importance of creativity and critical thinking in reaction time

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2020

How does cognitive function measured by the reaction time and critical flicker fusion frequency correlate with the academic performance of students?

• Archana Prabu Kumar 1 , 2 ,
• Abirami Omprakash 2 ,
• Maheshkumar Kuppusamy 3 ,
• Maruthy K.N. 4 ,
• Sathiyasekaran B.W.C. 5 ,
• Vijayaraghavan P.V. 6 &
• Padmavathi Ramaswamy 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  20 , Article number:  507 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

8273 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The reaction time (RT) is “ the time taken for the appearance of rapid voluntary reaction by an individual following a stimulus, either auditory or visual ” and the Critical Flickering Fusion Frequency (CFFF) is “ the rate at which successively presented light stimuli appear to be steady and continuous ”. RT and CFFF are commonly used for the assessment of cognitive functions that are known to influence academic performance. However, data about the exact correlation between these are scarce, particularly in India. This research aimed to study the association between visual RT (VRT), auditory RT (ART) and CFFF and their impact on the academic performance of undergraduate students.

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 700 students of Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at a private medical university in South India, during the period from 2015 to 2017. The VRT, ART and CFFF were evaluated, and the best out of three subsequent attempts was recorded. The mean score (in percentage) of the three best marks out of the five internal assessments for the course during each academic year was considered for analysis. The association between the different cognitive tests and the average academic performance was analysed.

Female students had faster VRT ( n  = 345, mean = 243.97, SD = 83.87) than male students ( n  = 273, mean = 274.86, SD = 96.97) ( p  = 0.001). VRT and ART had a moderate negative correlation with academic performance (for ART, r =  − 0.42, p  < 0.001; for VRT; r =  − 0.40, p <  0.001). CFFF had a very weak positive correlation with academic performance ( r =  0.19, p  = 0.01). The only independent predictors of academic performance were RT and gender (Adjusted R 2  = 0.11).

Although there is a correlation between CFFF and cognitive function, our study showed only a weak correlation between CFFF and academic performance. Female students had faster RTs, and gender was an independent predictor of academic performance. Rather, students with faster RTs appear to have an advantage in academic performance.

Peer Review reports

Several factors can influence the academic performance of students, and cognitive ability is among the most important of these factors [ 1 , 2 ]. Cognitive ability is determined by cognitive functions, which are in turn influenced by the speed of information processing, attention span, language skills, visual-spatial orientation and so on [ 3 ]. Many factors that influence cognitive functions have been identified. Some of the important factors include age, gender, body mass index (BMI), educational background, socio-economic status, hormonal disorders and other comorbid conditions [ 4 ]. In addition, it has been established that the aforementioned factors also impact academic performance [ 5 ].

The assessment of cognitive functions may help in the evaluation of students’ functional capacity [ 6 ]. There are many tools for the assessment of cognitive functions, out of which Reaction Time (RT) and Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency (CFFF) are two of the commonly used tests for the assessment of certain cognitive functions that are involved in learning and performance [ 7 , 8 ]. RT and CFFF have also been documented as markers of a higher cognitive function [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. They are commonly used in clinical settings because they are simple, reliable, valid and cheap [ 8 , 12 ].

RT is the time elapsed between the presentation of a particular sensory stimulus to an individual and their consequent behavioural response to that stimulus [ 7 ]. This stimulus may be visual, auditory, tactile or that of any sensory modality [ 7 ]. The human body responds to different stimuli at various speeds [ 12 ]. For instance, it responds faster to auditory stimuli than to visual stimuli [ 12 ]. RT is a fundamental contributor to the processing of information, and it is considered to be an index for information processing speed and the speed of response programming [ 13 ]. Several types of RTs exist, such as the simple RT (time between the stimulus presentation and an individual’s response), recognition RT (response to a particular stimulus and not to others) and choice RT (different stimuli requiring different responses) [ 14 ].

The CFFF test is another tool for the assessment of cognitive domain. It evaluates the cortical arousal state and the activity of the central nervous system [ 8 ]. The visual cortex processes the sensory information it receives in two manners: temporal and spatial [ 15 ]. Spatial processing refers to the ability of the cortex to discriminate between different presenting stimuli with regard to their location in space, whereas temporal processing relates to the discrimination between the stimuli with respect to the time elapsed between them [ 15 ]. The CFFF test evaluates the visual cortex’s temporal processing of the stimuli. It measures the frequency of presentation of successive visual stimuli at which they are perceived as a continuous and stable stimulation rather than discrete events. Several studies show that CFFF is positively correlated with concentration, alertness, enhanced attention and executive functions [ 11 , 16 , 17 ]. Thus, it is used as an adjunct test for the evaluation of various cognitive domains during psychometric tests [ 11 ]. The CFFF test also has the advantages of being simple, easy to perform and language-independent [ 8 ].

Learning is a complex process that depends on several factors, namely concentration, arousal of the cerebral cortex, attentiveness and rapidity of information processing [ 18 ]. The sequence of events contributing to the measurement of RT includes the perception of the sensory stimulus, processing of the information through central and peripheral mechanisms and the passage of the motor impulse through the neuronal pathways, followed by motor activity (end-organ activation) [ 19 ]. RT evaluates the pace and quality of information processing [ 20 ], whereas CFFF measures the “cortical arousal” [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. All of these play a vital role in effective learning, thereby facilitating better academic achievement.

Given the fact that the RT testing and the CFFF evaluation can measure information processing speed, attention, concentration and alertness [ 11 , 13 , 16 , 17 ], all of which are important factors presumed to be associated with higher academic achievement [ 24 , 25 , 26 ], it can be expected that better cognitive functions may also be linked with better academic performance [ 27 ]. There are very few studies that have explored this relationship, and although they have shown that there is a statistically significant relationship between faster RT and better academic performance, the correlation appears to be weak at best ( r =  0.07 to r =  0.29) [ 20 , 28 ]. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have included CFFF. Therefore, this research aimed to study the association between the academic performance of undergraduate students in India and their visual RT (VRT), auditory RT (ART) as well as CFFF.

This was a cross-sectional study conducted on undergraduate students who attended the Physiology and Applied Physiology course at the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Dentistry at a private medical university in South India during the period from 2015 to 2017. Students with any visual problems, hearing deficiency, hormonal disorders or any neurological disease were excluded from the study. Ethical approval to carry out this research was obtained from the ethical committee of the host institution. After explaining the study details, written informed consent was taken from all the students who agreed to participate in the study.

Demographic data, such as age, gender and BMI, were collected from the students. The average academic score of the three best formal tests conducted during the academic year was calculated as an indication of academic performance. Auditory RT, visual RT and CFFF were then measured for each student.

• Academic performance

Five internal assessment exams relating to the discipline of Physiology and Applied Physiology were conducted at an interval of 8 to 10 weeks during each academic year. Each internal assessment included 15 multiple-choice questions (one mark each and a maximum total score of 15), four short notes (five marks each, maximum score of 20) and one essay (a maximum score of 15 marks). The maximum total score per internal assessment was 50. All the assessments were held for 1 h and 30 min each. All question papers were designed based on a standard blueprint, and the difficulty index was comparable for all the assessments. For this study, the mean score (in percentage) of the three best marks out of the five internal assessments was considered for analysis. No internal assessments were conducted on the same day as the cognitive tests. The tests were corrected by faculty members who were not aware of the results of the cognitive tests. The faculty members who corrected the answer scripts of the students were masked about the student’s RT and CFFF.

Cognitive testing

The VRT and ART were assessed by using the PC 1000 Hz reaction timer, which is an in-house built device that comprises a 1000 Hz square wave oscillator [ 19 ]. The device is composed of a small light-emitting diode for visual stimulation, a headphone (1000 Hz) for auditory stimulation and two connected components (A and B), all of which are connected to a computer device. Component A is the part of the device that is controlled by the examiner via a start button, whereas component B is the part of the device that the subject faces. The RT was recorded via the Audacity software (version 1.2.2) in a 0.001 s accuracy wave format [ 29 ]. Our previous validation study on healthy volunteers using the PC 1000 Hz reaction timer showed a strong concurrent validity [ 19 ].

Prior to the recording, all subjects were instructed to get adequate sleep the night before the testing and have a light breakfast on the day of the test because sleep deprivation and the type of breakfast can affect cognition [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. The students were also instructed not to consume any stimulants (including caffeinated foods and drinks) on the day of testing [ 33 ]. All recordings were done between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. at the Physiology Department of the host institution, and all the students were educated about the tests prior to the testing.

Visual reaction time (VRT) testing

The VRT was measured in milliseconds (msec) by getting the subject to sit and look at component B of the PC 1000 Hz timer device and having the examiner sit in front of and control component A. The examiner used the start button on component A to start the stimulation procedure, and the subject was instructed to press the stop button with their dominant hand as soon as they saw the red light.

Auditory reaction time (ART) measurement

Similar to the case of the VRT measurement, the examiner started the stimulation by pressing the start button on component A of the device, and the subject pressed the stop button with their dominant hand once they heard the sound through their headphones (refer to Fig.  1 ). For each subject, three trials were allowed with an interval of one minute for both VRT and ART, and the minimum time recorded was the one used for analysis. The time elapsed between the presentation of the stimulus and the subject’s response was calculated in msec by using the Audacity software installed on the connected computer (refer to Fig.  2 ).

The procedure of testing the auditory reaction time. PC 1000 Hz reaction timer with component A (with examiner) and component B (with subject)

The audacity software used during ART and VRT measurement. Audacity software (version 1.2.2) storing the recordings of ART and VRT in a 0.001 s accuracy wave format

CFFF testing

The CFFF test was carried out by using a standard electronic module and standard protocols as documented in other studies [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The system of this module presented a series of red-light stimuli at different frequencies ranging from 12 Hz to 120 Hz. The examination was conducted in a dimly lit room with the subject sitting 80 cm away from the module and a 40 W bulb fixed behind the subject. The red light was presented against a white background, and the frequency of the flicker was gradually increased from 12 Hz until the subject reported that the presented light was perceived as “steady”, “constant” or “fused” light (refer to Fig.  3 ). The mean value of three descending measures from high to low frequency when the subject reported that the light started to flicker and the mean value of three ascending measures from low to high frequency when the subject reported that the light stopped to flicker were collected for analysis.

The procedure of CFFF measuring. CFFT test with red light against a white background with the subject sitting 80 cm away from the module

Statistical analysis

All the data were fed into the computer and analysed by using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software, version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Data cleaning with the removal of outliers (RTs shorter than 95 msec or longer than 650 msec, academic scores of 0%) was performed prior to the analysis. Based on their average academic scores (“academic performance”), students were categorized as low achievers (i.e., they scored 35% or less), mid achievers (i.e., they scored between 36 and 74%) and high achievers (i.e., they scored higher than 75%). Based on their BMI, they were classified as underweight (BMI below 18.5), normal weight (BMI between 18.5 and 24.9) and overweight (BMI of 25 and above). The categorical variables (gender, academic performance group and BMI range) were presented as frequencies and percentages. The continuous variables (age, BMI, academic performance, ART, VRT and CFFF) were presented as means and standard deviations (SD) of the sample or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The academic performance was specified as the dependent variable. All other variables were considered as independent variables or factors.

Student’s t-tests were conducted for comparing the cognitive test results (ART, VRT and CFF) and the academic performance between the female and male students. One-way ANOVAs, followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc tests, were conducted to compare the ART and VRT of low, mid and high achievers as well as that of underweight, normal weight and overweight students. Pearson’s r correlation analysis was used to check for correlation between the academic results and ART, VRT and CFFF. The following convention was adopted to describe the strength of the correlation according to r values: 0.00 to 0.19 signifying “very weak”; 0.20 to 0.39 signifying “weak”; 0.40 to 0.59 signifying “moderate”; 0.60 to 0.79 signifying “strong”; 0.80 to 1.0 signifying “very strong”. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relative effects of CFFF, VRT, ART, BMI, and gender on academic performance. The statistical analysis was performed at a 0.05 level of significance. Complete case analysis was performed while dealing with missing data.

Demographic characteristics and cognitive results

Seven hundred undergraduate students were recruited for this study. After data cleaning, 618 records were available for analysis. Female students constituted most of the recruited subjects (345 / 618, i.e., 55.8%). All students were 18-year-old (618 / 618), and hence, age was not considered further in any statistical test. Table  1 shows the ART, VRT, CFFF, BMI and academic performance of the study participants.

Female students ( n  = 345) had a faster VRT (mean = 243.97, SD = 83.87) than male students ( n  = 273, mean = 274.86, SD = 96.97) ( p = 0.001 ), and they demonstrated better academic performance (mean = 56.16, SD = 19.66) when compared to male students (mean = 48.02, SD = 13.13) ( p < 0.001 ) (refer to Fig.  4 ). Although female students exhibited lower ART and CFFF measurements than male students, these did not reach statistical significance (refer to Table  2 ).

Boxplot of academic scores for female and male students. Female students had higher scores than male students, though the spread was more pronounced

A one-way ANOVA was performed to identify the effect of RT on exam performance for low, mid and high achievers (refer to Table 3 ). There was a significant effect of VRT [F (2, 615) = 6.40, p =  0.001] and ART [F (2, 615) = 24.47, p =  0.001] on exam performance. Tukey’s post hoc assessments showed that the RT of low achievers was significantly ( p  < 0.01) higher than the mid and high achievers. No such difference was found between the mid and high achievers ( p  > 0.05). There was also a statistically significant difference in the RTs between female and male students for each performance group (refer to Table  4 ).

There was a statistically significant effect of VRT [F (2, 615) = 4.39, p  = 0.01] on BMI, whereas no such effects were found in the case of ART [F (2, 615) = 0.02, p  = 0.97]. Tukey’s post hoc assessments showed that students with normal weight have faster VRT, compared to underweight students ( p  < 0.05) but not compared to obese students (refer to Table  5 ).

Correlations

Pearson’s coefficient (r) was utilized to examine the correlation between academic performance and cognitive measurements (VRT, ART, CFFF). VRT and ART had a moderate negative correlation with academic performance (for ART, r =  − 0.42, p  < 0.001; for VRT; r =  − 0.40, p <  0.001) (refer to Figs.  5 and 6 ). CFFF had a very weak positive correlation with academic performance ( r =  0.19, p =  0.01; refer to Fig.  7 ). The correlations were quite similar while examining each gender separately (refer to Table  6 ).

Scatter plot for ART and academic performance. Auditory Reaction Time (ART) had a moderate negative correlation with academic performance

Scatter plot for VRT and academic performance. Visual Reaction Time (VRT) had a moderate negative correlation with academic performance

Scatter plot for CFFF and Academic performance. CFFF had a week positive correlation with academic performance

In the process of assessing the multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was estimated to find the correlation between the predictor variables and the strength of that correlation. The findings indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (CFFF, VIF = 1.0; ART, VIF = 1.01, VRT, VIF = 1.07, Gender, VIF = 1.04, BMI, VIF = 1.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that only RTs (for ART, β = − 0.05, t = − 6.75, p <  0.001; for VRT, β = − 0.01, t = − 2.3, p <  0.02). and gender (β = − 6.84, t = − 5.12, p <  0.001) were the significant predictors for academic performance among the students. In contrast, CFFF (β = 0.13, t = 0.11, p  = 0.27) and BMI (β = − 0.15, t = − 1.09, p =  0.27) were not significant predictors in the model for the academic performance (refer to Table  7 ). The adjusted R 2 value was 0.11; therefore, 11% of the variation in academic performance would be explained by the model containing RTs and gender.

The academic performance of students is affected by diverse factors, and the identification of these is essential for improving the outcome of scholastic achievement and future occupational outcomes. This study aimed to assess whether certain cognitive functions have a role in the academic performance of university students at the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Dentistry. We evaluated the cognitive functions of students by using the ART, VRT and CFFF tests. The results from our study indicate that faster RTs were one of the predictors of better academic performance among the recruited participants. It was observed that female students had faster RTs and that gender was an independent predictor of academic performance.

