research vs abstract thinking

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How We Use Abstract Thinking

MoMo Productions / Getty Images

• How It Develops

Abstract thinking, also known as abstract reasoning, involves the ability to understand and think about complex concepts that, while real, are not tied to concrete experiences, objects, people, or situations.

Abstract thinking is considered a type of higher-order thinking, usually about ideas and principles that are often symbolic or hypothetical. This type of thinking is more complex than the type of thinking that is centered on memorizing and recalling information and facts.

Examples of Abstract Thinking

Examples of abstract concepts include ideas such as:

• Imagination

While these things are real, they aren't concrete, physical things that people can experience directly via their traditional senses.

You likely encounter examples of abstract thinking every day. Stand-up comedians use abstract thinking when they observe absurd or illogical behavior in our world and come up with theories as to why people act the way they do.

You use abstract thinking when you're in a philosophy class or when you're contemplating what would be the most ethical way to conduct your business. If you write a poem or an essay, you're also using abstract thinking.

With all of these examples, concepts that are theoretical and intangible are being translated into a joke, a decision, or a piece of art. (You'll notice that creativity and abstract thinking go hand in hand.)

Abstract Thinking vs. Concrete Thinking

One way of understanding abstract thinking is to compare it with concrete thinking. Concrete thinking, also called concrete reasoning, is tied to specific experiences or objects that can be observed directly.

Research suggests that concrete thinkers tend to focus more on the procedures involved in how a task should be performed, while abstract thinkers are more focused on the reasons why a task should be performed.

It is important to remember that you need both concrete and abstract thinking skills to solve problems in day-to-day life. In many cases, you utilize aspects of both types of thinking to come up with solutions.

Other Types of Thinking

Depending on the type of problem we face, we draw from a number of different styles of thinking, such as:

• Creative thinking : This involves coming up with new ideas, or using existing ideas or objects to come up with a solution or create something new.
• Convergent thinking : Often called linear thinking, this is when a person follows a logical set of steps to select the best solution from already-formulated ideas.
• Critical thinking : This is a type of thinking in which a person tests solutions and analyzes any potential drawbacks.
• Divergent thinking : Often called lateral thinking, this style involves using new thoughts or ideas that are outside of the norm in order to solve problems.

How Abstract Thinking Develops

While abstract thinking is an essential skill, it isn’t something that people are born with. Instead, this cognitive ability develops throughout the course of childhood as children gain new abilities, knowledge, and experiences.

The psychologist Jean Piaget described a theory of cognitive development that outlined this process from birth through adolescence and early adulthood. According to his theory, children go through four distinct stages of intellectual development:

• Sensorimotor stage : During this early period, children's knowledge is derived primarily from their senses.
• Preoperational stage : At this point, children develop the ability to think symbolically.
• Concrete operational stage : At this stage, kids become more logical but their understanding of the world tends to be very concrete.
• Formal operational stage : The ability to reason about concrete information continues to grow during this period, but abstract thinking skills also emerge.

This period of cognitive development when abstract thinking becomes more apparent typically begins around age 12. It is at this age that children become more skilled at thinking about things from the perspective of another person. They are also better able to mentally manipulate abstract ideas as well as notice patterns and relationships between these concepts.

Uses of Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a skill that is essential for the ability to think critically and solve problems. This type of thinking is also related to what is known as fluid intelligence , or the ability to reason and solve problems in unique ways.

Fluid intelligence involves thinking abstractly about problems without relying solely on existing knowledge.

Abstract thinking is used in a number of ways in different aspects of your daily life. Some examples of times you might use this type of thinking:

• When you describe something with a metaphor
• When you talk about something figuratively
• When you come up with creative solutions to a problem
• When you analyze a situation
• When you notice relationships or patterns
• When you form a theory about why something happens
• When you think about a problem from another point of view

Research also suggests that abstract thinking plays a role in the actions people take. Abstract thinkers have been found to be more likely to engage in risky behaviors, where concrete thinkers are more likely to avoid risks.

Impact of Abstract Thinking

People who have strong abstract thinking skills tend to score well on intelligence tests. Because this type of thinking is associated with creativity, abstract thinkers also tend to excel in areas that require creativity such as art, writing, and other areas that benefit from divergent thinking abilities.

Abstract thinking can have both positive and negative effects. It can be used as a tool to promote innovative problem-solving, but it can also lead to problems in some cases:

• Bias : Research also suggests that it can sometimes promote different types of bias . As people seek to understand events, abstract thinking can sometimes cause people to seek out patterns, themes, and relationships that may not exist.
• Catastrophic thinking : Sometimes these inferences, imagined scenarios, and predictions about the future can lead to feelings of fear and anxiety. Instead of making realistic predictions, people may catastrophize and imagine the worst possible potential outcomes.
• Anxiety and depression : Research has also found that abstract thinking styles are sometimes associated with worry and rumination . This thinking style is also associated with a range of conditions including depression , anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) .

Conditions That Impact Abstract Thinking

The presence of learning disabilities and mental health conditions can affect abstract thinking abilities. Conditions that are linked to impaired abstract thinking skills include:

• Learning disabilities
• Schizophrenia
• Traumatic brain injury (TBI)

The natural aging process can also have an impact on abstract thinking skills. Research suggests that the thinking skills associated with fluid intelligence peak around the ages of 30 or 40 and begin to decline with age.

Tips for Reasoning Abstractly

While some psychologists believe that abstract thinking skills are a natural product of normal development, others suggest that these abilities are influenced by genetics, culture, and experiences. Some people may come by these skills naturally, but you can also strengthen these abilities with practice.

Some strategies that you might use to help improve your abstract thinking skills:

• Think about why and not just how : Abstract thinkers tend to focus on the meaning of events or on hypothetical outcomes. Instead of concentrating only on the steps needed to achieve a goal, consider some of the reasons why that goal might be valuable or what might happen if you reach that goal.
• Reframe your thinking : When you are approaching a problem, it can be helpful to purposefully try to think about the problem in a different way. How might someone else approach it? Is there an easier way to accomplish the same thing? Are there any elements you haven't considered?
• Consider the big picture : Rather than focusing on the specifics of a situation, try taking a step back in order to view the big picture. Where concrete thinkers are more likely to concentrate on the details, abstract thinkers focus on how something relates to other things or how it fits into the grand scheme of things.

Abstract thinking allows people to think about complex relationships, recognize patterns, solve problems, and utilize creativity. While some people tend to be naturally better at this type of reasoning, it is a skill that you can learn to utilize and strengthen with practice. 

It is important to remember that both concrete and abstract thinking are skills that you need to solve problems and function successfully. 

Gilead M, Liberman N, Maril A. From mind to matter: neural correlates of abstract and concrete mindsets . Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci . 2014;9(5):638-45. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst031

American Psychological Association. Creative thinking .

American Psychological Association. Convergent thinking .

American Psychological Association. Critical thinking .

American Psychological Association. Divergent thinking .

Lermer E, Streicher B, Sachs R, Raue M, Frey D. The effect of abstract and concrete thinking on risk-taking behavior in women and men . SAGE Open . 2016;6(3):215824401666612. doi:10.1177/2158244016666127

Namkoong J-E, Henderson MD. Responding to causal uncertainty through abstract thinking . Curr Dir Psychol Sci . 2019;28(6):547-551. doi:10.1177/0963721419859346

White R, Wild J. "Why" or "How": the effect of concrete versus abstract processing on intrusive memories following analogue trauma . Behav Ther . 2016;47(3):404-415. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.02.004

Williams DL, Mazefsky CA, Walker JD, Minshew NJ, Goldstein G. Associations between conceptual reasoning, problem solving, and adaptive ability in high-functioning autism . J Autism Dev Disord . 2014 Nov;44(11):2908-20. doi: 10.1007/s10803-014-2190-y

Oh J, Chun JW, Joon Jo H, Kim E, Park HJ, Lee B, Kim JJ. The neural basis of a deficit in abstract thinking in patients with schizophrenia . Psychiatry Res . 2015;234(1):66-73. doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.08.007

Hartshorne JK, Germine LT. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span . Psychol Sci. 2015;26(4):433-43. doi:10.1177/0956797614567339

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

What is Abstract Thinking? Understanding the Power of Creative Thought

When we think about thinking, we usually imagine it as a straightforward process of weighing options and making decisions. However, there is a more complex and abstract thinking type. Abstract thinking involves understanding and thinking about complex concepts not tied to concrete experiences, objects, people, or situations.

Abstract thinking is a type of higher-order thinking that usually deals with ideas and principles that are often symbolic or hypothetical. It is the ability to think about things that are not physically present and to look at the broader significance of ideas and information rather than the concrete details. Abstract thinkers are interested in the deeper meaning of things and the bigger picture. They can see patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated concepts and ideas. For example, when we listen to a piece of music, we may feel a range of emotions that are not directly related to the lyrics or melody. Abstract thinkers can understand and appreciate the complex interplay of elements that create this emotional response.

Understanding Abstract Thinking

Humans can think about concepts and ideas that are not physically present. This is known as abstract thinking. It is a type of higher-order thinking that involves processing often symbolic or hypothetical information.

Defining Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a cognitive skill that allows us to understand complex ideas, make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, and solve problems creatively. It is a way of thinking not tied to specific examples or situations. Instead, it involves thinking about the broader significance of ideas and information.

Abstract thinking differs from concrete thinking, which focuses on memorizing and recalling information and facts. Concrete thinking is vital for understanding the world, but abstract thinking is essential for problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking.

Origins of Abstract Thinking

The origins of abstract thinking are partially clear, but it is believed to be a uniquely human ability. Some researchers believe that abstract thinking results from language and symbolic thought development. Others believe that it results from our ability to imagine and visualize concepts and ideas.

