Résumés
Abstract
In this article, critical thinking is interpreted as a type of metacognition aimed at evaluating thinking for compliance with standards of rationality. The author argues that dual-process theory provides a strong theoretical foundation for explaining critical thinking, as it reflects its fundamental idea, explains why it is necessary, and accounts for why people do not always think critically. The article also contends that critical thinking should not be equated exclusively with deliberate thinking and examines its intuitive components, showing that certain aspects of critical thinking can occur automatically.
Keywords:
- critical thinking,
- dual-process theory,
- intuition,
- metacognition,
- rationality
Résumé
Dans cet article, l'esprit critique est interprété comme une forme de métacognition visant à évaluer la pensée en se conformant aux normes de rationalité. L'auteur soutient que la théorie du double processus offre un fondement théorique solide pour expliquer l'esprit critique, car elle en reflète l'idée fondamentale, en justifie la nécessité et permet de comprendre pourquoi les individus ne font pas toujours preuve d'esprit critique. L'article défend également l'idée que l'esprit critique ne doit pas être associé exclusivement à une pensée délibérée ; il en examine les composantes intuitives et démontre que certains aspects de l'esprit critique peuvent se manifester de manière automatique.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
- Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
- Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2019). The Smart system 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(3), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1507949
- Bonnefon, J. F. (2018). The pros and cons of identifying critical thinking with System 2 processing. Topoi, 37, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9375-2
- De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429354
- De Neys, W. (2018a). Bias, conflict, and fast logic: Towards a hybrid dual process future? In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 47–65). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-4
- De Neys, W. (Ed.). (2018b). Dual process theory 2.0. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
- De Neys W. (2022). Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2200142X
- De Neys, W. (2025). Defining deliberation for dual-process models of reasoning. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4(6), 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00466-6
- De Neys, W., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-ence, 28(5), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419855658
- Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D. C. Heath.
- Ellerton, P. (2015). Metacognition and critical thinking: Some pedagogi-cal imperatives. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 409–426). Pal-grave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_25
- Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and as-sessability. Informal Logic, 18(2–3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2378
- Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
- Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780601008825
- Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and func-tion of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
- Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
- Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). American Philosophical Association.
- Fisher, A. (2019). What critical thinking is. In J. A. Blair (Ed.), Studies in critical thinking (2nd ed., pp. 7–26). University of Windsor.
- Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
- Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across do-mains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive moni-toring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
- Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to criti-cal thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
- Halpern, D. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2020). An introduction to critical thinking: Maybe it will change your life. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–9). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684354.002
- Hoffrage, U., Hafenbrädl, S., & Marewski, J. N. (2018). The fast-and-frugal heuristics program. In L. J. Ball & V. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 325–345). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A Model of Heuristic Judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge University Press.
- Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A crit-ical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
- Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020762
- Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., & Friston, K. (2020). All thinking is “wish-ful” thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(6), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.03.004
- Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6
- Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Education-al Researcher, 28(2), 16-46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016
- Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulle-tin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
- Lau, J. Y. F. (2015). Metacognitive education: Going beyond critical thinking. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 373–389). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_23
- Li, S., Ren, X., Schweizer, K., Brinthaupt, T. M., & Wang, T. (2021). Executive functions as predictors of critical thinking: Behavioral and neural evidence. Learning and Instruction, 71, Article 101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101376
- Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge Univer-sity Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272
- Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4
- Melnikoff, D. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.001
- Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2014). Critical thinking. McGraw-Hill.
- Nadurak, V. (2021). Dual-Process Theory as a Theory of the Classifica-tion of Information Processing Acts. Diametros, 18(70), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1698
- Nadurak, V. (2023). Dual-process theory and two types of metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Integrative Psychological & Behav-ioral Science, 57(4), 1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09771-2
- Nadurak, V. (2025). How to evaluate the rationality of heuris-tics? Thinking & Reasoning, 31(2), 137 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2024.2395063
- Newman, I. R., Gibb, M., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Rule-based rea-soning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging cur-rent explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1154–1170. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000372
- Osman M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 988-1010.
- Pennycook, G. (2018). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (p. 5–27). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
- Perkins, D. N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learna-ble intelligence. Free Press.
- Possin, K. (2016). On defining critical thinking: Commentary on “A three-dimensional analysis of definitions with bearing on key con-cepts” by Robert Ennis. In P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argu-mentation, objectivity, and bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 (pp. 1–6). OSSA.
- Raoelison, M., & De Neys, W. (2019). Do we de-bias ourselves? The impact of repeated presentation on the bat-and-ball problem. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 170–188.
- Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intu-itor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate think-ing. Cognition, 204, Article 104381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381
- Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. Routledge.
- Sloman, S. (2014). Two systems of reasoning: An update. In J. W. Sher-man, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 69–79). The Guilford Press.
- Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314
- Stanovich, K. E. (2021). Why humans are cognitive misers and what it means for the great rationality debate. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge handbook of bounded rationality (pp. 196-206). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658353-12
- Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2020). Intelligence and rationality. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intel-ligence (2nd ed., pp. 1106–1139). Cambridge University Press.
- Thompson, V. A. (2013). Why it matters: The implications of autono-mous processes for dual process theories – Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483476
- Thompson, V. A., Elqayam, S., & Ackerman, R. (2021). Reasoning, ra-tionality, and metacognition. In M. Knauff & W. Spohn (Eds.), The handbook of rationality (pp. 517–525). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11252.003.0054
- Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intui-tion, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
- Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic think-ing. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
- Voudouri, A., Bago, B., Borst, G., & De Neys, W. (2023). Reasoning and cognitive control, fast and slow. Judgment and Decision Mak-ing, 18, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.32
- Wang, S., & Thompson, V. (2019). Fluency and feeling of rightness: The effect of anchoring and models. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.3