Faster RTs are indicative of better cognitive functions, including memory and verbal fluency [ 6 ], processing speed [ 34 ], and intelligence [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Therefore, students with faster RTs are more likely to have better academic performance, as revealed by other studies. Prabhavathi et al. studied the impact of RT on academic performance among undergraduate medical students [ 20 ]. They found that students with faster RTs had higher academic scores, and they attributed it to better attention, concentration, cortical arousal and processing speed. Sharma et al. [ 28 ] found similar results in the case of another cohort of medical students, although the correlation was small and not statistically significant. Studies on adolescents also indicate a correlation between cognitive tests and academic performance [ 18 , 38 ]. However, academic performance may be affected by other factors, and RT is only a single contributor to the various cognitive functions [ 39 , 40 ]. Academic stress is shown to influence academic scores to a greater degree in the case of female students than in the case of male students [ 41 , 42 ]. Moreover, other non-cognitive factors, such as gender, age, BMI, attendance percentage, social factors and general health play a role in academic performance [ 5 , 43 ].

Similar to other studies, VRT was slower in the case of underweight and overweight students, and ARTs were similar [ 44 , 45 ]. The reasons for this are still unclear, and other confounding factors may be relevant. The arm to height ratio can negatively affect RTs but not in a linear fashion [ 46 ]. The BMI has a positive correlation with fat percentage [ 47 , 48 ] and a complex correlation with muscle mass, handgrip strength and endurance [ 49 ]. All these factors can affect RTs individually, with a generally positive correlation between fat percentage and VRT and a negative correlation between muscle function indices and RTs [ 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].

The female students included in our study had a significant RT when compared to the male students, contrary to the findings of the wider literature [ 18 , 20 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The different conduction velocities of central neurons, analytical pathways complexity, acetylcholine synthesis and hormonal effects on neural transmission [ 53 ] are thought to result in females having faster decision times [ 58 ] and faster auditory latencies [ 59 ] but slower RTs. In contrast, although the muscle contraction times are similar between genders [ 60 ], female students have weaker motor responses [ 53 ], and this may further explain the differences in the RTs.

More recent reports show there are no differences in the RTs between genders [ 34 , 61 , 62 ], and this could represent the effect of factors such as the increasing trend of exercise and training among female students, as it is related to faster RTs [ 52 ]. RTs in females are also subject to timing with respect to the menstruation cycle [ 63 ]. RT can be influenced by the arm span to height ratios, which are different between males and females [ 46 ]. Our study did not collect data on exercise or menstruation, and this could be the focus of future research to explain the contrasting results.

Female students had higher academic scores, similar to other studies that have shown an advantage of female students over the male in terms of academic achievement, especially in the health sciences [ 64 , 65 ], although sometimes, the difference is not statistically significant [ 20 ]. A recent meta-analysis confirmed that the wider literature reports similar findings [ 66 ], and yet, our regression analysis failed to show gender as a predictor of academic scores. As other authors argue, genders are more alike than different [ 67 ], and socioeconomic status, stereotype manipulation and school-related factors may explain most of the academic differences [ 68 ].

The data obtained from the literature on the correlation between CFFF and academic performance are scarce and indirect. Several studies have reported that the frequency of CFFF affects several visual processing skills, such as reading, visual attention and alertness [ 69 ]. The visual processing speed is essential for scholastic achievement and academic performance because it is directly correlated to reading ability, decision making and cerebral arousability [ 16 , 17 , 70 ]. Corr et al. reported that CFFF was positively correlated with procedural learning [ 71 ], and Mewborn et al. also reported that CFFF correlated significantly with executive functions in young adults [ 11 ]. Executive functions include working memory, impulse control, cognitive flexibility in generating different solutions to a problem and planning towards achieving an objective that are considered to predict academic performance, at least in the case of primary school children [ 72 ]. Caultela and Barlow reported in their study on 40 Boston College undergraduates that there was a significant correlation between CFFF and intelligence measured by the Otis Quick Scoring Intelligence test and the College Board tests for Verbal and Mathematical ability [ 73 ], results that have been suggested by other studies [ 74 ]. Intelligence is a strong predictor of academic achievement [ 72 ], with prior academic achievement also playing a significant role in the pathway between intelligence and final academic achievement [ 75 ]. However, CFFF performance is not a predictor of global cognition [ 11 ], and our study only revealed a very weak correlation between CFFF and academic scores. The correlation between CFFF and the factors known to affect academic achievement may not be as strong as predicted; more contemporary studies are needed to retest these assertions.

The message from this study is that having data on basal the cognition levels of students is always beneficial, and based on it, cognitive skills can be trained and enhanced [ 76 , 77 ]. Teachers are recommended to employ cognitive learning strategies that might enhance a learner’s capability to process knowledge more deeply and help them to eventually transfer the knowledge gained and apply it to newer circumstances [ 78 ].

Some of the techniques include the following:

1. Spaced practice: “ Creating a study schedule that spreads study activities repeated over a period of time ” [ 79 ].

2. Interleaving: “Switching between topics while studying” [ 79 ].

3. Elaboration: “Asking and explaining why and how things work” [ 79 ].

4. Retrieval practice: “Bringing learned information to mind from long-term memory” [ 79 ].

5. Reflection training [ 80 ] and Reflection [ 81 , 82 ].

6. Mindfulness learning [ 83 ].

Globally, all medical schools are marching towards a competency-based curriculum where ‘reflection’, ‘case-based discussions’, ‘journal clubs’ and ‘self-directed learning’ are becoming an essential aspect of the effort to improve cognition [ 81 ].

One of the main strengths of our study is that it evaluated more than one cognitive domain in correlation with academic performance. Other strong points of this study include large sample size and homogeneity of the study participants in terms of a similar age group, comparable socioeconomic background, school curriculum and qualification through a standard eligibility examination conducted by the Government of India. Other confounders such as gender and BMI were addressed through statistical analysis. The main limitation of the study is that the cognitive tests were not conducted on the same day as the internal assessment exams. However, cognitive tests (including the RT tests) have been reported to have high test re-test reliability [ 84 , 85 ]. Additionally, the narrow standard deviation values for academic performance indicate that the scores lie within a narrow area, and therefore, it is more difficult to identify the correlations. This was a cross-sectional study, and therefore, we could not establish a causal relationship. The study participants belonged to a homogenous group; hence, other confounding variables (e.g., age, socioeconomic status and educational background) could not be studied. There was no longitudinal follow-up of the study participants.

Faster VRTs and ARTs are correlated with better academic performance among undergraduate students, and the correlation is independent of other variables such as gender or BMI. The CFFF was practically not correlated. This indicates that attention, concentration, cortical arousal and processing speed may be more important for learning. This study highlights the importance of RT in academic performance. RT can be promoted by following a healthy lifestyle.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Auditory reaction time

Body Mass Index

Critical Flicker Fusion Frequency

Interquartile range

Reaction time

Standard deviation

Visual reaction time

Lee K, Ning F, Goh HC. Interaction between cognitive and non-cognitive factors: the influences of academic goal orientation and working memory on mathematical performance. Educ Psychol. 2014;34:73–91.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adebayo B. Cognitive and non-cognitive factors: affecting the academic performance and retention of conditionally admitted freshmen. J Coll Admiss. 2008;200:15–21.

Google Scholar  

Committee on Psychological Testing, Including Validity Testing, for Social Security Administration Disability Determinations; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine. Psychological Testing in the Service of Disability Determination. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015. PMID: 26203491.

Kim M, Park JM. Factors affecting cognitive function according to gender in community-dwelling elderly individuals. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39.

Farooq MS, Chaudhry H, Shafiq M, Berhanu G. Factors Affecting Students’ Quality of Academic Performance: A Case of Secondary School Level. J Qual Technol. 2011;VII(II):1–14.

Jakobsen LH, Sorensen JM, Rask IK, Jensen BS, Kondrup J. Validation of reaction time as a measure of cognitive function and quality of life in healthy subjects and patients. Nutr. 2011;27:561–70.

Davis TL, Fang JY. Reaction Time. In: Metman LV, Kompoliti K, editors. Encyclopedia of movement disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Acad. Press; 2010. p. 16–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374105-9.00514-1 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wells EF, Bernstein GM, Scott BW, Bennett PJ, Mendelson JR. Critical flicker frequency responses in visual cortex. Exp Brain Res. 2001;139:106–10.

Deary IJ, Der G. Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2005;12:187–215.

Balestra C, Machado M-L, Theunissen S, Balestra A, Cialoni D, Clot C, et al. Critical flicker fusion frequency: a marker of cerebral arousal during modified gravitational conditions related to parabolic flights. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1403.

Mewborn C, Renzi LM, Hammond BR, Miller LS. Critical flicker fusion predicts executive function in younger and older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;30:605–10.

Shelton J, Kumar GP. Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times. NM. 2010;01:30–2.

Ghuntla T, Gokhale P, Mehta H, Shah C. Influence of practice on visual reaction time. J Mahatma Gandhi Inst Med Sci. 2014;19:119.

Kosinski RJ. A literature review on reaction time: Clemson University; 2013. http://www.cognaction.org/cogs105/readings/clemson.rt.pdf .

Nieder A, Diester I, Tudusciuc O. Temporal and spatial enumeration processes in the primate parietal cortex. Science. 2006;313:1431–5.

Oeltzschner G, Butz M, Baumgarten TJ, Hoogenboom N, Wittsack HJ, Schnitzler A. Low visual cortex GABA levels in hepatic encephalopathy: links to blood ammonia, critical flicker frequency, and brain osmolytes. Metab Brain Dis. 2015;30:1429–38.

Eisen-Enosh A, Farah N, Burgansky-Eliash Z, Polat U, Mandel Y. Evaluation of critical flicker-fusion frequency measurement methods for the investigation of visual temporal resolution. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–9.

Taskin C. The visual and auditory reaction time of adolescents with respect to their academic achievements. J Educ Train Stud. 2016;4:220–7.

Kumar AP. Mahesh Kumar K, Padmavathi R, Maruthy KN, Sundareswaran. Validation of PC 1000 Hz reaction timer with biopac® MP 36 for recording simple reaction time. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2019;63:138–44.

Prabhavathi K, Hemamalini VR, Kumar TG, Amalraj C, Maruthy KN, Saravanan A. A correlational study of visual and auditory reaction time with their academic performance among the first year medical students. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;7:371–4.

Endukuru CK, Maruthy KN, Deepthi TS. A study of critical flickering fusion frequency rate in media players. Int J Theor Phys. 2016;4:449–502.

Rao PS, Yuvaraj S, Kumari TL, Maruti KN, Sasikala P, Kumar SS, Pal R, Reddy VV, Gorantla R, Agrawal A. Cognition, autonomic function, and intellectual outcomes of the paramedical health-care personnel in the hospital settings. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:26.

Kumar CK, Maruthy KN, Sasikala P, Gurja JP, Kumar AV, Kareem SK. Impact of chronic alcoholism on temporal cognition and coordination of motor activity. Int J Theor Phys. 2018;6:124–7.

Das M, Deepeshwar S, Subramanya P, Manjunath NK. Influence of yoga-based personality development program on psychomotor performance and self-efficacy in school children. Front Pediatr. 2016;4:62.

Der G, Deary IJ. Reaction times match IQ for major causes of mortality: evidence from a population based prospective cohort study. Intelligence. 2018;69:134–45.

Deary IJ, Der G, Ford G. Reaction times and intelligence differences: A population-based cohort study. Intelligence. 200;29:389–99.

Haile D, Nigatu D, Gashaw K, Demelash H. Height for age z score and cognitive function are associated with academic performance among school children aged 8–11 years old. Arch Public Health. 2016;74:17.

Sharma M, Kacker S, Tomar A. Reaction time and academic performance: an association to determine the cognitive status of first year medical students. Int J Med Res Prof. 2019;5:56–60.

Audacity Team. Free, open source, cross-platform audio software for multi-track recording and editing. Audacity ®. 2020; http://www.audacityteam.org . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.

Taheri M, Arabameri E. The effect of sleep deprivation on choice reaction time and anaerobic power of college student athletes. Asian J Sports Med. 2012;3:15–20.

Jaffe D, Hewit J, Comstock K, Bedard A. Effects of sleep duration on reaction time : a mini-review. COJ Tech Sci Res. 2018;1:1–5.

Leedo E, Beck AM, Astrup A, Lassen AD. The effectiveness of healthy meals at work on reaction time, mood and dietary intake: a randomised cross-over study in daytime and shift workers at an university hospital. Br J Nutr. 2017;118:121–9.

Pasman WJ, Boessen R, Donner Y, Clabbers N, Boorsma A. Effect of caffeine on attention and alertness measured in a home-setting, Using Web-Based Cognition Tests. MIR Res Protoc. 2017;6:e169.

Woods DL, Wyma JM, Yund EW, Herron TJ, Reed B. Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131 .

Jensen AR, Whang PA. Reaction times and intelligence: a comparison of Chinese-American and Anglo-American children. J Biosoc Sci. 1993;25:397–410.

Shigehisa T, Lynn R. Reaction times and intelligence in Japanese children. Int J Psychol. 1991;26:195–202.

Jensen AR. The theory of intelligence and its measurement. Intelligence. 2011;39:171–7.

Toomarian EY, Meng R, Hubbard EM. Individual differences in implicit and explicit spatial processing of fractions. Front Psychol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00596 .

Der G, Deary IJ. The relationship between intelligence and reaction time varies with age: results from three representative narrow-age age cohorts at 30, 50 and 69 years. Intelligence. 2017;64:89–97.

Khodadadi M, Ahmadi K, Sahraei H, Azadmarzabadi E, Yadollahi S. Relationship between intelligence and reaction time; a review study. Int J Med Rev. 2014;1:63–9.

Muley DPA, Wadikar DSS, Muley DPP. Effect of academic stress on reaction time in medical students. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res. 2016;5:7.

Pradhan G, Mendinca NL, Kar M. Evaluation of examination stress and its effect on cognitive function among first year medical students. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:05–7.

Rossi M. Factors affecting academic performance of university evening students. J Educ Hum Dev. 2017;6:96–102.

Deore DN, Surwase SP, Masroor S, Khan ST, Kathore V. A cross sectional study on the relationship between the body mass index (BMI) and the audiovisual reaction time (ART). J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1466–8.

Nene AS, Pazare PA, Sharma KD. A study of relation between body mass index and simple reaction time in healthy young females. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2011;55:288–91.

Brown AA, Kwarteng LD, Ackom CK, Kwakwa QS, Atta RI, Takyi V. Is simple reaction time influenced by arm span, neck length and arm span to height ratios of individuals? Acad Anat Int. 2018;4:28–30.

Ilman M, Zuhairini Y, Siddiq A. Correlation between Body Mass Index and Body Fat Percentage. AMJ. 2015;2:575–8.

Akindele MO, Phillips JS, Igumbor EU. The relationship between body fat percentage and body mass index in overweight and obese individuals in an urban African setting. J Public Health Africa. 2016;7:515.

Lad UP, Satyanarayana P, Shisode-Lad S, Siri CC, Kumari NR. A study on the correlation between the body mass index (BMI), the body fat percentage, the handgrip strength and the handgrip endurance in underweight, Normal weight and overweight adolescents. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7:51–4.

Moradi A, Esmaeilzadeh S. Simple reaction time and obesity in children: whether there is a relationship? Environ Health Prev Med. 2017;22:2.

Firth J, Stubbs B, Vancampfort D, Firth JA, Large M, Rosenbaum S, et al. Grip strength is associated with cognitive performance in schizophrenia and the general population: a UK biobank study of 476559 participants. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44:728–36.

