After reading ‘Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking,’ explain the benefits of using new critical thinking as opposed to older views of critical thinking using references from the

Objectives Unacceptable Below Average Acceptable Above Average Exemplary Score

0 Points 20 Points

Student did not make any post in the discussion board

Student posts were on time

0 Points 5 Points 10 Points 15 Points 20 Points

No reference to any course reading

Makes reference to assigned readings; attempts

to cite the source

Makes references to course and/or outside reading

material but citations do not conform to an acceptable

citation format

Refers to and properly cites in APA format course and/or

outside reading in initial posting only

Refers to and properly cites in APA format either course

materials or external readings in initial posts and

responses

0 Points 5 Points 10 Points 15 Points 20 Points

No postings for which to evaluate language and

grammar

Poorly written initial posting and responses including

frequent spelling, structure, and/or grammar errors

Communicates in friendly, courteous, and helpful

manner with some spelling, grammatical, and/or

structural errors

Contributes valuable information with minor

grammatical or structural errors

No spelling, structure, or grammar errors in any posting; Contributes to discussion with clear, concise comments

0 Points 5 Points 10 Points 15 Points 20 Points

No initial posting

Response was not on topic, the message was unrelated to assignment, and post was

less than 150 words

The initial posting did not adequately address the

question posed in the forum; superficial thought and

preparation

Initial posting demonstrates sincere reflection and

answers most aspects of the forum; full development

Initial posting reveals a solid understanding of all aspects

of the task; uses factually and relevand information;

and the length of the posting is at least 150 words

0 Points 5 Points 10 Points 15 Points 20 Points

Student did not participate in this forum

Student participated on but did not respond to other

student posts

Student participated but only responded to one

Student participated and commented on two other

student's posts

Student actively participated, responded to at

least two other students' posts, and replied to other

students' comments on their original post.

Total Score 0

Frequency of Participation

Reference to Course Readings

Language and Grammar

DISCUSSION FORUM RUBRIC

Timeliness of Forum Posting

Quality of Initial Posting

Introduction

1

Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking:

An Introduction

Brent D. Slife, Stephen Yanchar, Jeffrey Reber

Critical thinking has long been acclaimed as an essential skill for any academic or

professional endeavor. Within psychology, especially, critical thinking has been consistently

championed for all students and professionals (Benjafield, 1994; Bensley, 1998; Griggs, Jackson,

Marek, & Christopher, 1998; Halpern, 1998; Halpern & Nummedal, 1995; Levy, 1997; Meltzoff,

1998; Smith, 2002; Yanchar & Slife, in press). Psychologists are taught early in their careers to

use their research findings to critically examine common myths and urban legends as well as

debunk false beliefs and advertising ploys (e.g., Tavris, 2001). Yet, in spite of this obvious

emphasis, psychologists do not typically subject psychology itself to critical evaluation. As

many outside observers of psychology have noted (e.g., Bohman, 1993; MacIntyre, 1984;

Taylor, 1985), mainstream psychologists often take for granted their philosophies, research

methods, and professional practices. Even the tacit assumptions that guide psychological

research on critical thinking are rarely critically analyzed or systematically examined. Why?

A primary reason for this neglect is that many psychologists have misunderstood critical

thinking. Critical thinking has too often been mistaken for rigorous thinking. Rigorous thinking

is frequently identified with “scientific analytic reasoning” (Dick, 1991, p. 84), which focuses on

methodological concerns such as quality of research design, appropriateness of statistical

analyses, and rigor of general reasoning. Psychologists are well known to engage skillfully in

this type of thinking. Rigorous reasoning and methods are used not only to conduct

psychological investigations but also to administer therapeutic practice. With few exceptions,

investigators are supposed to follow the logic of their science, and clients are supposed to follow

Introduction

2

the rationality of their therapists. This commitment to rigorous reasoning is so widespread that

psychologists conceptualize most of their activities in these terms. Students of psychology are

taught this type of rigor in virtually all their courses.

