inaccurate information in the internet and other forms of media. It is made either to misinform or deceive the ...
The Most Important Logical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
Logical thinking skills like critical-thinking, research, and creative thinking are valuable assets in the workplace. These skills are sought after by many employers, who want employees that take into account facts and data before deciding on an important course of action. This is because such solutions will ensure the organization's ...
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking | Top Writers. 63 Customer reviews. 100% Success rate. 1 (888)814-4206 1 (888)499-5521.
Is Critical Thinking A Superpower In The AI Era?
Next-Gen AI Integrates Logic And Learning: 5 Things To Know. May 30, 2024, 01:00pm EDT. Art Through The Eyes Of AI Is A Symphony Of Data And Beauty. ... Setting Yourself Apart With Critical Thinking.
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking. Our team of paper writers consists only of native speakers coming from countries such as the US or Canada. But being proficient in English isn't the only requirement we have for an essay writer. All professionals working for us have a higher degree from a top institution or are current university professors.
CVE-2024-24919: Zero-Day Vulnerability Detected in Check Point Products
A critical zero-day vulnerability, being tracked as CVE-2024-24919, has been discovered and patched in a number of Check Point products. This vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.6 assigned by Check Point and is actively being exploited in the wild with proof of concept (POC) exploits available. It impacts Check Point Quantum Gateway and ...
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking, Resume Writing For High School Students Director, Essay About Samuel Johnson, Custom Article Review Editing Services For Mba, Information Technology And Critical Thinking, Extensive Business Plan Template, Help With Custom Critical Analysis Essay On Brexit
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking. A standard essay helper is an expert we assign at no extra cost when your order is placed. Within minutes, after payment has been made, this type of writer takes on the job. A standard writer is the best option when you're on a budget but the deadline isn't burning. Within a couple of days, a new ...
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking
Logical Vulnerability Critical Thinking, Esl Dissertation Methodology Editor For Hire For Masters, Case Study Statistical Analysis, Organisational Culture Essay Example, Sample Cover Letter Buyer Position, Dissertation Management Styles, Curriculum Experience Financial Manager Resume Submit System Tip Vitae
Vulnerability Summary for the Week of May 20, 2024
A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Event Registration System 1.0 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /admin/login.php. The manipulation of the argument username/password leads to sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be ...

Margin Size

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

The Peak Performance Center

Critical Thinkers

Combination of Analytical and Creative Thinking

Elements of Critical Thinking

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Beyond Logical Errors: Preliminary Evidence for the “Looming Vulnerability Distortions Questionnaire” of Cognitive-Perceptual Distortions in Anxiety

Cite this article

Conclusions

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Looming Cognitive Style Contributes to Etiological Processes in Anxiety Disorders

Unscrambling the Dynamics of Danger: Scientific Foundations and Evidence for the Looming Vulnerability Model and Looming Cognitive Style in Anxiety

Looming Cognitive Style and Its Associations with Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-analysis

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Informed Consent

Animal Rights Statements

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 KB)

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Conspiratorial Beliefs and Cognitive Styles: An Integrated Look on Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning in Relation to (Dis)trust in Conspiracy Theories

1. Introduction

2. Analytic Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Reasoning: An Integrated Theoretical Framework

3. Cognitive Styles and Conspiratorial Beliefs: An Overview of Empirical Evidence

4. Discussing Implications and Future Perspectives

5. Conclusions

Data Availability Statement

Conflict of Interest

Publisher's Note

Critical thinking definition

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

Our Network

“Thinking About Thinking” is Critical to Cybersecurity

Seeing isn’t always believing

Decide to do cybersecurity better

Related content

London hospitals face days of disruption after ransomware attack on supply chain partner

Cloud security challenges are growing. Here’s why traditional SOC tools are failing to address them

CSO Executive Sessions: The new realities of the CISO role - whistleblowing and legal liabilities

CSO Executive Sessions India with Pradipta Kumar Patro, Global CISO and Head IT Platform, KEC International

CSO Executive Sessions: The personality of cybersecurity leaders

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Fake News: Logical Reasoning Ability and Students Vulnerability

Further Information

Our Journals

The Most Important Logical Thinking Skills (With Examples)

What is logical thinking?

Recent Job Searches

Write my essay for me frequently asked questions

More From Forbes

Why Critical Thinking is Crucial for AI

How To Develop Critical Thinking Skills

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Key Benefits Of Critical Thinking in an AI-Centric World

Setting Yourself Apart With Critical Thinking

Join The Conversation

Forbes Community Guidelines

CVE-2024-24919: Zero-Day Vulnerability Detected in Check Point Products

Cyber Threat Intelligence

Kroll Responder MDR

24x7 Incident Response

Managed Services

Digital Risk Protection