Jain A, Bansal R, Kumar A, Singh K. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2015;5:124–7.

Silverman IW. Sex differences in simple visual reaction time: a historical meta-analysis. Sex Roles. 2006;54:57–68.

Nikam LH, Gadkari JV. Effect of age, gender and body mass index on visual and auditory reaction times in Indian population. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2012;56:94–9.

Karia RM, Ghuntla TP, Mehta HB, Gokhale PA, Shah CJ. Effect of gender difference on visual reaction time: a study on medical students of Bhavnagar region. IOSR J Pharm. 2012;2:452–4.

Balasubramaniam M, Sivapalan K, Nishanthi V, Kinthusa S, Dilani M. Effect of dual-tasking on visual and auditory simple reaction times. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2015;59:194–8.

Prashanth P, Kumar HPA, Kumar SLD. A comparative study of cognitive functions among male and female medical students in a teaching hospital of South Kerala. Int J Physiol. 2019;7:273.

Landauer AA, Armstrong S, Digwood J. Sex difference in choice reaction time. Br J Psychol. 1980;71:551–5.

Krizman J, Skoe E, Kraus N. Sex differences in auditory subcortical function. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123:590–7.

Hong J, Kim J-W, Chung H-Y, Kim H-H, Kwon Y, Kim C-S, et al. Age–gender differences in the reaction times of ankle muscles. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2014;14:94–9.

Kasozi KI, Mbiydzneyuy NE, Namubiru S, Safiriyu AA, Sulaiman SO, Okpanachi AO, et al. A study on visual, audio and tactile reaction time among medical students at Kampala International University in Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2018;18:828–36.

Dey CK, Daokar RG. A gender-based comparative study of visual and auditory reaction time on 1st year medical students “before” and “after” caffeine intake. Int J Sci Stud. 2018;6:39–42.

Jadhav S. Evaluation of visual reaction time during pre- and post- menstrual phase. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2019;9:398–400.

Al-Mously N, Salem R, AlHamdan N. The impact of gender and English language on the academic performance of students: an experience from new Saudi medical school. J Contemp Med Educ. 2013;1:170.

Khwaileh FM, Zaza HI. Gender differences in academic performance among undergraduates at the University of Jordan: are they real or stereotyping? Coll Stud J. 2011;45:633–48.

Voyer D, Voyer SD. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:1174–204.

Hyde JS. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol. 2005;60:581–92.

Jackman WM, Morrain-Webb J, Fuller C. Exploring gender differences in achievement through student voice: critical insights and analyses. Cogent Educ. 2019;6:1567895.

Zhou T, Náñez JE, Zimmerman D, Holloway SR, Seitz A. Two visual training paradigms associated with enhanced critical flicker fusion threshold. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1597.

Lev M, Ludwig K, Gilaie-Dotan S, Voss S, Sterzer P, Hesselmann G, et al. Training improves visual processing speed and generalizes to untrained functions. Sci Rep. 2014;4:1–0.

Corr PJ, Pickering AD, Gray JA. Sociability/impulsivity and caffeine-induced arousal: critical flicker/fusion frequency and procedural learning. Pers Individ Differ. 1995;18:713–30.

Cortés Pascual A, Moyano Muñoz N, Quílez RA. The relationship between executive functions and academic performance in primary education: review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01582 .

Cautela JR, Barlow DH. The relation between intelligence and critical flicker fusion. Psychon Sci. 1965;3:559–60.

Colgan CM. Critical flicker frequency, age, and intelligence. Am J Psychol. 1954;67:711–3.

Soares DL, Lemos GC, Primi R, Almeida LS. The relationship between intelligence and academic achievement throughout middle school: the role of students’ prior academic performance. Learn Individ Differ. 2015;41:73–8.

Cognifit. Reaction Time Cognitive Ability- Neuropsychology. https://www.cognifit.com/science/cognitive-skills/response-time .

Kohls-Gatzoulis JA, Regehr G, Hutchison C. Teaching cognitive skills improves learning in surgical skills courses: a blinded, prospective, randomized study. Can J Surg. 2004;47:277.

Winn AS, DelSignore L, Marcus C, et al. Applying cognitive learning strategies to enhance learning and retention in clinical teaching settings. MedEdPORTAL. 2019;15:10850. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10850 .

Weinstein Y, Madan CR, Sumeracki MA. Teaching the science of learning. Cogn Ther Res. 2018;3:2.

Espinet SD, Anderson JE, Zelazo PD. Reflection training improves executive function in preschool-age children: behavioral and neural effects. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2013;4:3–15.

Sandars J. The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 44. Med Teach. 2009;31:685–95.

Ménard L, Ratnapalan S. Reflection in medicine: models and application. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59:105–7.

Vago DR, Gupta RS, Lazar SW. Measuring cognitive outcomes in mindfulness-based intervention research: a reflection on confounding factors and methodological limitations. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28:143–50.

Eckner JT, Kutcher JS, Richardson JK. Between-seasons test-retest reliability of clinically measured reaction time in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Athletes. J Athl Train. 2011;46:409–14.

Palmer CE, Langbehn D, Tabrizi SJ, Papoutsi M. Test–retest reliability of measures commonly used to measure striatal dysfunction across multiple testing sessions: a longitudinal study. Front Psychol. 2018;8:2363.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to sincerely thank all the participants included in this study for actively volunteering to undergo the cognitive tests.

No external funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Present Address: Medical Education Unit, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain

Archana Prabu Kumar

Department of Physiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Archana Prabu Kumar, Abirami Omprakash & Padmavathi Ramaswamy

Department of Biochemistry and Physiology, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Maheshkumar Kuppusamy

Department of Physiology, Narayana Medical College, Nellore, India

Maruthy K.N.

Department of Community Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Sathiyasekaran B.W.C.

Department of Orthopaedics, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Vijayaraghavan P.V.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

APK and RP conceptualized the study. AO and KM played a key role in data collection, data entry and data analysis. KNM provided scientific and technical support throughout the process of data collection. BWC and PVV provided intellectual input throughout the study. APK and RP closely supervised the data collection, data entry and data analysis, and they contributed immensely to the writing and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Padmavathi Ramaswamy .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The ethical committee of the Sri Ramachandra Institute  of Higher Education and Research (SRIHER)  approved the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Consent for publication

All of the people in the photographs have consented to be photographed. No other identifiable data are presented in this article.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: supplementary figure 1.

- Block diagram of the Auditory and Visual reaction time measuring device using Audacity® software. Supplementary Fig. 2 - PC 1000 HZ Reaction timer device. Supplementary Fig. 3: Graphical flow chart for Reaction time estimation in Audacity® software with PC 1000 Hz reaction timer. Supplementary figure: 4 - CFFF measuring portable device. Supplementary figure: 5 – NETHRA- CFFF device Control software for execution of CFFF test.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Prabu Kumar, A., Omprakash, A., Kuppusamy, M. et al. How does cognitive function measured by the reaction time and critical flicker fusion frequency correlate with the academic performance of students?. BMC Med Educ 20 , 507 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02416-7

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2020

Accepted : 02 December 2020

Published : 14 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02416-7

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

• Auditory reaction time (ART)
• Visual reaction time (VRT)
• Critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF)

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Two: You are the President and CEO of You

Thinking Critically and Creatively

Dr. andrew robert baker.

Critical and creative thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. They are some of the most important skills I have ever developed. I use them everyday and continue to work to improve them both.

The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking.

The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze a myriad of issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners, and researchers. Developing my critical thinking skills over a twenty year period as a student in higher education enabled me to complete a quantitative dissertation, including analyzing research and completing statistical analysis, and earning my Ph.D. in 2014.

While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found.

Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification.

Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered.

So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes.

For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers!

Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Priester is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Definition:

Reaction Time is a measure of how quickly an individual can respond to a stimulus or event. It is the time interval between the presentation of a signal and the initiation of a response by the individual.

Factors Affecting Reaction Time:

• Age: Reaction time generally decreases with age as neurological processes slow down.
• Physical condition: An individual’s overall health and fitness level can influence their reaction time.
• Mental state: Factors such as fatigue, stress, and distractions can impact reaction time.
• Stimulus characteristics: The nature, intensity, and clarity of the stimulus can affect how quickly it is detected and processed.
• Experience and practice: Regular exposure to specific tasks or stimuli can improve reaction time through increased familiarity and neural connections.

Measurement and Testing:

Reaction time can be measured using various techniques, including:

• Simple Reaction Time: Involves responding to a single stimulus or signal as quickly as possible.
• Choice Reaction Time: Requires selecting a response from multiple options based on different stimuli.
• Computerized tests: Utilize specialized software and hardware to precisely measure reaction time.
• Field tests: Involves real-world scenarios to assess reaction time, such as stopping a vehicle in response to a traffic light.

Importance:

Reaction time is crucial in many domains and activities:

• Driving: Quick reactions are essential for safe driving, especially when responding to sudden obstacles or changes in traffic conditions.
• Sports: Athletes need fast reaction times to react to opponents, catch or hit a ball, or make split-second decisions.
• Occupational tasks: Jobs that require precision, coordination, or rapid responses often depend on good reaction times.
• Military and emergency services: Reaction time can be critical in situations that require rapid decision-making and response to ensure safety and security.

Training and Improvement:

Reaction time can be enhanced through targeted training activities, such as:

• Coordination exercises: Activities that improve hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills.
• Timing drills: Practicing specific tasks with a focus on speed and accuracy.
• Mental exercises: Techniques like meditation, concentration, and visualization to improve focus and cognitive processing.
• Physical fitness: Engaging in regular exercise and maintaining overall health can positively influence reaction time.
• Specific skill practice: Repeatedly practicing tasks or movements directly related to the desired reaction time improvement.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Fostering creativity and critical thinking in college: a cross-cultural investigation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Pace University, New York, NY, United States
• 2 Developmental and Educational Research Center for Children's Creativity, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Enhancing creativity and critical thinking have garnered the attention of educators and researchers for decades. They have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century. A total of 103 United States students (53 female, 24 male, two non-binary, and 24 non-reporting) and 166 Chinese students (128 female, 30 male, one non-binary, and seven non-reporting) completed an online survey. The survey includes the STEAM-related creative problem solving, Sternberg scientific reasoning tasks, psychological critical thinking (PCT) exam, California critical thinking (CCT) skills test, and college experience survey, as well as a demographic questionnaire. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yields a two-factor model for all creativity and critical thinking measurements. Yet, the two latent factors are strongly associated with each other ( r =0.84). Moreover, Chinese students outperform American students in measures of critical thinking, whereas Americans outperform Chinese students in measures of creativity. Lastly, the results also demonstrate that having some college research experience (such as taking research method courses) could positively influence both United States and Chinese students’ creativity and critical thinking skills. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

Creativity and critical thinking have been recognized as essential skills in the 21st century ( National Education Association, 2012 ). Many researchers and educators have focused on these two skills, including acquisition, enhancement, and performance. In addition, numerous studies have been devoted to understanding the conceptual complexities involved in creativity and critical thinking. Although similar to each other, creativity and critical thinking are distinctive by definition, each with a different emphasis.

The concept of creativity has evolved over the years. It was almost exclusively conceptualized as divergent thinking when Guilford (1956 , 1986) proposed divergent thinking as a part of intelligence. Earlier measures of creativity took the approach of divergent thinking, measuring creative potential ( Wallach and Kogan, 1965 ; Torrance, 1966 , 1988 ; Runco and Albert, 1986 ; Kim, 2005 ). In 1990s, many creativity scholars challenged the validity of tests of divergent thinking, and suggested that divergent thinking only captures the trivial sense of creativity, and proposed to use the product-oriented method to measure creativity ( Csikszentmihalyi, 1988 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ). A system model of creativity, which recognizes the important roles individual, field, and domain have played, was used as a framework to conceptualize creativity. A widely accepted definition for creativity is a person’s ability to generate an idea or product that is deemed as both novel and appropriate by experts in a field of human activities ( Scott and Bruce, 1994 ; Amabile, 1996 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1999 ; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999 ; Hunter et al., 2007 ). Corazza and Lubart (2021) recently proposed a dynamic definition of creativity, in which creativity is defined as a context-embedded phenomenon that is tightly related to the cultural and social environment. Based on this new definition, measures of creativity should be context-specific and culturally relevant, especially when it is examined cross-culturally.

Similarly, the conceptualization of critical thinking has also evolved over the years. Earlier definitions emphasized the broad multidimensional aspects of critical thinking, including at least three aspects: attitude, knowledge, and skills ( Glaser, 1941 ). The definition has been evolved to include specific components for each aspect ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ). For example, critical thinking is recognized as the ability to use cognitive skills or strategies to increase the probability of a desirable outcome ( Halpern, 1999 ). More specifically, cognitive skills such as evaluation, problem-solving, reflective thinking, logical reasoning, and probability thinking are recognized as parts of critical thinking skills in research and assessments ( Ennis, 1987 , Scriven and Paul, 1987 , Halpern, 1999 ). Moving into the 21st century, metacognition and self-regulatory skills have also become essential components for critical thinking in addition to the cognitive skills recognized by earlier scholars ( Korn, 2014 , Paul and Elder, 2019 ).

Similar to the concept of creativity, critical thinking is also viewed as multidimensional and domain specific ( Bensley and Murtagh, 2012 ). For example, critical thinking in psychology, also referred to as psychological critical thinking (PCT), is defined as one’s ability to evaluate claims in a way that explicitly incorporates basic principles of psychological science ( Lawson, 1999 ). As one of the important hub sciences, psychology is often regarded as a foundational course for scientific training in American higher education ( Boyack et al., 2005 ). In psychological discourse, critical thinking is often defined in tandem with scientific thinking, which places significance on hypothesis-testing and problem-solving in order to reduce bias and erroneous beliefs ( Halpern, 1984 ; American Psychological Association, 2016 ; Lamont, 2020 ; Sternberg and Halpern, 2020 ). Based on this definition, measures of critical thinking should assess cognitive skills (i.e., evaluation, logical reasoning) and ability to utilize scientific methods for problem-solving.

In addition to the evolution of the definitions of critical thinking and creativity, research into these two concepts has led to the development of various measurements. For both concepts, there have been numerous measurements that have been studied, utilized, and improved.

The complexities associated with creativity (i.e., context-relevant and domain-specificity) pose a major issue for its measurement. Many different types of creativity measures have been developed in the past. Measures using a divergent thinking approach, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ( Torrance, 1974 ) and Alternate Uses Test ( Guilford et al., 1960 ), a product-oriented approach, a third person nomination approach, as well as a self-report approach measuring personality ( Gough, 1979 ), creative behavior ( Hocevar and Michael, 1979 ; Rodriguez-Boerwinkle et al., 2021 ), and creative achievement ( Carson et al., 2005 ; Diedrich et al., 2018 ).

Both the divergent thinking and the product-oriented approaches have been widely used in the creativity literature to objectively measure creativity. The tasks of both approaches are generally heuristic, meaning that no correct answer is expected and the process does not need to be rational. When scoring divergent thinking, the number of responses (i.e., fluency) and the rareness of the response (i.e., originality) were used to represent creativity. When scoring products using the product-orientated approach, a group of experts provides their subjective ratings on various dimensions such as originality, appropriateness, and aesthetically appealing to these products using their subjective criteria. When there is a consensus among the experts, average ratings of these expert scores are used to represent the creativity of the products. This approach is also named as Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1982 , 1996 ). Some scholars viewed the CAT approach as focusing on the convergent aspect of creativity ( Lubart et al., 2013 ). Recognizing the importance of divergent and convergent thinking in conceptualizing creativity, Lubart et al. (2013) have suggested including divergent thinking and product-oriented approach (i.e., CAT) to objective measures of creativity ( Barbot et al., 2011 ).