One of the main problems with this sort of rigorous thinking is that it selectively excludes

certain topics from critical examination. For example, scientific reasoning and methods are often

themselves taken for granted, exempting from critical analysis one of the core activities of

psychologists. Philosophers of science point to many hidden assumptions and values in

scientific methods and practices (Bernstein, 1983; Bem & de Jong, 1997; Bohman, 1993; Curd &

Cover, 1998; Slife & Williams, 1995; Taylor, 1985; Toulmin, 1972). Yet, these assumptions and

values are rarely included in texts or discussions of research and therapy methods in psychology.

Consequently, the foundations of these methods and these practices are not themselves subjected

to critical scrutiny.

This volume attempts to rectify such oversight and selectivity. It does so by adopting a

conception of critical thinking that a number of philosophers and educators have contended is

broader and deeper than previous conceptions. Perhaps most notably, recognized critical

thinking theorists and researchers, such as Stephen Brookfield (1987) from education and

Richard Paul (Paul & Elder, 2001) and Robert Ennis (1982) from philosophy, have emphasized a

reformulation of critical thinking that moves beyond mere scientific analytic reasoning. If

applied to psychology, this approach would inevitably lead to a critical analysis of all aspects of

the discipline, including psychological research on critical thinking itself.

This reformulation of critical thinking has two parts. The first requires knowledge of the

assumptions and underlying worldviews of a particular discipline or field of inquiry. In our case,

this means knowledge of the current assumptions and values underlying psychology, including

Introduction

3

ideas concerning psychology’s proper methods. Sometimes students of psychology are surprised

or even disappointed to discover the assumptions underlying psychology’s cherished ideas and

explanations. When brought into the light of day, these fundamental ideas often seem less

compelling and certain than they once did. For this reason, explicating these assumptions and

understanding their implications is the first step in these students becoming critical evaluators of

their discipline.

The second part of this reformulation of critical thinking involves developing ideas and

assumptions that are alternative to our present views. To engage seriously in critical thinking

about psychology, we must seek out and ponder the most credible and convincing alternatives to

psychology’s currently favored ideas and methods. Often, the assumptions and guiding values of

mainstream psychology are so familiar that they seem like the only possible premises for our

work. Indeed, they seem more like axioms and truisms than the working assumptions or fruitful

perspectives they are. Knowing there are alternative possibilities, however, allows students to

question the often taken for granted assumptions of their field. This questioning is important

because these assumptions may themselves need to be re-evaluated – a possibility that cannot

even be seriously entertained without having alternatives to which to compare present

assumptions.

Illustrating the New Conception of Critical Thinking

To illustrate these issues, consider two examples, one from everyday life and the other

from the world of professional psychology.

Danny and his mother Jill. Consider first the situation of young Danny and his mother

Jill. Jill wants to critically evaluate the problems that Danny is having at school. She spends

considerable time taking a rigorous reasoning approach to the problem. She reads about what

Introduction

4

scientists and psychologists have to say about Danny’s behavior and symptoms, and even

investigates recent empirical studies. Jill eventually comes to the conclusion that Danny might

be diagnosed with ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). When she questions her

family physician about this possibility, he immediately confirms Jill’s suspicions and prescribes

a drug to “correct” Danny’s problem. The importance of rigorous thinking in Jill’s solution to

her problem is undeniable, both in the process of Jill’s thinking and in the scientists’

investigations of these behaviors.

However, there is a great deal more to a thoroughly critical analysis of this situation.

Truly critical thinking would also examine some of the assumptions made in this process of

diagnosis and prescription as well as consider possible alternative perspectives that might be

helpful to the problem. In fact, recent interview studies show that many people like Danny and

his mother take for granted that the prescribed medication is largely, if not solely, responsible for

the decrease in Danny’s ADHD behaviors (e.g., Burchfield & Slife, 2003). In other words, they

make the common but thoroughly debatable assumption that Danny’s biology (with the drug

changes) strongly determines these behaviors – the assumption of biological determinism. As a

result, Danny believes that he has little or no personal responsibility or choice about his “bad”

(ADHD) behaviors at school, because personal responsibility and choice are typically associated

with an alternative set of assumptions, namely that Danny has some capacity for free will and

personal responsibility that is usually an important dimension of his behavior. For this reason,

Danny gives up making any effort to control his problematic behaviors.