Abstract thinking is an essential skill that can be developed and strengthened with practice regardless of its origins. By learning to think abstractly, we can expand our understanding of the world and develop new solutions to complex problems.

Abstract thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill that allows us to think about concepts and ideas that are not physically present. We can improve our problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking skills by developing our abstract thinking ability.

Importance of Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a crucial skill that significantly impacts our daily lives. It allows us to understand complex concepts and think beyond what we see or touch. This section will discuss the benefits of abstract thinking in our daily lives and its role in problem-solving.

Benefits in Daily Life

Abstract thinking is essential for our personal growth and development. It enables us to think critically and creatively, which is necessary for making informed decisions. When we think abstractly, we can understand complex ideas and concepts, which helps us communicate more effectively with others.

Abstract thinking also helps us to be more adaptable and flexible in different situations. We can see things from different perspectives and find innovative solutions to problems. This skill is beneficial in today’s fast-paced world, where change is constant, and we need to adapt quickly.

Role in Problem Solving

Abstract thinking plays a crucial role in problem-solving. It allows us to approach problems from different angles and find creative solutions. When we can think abstractly, we can see the bigger picture and understand the underlying causes of a problem.

By using abstract thinking, we can also identify patterns and connections that may not be immediately apparent. This helps us to find solutions that are not only effective but also efficient. For example, a business owner who can think abstractly can identify the root cause of a problem and develop a solution that addresses it rather than just treating the symptoms.

Abstract thinking is a valuable skill with many benefits in our daily lives. It allows us to think critically and creatively, be more adaptable and flexible, and find innovative solutions to problems. By developing our abstract thinking skills, we can improve our personal and professional lives and positively impact the world around us.

Abstract Thinking Vs. Concrete Thinking

When it comes to thinking, we all have different approaches. Some of us tend to think more abstractly, while others tend to think more concretely. Abstract thinking and concrete thinking are two different styles of thought that can influence how we perceive and interact with the world around us.

Key Differences

The key difference between abstract and concrete thinking is the level of specificity involved in each style. Concrete thinking focuses on a situation’s immediate and tangible aspects, whereas abstract thinking is more concerned with the big picture and underlying concepts.

Concrete thinking is often associated with literal interpretations of information, while abstract thinking relates to symbolic and metaphorical interpretations. For example, if we describe a tree, someone who thinks concretely might describe its physical appearance and characteristics. In contrast, someone who thinks abstractly might explain its symbolic significance in nature.

The transition from Concrete to Abstract

While some people may naturally lean towards one style of thinking over the other, it is possible to transition from concrete to abstract thinking. This can be particularly useful in problem-solving and critical-thinking situations, where a more abstract approach may be needed to find a solution.

One way to make this transition is to focus on a situation’s underlying concepts and principles rather than just the immediate details. This can involve asking questions that explore the broader implications of a situation or looking for patterns and connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information.

Abstract and concrete thinking are two different styles of thought that can influence how we perceive and interact with the world around us. While both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, transitioning between them can be valuable in many areas of life.

Development of Abstract Thinking

As we grow and learn, our ability to think abstractly develops. Age and education are two major factors that influence the development of abstract thinking.

Influence of Age

As we age, our ability to think abstractly improves. This is due to the development of our brain and cognitive abilities. According to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development , children progress through four stages of cognitive development, with the final stage being the formal operational stage. This stage is characterized by the ability to think abstractly and logically about hypothetical situations and concepts.

Role of Education

Education also plays a significant role in the development of abstract thinking. Through education, we are exposed to new ideas, concepts, and theories that challenge our existing knowledge and encourage us to think abstractly. Education also gives us the tools and skills to analyze and evaluate complex information and ideas.

In addition to traditional education, engaging in activities promoting abstract thinking can be beneficial. For example, participating in debates, solving puzzles, and playing strategy games can all help improve our abstract thinking skills.

The development of abstract thinking is a complex process influenced by age and education. By continually challenging ourselves to think abstractly and engaging in activities that promote abstract thinking, we can continue to improve our cognitive abilities and expand our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Challenges in Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking can be a challenging cognitive process, especially for those not used to it. Here are some common misunderstandings and difficulties people may encounter when thinking abstractly.

Common Misunderstandings

One common misunderstanding about abstract thinking is that it is the same as creative thinking. While creativity can certainly involve abstract thinking, the two are not interchangeable. Abstract thinking consists of understanding and thinking about complex concepts not tied to concrete experiences, objects, people, or situations. Creative thinking, on the other hand, involves coming up with new and innovative ideas.

Another common misunderstanding is that abstract thinking is only helpful for people in certain fields, such as science or philosophy. Abstract thinking can benefit many different areas of life, from problem-solving at work to understanding complex social issues.

Overcoming Difficulties

One difficulty people may encounter when thinking abstractly is a lack of concrete examples or experiences to draw from. To overcome this, finding real-world examples of the concepts you are trying to understand can be helpful. For example, if you are trying to understand the concept of justice, you might look for examples of situations where justice was served or not served.

Another challenge people may encounter is focusing too much on details and needing more on the bigger picture. To overcome this, try to step back and look at the broader significance of the ideas and information you are working with. This can involve asking yourself questions like “What is the main point here?” or “How does this fit into the larger context?”

Abstract thinking can be a challenging but valuable cognitive process. By understanding common misunderstandings and overcoming difficulties, we can develop our ability to think abstractly and apply it in various aspects of our lives.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does abstract thinking differ from concrete thinking.

Abstract thinking is a type of thinking that involves the ability to think about concepts, ideas, and principles that are not necessarily tied to physical objects or experiences. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, is focused on the here and now, and is more concerned with the physical world and immediate experiences.

What are some examples of abstract thinking?

Examples of abstract thinking include the ability to understand complex ideas, to think creatively, to solve problems, to think critically, and to engage in philosophical discussions.

What is the significance of abstract thinking in psychiatry?

Abstract thinking is an important component of mental health and well-being. It allows individuals to think beyond the present moment and to consider different possibilities and outcomes. In psychiatry, the ability to engage in abstract thinking is often used as an indicator of cognitive functioning and overall mental health.

At what age does abstract thinking typically develop?

Abstract thinking typically develops during adolescence, around the age of 12 or 13. However, the ability to engage in abstract thinking can continue to develop throughout adulthood, with continued practice and exposure to new ideas and experiences.

What are the stages of abstract thought according to Piaget?

According to Piaget, there are four stages of abstract thought: the sensorimotor stage (birth to 2 years), the preoperational stage (2 to 7 years), the concrete operational stage (7 to 12 years), and the formal operational stage (12 years and up). During the formal operational stage, individuals are able to engage in abstract thinking and to think about hypothetical situations and possibilities.

What are some exercises to improve abstract thinking skills?

Some exercises that can help improve abstract thinking skills include engaging in philosophical discussions, solving puzzles and brain teasers, playing strategy games, and engaging in creative activities such as writing or painting. Additionally, exposing oneself to new ideas and experiences can help broaden one’s perspective and improve abstract thinking abilities.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Thinking Outside The Box: The Difference Between Concrete Vs. Abstract Thinking

Abstract thought is a defining feature of human cognition . Scholars from diverse fields — including psychologists, linguists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, and even philosophers — have contributed to the scientific discussion of how abstract ideas are acquired and used by the brain. Concrete thought is somewhat better understood, as it represents a more grounded form of thinking than what is typically found in abstract thought. Concrete thinkers focus on physical objects and the physical world, making their thinking process more immediately obvious and tied to the literal form. Both modes of thinking are useful for human cognition.

Distinguishing between concrete and abstract thoughts

Understanding the differences between these two types of thinking may help illustrate their unique contributions to human thought.

Concrete thinking

Concrete thinking is grounded in facts and operates in a literal domain , focusing on objective facets such as physical attributes (e.g., color and shape) and verifiable occurrences (e.g., chronological sequences). Concrete thinkers often rely on concrete objects and specific examples to solve problems and classify objects. It avoids extrapolations, categorizing information superficially and within rigid boundaries. Concrete thinking is chiefly concerned with detail gathering, excluding analyses of trends and exploration of potentialities.

Rumination , a cognitive process characterized by excessive or repetitive thoughts, including intrusive memories, that interfere with daily life, might use concrete thinking to contemplate complex issues. These thoughts might include questions like "What happened in this situation?" and "What steps can I take to address the problem?" Although these questions address more than basic attributes, they are anchored in objectively definable detail.

Abstract thinking

It synthesizes and integrates information into broader contexts, forming the bedrock of creativity, critical analysis, and problem-solving. This thinking style is a vital skill for those who exercise creativity in fields like theoretical math or philosophical concepts. This allows individuals to transcend surface-level understanding. Abstract thinking is indispensable for grappling with intangible concepts, including emotions, and often involves contemplating hypothetical scenarios.

Rumination, explored above, also has an abstract component . Abstract ruminative thoughts may include questions like "Why do I always feel so unhappy?" or "Why didn’t I handle this better?" These queries pivot away from objective facts and explore concepts that may be interpreted in multiple ways.

When is each type of thinking most useful?

Several factors determine whether concrete or abstract thinking is most appropriate, but in practice, most deliberate thought processes benefit from the interplay between the two modes. Abstract thinking skills, including abstract reasoning skills, are crucial in understanding complex concepts and integrating existing knowledge. For instance, effective problem-solving necessitates the initial definition of its core features (concrete thinking) and subsequent high-level analysis (abstract thinking).

Psychologists and sociologists have scrutinized the relationship between abstract and concrete thought, often using  construal learning theory (CLT) as a framework. CLT identifies how psychological distance influences a person’s choice between abstract and concrete thinking. “Psychological distance” can be measured in various ways:

• Temporal distance: The amount of time between a person and their subject of contemplation.
• Spatial distance: The physical separation between a person and their subject of contemplation.
• Social distance: The emotional distance between individuals.
• Hypothetical distance: An individual’s assessment of the likelihood of their subject of contemplation occurring.