Similar to measures of creativity, measurements of critical thinking are also multilevel and multi-approach. In an article reviewing the construction of critical thinking in psychological studies, Lamont (2020) argues that critical thinking became a scientific object when psychologists attempted to measure it. Different from measures of creativity, where the tasks are heuristic in nature, measures of critical thinking require participants to engage in logical thinking. Therefore, the nature of critical thinking tasks is more algorithmic.

The interest in the study of critical thinking is evident in the increased efforts in the past decades to measure such a complex, multidimensional skill. Watson-Glaser Tests for Critical Thinking ( Watson and Glaser, 1938 ) is widely recognized as the first official measure of critical thinking. Since then, numerous measurements of critical thinking have been developed to evaluate both overall and domain-specific critical thinking, such as the PCT Exam ( Lawson, 1999 ; See Mueller et al., 2020 for list of assessments). A few of the most commonly used contemporary measures of critical thinking include the Watson-Glaser Test for Critical Thinking Appraisals ( Watson and Glaser, 1980 ), Cornell Critical Thinking Test ( Ennis et al., 1985 ), and California Critical Thinking (CCT) Skills Test ( Facione and Facione, 1994 ). As the best established and widely used standardized critical thinking measures, these tests have been validated in various studies and have been used as a criterion for meta-analyses ( Niu et al., 2013 ; Ross et al., 2013 ).

There have also been concerns regarding the usage of these standardized measures of critical thinking on its own due to its emphasis on measuring general cognitive abilities of participants, while negating the domain-specific aspect of critical thinking ( Lamont, 2020 ). The issues associated with standardized measures are not unique to standardized critical thinking measures, as same types of criticisms have been raised for standardized college admissions measures such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). To develop an assessment that encompasses a broader range of student abilities that is more aligned to scientific disciplines, Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) developed a scientific inquiry and reasoning measure. This measure is aimed to assess participants’ ability to utilize scientific methods and to think scientifically in order to investigate a topic or solve a problem ( Sternberg and Sternberg, 2017 ). The strength of this measure is that it assesses students’ abilities (i.e., ability to think critically) that are domain-specific and relevant to the sciences. Considering the multidimensional aspect of critical thinking, a combination of a standardized critical thinking measure, an assessment measuring cognitive abilities involved in critical thinking; and a measure that assesses domain-specific critical thinking, would provide a comprehensive evaluation of critical thinking.

The Relationship Between Creativity and Critical Thinking

Most of the studies thus far referenced have investigated creativity and critical thinking separately; however, the discussion on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking spans decades of research ( Barron and Harrington, 1981 ; Glassner and Schwartz, 2007 ; Wechsler et al., 2018 ; Akpur, 2020 ). Some earlier studies on the relationship between divergent thinking and critical thinking have observed a moderate correlation ( r =0.23, p <0.05) between the two ( Gibson et al., 1968 ). Using measures of creative personality, Gadzella and Penland (1995) also found a moderate correlation ( r =0.36, p <0.05) between creative personality and critical thinking.

Recent studies have further supported the positive correlation between critical thinking and creativity. For example, using the creative thinking disposition scale to measure creativity, Akpur (2020) found a moderate correlation between the two among college students ( r =0.27, p <0.05). Similarly, using the critical thinking disposition scale to measure critical thinking and scientific creativity scale and creative self-efficacy scale to measure creativity, Qiang et al. (2020) studied the relationship between critical thinking and creativity to a large sample of high school students ( n =1,153). They found that the relationship between the two varied depending on the type of measurement of creativity. More specifically, the correlation between critical thinking disposition and creative self-efficacy was r =0.045 ( p <0.001), whereas the correlation between critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity was r =0.15 ( p <0.01).

Recognizing the moderate relationship between the two, researchers have also aimed to study the independence of creativity and critical thinking. Some studies have found evidence that these constructs are relatively autonomous. The results of Wechsler et al. (2018) study, which aimed to investigate whether creativity and critical thinking are independent or complementary processes, found a relative autonomy of creativity and critical thinking and found that the variables were only moderately correlated. The researchers in this study suggest that a model that differentiated the two latent variables associated with creativity and critical thinking dimensions was the most appropriate method of analysis ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ). Evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are fairly independent processes was also found in study of Ling and Loh (2020) . The results of their research, which examined the relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition, revealed that creativity is a weak predictor of pattern recognition. In contrast, critical thinking is a good predictor ( Ling and Loh, 2020 ).

It is worth noting that a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in these studies’ results is the variance in the definition and the measures used to evaluate creativity and critical thinking. Based on the current literature on the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, we believe that more investigation was needed to further clarify the relationship between creativity and critical thinking which became a catalyst for the current study.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Creativity and Critical Thinking Performance

Results from various cross-cultural studies suggest that there are differences in creativity and critical thinking skills among cultures. A common belief is that individuals from Western cultures are believed to be more critical and creative compared to non-Westerners, whereas individuals from non-Western cultures are believed to be better at critical thinking related tasks compared to Westerners ( Ng, 2001 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Lee et al., 2015 ). For example, Wong and Niu (2013) found a persistent cultural stereotype regarding creativity and critical thinking skills that exist cross-culturally. In their study, both Chinese and Americans believed that Chinese perform better in deductive reasoning (a skill comparable to critical thinking) and that Americans perform better on creativity. This stereotype belief was found to be incredibly persistent as participants did not change their opinions even when presented with data that contradicted their beliefs.

Interestingly, research does suggest that such a stereotype might be based on scientific evidence ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ). In the same study, it was revealed that Chinese did in fact perform better than Americans in deductive reasoning, and Americans performed better in creativity tests ( Wong and Niu, 2013 ). Similarly, Lee et al. (2015) found that compared to American students, Korean students believed that they are more prone to use receptive learning abilities (remembering and reproducing what is taught) instead of critical and creative learning abilities.

Cultural Influence on Critical Thinking

Other studies investigating the cultural influence on critical thinking have had more nuanced findings. Manalo et al. (2013) study of university students from New Zealand and Japan found that culture-related factors (self-construal, regulatory mode, and self-efficacy) do influence students’ critical thinking use. Still, the differences in those factors do not necessarily equate to differences in critical thinking. Their results found that students from Western and Asian cultural environments did not have significant differences in their reported use of critical thinking. The researchers in this study suggest that perhaps the skills and values nurtured in the educational environment have a more significant influence on students’ use of critical thinking ( Manalo et al., 2013 ).

Another study found that New Zealand European students performed better on objective measures of critical thinking than Chinese students. Still, such differences could be explained by the student’s English proficiency and not dialectical thinking style. It was also revealed in this study that Chinese students tended to rely more on dialectical thinking to solve critical thinking problems compared to the New Zealand European students ( Lun et al., 2010 ). Other research on the cultural differences in thinking styles revealed that Westerners are more likely to use formal logical rules in reasoning. In contrast, Asians are more likely to use intuitive experience-based sense when solving critical thinking problems ( Nisbett et al., 2001 ).

These studies suggest that culture can be used as a broad taxonomy to explain differences in critical thinking use. Still, one must consider the educational environment and thinking styles when studying the nature of the observed discrepancies. For instance, cultural differences in thinking style, in particular, might explain why Westerners perform better on some critical thinking measures, whereas Easterners perform better on others.

Cultural Influence on Creative Performance

Historically, creativity studies have suggested that individuals from non-Western cultures are not as creative as Westerners ( Torrance, 1974 ; Jellen and Urban, 1989 ; Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). For example, in one study, Americans generated more aesthetically pleasing artworks (as judged by both American and Chinese judges) than Chinese ( Niu and Sternberg, 2001 ). However, recent creativity research has suggested that cross-cultural differences are primarily attributable to the definition of creativity rather than the level of creativity between cultures. As aforementioned, creativity is defined as an idea or product that is both novel and appropriate. Many cross-cultural studies have found that Westerners have a preference and perform better in the novelty aspect, and Easterners have a preference and perform better in the appropriateness aspect. In cross-cultural studies, Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) found that Israelis tend to generate more original ideas than their Singaporean counterparts. In contrast, Singaporeans tend to produce more appropriate ideas. Bechtoldt et al. (2012) found in their study that Koreans generated more useful ideas, whereas Dutch students developed more original ideas. Liou and Lan (2018) found Taiwanese tend to create and select more useful ideas, whereas Americans tend to generate and choose more novel ideas. The differences in creativity preference and performance found in these studies suggest that cultural influence is a prominent factor in creativity.

In summary, cross-cultural studies have supported the notion that culture influences both creativity and critical thinking. This cultural influence seems relatively unambiguous in creativity as it has been found in multiple studies that cultural background can explain differences in performance and preference to the dual features of creativity. Critical thinking has also been influenced by culture, albeit in an opaquer nature in comparison to creativity. Critical thinking is ubiquitous in all cultures, but the conception of critical thinking and the methods used to think critically (i.e., thinking styles) are influenced by cultural factors.

Influence of College Experience on Creativity and Critical Thinking

Given its significance as a core academic ability, the hypothesis of many colleges and universities emphasize that students will gain critical thinking skills as the result of their education. Fortunately, studies have shown that these efforts have had some promising outcomes. Around 92% of students in multi-institution research reported gains in critical thinking. Only 8.9% of students believed that their critical thinking had not changed or had grown weaker ( Tsui, 1998 ). A more recent meta-analysis by Huber and Kuncel (2016) found that students make substantial gains in critical thinking during college. In addition, the efforts to enhance necessary thinking skills have led to the development of various skill-specific courses. Mill et al. (1994) found that among three groups of undergraduate students, a group that received tutorial sessions and took research methodology and statistics performed significantly better on scientific reasoning and critical thinking abilities tests than control groups. Penningroth et al. (2007) found that students who took a class in which they were required to engage in active learning and critical evaluation of claims by applying scientific concepts, had greater improvement in psychological critical thinking than students in the comparison groups. There have also been studies in which students’ scientific inquiry and critical thinking skills have improved by taking a course designed with specific science thinking and reasoning modules ( Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ).

Using a Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE), Lopatto (2004 , 2008) found that research experience can help students gain various learning skills such as ability to integrate theory and practice, ability to analyze data, skill in the interpretation of results, and understanding how scientists work on problem. All of these learning skills correspond to at least one of the dimensions mentioned earlier in the definition of critical thinking (i.e., evaluation, analytical thinking, and problem solving through). Thus, results of SURE provide evidence that critical thinking can be enhanced through research experience ( Lopatto, 2004 , 2008 ).

In comparison to critical thinking, only a few studies have examined the interaction between creativity and college experience. Previous research on STEM provides some evidence to suggest that STEM education can promote the learner’s creativity ( Land, 2013 , Guo and Woulfin, 2016 , Kuo et al., 2018 ). Notably, study of Kuo et al. (2018) suggest that project-based learning in STEM has the merits of improving one’s creativity. They found that the STEM Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning (IPBL) course is a practical approach to improve college student’s creativity ( Kuo et al., 2018 ). College research experience in particular, has been reported as important or very important by faculty and students for learning how to approach problems creatively ( Zydney et al., 2002 ).

Although specific college courses aimed to enhance creativity have been scarce, some training programs have been developed specifically to improve creativity. Scott et al. (2004) conducted a quantitative review of various creativity training and found that divergent thinking, creative problem solving, and creativity performance can be enhanced through skill-specific training programs. Embodied creativity training programs, consisting of creativity fitness exercises and intensive workshops, have also been effective in enhancing participants’ creative production and improving their creative self-efficacy ( Byrge and Tang, 2015 ).

Both critical thinking and creativity were also found to be important in students’ learning. Using a longitudinal design for one semester to 52 graduate students in biology, Siburian et al. (2019) studied how critical thinking and creative thinking contribute to improving cognitive learning skills. They found that both critical and creative thinking significantly contributes to enhancing cognitive learning skills ( R 2 =0.728). They each contribute separately to the development of cognitive learning skills ( b was 0.123 between critical thinking and cognitive learning and 0.765 between creative thinking and cognitive learning). The results from research on creativity and critical thinking indicate that training and experiences of students in college can enhance both of these skills.

Current Study

Previous literature on creativity and critical thinking suggests that there is a positive correlation between these two skills. Moreover, cultural background influences creativity and critical thinking conception and performance. However, our literature review suggests that there are only a few studies that have investigated creativity and critical thinking simultaneously to examine whether cultural background is a significant influence in performance. In addition, most of the past research on creativity and critical thinking have relied on dispositions or self-reports to measure the two skills and the investigation on the actual performance have been scarce. Lastly, past studies suggest that the acquisition and enhancement of these skills are influenced by various factors. Notably, college experience and skill-specific training have been found to improve both creativity and critical thinking. However, it is not yet clear how college experience aids in fostering creativity and critical thinking and which elements of college education are beneficial for enhancing these two skills. The cultural influence on creativity and critical thinking performance also needs further investigation.

The current study aimed to answer two questions related to this line of thought. How does culture influence creativity and critical thinking performance? How does college experience affect creativity and critical thinking? Based on past findings, we developed three hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that there is a positive association between critical thinking and creativity. Second, we suggest that college students from different countries have different levels of creativity and critical thinking. More specifically, we predicted that United States students would perform better than Chinese students on both creativity and critical thinking. Last, we hypothesized that having college research experience (through courses or research labs) will enhance creativity and critical thinking.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The study was examined by the Internal Review Board by the host university in the United States and obtained an agreement from a partner university in China to meet the ethical standard of both countries.

Participants include 103 university students from the United States and 166 university students from Mainland China. Among all participants, 181 were female (67.3%), 54 were male (20.1%), non-binary or gender fluid ( n =3, 1.1%), and some did not report their gender ( n =31, 11.5%). The majority of participants majored in social sciences ( n =197, 73.2%). Other disciplines include business and management ( n =38, 14.1%), engineering and IT ( n =20, 7.4%), and sciences ( n =14, 5.2%). A Chi-square analysis was performed to see if the background in major was different between the American and Chinese samples. The results showed that the two samples are comparable in college majors, X 2 (3, 265) =5.50, p =0.138.

The American participants were recruited through campus recruitment flyers and a commercial website called Prolific (online survey distribution website). Ethnicities of the American participants were White ( n =44, 42.7%), Asian ( n =13, 12.6%), Black or African American ( n =11, 10.7%), Hispanic or Latinos ( n =5, 4.9%), and some did not report their ethnicity ( n =30, 29.1%). The Chinese participants were recruited through online recruitment flyers. All Chinese students were of Han ethnicity.

After reviewing and signing an online consent form, both samples completed a Qualtrics survey containing creativity and critical thinking measures.

Measurements

Steam related creative problem solving.

This is a self-designed measurement, examining participant’s divergent and convergent creative thinking in solving STEAM-related real-life problems. It includes three vignettes, each depicting an issue that needs to be resolved. Participants were given a choice to pick two vignettes to which they would like to provide possible solutions for. Participants were asked to provide their answers in two parts. In the first part, participants were asked to provide as many solutions as they can think of for the problem depicted (divergent). In the second part, participants were asked to choose one of the solutions they gave in the first part that they believe is the most creative and elaborate on how they would carry out the solution (convergent).

The responses for the first part of the problem (i.e., divergent) were scored based on fluency (number of solutions given). Each participant received a score on fluency by averaging the number of solutions given across three tasks. In order to score the originality of the second part of the solution (i.e., convergent), we invited four graduate students who studied creativity for at least 1year as expert judges to independently rate the originality of all solutions. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for all three vignette solutions (0.809, 0.906, and 0.703). We then averaged the originality scores provided by the four experts to represent the originality of each solution. We then averaged the top three solutions as rated by the experts to represent the student’s performance on originality. In the end, each student received two scores on this task: fluency and originality.