Danny’s mother has similar ideas about her responsibilities as a parent. She assumes, for

instance, that his diagnosis and treatment mean that his problems at school cannot be blamed on

her faulty parenting. After all, she cannot be held responsible for Danny’s difficulties if his

Introduction

5

biology is responsible for them. Her experiences with Danny’s diagnosis and treatment also

teach her that she has limited parental responsibility for any of Danny’s future difficulties,

because neither Danny nor her parenting controls them (see Chapter 6 for more on this

assumption). The point of this illustration is to ask a vital question: Is it not important to

identify and examine such assumptions when diagnosing and treating children for ADHD?

Might not the assumption of biological determinism lead Jill and Danny to overlook other

possibly valuable resources in their struggle for Danny’s well-being? Could the tacit assumption

of biological determinism lead them to overlook important dimensions of the problem, and direct

them, inadvertently, to view themselves as somewhat passive and unable to control the situation?

Empirically supported treatments. Consider another example of critical thinking in the heart of

professional psychology. Many psychologists today believe that counselors and psychotherapists should

only use therapeutic strategies that have been critically evaluated (cf. Messer, 2001). According to the

conventional idea of critical thinking in psychology – rigorous thinking – the proper evaluation of

counseling strategies or techniques consists of employing scientific reasoning and testing to demonstrate

their effectiveness. Indeed, a list of these strategies has now been drawn up as “empirically supported

treatments” (EST’s), with some psychologists proposing that these should be the only treatments

permitted in psychotherapy (Division 12 Task force, 1995). Should therapeutic approaches be restricted

in this manner?

Many critics of EST’s, including many psychologists, believe that this approach is too narrow,

limited, and mechanical (e.g., Bohart, 1998; Messer, 2001). However, many EST supporters view these

critics as better at protesting the EST movement than stating clearly what is wrong with the movement

or proposing constructively a better alternative. Indeed, from the perspective of many EST advocates,

the critics of EST’s have little to recommend other than an unsystematic, “anything goes” approach.

Introduction

6

This unsystematic approach appears to return psychology to the same chaotic situation that gave rise to

the use of rigorous thinking and methods in the first place – a situation in which psychotherapists were

not properly held accountable. Thus, the critics of EST’s often fan the fires of their own discontent.

This controversy presents a classic case of the need for a truly critical analysis in the expanded

sense recommended in this book. Of course, a complete analysis of this controversy is not appropriate

or even possible here, though aspects of this issue and a number of others like it are examined in some

detail in the chapters that follow (e.g., Chapters 3 and 4). For the purpose of illustration, however, it

may be sufficient here to point to one of the many unexamined, and possibly quite problematic,

assumptions underlying the EST controversy – the assumption that effectiveness is needed. Is there any

more frequently used concept in professional psychology than “effectiveness”? Effectiveness is often

touted as professional psychology’s highest ideal, but what is it really?

The Meaning of Effectiveness. Perhaps the core meaning of effectiveness is that some method

or technique reliably and predictably produces some desired end or result. If we want a therapeutic

method to be effective, we must first specify the end or outcome of the technique we desire. The

problem is that merely wanting effectiveness tells us nothing about what ends or goals are truly

worthwhile. There are effective terrorists and thieves just as there are effective teachers and clergy. The

profound differences among these types of effectiveness involve the human and moral quality of the

ends they serve, not their productivity or efficiency. In this sense, rigorous reasoning and empirical

methods are perhaps best suited for assessing the effectiveness of means, not for judging the quality or

worth of ends. Surely a comprehensive approach to understanding and improving human life has to

include both. Surely critical thinking requires an evaluation of the ideas associated with means and

ends, even if the latter are less empirically accessible.