CLT suggests that individuals tend toward abstract thinking when they perceive substantial psychological distance and favor concrete thinking when that distance diminishes. This indicates that more abstract thinkers are likely to engage in abstract reasoning when dealing with subjects that are not immediately present or concrete. For example, a person planning to attend a family reunion next year (significant temporal distance) is more likely to think of big-picture, abstract elements of their plan — perhaps their excitement about attending the event. But as the event approaches, their thoughts shift toward concrete details, such as what they’ll wear to the party.

CLT can be used to assess a person's propensity for risk-taking behavior. Evidence suggests that individuals with a high construal level (greater psychological distance) employ more abstract thought processes and are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. Conversely, individuals with a low construal level (lesser psychological distance) display greater risk aversion as they are more aware of objective risk factors.

How do concrete and abstract thinking develop?

It’s worth noting that babies are not born with the ability to think abstractly. Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development illustrate how a child’s cognition develops over time. This cognitive development is crucial in the transition from a concrete thinker to an abstract thinker.

• Sensorimotor stage (birth to age two): Babies engage primarily with their sensory world, absorbing concrete information like a sponge without making abstract connections. This stage is fundamental in developing motor skills and concrete thinking skills.
• Preoperational stage (ages two to seven): Young children begin to develop abstract thinking, engaging in imaginary play, comprehending the rudiments of symbolism, and understanding someone else’s point. They start to understand figurative language and can interpret facial expressions, moving towards more abstract thinking abilities.
• Concrete operational stage (ages seven to 11): Children can understand that other people may experience the world differently than they do. They can recognize abstract concepts but remain tethered to empirical experiences. This stage involves processing theoretical concepts and developing concrete thinking skills to solve problems.
• Formal operational stage (age 11 to adulthood): Abstract thought matures as individuals use concrete information to derive abstract conclusions. Individuals expand their ability to empathize and discern patterns among abstract concepts. This stage is where strong abstract thinking skills are developed, allowing individuals to grapple with more complex concepts and engage in theoretical math and philosophical concepts, and solve abstract riddles such as brain teasers. This stage equips individuals with the capacity to analyze hypothetical scenarios and address "what-if" questions.

Key insights from Piaget's theory underscore the development of abstract thinking, where concrete thinking lays the foundation. This progression from being a concrete thinker to an abstract thinker is a vital aspect of cognitive development. That is, concrete thought is a prerequisite for abstract thought because objective facts must be defined before they can be analyzed. Proficiency in abstract thought unfolds gradually over many years.

Assessing the merits of abstract and concrete thinking

Abstract thinking allows humans to create art, reach conclusions through debate, and predict what the future may hold. It involves a thinking process that is less immediately obvious than concrete thinking, often requiring the individual to consider other meanings and exercise creativity. Because abstract thought empowers higher cognitive functions, it may seem that it is a preferable mode of cognition over concrete thought.

However, abstract thinking is not without its limitations. An unbalanced reliance on abstract rumination can lead to mental health concerns , such as depression. In individuals with mental health conditions like autism spectrum disorder or who have had a traumatic brain injury, the balance between abstract and concrete thinking can be particularly crucial, and reading body language and understanding figurative expressions may be difficult for some individuals. Conversely, a conscious preference for concrete thinking can potentially  mitigate negative mental health . Both concrete and abstract thinking are necessary for human cognition. For instance, abstract thinkers may engage in the active practice of new ideas, while concrete thinkers might focus on classifying objects and dealing with the literal form of information. While abstract thought may be associated with higher-order cognitive processes, those processes are built upon the foundation of concrete thinking.

Can therapy help manage cognitive and abstract thinking?

If you’re interested in recognizing and adapting your cognitive tendencies, a therapist can help. Therapists are trained in a variety of evidence-based techniques, including cognitive behavioral therapy , to analyze your mental processes and guide you toward meaningful conclusions about your thought patterns. This therapy can be particularly helpful for those struggling with difficulty relating to others due to their thinking style, whether they are more comfortable with abstract thinking vs concrete thinking.

You may wish to consider online therapy, which is available for individuals to avail the care of a skilled mental health professional. Working with a therapist online removes some common barriers to therapy, like having to commute to an office. Removing geographical constraints allows you to choose a therapist outside of your local area, which may be especially helpful to those who live in regions with limited mental health professionals. Online therapists have the same training and credentials as traditional therapists, and evidence indicates that therapy delivered remotely is just as effective as in-person therapy.

What is an example of concrete thinking?

Concrete thinking is literal. It focuses on physical attributes and things that can be verified with facts. Concrete thinking is more rigid and is chiefly concerned with gathering details or information. Someone who is a concrete thinker might take things very literally. For example, if you ask them to run to the store, they may think you want them to actually run to the store.

What is an example of abstract thinking?

An abstract thinking style involves processing theoretical concepts. It is more flexible and links causality, figurative language, themes, and intangible concepts and is the basis of things like problem-solving, creativity, and critical analysis. It often involves contemplating hypothetical scenarios, intangible concepts, and emotions. An excellent example of abstract thinking is making predictions. Any time someone assesses available information and processes it to determine what might happen next, they use abstract thinking.

Can you be both a concrete and abstract thinker?

Yes, people can be both concrete and abstract thinkers. According to construal level theory (CLT), psychological distance can affect whether a person uses concrete or abstract thinking. This theory measures psychological distance in four ways: temporal distance, or the amount of time between the person and the subject they’re thinking about; spatial distance, or the physical distance between the person and what they’re thinking about; spatial distance, or the physical separation between the person and what they’re thinking; and hypothetical distance, of the person’s assessment of the likelihood of what they’re thinking about occurring. 

CLT suggests that people tend to think more abstractly when they perceive a larger psychological distance and more concretely when they perceive less psychological distance. For example, someone who has a big vacation planned next year may think about how excited they are or a simple list of the things they hope to see, but as the trip approaches, they will likely focus on more concrete details, like making a list of what they need to pack, making sure they have their travel documents in order, and double-checking their itineraries.

Am I an abstract or concrete thinker?

Gaining abstract thinking is part of cognitive development; young children have concrete thinking first and develop abstract thinking as they mature. Some people may be prone to thinking more abstractly or concretely, but most are capable of both. People with good abstract reasoning skills may be better at imagining things that are not physically present, understanding complex concepts, and deciphering body language, and they may be more talented at creative endeavors or theoretical math or science concepts. On the other hand, concrete thinkers may be more likely to stick to rigid routines. They may think in more black-and-white terms and have difficulty considering gray areas or expanding their existing knowledge.

What are abstract thinkers good at?

People with strong abstract thinking skills can excel in many areas, including graphic design, landscape architecture, engineering, psychology, and psychology. They can also make excellent detectives, criminal investigators, and scientists.

An example of concrete thinking might be someone who sits down and lists items they need to accomplish in a day. In contrast, an abstract thinker might make the same kind of list, but they may rank it according to the order of importance or organize it according to the most efficient way to get all the tasks done.

What is a concrete thinking example for a student?

Specific examples of when students may use concrete thinking skills are when they organize their schedules or make a list of assignments they need to complete.

What is an example of a concrete task?

Many tasks might be considered concrete. For example, doing the dishes is a concrete task; they’re either clean or not. Other examples might be making the bed, folding laundry, washing the car, or vacuuming the carpet.

Is concrete thinking good or bad?

Concrete thinking isn’t necessarily good or bad; everyone needs to be able to think concretely at times. It can become a problem when people cannot switch out of concrete thinking in the physical world. Having abstract thinking abilities can help with problem-solving, creativity, and analysis, all of which can influence how someone interacts with the world. 

What is an example of concrete thinking in mental health?

Concrete thinking can be considered a feature of schizophrenia . People with this condition can be said to have an abstraction deficit or the inability to distinguish between symbolic, abstract ideas and the concrete. People with schizophrenia may not be able to deal with their experiences conceptually and cannot perceive objects as belonging to a class or category. Another example is autism spectrum disorder; people with this condition may have a very concrete way of thinking.

• What Is Insecurity? Exploring The Definition, Symptoms, And Treatments Medically reviewed by Paige Henry , LMSW, J.D.
• How To Better Understand Yourself Via Character Survey Medically reviewed by Majesty Purvis , LCMHC
• Self Esteem
• Relationships and Relations

• Sign up and Get Listed

Be found at the exact moment they are searching. Sign up and Get Listed

• For Professionals
• Worksheets/Resources
• Get Help 
• Learn 
• For Professionals 
• About 
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Marriage Counselor
• Find a Child Counselor
• Find a Support Group
• Find a Psychologist
• If You Are in Crisis
• Self-Esteem
• Sex Addiction
• Relationships
• Child and Adolescent Issues
• Eating Disorders
• How to Find the Right Therapist
• Explore Therapy
• Issues Treated
• Modes of Therapy
• Types of Therapy
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychotropic Medication
• What Is Therapy?
• How to Help a Loved One
• How Much Does Therapy Cost?
• How to Become a Therapist
• Signs of Healthy Therapy
• Warning Signs in Therapy
• The GoodTherapy Blog
• PsychPedia A-Z
• Dear GoodTherapy
• Share Your Story
• Therapy News
• Marketing Your Therapy Website
• Private Practice Checklist
• Private Practice Business Plan
• Practice Management Software for Therapists
• Rules and Ethics of Online Therapy for Therapists
• CE Courses for Therapists
• HIPAA Basics for Therapists
• How to Send Appointment Reminders that Work
• More Professional Resources
• List Your Practice
• List a Treatment Center
• Earn CE Credit Hours
• Student Membership
• Online Continuing Education
• Marketing Webinars
• GoodTherapy’s Vision
• Partner or Advertise
• GoodTherapy Blog >
• PsychPedia >

Abstract Thinking

What Is Abstract Thinking?