Psychological Critical Thinking Exam

We adopted an updated PCT Exam developed by Lawson et al. (2015) , which made improvements to the original measure ( Lawson, 1999 ). We used PCT to measure the participants’ domain-specific critical thinking: critical thinking involved in the sciences. The initial assessment aimed to examine the critical thinking of psychology majors; however, the updated measure was developed so that it can be used to examine students’ critical thinking in a variety of majors. The split-half reliability of the revised measurement was 0.88, and test-retest reliability was 0.90 ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). Participants were asked to identify issues with a problematic claim made in two short vignettes. For example, one of the questions states:

Over the past few years, Jody has had several dreams that apparently predicted actual events. For example, in one dream, she saw a car accident and later that week she saw a van run into the side of a pickup truck. In another dream, she saw dark black clouds and lightning and 2days later a loud thunderstorm hit her neighborhood. She believes these events are evidence that she has a psychic ability to predict the future through her dreams. Could the event have occurred by chance? State whether or not there is a problem with the person’s conclusions and explain the problem (if there is one).

Responses were scored based on the rubric provided in the original measurement ( Lawson et al., 2015 ). If no problem was identified the participants would receive zero points. If a problem was recognized but misidentified, the participants would receive one point. If the main problem was identified and other less relevant problems were identified, the participants received two points. If participants identified only the main problem, they received three points. Following the rubric, four graduate students independently rated the students’ critical thinking task. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the expert ratings was acceptable for both vignettes (0.773 and 0.712). The average of the four scores given by the experts was used as the final score for the participants.

California Critical Thinking Skills Test

This objective measure of critical thinking was developed by Facione and Facione (1994) . We used CCT to measure a few of the multidimensions of critical thinking such as evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking. Five sample items provided from Insight Assessment were used instead of the standard 40-min long CCT. Participants were presented with everyday scenarios with 4–6 answer choices. Participants were asked to make an accurate and complete interpretation of the question in order to correctly answer the question by choosing the right answer choice (each correct answer was worth one point). This test is commonly used to measure critical thinking, and previous research has reported its reliability as r =0.86 ( Hariri and Bagherinejad, 2012 ).

Sternberg Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning

This measure was developed by Sternberg and Sternberg (2017) as an assessment of scientific reasoning. We used this assessment as a domain-specific assessment to measure participants’ scientific creativity (generating testable hypotheses) and scientific critical thinking involved in generating experiments. For this two-part measure, participants were asked to read two short vignettes. For one of the vignettes, participants were asked to generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain the events described in the vignette. For the other, create an experiment to test the hypothesis mentioned in the vignette.

After carefully reviewing the measurement, we notice that the nature of the tasks in the first part of this measure (hypothesis generation) relied on heuristics, requiring participants to engage in divergent thinking. The number of valid hypotheses provided (i.e., fluency) was used to represent the performance of this task. We, therefore, deem that this part measures creativity. In contrast, the second part of the measure, experiment generation, asked participants to use valid scientific methods to design an experiment following the procedure of critical thinking such as evaluation, problem-solving, and task evaluation. Its scoring also followed algorithms so that a correct answer could be achieved. For the above reasons, we believe hypotheses generation is a measurement of creativity and experiment generation is a measurement for critical thinking.

Based on the recommended scoring manual, one graduate student calculated the fluency score from the hypothesis generation measurement. Four experts read through all students’ responses to the experiment generation. They discussed a rubric on how to score these responses, using a four-point scale, with a “0” representing no response or wrong response, a “1” representing partially correct, a “2” representing correct response. An additional point (the three points) was added if the participant provided multiple design methods. Based on the above rubric, the four experts independently scored this part of the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the four expert ratings was 0.792. The average score of the four judges was used to represent their critical thinking scores on this task.

College Experience Survey

Participants were asked about their past research experience, either specifically in psychology or in general academia. Participants were asked to choose between three choices: no research experience, intermediate research experience (i.e., research work for class, research work for lab), and advanced research experience (i.e., professional research experience, published works).

Demographic and Background Questionnaire

Series of standard demographic questions were asked, including participants’ age, gender, and ethnicity.

We performed a Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between creativity and critical thinking (the two-c), which include performances on three measures on creativity ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ) and three measures on critical thinking ( experiment generation , CCT , and PCT ).

Most of the dependent variables had a significantly positive correlation. The only insignificant correlation was found between Sternberg hypothesis generation and CCT, r (247) =0.024, p =0.708 (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Correlation coefficients for study variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted by applying SEM through AMOS 21 software program and the maximum likelihood method. One-factor and two-factor models have been analyzed, respectively (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . The comparison of the two confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models: one-factor vs. two-factor.

As it is demonstrated in Table 2 , the value ranges of the most addressed fit indices used in the analysis of SEM are presented. Comparing two models, χ 2 /df of the two-factor model is in a good fit, while the index of the one-factor model is in acceptable fit. The comparison of the two models suggest that the two-factor model is a better model than the one-factor model.

Table 2 . Recommended values for evaluation and the obtained values.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Critical Thinking and Creativity

We conducted a 2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking) ANOVA to investigate the cultural differences in critical thinking and creativity. We averaged scores of three critical thinking measurement ( experiment generation , PCT , and CCT ) to represent critical thinking and averaged three creativity scores ( creativity originality , creativity fluency , and hypothesis generation ).

This analysis revealed a significant main effect for the type of thinking (i.e., creative vs. critical thinking), F (1,247) =464.77, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.653. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and type of thinking, F (1,247) =62.00, p <0.01, η p 2 =0.201. More specifically, Chinese students ( M =1.32, SD =0.59) outperformed American students ( M =1.02, SD =0.44) on critical thinking. In contrast, American students ( M =2.59, SD =1.07) outperformed Chinese students ( M =2.05, SD =0.83) on creativity.

Influence of Research Experience on Critical Thinking and Creativity

The last hypothesis states that having college research experience (through courses or research lab) would enhance students’ creativity and critical thinking from both countries. We performed a 2 (Two-C: Creativity and Critical Thinking)×2 (Country: the United States vs. China)×3 (Research Experience: Advanced vs. Some vs. No) ANOVA to test this hypothesis. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for research experience, F (2,239) =4.05, p =0.019, η p 2 =0.033. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between country (i.e., the United States vs. China) and research experience, F (2,239) =5.77, p =0.004, η p 2 =0.046. In addition, there was a three-way interaction among country, two-C, and research experience. More specifically, with an increase of research experience for American students, both critical thinking and creativity improved. In contrast, for Chinese students, the impact of research experience was not significant for creativity. However, some research experience positively impacted Chinese students’ critical thinking (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 . Estimated marginal means of Two-C for the United States and Chinese samples.

The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between creativity and critical thinking, how culture influences creativity and critical thinking, and how college research experience affects creativity and critical thinking. Our results supported the first hypothesis regarding the positive correlation among all of the dependent variables. The mean correlation between the measures of creativity and critical thinking was 0.230. This result was in line with the findings from previous research ( Gibson et al., 1968 ; Gadzella and Penland, 1995 ; Siburian et al., 2019 ; Akpur, 2020 ; Qiang et al., 2020 ). Moreover, our confirmatory factor analysis yielded similar results as analysis of Wechsler et al. (2018) and Akpur (2020) and provides more evidence of the relative independence between creativity and critical thinking. We found that at the latent variable level, the two skills are highly correlated to each other ( r =0.84). In addition, we found that although the one-factor model was an acceptable fit, a two-factor model was a better fit for analysis. This result suggests that despite the correlation between creativity and critical thinking, the two skills should be studied as separate factors for an appropriate and comprehensive analysis.

The results of this study partially confirmed our second hypothesis and replicated the findings from past studies ( Niu et al., 2007 ; Lun et al., 2010 ; Wong and Niu, 2013 ; Tang et al., 2015 ). As predicted, there was a significant main effect for culture in students’ performance for all six measures in the two-C analysis model. United States students performed better than Chinese students in all three creativity measures, and Chinese students performed better than United States students in all critical thinking measures. Given the diversity in the type of measures used in this study, the results suggest that United States and Chinese students’ performance aligns with the stereotype belief found in study of Wong and Niu (2013) . The findings from the current study suggest that the stereotype belief observed in both United States and Chinese students (United States students generally perform better on creativity tasks, while Chinese students perform typically better on critical thinking tasks) is not entirely unfounded. Furthermore, the clear discrepancy in performance between United States and Chinese students provides more evidence to suggest that creativity and critical thinking are relatively autonomous skills. Although, a high correlation between these two skills was found in our study, the fact that students from two different cultures have two different development trajectories in critical thinking and creativity suggests that these two skills are relatively autonomous.

Lastly, the results also confirmed our third hypothesis, that is, college research experience did have a positive influence on students’ creativity and critical thinking. Compared to students with no research experience, students with some research experience performed significantly better in all measures of creativity and critical thinking. This finding is consistent with the previous literature ( Mill et al., 1994 ; Penningroth et al., 2007 ; Stevens and Witkow, 2014 ; Stevens et al., 2016 ; Kuo et al., 2018 ). The result of our study suggests that college research experience is significant to enhance both creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes a more essential component of college education, our results suggest that it not only can add credential for applying to graduate school or help students learn skills specific to research, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking. Furthermore, it is worth noting that this nature held true for both Chinese and American students. To our knowledge, this is a first investigation examining the role of research experience in both creativity and critical thinking cross-culturally.

In addition to the report of our findings, we would like to address some limitations of our study. First, we would like to note that this is a correlational and cross-sectional study. A positive correlation between research experience and the two dependent variables does not necessarily mean causation. Our results indeed indicate a positive correlation between research experience and the two-C variables; however, we are not sure of the nature of this relationship. It is plausible that students with higher creativity and critical thinking skills are more engaged in research as much as it is to argue in favor of a reversed directional relationship. Second, we would like to note the sample bias in our study. Majority of our participants were female, majoring in the social sciences and a relatively high number of participants chose not to report their gender. Third, we would like to note that our study did not measure all creativity and critical thinking dimensions, we discussed in the introduction. Instead, we focused on a few key dimensions of creativity and critical thinking. Our primary focus was on divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and scientific creativity as well as few key dimensions of critical thinking (evaluation, logical reasoning, and probability thinking), scientific critical thinking involved in problem solving and hypothesis testing. Moreover, our results do not show what specific components of research training are beneficial for the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking.

For future research, a longitudinal design involving a field experiment will help investigate how different research training components affect the development of creativity and critical thinking. In addition, a cross-cultural study can further examine how and why the students from different cultures differ from each other in the development of these two potentials. As such, it might shed some light on the role of culture in creativity and critical thinking.

Conclusion and Implication

The result of our study provides few insights to the study of creativity and critical thinking. First, creativity and critical thinking are a different construct yet highly correlated. Second, whereas Americans perform better on creativity measures, Chinese perform better on critical thinking measures. Third, for both American and Chinese students, college research experience is a significant influence on the enhancement of creativity and critical thinking. As research experience becomes more and more essential to college education, its role can not only add professional and postgraduate credentials, but also help students enhance both creativity and critical thinking.

Based on our results, we recommend that research training be prioritized in higher education. Moreover, each culture has strengths to develop one skill over the other, hence, each culture could invest more in developing skills that were found to be weaker in our study. Eastern cultures can encourage more creativity and Western cultures can encourage more critical thinking.

To conclude, we would like to highlight that, although recognized globally as essential skills, methods to foster creativity and critical thinking skills and understanding creativity and critical thinking as a construct requires further research. Interestingly, our study found that experience of research itself can help enhance creativity and critical thinking. Our study also aimed to expand the knowledge of creativity and critical thinking literature through an investigation of the relationship of the two variables and how cultural background influences the performance of these two skills. We hope that our findings can provide insights for researchers and educators to find constructive methods to foster students’ essential 21st century skills, creativity and critical thinking, to ultimately enhance their global competence and life success.

Data Availability Statement

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

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board at Pace University. The participants provided their informed consent online prior to participating in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare 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.

This work was supported by the International Joint Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (ICER201904), and a scholarly research funding by Pace University.

Akpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Think. Skills Creat. 37:100683. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43, 997–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity. ” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (2016). Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: version 2.0. Am. Psychol. 71, 102–111. doi: 10.1037/a0037562

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barbot, B., Besançon, M., and Lubart, T. (2011). Assessing creativity in the classroom. Open Educ. J. 4, 58–66. doi: 10.2174/1874920801104010058

Barron, F., and Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32, 439–476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255

Bechtoldt, M., Choi, H., and Nijstad, A. B. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart: individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 838–844. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.014

Bensley, D. A., and Murtagh, M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment. Teach. Psychol. 39, 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0098628311430642

Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., and Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64, 351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6

Byrge, C., and Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Think. Skills Creat. 16, 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.002

Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., and Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creat. Res. J. 17, 37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Corazza, G. E., and Lubart, T. (2021). Intelligence and creativity: mapping constructs on the space-time continuum. J. Intell. 9:1. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9010001

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). “Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity” in The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 325–339.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). “Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 313–335.

Diedrich, J., Jauk, E., Silvia, P. J., Gredlein, J. M., Neubauer, A. C., and Benedek, M. (2018). Assessment of real-life creativity: the inventory of creative activities and achievements (ICAA). Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 12, 304–316. doi: 10.1037/aca0000137

Ennis, R. H. (1987). “A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities” in Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. eds. Baron, J. B., and Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.), 9–26.

Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., and Tomko, T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level x and Level z Manual. 3rd Edn . Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

Facione, P. A., and Facione, N. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Gadzella, B. M., and Penland, E. (1995). Is creativity related to scores on critical thinking? Psychol. Rep. 77, 817–818. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.817

Gibson, J. W., Kibler, R. J., and Barker, L. L. (1968). Some relationships between selected creativity and critical thinking measures. Psychol. Rep. 23, 707–714. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3.707

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Glassner, A., and Schwartz, B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Think. Skills Creat. 2, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1398–1405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychol. Bull. 53, 267–293. doi: 10.1037/h0040755

Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.

Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., and Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate Uses Manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Guo, J., and Woulfin, S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: an investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Rev. 38, 153–161. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741

Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1999, 69–74. doi: 10.1002/tl.8005

Hariri, N., and Bagherinejad, Z. (2012). Evaluation of critical thinking skills in students of health faculty, Mazandaran university of medical sciences. J. Mazand. Univ. Med. Sci. 21, 166–173.

Hocevar, D., and Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 39, 917–921. doi: 10.1177/001316447903900427

Huber, C. R., and Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 431–468. doi: 10.3102/0034654315605917

Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: a quantitative review. Creat. Res. J. 19, 69–90. doi: 10.1080/10400410709336883

Jellen, H. U., and Urban, K. (1989). Assessing creative potential worldwide: the first cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking–drawing production (TCT–DP). Gifted Educ. 6, 78–86. doi: 10.1177/026142948900600204

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. J. Sec. Gifted Educ. 16, 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473

Korn, M. (2014). Bosses Seek ‘Critical Thinking,’ but What Is That? Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://online.wsj.com/articles/bosses-seek-critical-thinking-but-what-is-that-1413923730 (Accessed October 18, 2021).

Kuo, H.-C., Tseng, Y.-C., and Yang, Y.-T. C. (2018). Promoting college student's learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Think. Skills Creat. 31, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001

Lamont, P. (2020). The construction of "critical thinking": between how we think and what we believe. Hist. Psychol. 23, 232–251. doi: 10.1037/hop0000145

Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: the benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Compl. Adapt. Syst. 20, 547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317

Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a learning outcome for psychology majors. Teach. Psychol. 26, 207–209. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP260311

Lawson, T. J., Jordan-Fleming, M. K., and Bodle, J. H. (2015). Measuring psychological critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 42, 248–253. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587624

Lee, H.-J., Lee, J., Makara, K. A., Fishman, B. J., and Hong, Y. I. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the USA. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 34, 131–146. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.892477

Ling, M. K. D., and Loh, S. C. (2020). Relationship of creativity and critical thinking to pattern recognition among Singapore private school students. J. Educ. Res. 113, 59–76. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2020.1716203

Liou, S., and Lan, X. (2018). Situational salience of norms moderates cultural differences in the originality and usefulness of creative ideas generated or selected by teams. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 49, 290–302. doi: 10.1177/0022022116640897

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, D. (2008). “Exploring the benefits of undergraduate research experiences: The SURE survey” in Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Programs in Science eds. R. Taraban and R. L. Blanton (New York: Teachers College Press), 112–132.

Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., and Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. Int. J. Talent Dev. Creat. 1, 41–50.

Lun, V. M.-C., Fischer, R., and Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 604–616. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.07.001

Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., and Tanaka, Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students' critical thinking use? Think. Skills Creat. 10, 121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.08.003

Mill, D., Gray, T., and Mandel, D. R. (1994). Influence of research methods and statistics courses on everyday reasoning, critical abilities, and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 26, 246–258. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.246

Mueller, J. F., Taylor, H. K., Brakke, K., Drysdale, M., Kelly, K., Levine, G. M., et al. (2020). Assessment of scientific inquiry and critical thinking: measuring APA goal 2 student learning outcomes. Teach. Psychol. 47, 274–284. doi: 10.1177/0098628320945114

National Education Association (2012). Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An educator's Guide to the "Four Cs". Alexandria, VA: National Education Association.

Ng, A.K. (2001). Why Asians Are less Creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., and Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol. Rev. 108, 291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., and Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Niu, W., and Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. Int. J. Psychol. 36, 225–241. doi: 10.1080/00207590143000036

Niu, W., Zhang, J. X., and Yang, Y. (2007). Deductive reasoning and creativity: a cross-cultural study. Psychol. Rep. 100, 509–519. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.509-519

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. 8th Edn . Lanham, MD: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Penningroth, S. L., Despain, L. H., and Gray, M. J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teach. Psychol. 34, 153–157. doi: 10.1080/00986280701498509

Qiang, R., Han, Q., Guo, Y., Bai, J., and Karwowski, M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: the mediating role of creative self-efficacy. J. Creat. Behav. 54, 90–99. doi: 10.1002/jocb.347

Rockstuhl, T., and Ng, K.-Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. (eds.) Ang, S., and Dyne, L.Van. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 206–220.

Rodriguez-Boerwinkle, R., Silvia, P., Kaufman, J. C., Reiter-Palmon, R., and Puryear, J. S. (2021). Taking inventory of the creative behavior inventory: an item response theory analysis of the CBI. [Preprint]. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/b7cfd

Ross, D., Loeffler, K., Schipper, S., Vandermeer, B., and Allan, G. M. (2013). Do scores on three commonly used measures of critical thinking correlate with academic success of health professions trainees? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad. Med. 88, 724–734. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828b0823

Runco, M. A., and Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: an empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creat. Child Adult Q. 11, 212–218.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research 8, 23–74.

Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 580–607.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: a quantitative review. Creat. Res. J. 16, 361–388. doi: 10.1080/10400410409534549

Scriven, M., and Paul, R. (1987). Defining Critical Thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform ; August 2–5, 1987.

Siburian, J., Corebima, A. D., Ibrohim,, and Saptasari, M. (2019). The correlation between critical and creative thinking skills on cognitive learning results. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 19, 99–114. doi: 10.14689/EJER.2019.81.6

Sternberg, R. J., and Halpern, D. F. (eds.) (2020). Critical Thinking in Psychology. 2nd Edn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., and Lubart, T. I. (1999). “The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms” in Handbook of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 3–15.

Sternberg, R. J., and Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. J. Intell. 5, 29. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5030029

Stevens, C., and Witkow, M. R. (2014). Training scientific thinking skills: evidence from an MCAT 2015 aligned classroom module. Teach. Psychol. 41, 115–121. doi: 10.1177/0098628314530341

Stevens, C., Witkow, M. R., and Smelt, B. (2016). Strengthening scientific reasoning skills in introductory psychology: evidence from community college and liberal arts classrooms. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2, 245–260. doi: 10.1037/stl0000070

Tang, M., Werner, C., Cao, G., Tumasjan, A., Shen, J., Shi, J., et al. (2015). Creative expression and its evaluation on work-related verbal tasks: a comparison of Chinese and German samples. J. Creat. Behav. 52, 91–103. doi: 10.1002/jocb.134

Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking: Norms–Technical Manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). “The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing” in The Nature of Creativity. ed. Sternberg, R. J. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 43–73.

Tsui, L. (1998). Fostering Critical Thinking in College Students: A Mixed-Methods Study of Influences Inside and Outside of the Classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9917229)

Wallach, M. A., and Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Watson, G. B., and Glaser, E. M. (1938). The Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

Watson, G. B., and Glaser, E. M. (1980). WGCTA Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual: Forms A and B. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundim, M. C., et al. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: independent or overlapping components? Think. Skills Creat. 27, 114–122. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003

Wong, R., and Niu, W. (2013). Cultural difference in stereotype perceptions and performances in nonverbal deductive reasoning and creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 47, 41–59. doi: 10.1002/jocb.22

Zydney, A. L., Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., and Bauer, K. W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 91, 291–297. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00706.x

Keywords: creativity, critical thinking, cross-cultural differences, college, research experience

Citation: Park JH, Niu W, Cheng L and Allen H (2021) Fostering Creativity and Critical Thinking in College: A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Front. Psychol . 12:760351. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760351

Received: 18 August 2021; Accepted: 11 October 2021; Published: 11 November 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Park, Niu, Cheng and Allen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Li Cheng, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: 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.

STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking: How Do Teachers Address Multiple Learning Demands?

• First Online: 31 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Deborah Corrigan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8324-8217 6 ,
• Debra Panizzon 6 &
• Kathy Smith 6  

847 Accesses

This chapter provides real examples that highlight how teachers must translate the concepts of creativity, critical thinking and the integrated nature of STEM in their practical realities. Such practical realities also require teachers to think about pedagogical approaches and their behaviours such as standing back with a clear pedagogical purpose, using questions to prompt student thinking and actively valuing student ideas become essential aspects of teaching practice to enhance student critical and creative thinking. Teachers also need opportunities to focus on their own thinking around these concepts by sharing and developing cumulative thinking around the nature of knowledge which defines disciplines and how to integrate this thinking with critical and creative thinking in STEM education. There is benefit in understanding creativity as a process of producing new ideas and critical thinking as evaluating and making value judgements in relation to evidence and arguments. In translating these concepts of creativity, critical thinking and STEM into practical realities, teachers need to consider the contexts in which they operate and look for opportunities and manage the risks that will arise. Such translations and considerations are not only difficult but are also often highly problematic in education traditions and structures that are already well-established.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

ICT as defined by the Australian Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016 , p.2, and so the heading “ICT” was used; see Table 6.1 .

All teacher participants were Australian.

Mat time refers to the time when children sit together on a mat on the floor and attend to what their teacher is saying/doing.

ACARA. (2017). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum: Science . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

ACARA. (2018). International comparative study: The Australian Curriculum and the Finnish National Core Curriculum . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3922/ac-fncc-international-comparative-study-final.pdf

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 10 , 123–167.

Google Scholar  

Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32 (3), 393–410.

Article   Google Scholar  

Council for Aid to Education. (n.d.). Collegiate learning assessment (CLA) critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills: Definitions and scoring criteria . Author.

Corrigan, D., & Smith, K. (2020). Complexity, intellectual challenge and ongoing support: Key learning conditions to enhance students’ engagement in STEM education. In I. Parchmann, S. Simon, & J. Apotheker (Eds.), Engaging learners with chemistry: Projects to stimulate interest and participation (pp. 16–45). Royal Chemical Society.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 38–39.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED315423

Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 134–143.

Halinen, I. (2018). The new educational curriculum in Finland. In M. Matthes, L. Pulkkinen, C. Clouder, & B. Heys (Eds.), Improving the quality of childhood in Europe (pp. 75–89). Alliance for Childhood European Network Foundation.

Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? Prospects, 44 (4), 559–574.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2007). How computerized work and globalization shape human skill demands. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 158–176). University of California.

Loughran, J. (2008). Cases: Building professional knowledge of practice. In J. Loughran & A. Berry (Eds.), Looking into practice: Cases of science teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 7–10). Monash Print.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Panizzon, D., Smith, K., & Carabot, K. (2019). Critical and creative thinking collaborative inquiry project. Final report . Monash University.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The nature and functions of critical & creative thinking . Rowman & Littlefield.

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce . Australian Government.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary . Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation . Oxford University.

Shepard, L. A. (2013). Validity for what purpose? Teachers College Record, 115 (9), 1–12.

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education . Teachers College.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st century learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (9), 630–634.

Sternberg, R. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 87–98.

Willingham, D. T. (2007, Summer). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8–19.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers acknowledge the support from the Department for Education South Australia in funding the project discussed and permitting teacher contributions. We specifically acknowledge the Case Studies written by Ginny McTaggart, Roxanne Ware and Heather Brooks who agreed to the inclusion of identified excerpts in our chapter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Deborah Corrigan, Debra Panizzon & Kathy Smith

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Corrigan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Amanda Berry

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Cathy Buntting

Deborah Corrigan

Richard Gunstone

Alister Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Corrigan, D., Panizzon, D., Smith, K. (2021). STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking: How Do Teachers Address Multiple Learning Demands?. In: Berry, A., Buntting, C., Corrigan, D., Gunstone, R., Jones, A. (eds) Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6

Published : 31 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85299-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85300-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Time Pressure and Creativity: Why Time is Not on Your Side

Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile is in the midst of a ten-year study looking at, among other things, how time pressure in a corporate setting affects employee creativity. She recently presented early findings and an updated working paper to colleagues at the HBS Research Symposium, and will publish an overview of the work in the August issue of Harvard Business Review .

In this email interview with HBS Working Knowledge editor Sean Silverthorne, Amabile talks about her research—one of the most complex research efforts ever undertaken at HBS—and the implications for managers who need to keep creative thinking in their organizations even as time pressures increase.

Silverthorne: What was the genesis of the project? What fascinated you about the question of time pressure and creativity?

Amabile: Over the course of my twenty-five-year career in research and teaching, I've been fascinated by the complex effects that time pressure (and other forms of pressure) had on my own creativity and productivity. And, in working with many companies, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon: Most managers—and employees—hold strong beliefs about how time pressure affects creativity. But the beliefs are completely opposite!

We wanted to do what few researchers have ever attempted: trap creativity in the wild... —Teresa Amabile

Some people are convinced that time pressure stimulates creative thinking, and others are certain it stifles creative thinking. There's very little prior empirical research on time pressure and creativity in organizations, and the results were somewhat contradictory. Over the past few years, there's been more and more talk about time pressure in organizations, and what a prominent feature of the work environment it's become for knowledge workers (the people who are, ideally, supposed to be doing creative work much of the time!). My HBS colleague Leslie Perlow has identified a "time famine" in corporate America today. Given the prominence of time pressure in people's work lives, the contradictory intuitions that people hold about its effects, and the dearth of rigorous empirical research, my research team and I set out to tackle the problem.

My research team and I investigated time pressure and creativity as part of a multi-year research program in which we had a large number of organizational employees—238 individuals on 26 project teams in 7 companies in 3 industries—fill out a brief electronic diary every day during the entire course of a creative project they were doing in their jobs.

Q: The methodology and complexity of the research itself is staggering. Why did you employ the "diary" method of quizzing employees, and how difficult was that process to manage?

A: We wanted to do what few researchers have ever attempted: "trap creativity in the wild" in organizations, by observing it as it was happening within teams who are supposed to be doing creative work. We believed that the best way to get real-time information on these individuals, the teams, and their work, in a relatively unobtrusive way, was to have the participants fill out an electronic "Daily Questionnaire" (DQ) for us.

Every workday, Monday through Friday, the HBS computer emailed the DQ to everyone participating in the study; we asked participants to fill it out and send it back by the end of the day. Each team did this through their entire project (or project phase) that we were studying (anywhere from five weeks up to nine months).

Of course, the process was very difficult to manage, requiring intense attention from my research associates and me. I met personally with each participating team four times during their participation:

• An initial recruiting meeting, where I explained what participation would involve and what the team would get in return (about 50 percent of the recruited teams agreed to participate).
• A briefing meeting before their project started, in which I explained the study in more detail, answered questions, and helped them practice completing the DQ.
• A mid-study check-in meeting to see how they were doing and answer further questions.
• A final results workshop, in which we presented our preliminary findings to the team and helped them think through how to use the results to improve their work. After studying four or five teams in a given company, we also met with the management team of the organization to share our general findings with them and to hear their interpretation of the results.

I think that participants were so conscientious (returning fully 75 percent of all the DQs we sent out to them) because (1) they felt that they were going to get a truly unique look at their team and themselves; (2) we established a personal connection with them in the early meetings and maintained that through regular phone calls and emails from me and my RAs; and (3) we tried to make it fun by giving them little gifts at the meetings (like "TEAM Study" coffee mugs), and including jokes and trivia questions at the end of the DQ each day.

Q: One of the interesting findings suggested by your work is that while people believe they are more creative under deadline pressure, they are not. At the same time, too little pressure does little to help creativity, either. So how does a manager find that "sweet spot" along the time/creativity continuum?

A: Actually, I don't think it's a continuum, but rather a set of conditions that seem to determine whether time pressure will have positive or negative effects on creativity.

I don't think there's much danger of too little time pressure in most organizations I've studied —Teresa Amabile

As the HBR article points out, the results suggest that, overall, very high levels of time pressure should be avoided if you want to foster creativity on a consistent basis. However, if a time crunch is absolutely unavoidable, managers can try to preserve creativity by protecting people from fragmentation of their work and distractions; they should also give people a sense of being "on a mission," doing something difficult but important. I don't think, though, that most people can function effectively in that mode for long periods of time without getting burned out.

At the other end of the spectrum, very low time pressure might lull people into inaction; under those conditions, top-management encouragement to be creative—to do something radically new—might stimulate creativity. But, frankly, I don't think there's much danger of too little time pressure in most organizations I've studied.

Q: What are the implications of your research so far for business leaders who want to enhance creativity in their organizations?

A: My answer to the previous question suggests managerial implications concerning time pressure. More broadly, our research suggests that managers should try to avoid or reduce the "obstacles to creativity" (time pressure and organizational impediments like political problems, harsh criticism of new ideas, and emphasis on the status quo) and enhance the "stimulants to creativity" (freedom, positive challenge in the work); sufficient resources (work-group supports, putting together diversely skilled teams that communicate well, are mutually committed to the work, and constructively discuss ideas); supervisory encouragement (team leaders who communicate effectively with the group, value individual contributions, protect the group within the organization, set clear goals while allowing freedom in meeting the goals, and serve as good work models); and organizational encouragement (like conversations about ideas across the organization, and a top management focus on rewarding and recognizing good creative work).

Q: Personally, what has been your most surprising finding or findings?

A: Perhaps the most surprising finding from the time pressure study is that time pressure really does seem to have an important impact on creativity, even though our intuitions are contradictory and previous research is inconclusive. I'm also very surprised that, while our participants were giving evidence of less creative thinking on time-pressured days, they reported feeling more creative on those days. This helps me gain a bit of insight into those contradictory intuitions!

Q: Although you are attempting to understand the "black box" of creativity in an organizational setting, have you talked to or researched creative folks in the arts or other endeavors?

A: Several years ago, while a professor of psychology at Brandeis University, I studied professional artists who occasionally did commissioned work. They seemed to be the perfect population for me to study the effect of contracted-for reward on creativity; they received contracts specifying their monetary "reward" up front for some of their work, but did other work completely self-initiated, with uncertainty about whether they'd ever sell the work. I found that, overall, their commissioned artworks were rated by expert judges as significantly less creative than their non-commissioned—self-initiated—work. The judges didn't know which works were commissioned, and they weren't familiar with any of the artists' work previously. This wasn't true for all of the artists, but it was true for most.

