R3 3.10 September 2, 2025 Surprising Benefits of Critical Thinking, and a New Resource
Research suggests that strengthening thinking skills adds to overall psychological health. In this post, I share a resource created to help faculty do just this.
Teaching critical thinking is never easy, but it is worth it. This particular skill occupies the rarefied top floors of Bloom’s taxonomy, and although it looks very different in different fields and contexts, I think it deserves this elevated status.
R3 readers know that I’ve been dipping in to the critical thinking research a lot this year, looking for any new research or innovation on this front. I’ve overhauled my own Introduction to Psychology course to radically reduce class time spent on lecture and other “content coverage” in favor of discussions, quizzes for learning, and other active-learning-flavored exercises. It’s already been exciting, at this early stage, to see proof that even students who are brand-new to a discipline can engage in elementary versions of the kinds of thinking that experts in a field do all the time.
It’s that hard-but-worth-it aspect of critical thinking that drew me to this issue’s focus article, which identifies some surprising connections between cognitive capacities - critical thinking and metacognition - and what most of us would think of as social and emotional skills. I’ve written before about how critical thinking doesn’t just predict academic success but also thriving in the real world, and this latest article offers some additional thought-provoking connections, benefits that could inspire faculty to take another look at how their courses address higher-order thinking skills.
However, that inspiration has to map onto the reality of teaching already-overstuffed and demanding classes. Just making space (by trimming back on lectures, reorganizing how time is spent in and out of class, making the memory/knowledge components more efficient and so on) is hard enough, but once that’s done, there’s also the project of figuring out how to use the freed-up time to reinforce thinking skills, not to mention coming up with materials.
Easing those last stages of the process was the goal of a conversational chatbot I created, FACTBot (Faculty Assistant for Critical Thinking). Granted, these days we’re awash in custom chatbots and AI agents of every imaginable kind. But I tried to make this one unique, in that it specifically draws on the theories and research findings that I’ve found most compelling in all the years I’ve studied thinking abilities within higher education. The perspectives that I put into my book Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with Technology along with more recent pieces on the subject, are all central to how FACTBot operates, especially with respect to the idea that thinking skills are best approached within a disciplinary framework, not as a disconnected, standalone thing the mind does.
From my interactions with it so far, I’ve found that FACTBot is pretty good at taking a discipline-specific topic and presenting options for active-learning exercises that align with that topic. From there, you can pick the ones you like the best and get as many fully-fleshed-out materials as you would like to have. I’ve found it to be a real help in my Intro sections this semester, and if you’d like to try it, you are welcome to! Below is the “official” announcement and a flyer you can download. Feel free to share far and wide, and message me with any questions.
I have developed a new resource for faculty to use as a way to enhance critical thinking and higher-order thinking across a range of disciplines: FACTBot. It’s a ChatGPT chatbot that I developed to align with what I see as the most important theories and practices.
There is also an optional feedback survey you’re invited to complete at the end of your FACTBot interaction, which will help me refine future iterations of the resource.
On to this issue’s focus article - an investigation of the complex interrelationships between critical thinking, empathy, and metacognition, defined here as “the ability to reflect on, monitor, and regulate one’s own cognitive processes.”
Citation:
Guamanga, M. H., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2025). Critical thinking and metacognition: Pathways to empathy and psychological well-being, Journal of Intelligence, 13(3), 1–17.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13030034
Paywall or Open:
Open
Summary:
This study adds to the growing literature on the relationship between cognition and social-emotional capabilities by exploring how critical thinking (CT) skills may indirectly support psychological well-being (PWB) through improved metacognitive, cognitive empathy, and perspective-taking abilities. Drawing on a robust theoretical framework and a set of validated measures, the authors use structural equation modeling to test a complex model in which CT predicts metacognition, which in turn predicts cognitive empathy, which then supports PWB.
Research Questions:
Does critical thinking predict metacognition, so that students with better critical thinking abilities tend to have better metacognition as well?
Does metacognition appear to improve empathy, and along with it, overall psychological well being?
Sample:
155 students at a Spanish university, 88.9% female, 11.1% male
Method/Design:
The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using data from psychology students enrolled in a semester-long course aimed at developing critical thinking. Participants completed standardized measures of critical thinking ability, metacognitive awareness, cognitive empathy, and psychological well-being. The authors used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test a model in which CT predicts metacognition, which in turn predicts empathy, which then predicts well-being.
Key Findings:
Critical thinking was positively associated with metacognition, suggesting that stronger CT skills may help students become more aware of their own thought processes.