A variety of everyday behaviors constitute abstract thinking. These include:

• Using metaphors and analogies
• Understanding relationships between verbal and nonverbal ideas
• Spatial reasoning and mentally manipulating and rotating objects
• Complex reasoning, such as using critical thinking, the scientific method , and other approaches to reasoning through problems

Abstract thinking makes it possible for people to exercise creativity. Creativity , in turn, is a useful survival mechanism⁠—it allows us to develop tools and new ideas that improve the quality of human life.

Abstract Thinking in Psychology: How Does It Develop?

Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget argued that children develop abstract reasoning skills as part of their last stage of development, known as the formal operational stage. This stage occurs between the ages of 11 and 16. However, the beginnings of abstract reasoning may be present earlier, and gifted children frequently develop abstract reasoning at an earlier age.

Some psychologists have argued the development of abstract reasoning is not a natural developmental stage. Rather, it is the product of culture , experience, and teaching.

Children’s stories frequently operate on two levels of reasoning: abstract and concrete . The concrete story, for example, might tell of a princess who married Prince Charming, while the abstract version of the story tells of the importance of virtue and working hard. While young children are often incapable of complex abstract reasoning, they frequently recognize the underlying lessons of these stories, indicating some degree of abstract reasoning skills.

Abstract vs. Concrete Thinking

Concrete thinking is the opposite of abstract thinking. While abstract thinking is centered around ideas, symbols, and the intangible, concrete thinking focuses on what can be perceived through the five senses: smell, sight, sound, taste, and touch. The vast majority of people use a combination of concrete and abstract thinking to function in daily life, although some people may favor one mode over the other.

A study published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience found abstract thinking was tied to parts of the brain occupied with vision. Concrete thinking, on the other hand. activated parts of the brain that focus on actions taken to complete a goal.

Other research found that abstract thinkers are more likely than concrete thinkers to take risks. This may be partly due to the idea that concrete thinkers, more concerned with “how” to perform an action rather than “why,” might be dissuaded from starting a risky task because they’re more focused on the practical effort involved with the task, while the abstract thinker might be more occupied with considering the pros and cons of the risk.

Abstract Reasoning and Intelligence

Abstract reasoning is a component of most intelligence tests. Skills such as mental object rotation, mathematics, higher-level language usage, and the application of concepts to particulars all require abstract reasoning skills. Abstract thinking skills are associated with high levels of intelligence. And since abstract thinking is associated with creativity, it may often be found in gifted individuals who are innovators.

Learning disabilities can inhibit the development of abstract reasoning skills. People with severe intellectual disabilities may never develop abstract reasoning skills and may take abstract concepts such as metaphors and analogies literally. Since abstract reasoning is closely connected to the ability to solve problems, individuals with severely inhibited abstract thinking ability may need assistance with day-to-day life.

Mental Health and Abstract Thinking

Some mental health conditions can negatively impact an individual’s ability to think abstractly. For example, schizophrenia has been found to impair abstract thinking ability in those it affects. Some other conditions that may impair abstract thinking include:

• Learning disabilities
• Traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Some research has connected the ability to think abstractly with a stronger sense of self-control. This means that when people were given a reason to do or not to do something, it was easier for them to adhere to that rule than if they were simply told how to follow the rule.

A study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology found an interesting link between power and abstract thought. A person’s conception of how much power they have may more strongly influence their behavior than the actual amount of power they have. Because of this, researchers posited that an increased capacity for abstract thought would increase an individual’s sense of personal power, creating a positive feedback loop in which their beliefs influence their behavior, and their behavior shapes their personal outcomes.

Abstract Thinking Exercises

In many cases, it is possible to improve your abstract reasoning skills. Working on your abstract reasoning skills may help you improve your ability to solve problems, understand and communicate complex ideas, and enjoy creative pursuits.

One way to exercise your abstract reasoning skills is to practice solving puzzles, optical illusions, and other “brain teasers.” These thinking exercises allow individuals to practice viewing information from different perspectives and angles. As they may help open a person’s mind to different possibilities through the problem-solving process, puzzles can be an engaging way for both young people and adults to get better at abstract thinking.

Strengthening improvisation skills may also help increase an individual’s creativity and abstract thinking skills. Tasks that require the person to rely mostly on their imagination may help strengthen their ability to think abstractly over time.

References:

• Culpin, B. (2018, October 16). ‘Abstract thought’ – How is it significant and how does it define the basis for modern humanity? Retrieved from https://medium.com/@bc805/abstract-thought-how-is-it-significant-and-how-does-it-define-the-basis-for-modern-humanity-a98a5b92fb9f
• Dementia: What are the common signs? (2003, March 1). American Family Physician, 67 (5), 1,051-1,052. Retrieved from https://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p1051.html
• De Vries, E. (2014). Improvisation as a tool to develop creativity mini-workshop divergent thinking. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings . doi: 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044132
• Gilead, M., Liberman, N., & Maril, A. (2013, May 18). From mind to matter: Neural correlates of abstract and concrete mindsets. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9 (5), 638-645. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst031
• Harwood, R., Miller, S. A., & Vasta, R. (2008). Child psychology: Development in a changing society. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Sachs, R., Raue, M., & Frey, D. (2016, August 26). The effect of abstract and concrete thinking on risk-taking behavior in women and men. SAGE Open, 6 (3). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016666127
• Logsdon, A. (2019, June 17). Why children need to use abstract reasoning in school. Retrieved from https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-abstract-reasoning-2162162
• Marintcheva, B. (2013, May 6). Looking for the forest and the trees : Exercises to provoke abstract thinking. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 14 (1), 127-128. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.535
• Minshew, N., Meyer, J., & Goldstein, G. (2002). Abstract reasoning in autism: A dissociation between concept formation and concept identification. Neuropsychology, 16 (3), 327-334. doi: 10.1037//0894-4105.16.3.327
• Oh, J., Chun, J., Lee, J. S., & Kim, J. (2014). Relationship between abstract thinking and eye gaze pattern in patients with schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10 (13). doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-10-13
• Renzulli, J. S. (2003). The international handbook on innovation . Elsevier
• Scherzer, B. P., Charbonneau, S., Solomon, C. R., & Lepore, F. (1993). Abstract thinking following severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 7 (5), 411-423. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8401483
• Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (2), 378-385. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005
• Ylvisaker, M., Hibbard, M., & Feeney, T. (n.d.). Tutorial: Concrete vs. abstract thinking. Retrieved from http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html

Last Updated: 07-30-2019

Please fill out all required fields to submit your message.

Invalid Email Address.

Please confirm that you are human.

• 28 comments

Leave a Comment

I recently took a psych test for a police department. I was told I failed horribly. When. Contacted the physician that administered the test. He told me I did not do well with abstract thinking. How is that? I am very intelligent, served as a soldier in the US Army for 14 years. Been to combat and was never injured.

Vince, Most professions including most MOS fields involved in soldiering don’t require much abstract thought. They are typically operating in the concrete world with specific tangible and practical applications with boots on the ground. Most police activities deal with policy and procedures which are concrete in form. The application of these must seen through the abstract variables of people and personalities. Many people have a limited ability for abstraction in thought process, that doesn’t mean that they are not intelligent. It just means that their thinking is external and associated with more about what is seen and known in the physical representations in actual form rather than internally as to the function of origin and meaning behind the actual form. One who is a concrete thinker may look at a a painting as a picture of a house. The abstract thinker may think of the meaning behind a place of rest and peace and view warmth of the colors, light, and shadows, as an inter-play with the emotions and vision of the artist in representation of a place of heart where meals are shared and love is fostered, called home.

So in other words, the Police Department missed out on a potentially great applicant because he was a concrete thinker rather and was unable to pass the departmental psychometric test. How’s that for an abstract comment? Let me ask as a concrete thinker, is there any meta analysis done on the workplace success of concrete vs abstract thinkers?

Your answer explains exactly why you failed. Somehow you figured your past job was evidence for your ability for abstract thought. Well sorry my friend you just don’t get it. Also, the Army stresses concrete thought and discourages abstract and higher order thinking. If you wanted that, should have joined the Air Force.

I don’t know much haha but from what I’ve been researching I believe you aren’t stupid in a sense but just not as strong with the abstract part of things. You’re intelligence could be fine but practicing your mathematics and using your ‘minds eye’ to see past what’s in front of you is the real test. Practice some spatial reasoning as well. I love sciences and mathematics it’s really stimulates my mind and I always think way outside of what anyone else is thinking so it’s hard to even find common ground sometimes but you’ll get there. You aren’t any less intelligent because your skills aren’t as developed you just have knowledge in a different area.

When you think about it, all thought is abstract thought. It all comes from experience gained, from birth onwards. The brain is just an engine of sorts. It doesn’t know anything at birth. I discount here, the minimal learning in utero.

What percentage of 16 year-old people are capable of abstract thinking?

This stuff is very interesting to me

I believe that stories that use anxiety to keep the reader engrossed are anti-abstract thought.

Would a 3 year old trying to find meaning in what a adult said be considered abstract thinking ?

Yes, to some level (of 3 yrs. old) it’s a form of abstract inquiry though it may not be as abstract as if it were asked by an adult.

I remember almost everything as a child an questioning god was one of them before grade school it made no scentes to me the things people would say I new I was different An no one could answer my questions that only made me more curious I was definitely odd I felt separate from people because I view things different in my head but adapted to others but kept my way of thinking because it felt right to me if I could paint a picture we would be an atom on an evolutionary scale

What are non-verbal ideas? Abstract thoughts can be verbalized or not, so I don’t understand the comment “understanding the relationship between verbal and non-verbal ideas.

Non-verbal ideas, to me, means symbols.

Ah yes. and those are neural networks from our experience.

Telepathy abstract means of communication I guess!

I heard people with schizophrenia have trouble with abstract thought. I had an early onset, been on medication for 10 years (all different antispychotics, anti-anxiety, and now mood stablizer), now I’m in my mid 20s and I can’t relate to anyone. How can I improve my thoughts? I take everything so literal and can’t flip an object in my head. When I took a career test in high school, I bombed every section. I will never be sucessful @ anything. Cant even drive. When I do flip objects in my head, I’m deeply psychotic and can’t control it. Please no negative comments like “your stupid”. I never did drugs and keep getting psychotic breaks. If you dont know what they are, look up “what is a psychotic break from reality”. Thanks.

You say you can’t relate to anyone & are bad at abstract thought but you just communicated beautifully when describing your situation, triggering empathy in others (me), both of which are essential pre-requisits for forming relationships. Do not give up hope. B:)

Barbara, thank you. I need hope, and I needed to hear that.

Hi Claudia. My heart goes out to you. My brother is currently suffering from something like a psychotic break, and it’s really hard. I hope you are finding the support you need and piecing things together. Everyone has gifts, and often people see them after they’ve dug themselves out of something dark and really challenging. I’m not sure if this is helpful given where you are, but the book that most helped me get control of my thoughts is Bryon Kate’s “Loving What Is.” It starts with interrupting the thought with curiosity and simply asking, “Is it true?” Followed by three other simple questions. Eventually the process asks you to look at things from other perspectives, and sounds like that might be hard for you right now. You can look at her website thework.com. Just start with the four questions (not the whole worksheet) and see how that feels. Hang in there and take care of yourself – that’s your most important job right now. Sending you hope. Warmly, Beth

so that means if you haven’t been using much of a critical thinking over the last yeara, there’s a big possibility that you’ll fail in a an abstract reasoning skill test.

first im an aeronautical engineer who served in the british army and im autistic.And all you neurotypicals obviously dont have a clue what your talking about.Soldiers have to use abstract thinking in combat situations particularly those of rank.As an engineer i have to use concrete and abstract thinking can yuo fully visualise how a mechanical component would work in your head. Oh and this empathy you are all so proud of being capable of is you projecting yourself on that person and clapping yuorselves on the back because you can relate to his/her situation. Unless yuor telepathic or have experienced every variable tht has had an effect on that person shaping their perceptions etc you cant.

Hey well said bro- I’m studying my Research Masters degree with my field of research being investigating just how dangerously over-rated Empathy is in Western moral reasoning. Just check out Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on Compassion if you think I’m full of crap (A very good indicator of your Slave Moralty and Herd Conformity systems at work).

I have both abstract and concrete thinking, but the creativity abstract thinking presents is limited to certain subject areas. I am a verbal and a visual thinker. I also have this thought form that feels like the brain is moving, if you know the term for this please tell me.

All of these involve visuals in the imagination which would be described as Concrete. Using metaphors and analogies (using words to describe visuals of water when explaining electricity) Spatial reasoning and mentally manipulating and rotating objects (sorting out a collexion of items in front of the self and mentally picturing them sorted inside a closet). Complex reasoning, such as using critical thinking, the scientific method, and other approaches to reasoning through problems (geometry for matters of physics, logic symbols visually in place of words mentally, turning a method into an animation in the imagination) Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something. But if using mental imagery = concrete thinking, how is abstract thinking connected to the occipital lobe if it is supposed to help you understand the semiotics of a problem which is typically the function of the temporal lobe? Thanks.

I am a high school dropout that ranked in the 99th percentile nationally in abstract reasoning on a freshman aptitude test, also 97th in mechanical reasoning and 95th in spatial relations. Furthermore, other than verbal reasoning, I ranked below average in every other category. Three years later I dropped out due to crippling anxiety owing to the accumulation of misunderstanding between me and my peers, I believe I have a lot to offer the world but I have hidden myself away and find myself at middle age with no friends or prospects other than the stresses of manual and skilled labor environments. I understand science through books and lay communication better than the communicators or experts in some regards because of how I build my visual model of understanding but this universe exists inside my head alone and all of that potential will be lost when my likely to be relatively short existence inevitably comes to an end. I continue to leave cries for help on the internet like this but no one seems to hear me and all I want is purpose and to realize at least some of what I have come to see as a rare gift.

It is not actually unusual for people with your gifts to have problems relating to their high school peers and have a story like yours. Malcolm Gladwell looked into it and the most nobel prizes were actual for people with 125 IQ for pricely the reasons cited. So you are in fact one of crowd here. I think what you need is in fact a good therapist who can guide you to your best life. And then a way to let your light shine, platitudes I know but they are there for a reason. It is most likely you’ll need to find a partner to get these idea to market, a Jobs to your Wozniak if you will. This too is exceptionally normal and a well-trod path. So rather than bemoan how much of a weirdo you are, understand that in fact you are almost a cliche. Life is not high school and we have the internet. So here is my action plan for you: 1.) Get a therapist. (Shop around. Be sure you are comfortable with them and that they are intelligent to understand what you are talking about.) 2.) With the facility of the therapist, find like-minded groups that would welcome your expertise. The therapist will help you relate to them in. healthy manner and sort through who is in your interest. 3.) Once you have a a healthy group, find someone to partner your projects with. Again therapist can sound these people out. Listen for red flags etc. since you feel kinda fragile. I should note that if you dropped out of high school for social reasons you might need anxiety meds. If you did so because you academically couldn’t get your act together despite being smart, you might have ADHD or another learning disability and should get screened. Therapists are not good at catching this. But they are with anxiety and depression. Listen them.

By commenting you acknowledge acceptance of GoodTherapy.org's  Terms and Conditions of Use .

* Indicates required field.

• Concrete Thinking
• Intellectual Disability
• Learning Difficulties

Notice to users

Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a fundamental cognitive process that allows us to explore and understand concepts beyond the realm of concrete reality. It involves the ability to think conceptually, creatively, and symbolically, enabling us to grasp complex ideas, solve problems, and engage in higher-order thinking.

Abstract thinking can be defined as the mental ability to conceptualize and understand concepts that are not directly tied to physical objects or concrete events. Unlike concrete thinking that focuses on specific, tangible things, abstract thinking allows us to derive meaning, interpret symbols, make inferences, recognize patterns, and engage in metaphorical and symbolic reasoning. It is a process that goes beyond the surface-level understanding and helps us navigate the complexities of the world.

• Interpreting a poem’s underlying meaning rather than focusing solely on its literal words.
• Understanding the concept of justice and evaluating its application in various scenarios.
• Recognizing and appreciating symbolism in art, literature, and music.
• Arriving at a logical conclusion by examining multiple perspectives and possibilities.
• Using analogies to explain complex ideas or relationships.
• Developing and testing hypotheses in scientific experiments.

The Importance of Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking plays a crucial role in various aspects of our lives. It is not only an essential cognitive skill but also a tool for problem-solving, decision-making, and creativity. Here are a few key areas where abstract thinking is particularly valuable:

• Education: Abstract thinking helps students engage in critical thinking, analyze information, and delve deeper into subjects beyond surface-level knowledge. It promotes a deeper understanding of complex ideas and encourages independent thinking.
• Problem Solving: When faced with challenges, abstract thinking allows us to generate innovative solutions by exploring unconventional possibilities and finding connections between seemingly unrelated concepts. It helps us think “outside the box” and discover new perspectives.
• Creativity: Abstract thinking fuels creativity by allowing us to envision and create something new. Artists, musicians, writers, and inventors rely heavily on abstract thinking to generate original ideas, visualize concepts, and communicate abstract emotions or experiences.
• Communication: Abstract thinking enhances effective communication by enabling us to convey complex ideas using metaphors, analogies, and symbolic language. It helps us express ourselves more vividly and engage listeners or readers on a deeper, emotional level.
• Decision-Making: Abstract thinking aids in decision-making, as it helps us consider the potential consequences, evaluate different options, and anticipate long-term effects. By thinking abstractly, we can make informed choices and weigh the pros and cons of each alternative.

Tips for Enhancing Abstract Thinking

While abstract thinking comes naturally to some individuals, it can also be developed and strengthened through practice. Here are a few tips to enhance your abstract thinking abilities:

• Embrace Curiosity: Cultivate a curious mindset and ask questions that encourage deeper thinking.
• Engage in Creative Activities: Explore art, music, writing, or any activity that encourages abstract thinking and self-expression.
• Read Widely: Engage with diverse literature and expose yourself to different perspectives, ideologies, and worldviews.
• Practice Symbolic Reasoning: Analyze symbols, metaphors, and allegories in various forms of media to develop your ability to interpret abstract representations.
• Investigate Opposing Views: Challenge your own beliefs by seeking out and critically evaluating opposing viewpoints.
• Play Brain-stimulating Games: Engage in puzzles, riddles, and strategy games that require abstract thinking and problem-solving.

Abstract thinking is a remarkable cognitive ability that allows us to explore the world beyond its concrete boundaries . By unlocking the power of imagination, symbolism, and conceptualization, abstract thinking enriches our lives and enables us to navigate the complexities of our existence. Enhancing our abstract thinking skills not only empowers us intellectually but also enhances our creativity, problem-solving abilities, and decision-making skills.

Need help? Call us at (833) 966-4233

• Anxiety therapy
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)
• Depression counseling
• Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)
• Grief & loss counseling
• Relational therapy
• View all specialties & approaches

Thriveworks has earned 65+ awards (and counting) for our leading therapy and psychiatry services.

We’re in network with most major insurances – accepting 585+ insurance plans, covering 190 million people nationwide.

Thriveworks offers flexible and convenient therapy services, available both online and in-person nationwide, with psychiatry services accessible in select states.

Find the right provider for you, based on your specific needs and preferences, all online.

If you need assistance booking, we’ll be happy to help — our support team is available 7 days a week.

Discover more

What is abstract thinking? How it works & more

Our clinical and medical experts , ranging from licensed therapists and counselors to psychiatric nurse practitioners, author our content, in partnership with our editorial team. In addition, we only use authoritative, trusted, and current sources. This ensures we provide valuable resources to our readers. Read our editorial policy for more information.

Thriveworks was established in 2008, with the ultimate goal of helping people live happy and successful lives. We are clinician-founded and clinician-led. In addition to providing exceptional clinical care and customer service, we accomplish our mission by offering important information about mental health and self-improvement.

We are dedicated to providing you with valuable resources that educate and empower you to live better. First, our content is authored by the experts — our editorial team co-writes our content with mental health professionals at Thriveworks, including therapists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, and more.

We also enforce a tiered review process in which at least three individuals — two or more being licensed clinical experts — review, edit, and approve each piece of content before it is published. Finally, we frequently update old content to reflect the most up-to-date information.

• Abstract thinking, essential in various aspects of life, enables us to tackle problems ranging from calculus to navigating busy highways, showcasing its broad applicability.
• Applied on a daily basis, abstract thinking is a universal skill, transcending professions and daily routines, highlighting its pervasive nature.
• Abstract thinking involves thought processes that deviate from everyday rhythms, habits, and routines, providing a framework for simple to complex problem-solving scenarios.
• Delving into the concept of abstract thinking, it encompasses the ability to engage in unconventional thought processes, fostering creativity and strategic thinking.

From completing calculus problems to enabling us to strategize to successfully navigating a busy highway, abstract thinking allows us to accomplish a lot. Abstract thinking is applied daily, no matter what your profession or daily routines and habits are. 

But what exactly is abstract thinking? And how can it be used? Learn more about abstract thinking below, including examples and comparisons between abstract and concrete thoughts.

What Is Meant By “Abstract Thinking?”

Abstract thinking typically refers to thinking and thought processes that often diverge from the ordinary rhythms, habits , and routines of daily life. Abstract thinking allows us to engage in simple to complex problem-solving.

Abstract thinking can be used to make decisions in split seconds or even ones that take days to consider. This form of thinking involves:

• Predictions
• Prior knowledge
• Past experiences 

Often, abstract thinking patterns are not rooted in tangible, visible things but are rooted in concepts.

What Is an Example of Abstract Thinking?

A simple example of abstract thinking is solving a math problem; you might look at the problem and begin to use prior knowledge and logic to strategize on how to solve the problem before you begin. 

A more psychologically-rooted example of abstract thinking can include character strengths, for example, such as wisdom and strength. In order to be able to define, discuss, and recognize wisdom and strength as concepts, you must first be able to think abstractly as to what they are, for you cannot see them physically or tangibly as items. 

Hello, we're here to help you

We provide award-winning mental health services nationwide, with flexible scheduling & insurance coverage. Start your journey this week.

or call (833) 966-4233

What Are the 4 Stages of Abstract Thinking?

Abstract thinking and thought patterns tend to follow the four stages below:

• Non-objective fragmentation (birth months) : This stage is characterized by the developmental task of the infant building their understanding of the world through the use of their senses and being able to identify objects.
• Deconstruction ( 2-6 months ) :  As children in this stage continue to develop relationships with objects and their senses, they can begin to understand routines and cause-and-effect patterns.
• Two-dimensionalization (6-12 months) : This is an exciting stage, as object permanence begins to develop; that is, being able to understand the abstract concept that an object can still exist even when you can’t physically see it.
• Non-figurative (12-18 months) : As sensorimotor and object permanence continue to develop, children begin to understand and develop memories for abstract concepts and ideas.

These four stages are based on the four stages of development posited by the developmental psychologist, Piaget . The four stages described above are developmental experiences that Piaget discovered that all children go through in their journey toward beginning to develop abstract thinking. 

Though the four stages tend to end at approximately 18 months, as you can guess, the development of abstract concepts and thought processes is a lifelong process and continues to develop well past 18 months; the start of this secondary process occurs at 18 months. The stages above are described as the “sensorimotor stage” of development. 

What Are Abstract Thinkers Good at?

Abstract thinkers tend to be very well-adjusted and well-adapted at handling difficult, unpredictable, and complex situations. They are often good at bringing original ideas to the table and this enables them to effectively solve complex problems as they can think critically and creatively , using flexible thought processes and patterns of thinking that are abstract, allowing them to be generative in their thinking.

Abstract thinkers are also great at context; they can typically use this generative way of thinking to make more informed decisions.

How Can You Tell if Someone Is an Abstract Thinker?

One of the best ways that you can tell if someone is an abstract thinker is to watch or have them describe ways that they solve problems. If they typically solve problems quickly and with few options or solutions, they are not typically an abstract thinker.

 Abstract thinkers tend to involve many different types of cognitive inputs from various sources (past knowledge/experiences, current life experience, knowledge of certain concepts, etc.) to formulate many different solutions. Abstract thinkers are generative and typically offer a more structured, thorough thought process and multiple different solutions to one problem instead of formulating/focusing on one solution only.

What Does Abstract vs Concrete Thinking Mean?

The term “ abstract vs. concrete thinking ” simply refers to the description of two different philosophies or schools of thought. In other words, it identifies that there are two separate, distinct thought processes and ways of thinking that humans use to problem-solve and navigate their world and environment daily. 

Humans will tend to demonstrate one type of problem-solving over the other due to predispositions, learned behaviors, past experiences, current environmental influences, and the type of problem or challenge they face.

What Is the Difference Between Abstract Thinking and Concrete Thinking?

There are many differences between abstract and concrete thinking styles . One of the most recognizable differences is that abstract thinking patterns involve uses of logic, and non-tangible ideals such as predictions, and typically cannot be fully tangibly measured whereas concrete thinking patterns typically involve constructs that can be fully measured from start to finish (think facts, numbers, statistics, etc). 

Abstract thinking requires flexibility to be able to develop a solution(s) that fit the outcome and are usually highly individualized. Concrete thinking patterns tend to focus on simply solving the problem at hand using faster, non-flexible thought patterns and do not tend to include any measures of prediction or future-oriented thinking.

Am I an Abstract or Concrete Thinker?

One of the best ways to identify if you are an abstract or a concrete thinker is to test yourself. Give yourself a problem that needs to be solved and write down or record yourself speaking as you engage in the thought process.

Explore how you make your decisions:

• Was your decision-making process quick and did you settle on just one decision? 
• What sources did you consider and how many did you consider as you pursued solutions for your decision? 

Concrete thinkers also tend to gravitate towards tangible, measurable facts-based items to make decisions such as statistics. On the other hand, an abstract thinker might base their solution-making process on not only facts/statistics but also theories, philosophies, and other “abstract” thought patterns.

Published Nov 15, 2023

• Clinical writer
• Editorial writer
• Clinical reviewer

Alexandra “Alex” Cromer is a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) who has 4 years of experience partnering with adults, families, adolescents, and couples seeking help with depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and trauma-related disorders.

Theresa Lupcho is a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) with a passion for providing the utmost quality of services to individuals and couples struggling with relationship issues, depression, anxiety, abuse, ADHD, stress, family conflict, life transitions, grief, and more.

Jason Crosby is a Senior Copywriter at Thriveworks. He received his BA in English Writing from Montana State University with a minor in English Literature. Previously, Jason was a freelance writer for publications based in Seattle, WA, and Austin, TX.

We only use authoritative, trusted, and current sources in our articles. Read our editorial policy to learn more about our efforts to deliver factual, trustworthy information.

Dumontheil, I. (2014). Development of abstract thinking during childhood and adolescence: The role of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex . ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000516

Malik, F., & Marwaha, R. (2023, April 23). Cognitive development – StatPearls – NCBI bookshelf . National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537095/

The information on this page is not intended to replace assistance, diagnosis, or treatment from a clinical or medical professional. Readers are urged to seek professional help if they are struggling with a mental health condition or another health concern.

If you’re in a crisis, do not use this site. Please call the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or use these resources to get immediate help.

Join our Newsletter

Get helpful tips and the latest information

Abstract Thinking: Definition, Benefits, & How to Improve It

Author: Andrea Brognano, LMHC, LPC, NCC

Andrea Brognano LMHC, LPC, NCC, CCMHC, ACS

Andrea empowers clients with compassion, specializing in corporate mental health, stress management, and empowering women entrepreneurs.

Abstract thinking isn’t just a fancy term for “thinking outside the box.” Instead, it’s a specific mindset that makes a person better at problem solving and creative thinking. Abstract thinking is a tool that we use in order to approach and resolve issues, while understanding new concepts in our day to day lives.

Want to reach your full potential?

Therapy can help you bring into alignment thoughts, feelings and behaviors. BetterHelp has over 20,000 licensed therapists who provide convenient and affordable online therapy. BetterHelp starts at $65 per week. Take a free online assessment  and get matched with the right therapist for you.

What Is Abstract Thinking?

Abstract thinking is the ability to think about concepts and ideas without being tied to a specific example. It is a skill that can be learned, and it is a way of approaching things from a different angle. The benefits of abstract thinking are numerous, and the more you practice it, the better you’ll be. Individuals with the ability to think abstractly come up with unique ideas and ways in which they can better engage in opportunities. This comes into play in terms of conversation and everyday tasks. 1

Abstract thinking is used for:

• Improved problem-solving skills
• Improved creativity
• Better ability to understand theoretical concepts
• Improved ability to think critically

Abstract vs. Concrete Thinking

Abstract thinking is a learned skill that can be improved through active practice. It’s a form of abstract reasoning, which means there are no concrete facts involved—you use your imagination to think about things that aren’t immediately obvious or real. By definition, abstract thinking involves considering concepts in general terms rather than concrete details. Conversely, concrete thinking places an emphasis on facts presented.

Moreover, abstract thinking is a fluid movement of thought, rather than factual processing. For example, think of abstract art–while others may see blurry lines or shapes, some see a hidden meaning behind the canvas.

Think about how much abstract thinking goes on in your life every day–do you make decisions based on what seems logical or reasonable? Are these decisions based on facts or only an educated guess? When we think concretely, our thoughts are often based on evidence or facts that have been presented to us. In abstract thinking, we may have information presented to us beforehand, but approach it with a deeper capacity to develop new ideas.

Examples of abstract thinking include:

• The use of humor among conversation
• Using imagination to create imagery beyond the here and now
• Feeling hopeful in situations that seem difficult
• Viewing love as an idea that is not concrete
• Seeing success as defined differently for each individual
• Recognizing that the value of something is defined by what we place on it
• Being organized is defined per person

Examples of abstract thinking in practice include:

• When you describe something with a metaphor, simile, or analogy
• When you analyze a situation and develop a creative solution to the problem at hand.
• When you consider someone else’s point of view.
• When you predict something based on your own information and thoughts.
• When an artist creates a painting left to interpretation.
• When a person continues to explore options in a situation after a resolution has already been found.
• When a person tells a joke that is not obvious.

Why Is Abstract Thinking Important?

Understanding abstract ideas and concepts is a skill we all need, but one that many of us don’t think about often. The ability to think abstractly helps us solve problems, communicate effectively, and better understand ourselves and others. The use of abstract thinking allows a person to better recognize underlying context in a conversation, or push a conversation further. It is also a helpful tool to get out of dangerous situations, or for solving everyday tasks in a more efficient manner.

In Everyday Life

Abstract thinking can help you become a better communicator, as you can look at things from different points of view. This ability to see the big picture and put yourself in someone else’s shoes can also help you better understand what they’re trying to say. You’ll be better able to intuit the context of a conversation by recognizing this alternative perspective. Thus, communicating your ideas clearly and effectively comes easily. Some situations that may call for abstract thinking include scenarios that require more efficient time management.

In school, abstract thinking can help students understand the material they are learning, and apply it to new situations. For example, if a person is given an equation to solve, abstract thinking allows them to think about what the solution might be, before attempting to solve it. It also helps with decision making, because it allows a group to develop good ideas together, instead of relying on individual judgment alone. If a student is able to think abstractly, they have a higher chance of engaging in more challenging school programs such as STEM. 2

Top Rated Online Therapy Services

BetterHelp  – Best Overall

“ BetterHelp is an online therapy platform that quickly connects you with a licensed counselor or therapist and earned 4 out of 5 stars.” Take a free assessment

Online-Therapy.com – Great Alternative

In addition to therapy, all Online-Therapy.com subscriptions include a self-guided CBT course. Visit Online-Therapy.com

When Does Abstract Thinking Develop in Children?

Abstract thinking is an important part of cognitive development, helping us understand the world around us. You may notice some children are very concrete in their thinking, or they can only think about things as they are currently. For example, if you say “the sun rises in the morning,” an infant will not understand, because it is too difficult for them to understand concepts such as time or place. However, a toddler might understand, as they are developing their abstract thinking skills. Psychologist Piaget’s stages of cognitive development give insight into development in thinking.

Paiget’s stages of cognitive development are 4

• Sensorimotor stage: In this stage, a child is gaining information from their senses, and is not able to think further than what is in front of them.
• Preoperational stage: A child at this stage (between two and seven years old) is impacted by the way in which something appears to be, and believes others see things the same way as they do.
• Concrete operational stage: At this stage (between seven and 11), a child begins to realize that not everyone sees the world the same as them, and is open to new ideas and problem solving.
• Formal operational stage: This stage begins at age 11, and children begin to think abstractly.

Parents who are concerned about a child not meeting particular milestones are encouraged to speak to their child’s teacher or pediatrician. It is important to review the thinking patterns of a child to help them foster emotions and independence later on in life. Additionally, encouraging play can be used to help foster abstract thinking–one of the best ways to do so is with blocks and puzzles. Blocks help children develop their spatial skills, as they learn to stack them and build towers. Puzzles teach kids how pieces fit together, which helps them think about how objects are connected or related to one another.

Disorders & Conditions that May Impair Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a vital skill. While it may sound like a simple task, it can be challenging for some. A person may struggle with this type of thinking due to a range of disorders and conditions. For these people, engaging with others can become challenging. It is also important to note that a person might simply have difficulty with an abstract thought process, so be mindful of others’ approaches to thinking.

Some disorders and conditions that may interfere with abstract thinking include:

• Traumatic Brain Injury: TBI can result in a variety of symptoms including confusion, memory loss, dizziness and headaches—these symptoms often lead to cognitive effects like impaired abstract thinking skills and reduced problem-solving abilities.
• Autism Spectrum Disorder: The effects of autism vary widely, depending on the individual. However, autistic people may have difficulty understanding other people’s feelings or thoughts. It may also be difficult for them to communicate their own feelings and needs clearly.

Ways to Improve Your Abstract Thinking Skills

You can improve your ability to think abstractly by practicing thinking . While it may sound a bit silly and redundant, it’s true! This can be done in a number of ways, such as by asking yourself “big idea” questions that require you to consider many different factors and angles.

Exercises to improve your ability to think abstractly include:

• Putting yourself in situations that you are not familiar with or educated on
• Solving puzzles such as a jigsaw, crossword, or word search
• Find an Escape Room near you
• Find a new hobby to try
• Ask your friends to give you a problem to solve in their everyday life

Final Thoughts

Abstract thinking is a powerful tool that can help a person make better decisions, solve problems, and be more creative. By learning how to think abstractly, we can improve our ability to understand each other, empathize with others, and make the world a better place for everyone.

Additional Resources

To help our readers take the next step in their mental health journey, Choosing Therapy has partnered with leaders in mental health and wellness. Choosing Therapy is compensated for marketing by the companies included below.

Online Therapy 

BetterHelp Get support and guidance from a licensed therapist. BetterHelp has over 30,000 therapists, who provide convenient and affordable online therapy. Take a free online assessment and get matched with the right therapist for you. Free Assessment

Psychiatry, with You in Mind

Talkiatry Our psychiatrists can diagnose your condition, prescribe medication, and monitor your progress. Most psychiatry visits cost patients $30 or less* Free Assessment

Drinking Moderation

Sunnyside Want to drink less? Sunnyside helps you ease into mindful drinking at your own pace. Think lifestyle change, not a fad diet. Develop new daily routines, so you maintain your new habits for life. Take a 3 Minute Quiz

Relationship Help

OurRelationship (Free Couples Course) OurRelationship has been proven to help couples improve communication, intimacy, and trust. 94% would recommend it to a friend. Get Started

Mental Health Support Group App

Circles Anytime, anonymous, and free. Never feel alone during life’s greatest challenges. Drop-in to live conversations and share thoughts, ask questions, or learn from others on the same journey. Join Circles Now

Free Prescription Discount Card

Optum Perks Save up to 80% on most prescriptions. Optum Perks provides discounts at over 64,000 pharmacies nationwide. No memberships or costs to you, ever. It’s really that easy. Get your card and start saving. Get the discount card!

*Includes copayment, deductible, coinsurance, and $0 Visits. Excludes no shows.

For Further Reading

• Crucial Learning
• Foundation for Critical Thinking

Online Anxiety Test

A few questions from Talkiatry can help you understand your symptoms and give you a recommendation for what to do next.

Best Online Therapy Services

There are a number of factors to consider when trying to determine which online therapy platform is going to be the best fit for you. It’s important to be mindful of what each platform costs, the services they provide you with, their providers’ training and level of expertise, and several other important criteria.

Abstract Thinking Infographics

A free newsletter for those impacted by mental health issues. Get helpful tips and the latest information.

Choosing Therapy strives to provide our readers with mental health content that is accurate and actionable. We have high standards for what can be cited within our articles. Acceptable sources include government agencies, universities and colleges, scholarly journals, industry and professional associations, and other high-integrity sources of mental health journalism. Learn more by reviewing our full editorial policy .

The Power of Abstract Thinking . (n.d.). Researchgate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339988357_The_power_of_abstract_thinking

Hanif, Budiyanto, C. W., & Yuana, R. A. (2021). Abstract Thinking Skills of High School Students in STEM Learning: Literature Review. Journal of Physics. Conference Series , 1808(1), 12019–. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1808/1/012019

Smith, Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005

Mcleod, S. (2020) Jean Piaget’s theory and stages of cognitive development, Jean Piaget’s Theory and Stages of Cognitive Development . Simply Psychology. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Your Voice Matters

Can't find what you're looking for.

Request an article! Tell ChoosingTherapy.com’s editorial team what questions you have about mental health, emotional wellness, relationships, and parenting. The therapists who write for us love answering your questions!

Leave your feedback for our editors.

Share your feedback on this article with our editors. If there’s something we missed or something we could improve on, we’d love to hear it.

Our writers and editors love compliments, too. :)

FOR IMMEDIATE HELP CALL:

Medical Emergency: 911

Suicide Hotline: 988

© 2024 Choosing Therapy, Inc. All rights reserved.

Abstract Thinking vs. Concrete Thinking

What's the difference.

Abstract thinking and concrete thinking are two different cognitive processes that humans use to understand and interpret the world around them. Concrete thinking refers to the ability to think in a literal and tangible manner, focusing on specific details and facts. It involves processing information based on what is directly observable and experienced. On the other hand, abstract thinking involves the ability to think beyond the surface level and make connections between ideas and concepts. It involves thinking in a more symbolic and metaphorical way, considering possibilities and hypothetical scenarios. While concrete thinking is more focused on the present and immediate reality, abstract thinking allows for more creative and imaginative thinking. Both types of thinking are essential for problem-solving and decision-making, but they differ in their approach and level of complexity.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Thinking is a fundamental cognitive process that allows us to make sense of the world around us. It is through thinking that we are able to solve problems, make decisions, and form opinions. However, not all thinking is the same. Two distinct types of thinking that play a crucial role in our cognitive abilities are abstract thinking and concrete thinking. In this article, we will explore the attributes of abstract thinking and concrete thinking, highlighting their differences and understanding their unique characteristics.