Also while at Brandeis, I did a laboratory experiment with creative writers—people who spent a significant part of their time each week writing fiction, poetry, or drama. I wanted to see if their creativity would be temporarily affected by having them focus on extrinsic motivations for being a writer, such as getting rich and famous, versus intrinsic motivations such as enjoying the process of writing. After getting them to think about one or the other set of motives (or no motives for writing, in a control condition), I had them each write a brief poem that was later judged by experts who were also blind to the experimental conditions. I found that the creativity of the poems was significantly lower in the extrinsic motivation condition than in the other conditions. This supported one of the main findings of my entire research program on creativity: The Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity. People will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself, and not by external pressures or inducements.

Q: Are you under time pressure yourself to wrap this project up? When will the work be complete?

A: The time pressure study is one of several projects coming out of a longitudinal research program that my team and I have been working on since 1996. These projects are all aimed at discovering how specific events and patterns of events within organizations can influence the work environment, motivation, perceptions, creativity, and other aspects of performance. In the process, we are discovering a great deal about what really happens at work—and what managers can do to make it better. We hope to wrap up most of the analyses and the writing up of results in the next three to four years.

It's hard to imagine being able to carry out a ten-year organizational research program of such magnitude—12,000 DQs from so many employees in so many companies—at any academic institution besides HBS!

• 03 May 2024
• Research & Ideas

How Much Does Proximity Influence Startup Innovation? 20 Meters' Worth to Be Exact

• 06 May 2024

The Critical Minutes After a Virtual Meeting That Can Build Up or Tear Down Teams

• 26 Apr 2024

Deion Sanders' Prime Lessons for Leading a Team to Victory

• 30 Apr 2024

When Managers Set Unrealistic Expectations, Employees Cut Ethical Corners

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• Innovation and Invention
• Situation or Environment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

• Open training
• Team training
• Leadership, supervisory and management
• Project and event management
• Business writing
• Interpersonal and communication skills
• Professional development and personal effectiveness
• Administrative skills
• Productivity software
• Planning for retirement
• Government, policy and performance management
• Organization development
• Sales, marketing and customer service
• Learning and development

What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Valuable in the Workplace?

• Articles and Resources
• > Personal Effectiveness and Preparing for Change
• > What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Valuable in the Workplace?

There are times at work when you simply have to “do.” A tight deadline, a demanding project outline, or a highly particular superior might mean that it makes sense to complete a task without too much mental tinkering. But work like this can be unsustainable and worse — it won’t leverage your ability to think critically.

There is value in thinking critically in every aspect of your life. From making decisions in your personal life, to interrogating the media you consume, to assessing your work with a critical eye, applying critical thinking is an essential skill everyone should be trying to hone.

At your workplace, critical thinking can distinguish you as a leader, and a valuable mind to bounce ideas off. It can help improve the quality of your work, and the perception those higher up the chain have of you.

Here’s what you need to know about critical thinking in the workplace:

What Exactly is “Critical Thinking”?

  In a nutshell, critical thinking is the ability to think reasonably, detaching yourself from personal bias, emotional responses, and subjective opinions. It involves using the data at hand to make a reasoned choice without falling prey to the temptations of doing things simply because they’ve always been done a certain way.

Critical thinking takes time. It might be quicker simply to take instruction at face value, or rely on the traditions of your team. But without analyzing the reasons behind decisions and tasks, it becomes extremely easy to adopt bad habits. This might be time-wasting meetings, inefficient uses of effort, or poor interactions with team members. Taking the time to ask “why” you’re doing something is the first step to thinking critically.

Sometimes, data is available which allows you to make reasoned decisions based on absolute facts. If you can show that a new best practice can objectively improve current processes with hard data, you’ve used the very basics of critical thinking. That said, actual numbers aren’t always available when making a decision. Real critical thinking involves taking a careful look at situations and making a decision based on what is known, not what is felt.

Why Is Critical Thinking Important in the Workplace?

The short answer to the above question is this: critical thinkers make the best decisions, most often. And in the workplace, where choices about how to complete tasks, communicate information, relate with coworkers, and develop strategy are so common, critical thinkers are extremely valuable.

A savvy hiring manager will make this part of the recruitment process. It’s pretty easy to gauge how someone is inclined to solve a problem — ask them how they would deal with a specific situation, and give them the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills, versus deferring to an emotional, or prescribed reaction. Employing people who can think and act reasonably will pay enormous dividends down the road.

Using your critical thinking skills in the workplace will define you as a problem solver. This is not only useful career-wise (although having upper-level people at your company think highly of you is undoubtedly a benefit) it also establishes you as a leader among your fellow team members. Demonstrating your ability to solve problems and accomplish goals effectively will help instill confidence in you with all your coworkers.

How to Use Critical Thinking in the Workplace

The first step to actually using critical thinking is approaching every situation with an open mind. You need to be receptive to all information available, not just the kind that satisfies your preconceived notions or personal biases. This can be easier said than done, of course — lessons learned and beliefs held are often done so with a reason. But when it comes to critical thinking, it’s important to analyze each situation independently.

Once you’ve analyzed a situation with an open mind, you need to consider how to communicate it properly. It’s all very well and good to approach situations with objective logic, but it doesn’t do you any favours to sound like  Mr. Spock  when you’re conveying your conclusions. Be tactful, patient and humble when you are explaining how and why you’ve come to decisions. Use data if available to support your findings, but understand that not everyone is able to remove emotion from situations.

The final, and perhaps least obvious, application with critical thinking is creativity. Often, getting creative means pushing boundaries and reshaping convention. This means taking a risk — one that can often be worth the reward. Using a critical thinking approach when getting creative can help you mitigate the risk, and better determine what value your creativity can bring. It will help you and your team try new things and reinvent current processes while hopefully not rocking the boat too much.

Learn More About Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a valuable skill for all aspects of your life. It benefits problem solving, creativity, and teamwork. And it translates particularly well to the workplace, where it can distinguish you as a valuable employee and leader.

Taking the extra time to examine things objectively, make decisions based on logic, and communicate it tactfully will help you, those you work with, and your work goals prosper. To learn more about how to do that, have a look at our  Critical Thinking and Problem Solving for Effective Decision-Making   workshop and register today!

Let us help you create your training solution

Hello we'd love to hear from you.

Complete the form below or reach us at: [email protected] , or 613-234-2020

Contact details

To help you.

• I wish to subscribe to PMC Training content.

Welcome to our new website!

We appreciate your patience as we add the finishing touches. In the meantime, go and explore!

Cookie Usage Disclaimer: This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy .

ScienceSphere.blog

The Power Of Emotions: Unveiling Their Impact On Critical Thinking

Table of Contents

Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a crucial skill that allows individuals to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information in a logical and rational manner. It enables us to make informed decisions, solve problems effectively, and think independently. In today’s complex and fast-paced world, critical thinking has become increasingly important in various aspects of our lives, including education, work, and personal relationships.

Influence of Emotions on Critical Thinking

While critical thinking is often associated with rationality and logic, it is important to recognize the significant role that emotions play in our thought processes. Emotions are an integral part of being human, and they can greatly influence our thinking and decision-making abilities. Understanding the relationship between emotions and critical thinking is essential for developing a well-rounded approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

Emotions can impact critical thinking in several ways. They can shape our perception and interpretation of information, influence our biases and judgments, and even affect our creativity and problem-solving skills. Emotions can either enhance or hinder our ability to think critically, depending on how we manage and regulate them.

In this article, we will explore the concept of emotions and their influence on critical thinking. We will delve into the different types of emotions, how they are triggered and experienced, and their impact on decision-making, perception, and problem-solving. We will also discuss the importance of emotion regulation and how it can enhance critical thinking skills. Additionally, we will explore the connection between emotional intelligence and critical thinking abilities and provide tips for developing emotional intelligence to improve critical thinking skills.

By understanding the relationship between emotions and critical thinking, we can learn to harness the power of emotions to enhance our decision-making and problem-solving abilities. We can also develop strategies to regulate our emotions effectively, ensuring that they do not hinder our critical thinking processes. Ultimately, by cultivating emotional intelligence and balancing emotions with rationality, we can become more effective critical thinkers in all aspects of our lives.

In the following sections, we will delve deeper into the understanding of emotions, explore their relationship with critical thinking, discuss strategies for emotion regulation, and provide tips for developing emotional intelligence. We will also analyze real-life case studies and examples to illustrate the impact of emotions on critical thinking. Finally, we will provide practical techniques for balancing emotions and critical thinking and conclude with a summary of the importance of understanding and managing emotions in the pursuit of effective critical thinking.

So, let’s dive in and explore the fascinating world of emotions and their influence on critical thinking!

Understanding Emotions

Emotions play a significant role in our lives, influencing our thoughts, actions, and decision-making processes. Understanding emotions is essential for developing effective critical thinking skills. In this section, we will explore the definition and characteristics of emotions, how they are triggered and experienced, and the different types of emotions that exist.

Definition and Explanation of Emotions

Emotions can be defined as intense feelings that arise in response to specific situations or stimuli. They are complex psychological and physiological responses that involve subjective experiences, physiological changes, and behavioral expressions. Emotions are an integral part of the human experience and are closely tied to our thoughts and perceptions.

Different Types of Emotions and Their Characteristics

Emotions can be categorized into various types, each with its own unique characteristics. Some common types of emotions include happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust. Each emotion has its own distinct set of physiological responses, such as changes in heart rate, facial expressions, and body language.

For example, happiness is often associated with positive experiences and is characterized by feelings of joy, contentment, and satisfaction. It is typically accompanied by a smile, relaxed facial muscles, and an overall sense of well-being. On the other hand, anger is an emotion that arises in response to perceived threats or injustices and is characterized by feelings of frustration, hostility, and the desire to retaliate. It is often accompanied by increased heart rate, clenched fists, and a tense facial expression.

How Emotions are Triggered and Experienced

Emotions can be triggered by various factors, including external events, internal thoughts, and physiological changes. External events, such as receiving good news or experiencing a traumatic event, can elicit emotional responses. Internal thoughts and interpretations of situations also play a significant role in triggering emotions. For example, perceiving a situation as threatening can lead to feelings of fear or anxiety.

Once emotions are triggered, they are experienced subjectively. Individuals may have different emotional responses to the same situation based on their personal experiences, beliefs, and values. The experience of emotions involves a combination of cognitive processes, physiological changes, and behavioral expressions. These experiences can vary in intensity, duration, and the way they are expressed.

Understanding emotions and their characteristics is crucial for developing effective critical thinking skills. Emotions can significantly influence our decision-making processes, perceptions, and problem-solving abilities. By gaining a deeper understanding of emotions, we can better navigate their impact on our critical thinking and make more informed and rational decisions.

In the next section, we will explore the relationship between emotions and critical thinking, examining how emotions can influence our decision-making, perception of information, and problem-solving abilities.

The Relationship Between Emotions and Critical Thinking

Emotions play a significant role in our daily lives, influencing our thoughts, actions, and decision-making processes. When it comes to critical thinking, emotions can have a profound impact on how we perceive and interpret information, make decisions, and solve problems. Understanding the relationship between emotions and critical thinking is crucial for developing effective thinking skills and making rational choices.

Exploring the Impact of Emotions on Decision-Making

Emotions can greatly influence our decision-making processes. When we are experiencing strong emotions such as fear, anger, or excitement, our ability to think critically may be compromised. These emotions can cloud our judgment and lead us to make impulsive or irrational decisions. On the other hand, positive emotions like happiness or enthusiasm can enhance our creativity and open our minds to new possibilities.

How Emotions Influence Perception and Interpretation of Information

Emotions can also shape how we perceive and interpret information. Our emotional state can affect our attention, memory, and reasoning abilities, leading us to focus on certain aspects of a situation while ignoring others. For example, if we are feeling anxious or fearful, we may be more likely to interpret ambiguous information in a negative or threatening way. This can hinder our ability to think critically and objectively analyze the facts.

The Role of Emotions in Problem-Solving and Creativity

Emotions can have a significant impact on problem-solving and creative thinking. While negative emotions can sometimes hinder our problem-solving abilities by narrowing our focus and limiting our options, positive emotions can enhance our creativity and innovative thinking. When we are in a positive emotional state, we are more likely to think outside the box, consider alternative solutions, and approach problems from different perspectives.

The Connection Between Emotions and Biases in Critical Thinking

Emotions can also contribute to biases in critical thinking. Our emotions can influence our beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, leading us to be more receptive to information that aligns with our emotional state and dismissive of contradictory evidence. This confirmation bias can hinder our ability to think critically and objectively evaluate information. Recognizing and managing our emotions is essential for overcoming biases and engaging in unbiased critical thinking.

Understanding the relationship between emotions and critical thinking is crucial for developing effective thinking skills and making rational choices. Emotion regulation, the ability to manage and control our emotions, is essential for enhancing critical thinking abilities. By learning strategies for managing emotions, such as deep breathing, mindfulness, and reframing techniques, we can improve our decision-making and problem-solving skills.

Cultivating Emotional Intelligence for Improved Critical Thinking

Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage our own emotions and empathize with others, is closely linked to critical thinking abilities. Developing emotional intelligence can enhance our self-awareness, self-regulation, and empathy, all of which are essential for effective critical thinking. By practicing self-reflection, active listening, and empathy, we can cultivate emotional intelligence and improve our critical thinking skills.

Case Studies and Examples

Real-life examples can provide valuable insights into how emotions can impact critical thinking. By analyzing specific situations where emotions played a significant role in decision-making or problem-solving, we can gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between emotions and critical thinking. These case studies can serve as learning opportunities and help us develop strategies for managing emotions in similar situations.

Strategies for Balancing Emotions and Critical Thinking

Maintaining a balance between emotions and rationality is essential for effective critical thinking. Techniques such as recognizing and acknowledging our emotions, taking a step back to evaluate the situation objectively, and seeking different perspectives can help us balance our emotions and engage in logical and rational thinking. Incorporating emotional awareness into our critical thinking practices can lead to more informed and thoughtful decision-making.

In conclusion, emotions and critical thinking are closely intertwined. Emotions can greatly influence our decision-making, perception, and problem-solving abilities. By understanding the relationship between emotions and critical thinking and developing emotional intelligence, we can enhance our critical thinking skills and make more rational and informed choices. Managing and balancing our emotions is key to effective critical thinking and achieving success in various aspects of our lives.

Emotion Regulation and its Effect on Critical Thinking

Emotion regulation plays a crucial role in enhancing critical thinking skills. When emotions are not effectively managed, they can cloud judgment and hinder rational decision-making. On the other hand, when emotions are regulated and controlled, they can contribute to more accurate and effective critical thinking. In this section, we will explore the importance of emotion regulation and its effect on critical thinking.

The Importance of Regulating Emotions for Effective Critical Thinking

Emotions can have a significant impact on critical thinking. When we are overwhelmed by strong emotions such as anger, fear, or sadness, our ability to think critically may be compromised. These intense emotions can distort our perception of reality and lead to biased thinking. Emotion regulation is essential because it allows us to maintain a balanced and rational mindset, enabling us to make better decisions and solve problems more effectively.

Strategies for Managing and Controlling Emotions

To regulate emotions effectively, it is essential to develop strategies that help us manage and control our emotional responses. Here are a few techniques that can be helpful:

Self-awareness : Recognizing and acknowledging our emotions is the first step towards regulating them. Taking the time to understand what we are feeling and why can help us gain control over our emotional state.

Deep breathing and relaxation techniques : When we are experiencing intense emotions, taking deep breaths and engaging in relaxation techniques can help calm our minds and bodies. This can create space for clearer thinking and better decision-making.

Cognitive reappraisal : This technique involves reframing our thoughts and changing our perspective on a situation. By challenging negative or irrational thoughts, we can reduce the intensity of our emotional response and think more objectively.

