Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41153162›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Making Sense of Action Bias in Higher Education: Pedagogical Insights on Critical Thinking.

Faith Jeremiah, Robert Istvan Radics

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Faith JeremiahDepartment of Global Value Chains and Trade, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8383-8893
Robert Istvan RadicsDepartment of Global Value Chains and Trade, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-3782-3532

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Action bias, the cognitive tendency to favor action over inaction regardless of its necessity, has been extensively studied across domains such as behavioral economics, organizational behavior, and policy development. However, its manifestation in educational contexts remains critically underexplored. In the digital age, with an abundance of both factual and misleading information, the persistence of action bias within education jeopardizes the cultivation of initial critical thinking capable of addressing multifaceted global challenges. The analysis indicates how institutional norms may foster a performative academic identity that conflates speed and compliance with intellectual competence. Through workshops conducted with university students ranging from undergraduate to PhD levels, participants were tasked with solving a practical yet ambiguous problem to highlight potential cognitive differences across educational stages. Despite prior training in critical thinking, participants consistently defaulted to immediate ideation, bypassing fundamental inquiries into the problem's legitimacy or broader implications. Using a sensemaking approach, this study demonstrates that reflexive actions are not interpreted as merely cognitive shortcuts but behaviors shaped by educational systems prioritizing visible outputs over critical inquiry. The findings reveal how institutional norms foster a performative academic identity, conflating speed and compliance with intellectual competence. This research challenges traditional pedagogical models, advocating for educational reforms that emphasize assessing the

Indexed as

action biascritical thinkinghigher educationlearning and teaching

Identifiers

PMID41153162
PMCPMC12561817

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.