Introduction

7

To take the matter a step further, the enormous emphasis placed on effectiveness in professional

psychology often reflects an assumption that much of everyday life is a matter of maximizing

effectiveness and control over our environments and ourselves. However, many critics in recent decades

– including psychologists such as Erich Fromm (1969/41) and John Schumaker (2001) as well as

philosophers such as Christopher Lasch (1991), Jürgen Habermas (1973), Alasdair MacIntyre (1984), to

mention just a few – have argued that our emphasis on mastery, control, and cost-benefit (effectiveness)

analyses are actually a major source of emotional problems, mental illness, and relationship problems.

In the minds of these thinkers, mastery and effectiveness are often splendid things, but they need to be

subordinated to more worthy and lasting purposes in living. If psychology does not take such critical

perspectives into account, it runs the risk of inadvertently perpetuating some of the ills it tries to cure.

Of course, everyone has their own values and biases. However, the purpose of this brief

illustration on EST’s is not to argue for one moral outlook or philosophy over another. Rather, it is to

point out that the extensive discussion of effectiveness in psychology is based on a number of

unexamined assumptions and tacit values that are worthy of serious reconsideration. As needed and

helpful as rigorous and scientific thinking is, it is inadequate to the tasks associated with truly critical

thinking. Paul Wachtel (1997), a psychotherapist noted for critical thinking in the fullest sense, put it

this way:

We need a good deal more critical thought about how to conceptualize the issues, about what is

worth knowing, and about the various ways in which what has been observed thus far can be

understood. We need to examine more closely the assumptions that underlie our questions. For

our questions are our destiny; once we have framed a question, the answer already lies in wait,

concealed as the statue is in the sculptor’s block of marble…Psychology has been obsessed with

answers. This book is concerned mainly with questions. (p. xvii)

Introduction

8

This book, too, is concerned mainly with questions. However, as Wachtel observes, good questions –

which already frame good answers – originate from critical thinking that examines “more closely the

assumptions that underlie our questions.”

The Literature on Critical Thinking

Does the research literature on critical thinking in psychology address the importance of

unexamined assumptions? How do specialists in this research conceptualize critical thinking?

A review of this literature reveals careful empirical studies as well as instructive theoretical

insights. However, few if any of the investigators working in this area have advocated the need

to think critically about fundamental assumptions. Although these authors invariably endorse the

need to think critically about and thus empirically investigate all sorts of claims (e.g., folk

psychology, advertising), they rarely recommend that the assumptions underlying these

investigations be critically examined.

Many specific texts appear, particularly in their titles, to critically evaluate psycholgy’s

methods, such as Meltzoff’s (1998) Critical Thinking about Research and Benjafield’s (1994)

Thinking Critically about Research Methods. However, these texts concentrate almost

exclusively on showing how the tools of traditional science can rigorously assess claims and test

hypotheses. They do not cast critical light on the nature of these methods, nor do they bring to

this light their historical context, assumptions, and implications. Critical thinking is thus

couched rather narrowly in terms of rigorous reasoning, namely, the quantity and quality of

empirical support for claims, theories, and therapies. Critical thinking as discussed by

Brookfield (1987) and the authors of this book is largely ignored.

The general literature on critical thinking in psychology also champions rigorous

reasoning (Bensley, 1998; Halpern, 1984; 1998; Halpern & Nummedal, 1995; Lehman, Lempert,

Introduction

9

& Nisbett, 1988; Levy, 1997; McGovern, Furumoto, Halpern, Kimble, & McKeachie, 1991;

Smith, 2002; Stanovich, 1998; Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992). A review of this literature

suggests that scientific analytic reasoning has shaped much of our discipline’s consciousness

about the nature of excellent thinking: excellent thinkers are professionals and students who can

reason well about methods, variables, and the logicality of their thinking within the cannons of

empirical science.