Seeking support : Talking to a trusted friend, family member, or therapist can provide valuable support and perspective. Sharing our emotions and concerns with others can help us gain insight and find healthier ways to cope with challenging situations.

How Emotion Regulation Enhances Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Skills

Emotion regulation directly impacts our decision-making and problem-solving abilities. When we can effectively regulate our emotions, we are better able to:

Consider multiple perspectives : Emotion regulation allows us to step back from our initial emotional reactions and consider alternative viewpoints. This broader perspective enables us to make more informed decisions and find creative solutions to problems.

Evaluate evidence objectively : Emotions can bias our interpretation of information. By regulating our emotions, we can approach evidence more objectively, weighing its credibility and relevance without being swayed by our emotional biases.

Manage conflicts : Emotion regulation helps us navigate conflicts more effectively. By staying calm and composed, we can engage in constructive dialogue, listen to others’ perspectives, and find mutually beneficial solutions.

Maintain focus and attention : Emotion regulation helps us stay focused on the task at hand. By managing distractions and reducing emotional interference, we can concentrate better and think more critically.

In conclusion, emotion regulation is a vital skill for enhancing critical thinking. By managing and controlling our emotions, we can improve our decision-making, problem-solving, and overall critical thinking abilities. Developing strategies for emotion regulation, such as self-awareness, relaxation techniques, cognitive reappraisal, and seeking support, can significantly contribute to our success in critical thinking endeavors. So, let us strive to cultivate emotional intelligence and regulate our emotions to become more effective critical thinkers.

Emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in our ability to think critically. It involves understanding and managing our emotions effectively, which in turn enhances our decision-making, problem-solving, and creativity skills. By cultivating emotional intelligence, we can significantly improve our critical thinking abilities. In this section, we will explore the concept of emotional intelligence, its link to critical thinking, and provide tips for developing emotional intelligence to enhance our critical thinking skills.

Definition and Explanation of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and manage our own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. It involves being aware of our emotions and using that awareness to guide our thoughts and actions. Emotional intelligence comprises several components, including self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills.

The Link Between Emotional Intelligence and Critical Thinking Abilities

Emotional intelligence and critical thinking are closely intertwined. When we have a high level of emotional intelligence, we are better equipped to think critically and make informed decisions. Here’s how emotional intelligence enhances our critical thinking abilities:

Self-Awareness: Emotional intelligence helps us become more aware of our own emotions, biases, and thought patterns. This self-awareness allows us to recognize when our emotions may be influencing our thinking and helps us approach problems and decisions with a more rational mindset.

Empathy: Emotional intelligence enables us to understand and empathize with the perspectives and emotions of others. This ability to see things from different viewpoints enhances our critical thinking by allowing us to consider alternative solutions and evaluate information from a broader perspective.

Self-Regulation: Emotional intelligence helps us regulate our emotions, preventing them from clouding our judgment. By managing our emotions effectively, we can approach critical thinking tasks with a clear and objective mindset, leading to more accurate analysis and decision-making.

Social Skills: Emotional intelligence also encompasses social skills, such as effective communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution. These skills are essential for critical thinking, as they enable us to engage in constructive discussions, consider diverse opinions, and work effectively with others to solve complex problems.

Tips for Developing Emotional Intelligence to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills

Developing emotional intelligence is an ongoing process that requires self-reflection and practice. Here are some tips to cultivate emotional intelligence and improve critical thinking skills:

Self-Reflection: Take time to reflect on your emotions, thoughts, and reactions in different situations. Identify any patterns or biases that may be influencing your critical thinking. Regular self-reflection helps you become more self-aware and better understand the impact of emotions on your thinking process.

Emotion Regulation Techniques: Learn and practice techniques for managing and regulating your emotions. Deep breathing exercises, mindfulness meditation, and journaling are effective methods for calming your mind and gaining control over your emotions. These techniques can help you approach critical thinking tasks with a clear and focused mindset.

Active Listening and Empathy: Practice active listening and empathy in your interactions with others. Pay attention to their emotions, perspectives, and concerns. This will enhance your ability to understand different viewpoints and think critically about complex issues.

Seek Diverse Perspectives: Actively seek out diverse perspectives and opinions. Engage in discussions with people who have different backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs. This exposure to diverse viewpoints will broaden your thinking and challenge your assumptions, leading to more robust critical thinking.

Continuous Learning: Engage in lifelong learning to expand your knowledge and skills. Read books, attend workshops, and take courses that focus on emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and related topics. Continuous learning helps you develop a growth mindset and stay updated with the latest research and practices in emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

By cultivating emotional intelligence, we can enhance our critical thinking skills and make more informed decisions. Developing self-awareness, empathy, self-regulation, and social skills enables us to approach critical thinking tasks with clarity and objectivity. Remember, emotional intelligence is a journey, and with consistent practice and effort, we can continuously improve our ability to think critically and make sound judgments.

In this section, we will explore real-life case studies and examples that demonstrate the impact of emotions on critical thinking. By analyzing these situations, we can gain a deeper understanding of how emotions can influence our decision-making and problem-solving abilities.

Real-life examples demonstrating the impact of emotions on critical thinking

Example 1: the impulsive purchase.

Imagine a scenario where you are shopping for a new smartphone. You have done thorough research, comparing different models and reading reviews. However, when you visit the store, you come across a flashy advertisement for a brand-new phone that promises to be the “best in the market.” Despite your initial research, you are swayed by the excitement and emotions triggered by the advertisement. As a result, you make an impulsive purchase without considering all the factors you had previously analyzed.

This example highlights how emotions can override critical thinking and lead to irrational decision-making. The excitement and desire for the latest technology can cloud our judgment and prevent us from making a well-informed choice.

Example 2: The Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that occurs when we seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts them. Emotions play a significant role in this bias, as our emotional attachment to certain beliefs can prevent us from critically evaluating alternative perspectives.

For instance, imagine a political debate where two individuals hold opposing views. Despite being presented with well-reasoned arguments and evidence from the other side, both individuals remain steadfast in their beliefs. Their emotional attachment to their respective ideologies prevents them from critically analyzing the opposing viewpoints and considering alternative perspectives.

Analysis of how emotions affected critical thinking in specific situations

Situation 1: the job interview.

During a job interview, emotions can significantly impact our critical thinking abilities. For example, if a candidate is feeling nervous or anxious, they may struggle to articulate their thoughts clearly or think critically under pressure. On the other hand, if a candidate is overconfident, they may overlook important details or fail to consider alternative solutions.

In this situation, it is crucial to recognize and regulate emotions to ensure that they do not hinder our ability to think critically. By practicing emotional intelligence and maintaining a calm and composed mindset, candidates can enhance their critical thinking skills and make more informed decisions during the interview process.

Situation 2: The Negotiation

Emotions can also play a significant role in negotiations. For instance, if a negotiator becomes angry or frustrated during a negotiation, they may lose focus and make impulsive decisions that are not in their best interest. On the other hand, if a negotiator is too empathetic, they may give in to the demands of the other party without critically evaluating the situation.

To overcome these challenges, it is important to develop emotional intelligence and practice emotion regulation techniques. By staying calm, managing emotions, and maintaining a rational mindset, negotiators can make more strategic decisions and achieve better outcomes.

In conclusion, these case studies and examples illustrate the impact of emotions on critical thinking. Emotions can either enhance or hinder our ability to think critically, depending on how we manage and regulate them. By understanding the influence of emotions on our decision-making processes, we can develop strategies to cultivate emotional intelligence and improve our critical thinking skills. It is essential to recognize the role of emotions in critical thinking and strive for a balance between emotions and rationality in order to make well-informed and effective decisions.

In the pursuit of effective critical thinking, it is crucial to find a balance between emotions and rationality. While emotions play a significant role in decision-making and problem-solving, they can also cloud judgment and lead to biased thinking. To ensure that emotions do not hinder the critical thinking process, it is essential to employ strategies for recognizing, managing, and balancing emotions. Here are some techniques to help achieve this balance:

Recognize and Acknowledge Emotions

The first step in balancing emotions and critical thinking is to recognize and acknowledge the emotions you are experiencing. Emotions can be powerful and can influence our thoughts and actions. By being aware of our emotions, we can better understand how they might be impacting our critical thinking processes. Take a moment to reflect on your emotions and identify any biases or preconceived notions they may be causing.

Practice Emotional Regulation

Emotional regulation is the ability to manage and control our emotions effectively. By practicing emotional regulation techniques, we can prevent our emotions from overwhelming our critical thinking abilities. Deep breathing exercises, mindfulness meditation, and journaling are just a few examples of strategies that can help regulate emotions. These techniques can help calm the mind and create a space for rational thinking.

Seek Different Perspectives

When faced with a challenging problem or decision, it is essential to seek different perspectives. Engaging with diverse viewpoints can help counteract the influence of emotions on critical thinking. By considering alternative viewpoints, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the situation and make more informed decisions. Engaging in discussions with others who may have different opinions can help challenge our own biases and emotional attachments.

Use Logic and Reasoning

To balance emotions and critical thinking, it is crucial to rely on logic and reasoning. Emotions can sometimes lead to impulsive or irrational decisions. By employing logical thinking and reasoning, we can evaluate information objectively and make sound judgments. When faced with a challenging situation, take a step back and analyze the facts and evidence at hand. This will help reduce the influence of emotions and ensure a more balanced approach to critical thinking.

Take Breaks and Self-Care

Taking breaks and practicing self-care is essential for maintaining a healthy balance between emotions and critical thinking. When we are stressed or overwhelmed, our emotions can become heightened, leading to biased thinking. By prioritizing self-care activities such as exercise, spending time with loved ones, or engaging in hobbies, we can reduce stress levels and promote emotional well-being. Taking breaks from intense critical thinking tasks allows us to recharge and approach problems with a fresh perspective.

Reflect and Learn from Mistakes

Balancing emotions and critical thinking is an ongoing process that requires self-reflection and learning from mistakes. It is essential to reflect on past experiences and identify how emotions may have influenced our critical thinking. By learning from these experiences, we can develop strategies to better manage emotions in the future. Embrace failures and mistakes as opportunities for growth and improvement.

In conclusion, balancing emotions and critical thinking is crucial for effective decision-making and problem-solving. By recognizing and acknowledging emotions, practicing emotional regulation, seeking different perspectives, using logic and reasoning, taking breaks and practicing self-care, and reflecting on past experiences, we can achieve a healthy balance between emotions and critical thinking. Developing these strategies will enhance our ability to think critically and make informed decisions, leading to personal and professional success.

Unveiling The Shelf Life: How Long Does Citric Acid Last?

Unveiling The True Value: How Much Is Jcoin Worth In Today’s Market?

Rebooting Your Booze: How To Reset Alcohol Content

Quick And Easy: Mastering The Art Of Thawing Tuna

Unveiling The Dynamic Interplay: How Physical And Human Systems Shape A Place

Unlocking The Power: How Long Does It Take For Royal Honey To Activate?

Mastering Residency: A Guide On How To Study Effectively

Mastering The Art Of Die Cast Mold Making: A Step-By-Step Guide

Unveiling The Energy Consumption Of Water Coolers: How Much Electricity Do They Really Use?

Mastering Virtual Reality: Unlocking The Secrets To Altering Your Height

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Growth Mastery

Mastering Growth in Life & Business

Critical and Creative Thinking: What is Which and What are the Advantages

Russell Heisler · March 8, 2018 · Leave a Comment

When dealing with problems, there are two ways to approach them. One might find solutions by applying critical thinking, while someone might find it more suitable to use creative thinking. Critical and creative thinking are essential during the learning process, which requires students to resort to different methods. They can use reason and logic when acquiring their knowledge, or be innovative and use imagination when finding solutions.

What is creative thinking?

Creative thinking is a form of innovation which seeks to find new answers and allow new perspectives on a problem. The outcome of this process should be original and unique. Through it, people might find unexpected solutions and increase productivity.

Through creative thinking, one starts by putting up lists of possibilities on a quest for ideas. Any unconventional proposition is welcome as, in the end, the product consists of various theories on the same issue. To come up with ideas, people can use both structured and unstructured methods.

Brainstorming vs. lateral thinking

Brainstorming is the unstructured type of process. It consists of a free discussion, where everyone contributes with ideas and suggestions. Those who are part of a brainstorming process are encouraged to voice all their ideas. Sometimes, they might have some unorthodox propositions, but this is all for the better.

Lateral thinking is the structured alternative to achieving creative thinking. It might seem a little too critical as, in the end, it reaches logical conclusions. However, the thinking process does not follow the classic line, and the ideas produced are attained from many points of view. In fact, the purpose of creative thinking is to supply some ideas which are then filtered through critical thinking.

Skills related to creative thinking

People who use this process have to be open-minded and flexible to outlandish ideas. Also, they need the imagination to produce the original ideas, and the creativity to make them unique. To produce alternatives and make them possible, it’s necessary to elaborate on a basis and even take some risks.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking makes use of logic, reason, and analyzing to reach a conclusion. The subjects first have to observe and have a certain experience with the elements of the problem. Then, they closely ponder all possibilities and analyze the reality. The final judgment is empirical and educated.

In critical thinking, people learn how to question everything. They do this by using logic to filter through all the alternatives. For the results to be the best, they also have to remain objective and thoroughly analyze everything that’s given to them.

What to use critical thinking for?

This process is best in debates, when people are trying to build up arguments to support their convictions. Also, some questions require a single answer, but more alternatives are offered. This is the best method of sorting the real one out. As mentioned above, critical and creative thinking are related as the former is used to sift through the variety given by the latter. Cortactors CRM. Best crm for construction companies .

Critical and creative thinking – main differences

Critical and creative thinking both seek to find answers and promote learning, but they use opposing principles and techniques. First of all, creative thinking is all about innovation. It wants to come up with new theories, while critical thinking explores the already existing options and the truth present in them.

Also, creative thinking seeks to generate. The main purpose of critical thinking is to be purely analytical and explore everything that is given. This is offered by the widely accepted principles which are closely followed in critical thinking. In the other variant, they are disregarded and challenged.

In the end, the main purpose of critical thinking is to reach one single answer. Therefore, all the methods are convergent, and carefully remove the options one by one, until the best is left. Creative thinking is clashing, divergent, and encourages diversity.

How do critical and creative thinking work together?

When solving problems, one may opt for one alternative or the other. However, in the context of learning, the two processes are not mutually exclusive. Both are essential for the development of thinking abilities. If students develop both their logic and imagination skills, they will later be able to choose their preferred strategy. Also, they will spontaneously use whatever suits the situation.

Critical and creative thinking in learning

To make kids develop critical and creative thinking, they first have to learn a few investigation techniques. Working in teams teaches them to listen to others’ opinions and thus develop a set of theories. On the other hand, working individually enhances their logical skills, and encourages them to ponder each result.

Critical and creative thinking are good for developing the inquiry skills of the kids. Both of them make the students ask more questions and be more curious about the options they have. Also, they get to compare all the information and be more attentive to where it comes from.

The two processes increase both the creativity and pragmatism of a child

Of course, these techniques increase the creativity of a child. By knowing how to come up with ideas and then judge them, students can then identify common points and find out how they are related. By connecting them, they might even find new solutions, or establish on the best strategy to apply.

These processes are essential for the development of a child into an adult endowed with reason. They teach them how to apply reason and logical concepts, and then reach conclusions. These skills are what it takes to help kids take decisions on their own, as they become capable of analyzing the consequences of their actions.

Drawing to a Close

Critical and creative thinking are two opposed methods to rationalize, which can often complete each other. Although one seeks to generate ideas and the other wants to sort out the existent options, they can both train the brain to be more creative and find solutions quickly. It also develops one’s logical skills, thus improving decision making and the analysis of consequences.

Image sources: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *