Nghiên cứu tư duy mở chủ động: Một phân tích trắc lượng thư mục khoa học trong cơ sở dữ liệu Scopus từ năm 1997 đến năm 2024
Tóm tắt
In the digital information era, processing complex and diverse information streams necessitates the cultivation of objective cognitive dispositions. Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) serves as a critical thinking disposition that enables individuals to evaluate evidence impartially, mitigate cognitive biases, and foster self-reflective reasoning. Despite existing narrative reviews, a comprehensive bibliometric mapping of AOT’s intellectual structure using standardized database filtering remains absent. Employing a bibliometric analysis on the Scopus database from 1997 to 2024, this study analyzed 106 rigorously selected publications following PRISMA guidelines. The findings demonstrate that publications specifically featuring the term AOT are concentrated in North America and Western Europe (USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands), led by influential scholars including Stanovich, Toplak, West, Baron, and Pennycook. Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed four main thematic clusters: (1) Theoretical foundations and cognitive structures of AOT; (2) Cognitive biases and individual differences; (3) Empirical measurement and applications in digital media contexts; and (4) Decision-making models and dual-process theory. This study clarifies the intellectual landscape of AOT and outlines future research directions for international collaboration and practical applications in education and media literacy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004
Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2014). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.003
Bronstein, M. V, Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2013). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 434-447. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0367-9
Carpenter, J., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Clark, J., Flekova, L., Smith, L., Kern, M. L., Buffone, A., Ungar, L., & Seligman, M. (2018). The impact of actively open-minded thinking on social media communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 562-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006598
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Evans, J. S., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. http://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013). The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005921
Janssen, E. M., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Heijltjes, A. E. G., Mainhard, T., van Peppen, L. M., & van Gog, T. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Actively Open-minded Thinking scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100659
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: the main steps. Encyclopedia, 4(2), 1014-1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4020065
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020). On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 476-498. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007439
Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PloS One, 12(3), e0172778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172778
Rousseau, R. (2014). Library science: Forgotten founder of bibliometrics. Nature, 510(7504). https://doi.org/10.1038/510218e
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2019). The need for intellectual diversity in psychological science: Our own studies of actively open-minded thinking as a case study. Cognition, 187, 156-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.006
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2023). Actively open-minded thinking and its measurement. Journal of Intelligence, 11(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020027
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(3), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001
Stenhouse, N., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Kotcher, J. E., Beall, L., & Maibach, E. W. (2018). The potential role of actively open-minded thinking in preventing motivated reasoning about controversial science. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.06.001
Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M., & Lindeman, M. (2018). Actively open-minded thinking: Development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1378723
Tung, N. T. T., An, N. X., Giang, T. T., & Hai, L. D. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of online universities from 1997 to 2021. Vietnam Journal of Educational Sciences, 19(1), 25-41.
West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930-941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Ghi nhận tác giả của Creative Commons Giấy phép quốc tế 4.0 .