This view of excellent thinking is also reflected in the reasoning and methods of many

approaches to psychotherapy and counseling – in at least three ways. First, a critical appraisal of

therapeutic methods is almost always considered complete with scientific analytic reasoning,

such as testing their effectiveness through the methods of science (Messer, 2001). Second,

therapeutic methods are themselves thought to be administered rigorously and rationally, as

indicated by the use of therapy manuals and standardized diagnoses (Division 12 Task force,

1995). Third, rigorous reasoning has itself become a standard for identifying client problems and

desired treatment outcomes, such as in cognitive behavioral therapy (e.g., Beck, Rush, Shaw, &

Emery, 1984). A lack of rigorous reasoning is frequently viewed as an important problem for

clients, where they are viewed as “irrational,” while rigorous reasoning about the conduct of their

lives is often considered a preferred method and outcome of treatment.

If psychologists seek to champion critical thinking and grant it prominent status in the

discipline, why is critical discussion confined to the rigor of reasoning and methods alone?

Analysis of fundamental assumptions is virtually nonexistent in psychology’s general textbooks

and the more specific critical thinking literature. On the relatively few occasions that

assumptions are mentioned in this literature, they are treated in only a cursory way (e.g.,

Bensley, 1998; Halpern, 1998). Fundamental questions about the very nature and purpose of

Introduction

10

commonly accepted psychological methods, theories, and therapies simply are not addressed

(e.g., Smith, 2002). These authors seem to assume that rigorous reasoning is all that is required

to deal with the challenges of understanding psychological life and facilitating human

flourishing. Or perhaps critical thinking in the broader sense of this book seems unnecessary to

these authors because the only alternative to careful, rigorous reasoning – as they conceive of it –

is blind intuition, irrational dogma, or ineffable mysticism.

The authors of this volume believe otherwise. We believe there are profound and

pressing reasons for taking a richer view of critical thinking and making it a routine part of our

work as social scientists and professional psychologists. Restricting ourselves to rigorous

reasoning alone is a fool’s errand, even in our practical lives. Our difficulties in coping with

some person or problem do not always result from overt tactics or conscious reasoning about the

situation. They may also stem from faulty assumptions about another’s motives or the way the

world works, which a moment of insight or a good word from a friend helps us understand.

Indeed, as we go about our daily lives, we are constantly revising our assumptions (often

realizing that we were making them for the first time), considering alternatives, and beginning to

make progress instead of just spinning our wheels. Critical thinking in this reformulated sense is

part of thoughtful, meaningful living.

Content Overview

To help psychologists advance their discipline in thoughtful and meaningful ways, the

content of this book is organized into six parts, each part corresponding to a major subdiscipline

of psychology: clinical/counseling, social, neuroscience/experimental, cognitive, developmental,

and statistical/methodological. Each part consists of two chapters that critically examine several

important topics or issues within a subdiscipline. Because truly critical thinking involves an

Introduction

11

understanding of both the current and alternative assumptions underlying each topic or issue,

each part consists of two chapters – one that excavates current assumptions and one that explores

plausible alternative assumptions.

The book opens with a critical examination of several pivotal issues in the subdiscipline

of clinical/counseling psychology. In the first chapter of this pair, Frank Richardson, himself a

counseling psychologist, identifies tacit assumptions and values that underpin professional

psychology and may be the source of often-discussed problems and blind spots in this field.

Blaine Fowers, also a counseling psychologist, sketches an alternative to psychotherapy

assumptions, drawing on the field of virtue ethics, that portrays personal development,

psychological well-being, and the good life in a fresh and potentially fruitful way.

The chapters of Part 2 address issues in social psychology. To begin this part, social

psychologists Jeff Reber and Lisa Osbeck investigate the strengths and limitations of the

traditional assumptions underlying social psychology topics such as sociality, love, and helping

behavior. In light of these limitations, theoretical psychologist Ed Gantt provides alternatives to

these assumptions by borrowing from social constructionist psychology, hermeneutic

philosophy

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.