Metacognition predicted higher cognitive empathy—especially the ability to take others’ perspectives—which in turn was associated with greater psychological well-being.
The indirect effects from CT to PWB via metacognition and empathy were significant, supporting a chain of influence that connects academic-style reasoning skills to emotional and social processing.
Choice Quote from the Article:
Studies highlight the conceptual relationship between CT and cognitive empathy, particularly through processes such as perspective-taking, where rational and analytical thinking facilitates the under- standing of diverse perspectives and values (Martingano and Konrath 2022; Lombard et al. 2020). Additionally, CT has been linked to PWB through its capacity to promote reflective and deliberate decision-making, contributing to outcomes such as purpose in life and self-acceptance (Peng 2024; Su and Shum 2019). Collectively, these findings underscore the cross-disciplinary importance of CT and metacognition in fostering socioemotional development and resilience, particularly within educational contexts (Varghese 2018; Zhao et al. 2024).
Why it Matters:
I’ve always been interested in what brings together the oil and water of cognition and emotion, and this article does just that. Great educators know that the best classroom moments often arise when students are asked not just to analyze but to reflect, to connect, and to care—and this study provides evidence that critical thinking may be one of the keys to unlocking that deeper engagement.
The model presented here helps explain why: metacognition serves as the bridge between analyzing information and understanding others, making empathy not just a "soft skill" but a cognitive achievement rooted in perspective-taking. In a sense, critical thinking is part of the overall capacity to step outside the “heat of the moment,” consider alternative angles, and resist biases and other counterproductive reactions to challenging situations. I came away with a vision of the kind of people we want our students to become: deliberative, self-aware, and capable of the sort of reasoning that shows care for others, along with logical coherence.
This piece also lends new energy to efforts to teach CT intentionally and broadly across the curriculum. It suggests that when we foster better thinking, we’re not just improving argumentation or test scores—we may be contributing to students’ emotional development and well-being, too.
Most Relevant For:
Faculty involved in curriculum development; first-year program faculty and staff; instructional designers
Limitations, Caveats, and Nagging Questions:
The sample is heavily skewed female; it’s not clear what the implications might have been for the findings if it were more balanced, but generalizability could be a concern. Similarly, it’s made up exclusively of undergraduate students (although this is probably just fine if the goal is to generalize to teaching critical thinking in university settings).
I was a bit surprised that the article didn’t make more out of the critical thinking intervention that the participants were undergoing. This was a substantive, semester-long program, and to me, would have offered an unusually clear view of what happens to students’ critical thinking and associated capacities as a function of specific learning activities. The structural equation modeling that’s the focus of the analyses is appropriate to the question, and offers its own advantages as far as revealing paths among a large number of different measurements and factors, but I thought that a simpler approach could have been fine too.
Lastly, the sheer complexity of the variables and their interconnections—metacognition, empathy, emotional clarity, optimism, and more—could leave some readers overwhelmed. There's a slight risk of walking away with a vague sense that “everything affects everything,” without clear takeaways on what exactly we should be doing differently in the classroom. Still, the study’s central idea—that better thinking can support better feeling—comes through clearly, despite the complexity.
If you liked this article, you might also appreciate:
Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2851
Dwyer, C. P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105
Dyer, K. D., & Hall, R. E. (2019). Effect of critical thinking education on epistemically unwarranted beliefs in college students. Research in Higher Education, 60(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9513-3
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (80), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8005
Lv, X., Jia, Y., Brinthaupt, T. M., & Ren, X. (2024). Event-related potentials of belief-bias reasoning predict critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(6), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000845
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
Miller, M. D. (2025, May 27). The critical thinking gap: Why good intentions aren’t enough. The Teaching Professor. https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/student-learning/the-critical-thinking-gap-why-good-intentions-arent-enough/
Miller, M.D. (2014). Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology. Harvard University Press.
Miller, M.D. (2022). Remembering and forgetting in the age of technology: Teaching, learning, and the science of memory in a wired world. West Virginia University Press.
Niu, L., Behar-horenstein, L. S., Niu, L., Behar-horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students ’ critical thinking skills ? A critical thinking skills ? A meta-analysis, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P., & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82(August), 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487
Schöpfer, C., & Hernandez, J. (2024). The critical time for critical thinking: Intellectual virtues as intrinsic motivations for critical thinking. Philosophical Psychology, 00(00), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2430509
Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n1p1
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
Zembylas, M. (2024). Revisiting the notion of critical thinking in higher education: Theorizing the thinking-feeling entanglement using affect theory. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(6), 1606–1620. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2078961
File under:
Critical thinking; empathy; social-emotional learning; metacognition