lined conditions were more abilities-centered, because they did not ask the
subject to detect but simply to explain a shortfall of thinking in the story. In
the underlined conditions, the correlations were .45 without the list of stan-
dards and .44 with, both significant at the .05 level. Although the differences
are hardly dramatic, this again suggests that sensitivity is somewhat less re-
lated to intellectual aptitude as usually measured than are tasks that directly
pose a problem to be solved (Perkins et al., 2000; Perkins & Tishman, 2001).
Distinct Dispositional Traits
What distinct dispositional traits are there? This question is particularly chal-
lenging given the present state of research. Many of the investigations have
addressed isolated dispositional constructs, such as need for cognition, and
their contrast with intellectual aptitude as conventionally conceived. Re-
search of this sort does not propose complementary sets of dispositions.
Other scholars have advanced lists of complementary thinking disposi-
tions (see Ritchhart, 2002 for a full review of lists of dispositions). For exam-
ple, Ennis suggested a list of 14 critical thinking dispositions, including
seeking and offering reasons, seeking alternatives, and being open-minded
(Ennis, 1986). Facione and Facione (1992; Facione et al., 1995) proposed a
list of seven, including open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, systematicity, anal-
yticity, truth-seeking, critical thinking self-confidence, and maturity. We and
our colleagues synthesized several sources in the literature to suggest a list of
seven (Perkins et al., 1993):
- The disposition to be broad and adventurous
- The disposition toward wondering, problem finding, and investigating
- The disposition to build explanations and understandings
- The disposition to make plans and be strategic
- The disposition to be intellectually careful
- The disposition to seek and evaluate reasons
- The disposition to be metacognitive
These and other lists certainly articulate dispositional traits that appear to
be conceptually distinct. Whether they are psychometrically distinct is an-
other matter. Recall that our factor analyses of performance across types of
shortfalls and types of stories yielded single factors for sensitivity and inclina-
tion. Most of these lists were constructed conceptually rather than empiri-
cally. The Faciones based their list on a factor analysis. However they em-
ployed not subjects’ performance on tasks but subjects’ self-ratings of a long
list of traits such as: We can never really learn the truth about most things,
and the best argument for an idea is how you feel about it at the moment.
- WHEN IS GOOD THINKING? 369