123
Critical Thinking on Contemporary Issues
We revisit the various perspectives on ADHD (Issue #5) to provide practice related to
this objective while reinforcing learning related to identifying the sources of facts. After
reviewing the earlier discussion, students are asked to analyze Internet sites discussing the
disorder and possible treatments. This analysis includes identifying forms of propaganda
used in the text, such as whether specific studies are cited, balance in the presentation of
the effectiveness of various treatments, and locating funding sources for studies. Issue #11,
which addresses the question of whether ADHD even exists, provides another resource for
practicing this objective, as Timimi, Moncrieff, Jureidini, et al. (2006) argue that the
diagnosis is merely an attempt to sell medications.
Question #7: Is the Information Distorted?
Distortion results from the presenter’s attempt to influence or persuade the audience. The
objective at this stage is to encourage additional critical thinking about factual information.
More specifically, the objective is for students to increase their ability to identify potential
biases represented by a presenter’s selection of data sources. This objective offers students a
new perspective on course content as they use their newfound knowledge of psychology to
analyze various representations of psychological information and theory in popular culture.
We return to the familiar topic of divorce (Issue #8) to introduce this critical thinking ques-
tion. In previous discussions, we noted that the two studies used for the issue draw on very
different populations (clinical-only compared to a normative sample). Additional analysis
of the study populations used for these studies generates discussion regarding the distor-
tions in understanding that can result from these population differences. For example,
students are asked to consider how their opinions might change if they only read one of
these two articles, pointing out the value of multiple sources in detecting distortions.
Issue #7, focused on the topic of maternal employment, also provides a reference for
discussion of information distortion—this time in the context of the editor’s choice of
articles. Brooks-Gunn, Han, and Waldfogel (2006) wrote about children in the preschool
stage, whereas Vander Ven, Cullen, Carrozza, and Wright (2006) wrote about adolescents.
On the surface, these two papers appear to be addressing the same issue, but in reality they
are comparing apples to oranges. Assigning students to write about the issue can lead to
independent discovery of the discrepancy. One author’s (SO’D) experience has been that
students, when looking for articles to support each argument, independently come to the
conclusion that the two articles aren’t really comparable. Finally, we have students note
that the Gentile and Anderson (2006) paper is condensed from their book and, therefore,
is not a peer-reviewed article. We discuss the importance of the peer-review process and
assign them to look up the sources from the book to see whether empirical research cor-
rectly supports the authors’ suggestions (we have to provide a copy of the book because the
references were omitted from Taking Sides).
Question #8: Is Deception Being Used?
The previous discussion of the presentation of material and use of influence tactics assumes
an attempt to persuade but not to deceive. Realistically, students must also learn to identify