Abstract Thinking

Abstract thinking is a cognitive process that involves the ability to think beyond the immediate and concrete aspects of a situation. It is the ability to conceptualize ideas, understand complex concepts, and think in terms of possibilities and hypotheticals. Abstract thinking allows individuals to grasp concepts that are intangible or theoretical, making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas or concepts.

One of the key attributes of abstract thinking is the ability to think in symbols and metaphors. Abstract thinkers can understand and interpret symbols, such as mathematical equations or artistic representations, and derive meaning from them. They can also use metaphors to express complex ideas or emotions, allowing for a deeper understanding of abstract concepts.

Abstract thinking also involves the ability to engage in critical thinking and problem-solving. Abstract thinkers can analyze information, identify patterns, and draw logical conclusions. They can think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to complex problems. This type of thinking is often associated with fields such as mathematics, philosophy, and scientific research, where the ability to think abstractly is essential.

Furthermore, abstract thinking is closely linked to higher-order cognitive skills, such as reasoning and analysis. It requires individuals to think in a more complex and nuanced manner, considering multiple perspectives and evaluating different possibilities. Abstract thinkers are often able to see the bigger picture and understand the underlying principles or concepts that govern a particular situation.

In summary, abstract thinking involves the ability to think beyond the concrete, understand symbols and metaphors, engage in critical thinking and problem-solving, and utilize higher-order cognitive skills. It allows individuals to grasp complex concepts and make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas.

Concrete Thinking

Concrete thinking, on the other hand, is a cognitive process that focuses on the immediate and tangible aspects of a situation. It involves thinking in a literal and factual manner, relying on direct sensory experiences and observable information. Concrete thinkers tend to focus on the here and now, relying on what they can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell.

One of the key attributes of concrete thinking is the reliance on specific examples and details. Concrete thinkers prefer to work with concrete examples and specific instances rather than abstract or generalized concepts. They rely on firsthand experiences and observable evidence to form their understanding of the world.

Concrete thinking is often associated with more practical and hands-on activities. It is commonly found in fields such as engineering, construction, and manual labor, where a focus on tangible and immediate results is crucial. Concrete thinkers excel at following instructions, performing tasks that require precision, and working with concrete materials or objects.

Furthermore, concrete thinking is characterized by a more straightforward and linear thought process. Concrete thinkers tend to think in a step-by-step manner, following a logical sequence of events or actions. They prefer clear instructions and guidelines, as they provide a sense of structure and certainty.

In summary, concrete thinking involves focusing on the immediate and tangible aspects of a situation, relying on specific examples and details, excelling in practical and hands-on activities, and following a straightforward and linear thought process. It is often associated with fields that require precision and a focus on observable evidence.

Comparing Abstract Thinking and Concrete Thinking

While abstract thinking and concrete thinking have distinct attributes, it is important to note that they are not mutually exclusive. Individuals can possess varying degrees of both types of thinking, and the ability to switch between them is often advantageous in different situations. Let's compare the attributes of abstract thinking and concrete thinking to gain a deeper understanding of their differences:

Abstract thinking focuses on the intangible, theoretical, and complex aspects of a situation. It involves thinking beyond the immediate and considering possibilities and hypotheticals. On the other hand, concrete thinking focuses on the immediate, tangible, and factual aspects of a situation. It relies on direct sensory experiences and observable information.

2. Approach

Abstract thinking involves a more conceptual and imaginative approach. It requires individuals to think in symbols, metaphors, and abstractions. Abstract thinkers are comfortable with ambiguity and can make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas. In contrast, concrete thinking involves a more practical and literal approach. It relies on specific examples, firsthand experiences, and observable evidence. Concrete thinkers prefer clear instructions and guidelines.

3. Problem-Solving

Abstract thinking is often associated with complex problem-solving. Abstract thinkers can analyze information, identify patterns, and draw logical conclusions. They excel at thinking outside the box and coming up with creative solutions. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, is more suited for straightforward problem-solving. Concrete thinkers follow a step-by-step thought process, relying on clear instructions and observable evidence.

4. Cognitive Skills

Abstract thinking is closely linked to higher-order cognitive skills, such as reasoning, analysis, and critical thinking. It requires individuals to think in a more complex and nuanced manner, considering multiple perspectives and evaluating different possibilities. Concrete thinking, while less complex, still involves cognitive skills such as attention to detail, memory recall, and following instructions.

5. Fields of Application

Abstract thinking is often found in fields such as mathematics, philosophy, scientific research, and creative arts. These disciplines require individuals to think abstractly, make connections between ideas, and understand complex concepts. Concrete thinking, on the other hand, is commonly found in fields such as engineering, construction, manual labor, and other practical domains that require a focus on tangible and observable results.

Abstract thinking and concrete thinking are two distinct cognitive processes that play a crucial role in our ability to understand and navigate the world. While abstract thinking allows us to think beyond the immediate and grasp complex concepts, concrete thinking focuses on the tangible and observable aspects of a situation. Both types of thinking have their unique attributes and applications, and individuals can possess varying degrees of each. By understanding the differences between abstract thinking and concrete thinking, we can appreciate the diverse ways in which our minds process information and approach problem-solving.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

Have you ever been in a meeting and proposed a unique solution to a problem? Or have you ever been faced with a difficult decision and thought about the potential consequences before making your choice?

These are examples of abstract thinking in action. Everyone uses abstract thinking in day-to-day life, but you may be wondering — what is abstract thinking?

Abstract thinking is the ability to comprehend ideas that aren't tangible or concrete. It's a crucial skill for problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking — and the best part is that it can be developed and strengthened with practice.

In this article, we'll explore the concept of abstract thinking and offer some simple ways to become a stronger abstract thinker in everyday life. With some practice, you can become an expert problem-solver and use conceptual thinking to your advantage.

What is abstract thinking?

Abstract thinking is a cognitive process that allows us to think beyond observable information and deal with concepts, ideas, theories, and principles. By thinking outside of our existing knowledge, we can come up with solutions that aren't immediately obvious. This type of thinking is essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking .

Abstract thinking enables us to generate new ideas, connect unrelated concepts, and look at the bigger picture. It also involves contemplating sentiments such as love, freedom, and compassion. These concepts aren’t concrete and can have different interpretations. By using abstract thinking, we can gain a deeper understanding of these concepts and their different meanings.

Abstract thinking is also crucial to creativity, innovation, and advanced problem-solving. It allows us to think beyond the surface level of a problem and come up with unique solutions. This can be especially important in fields such as science and technology, where new breakthroughs often require fresh perspectives and innovative thinking.

In addition, abstract thinking is a vital skill for personal development, enabling us to think beyond our immediate environment and beliefs and consider different perspectives. This allows individuals to make better decisions, be more receptive and open to change, and be more creative.

Be the first to try it out!

We're developing ABLE, a powerful tool for building your personal knowledge, capturing information from the web, conducting research, taking notes, and writing content.

Abstract vs. concrete thinking

We can best understand abstract thinking by knowing what it's not — concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is understanding and processing observable and directly experienced information. It's often associated with basic sensory and perceptual processes, such as recognizing a familiar face or identifying a physical object by its shape.

On the other hand, abstract thinking is the ability to understand and process information that isn’t directly observable or experienced. Abstract thinking is often associated with higher-level cognitive processes, such as decision making and critical thinking.

For example, if you’re asked what a chair looks like, concrete thinking would involve picturing it and what it's typically used for. By contrast, abstract thinking would involve considering what a chair could symbolize or how it could be used differently than what is traditionally accepted.

The two types of thinking aren’t mutually exclusive — instead, they complement each other in the cognitive process. We need concrete and abstract thinking skills to effectively process information and make informed decisions.

How is abstract thinking developed?

Abstract thinking is a cognitive process that develops over time, beginning in childhood and continuing into adulthood. The psychologist Jean Piaget , known for his theory of cognitive development, proposed that children go through different stages of mental growth. This begins with the sensorimotor stage, in which infants and young children learn through their senses and motor skills and develop concrete thinking skills. In their later years, they develop more advanced cognitive abilities, including abstract thinking.

During childhood, abstract thinking develops as children use the cognitive approach to learning to grasp new concepts and skills. They start to understand and manipulate abstract concepts such as numbers, time, and cause and effect. As they observe the world around them, they use what they know to make sense of what is happening and explore other possibilities.

A learning disability, mental health condition, or brain injury can, however, affect abstract thinking. Among these are psychological illnesses like schizophrenia , developmental disorders like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, and physical illnesses like stroke, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. These individuals may have difficulty understanding and manipulating abstract concepts and require additional support to develop their abstract thinking skills.

As adults, we continue to refine our abstract thinking skills through practice. We can become adept at problem-solving and critical thinking by regularly engaging in activities that require abstract thought. These activities include brainstorming, reading, writing, playing board games, and exploring creative projects. Factors such as experience, education, and environment all play a role in the development of abstract thinking, and it's essential to continue challenging and exercising our cognitive learning skills to maintain and improve abstract thinking.

Why is it important to learn to think abstractly?

Thinking abstractly is a crucial skill that allows us to go beyond surface-level understanding and interpret the deeper meaning of concepts, ideas, and information. It enables us to see the big picture and make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, which is a crucial thinking tool for problem solving and critical thinking. Additionally, learning to think abstractly can bring numerous benefits in our daily lives and in various fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

For instance, abstract thinking enables us to process information quickly and efficiently on a daily basis. It helps us understand and interpret what people are saying and what is happening around us, which can lead to better decision-making. Abstract thinking is vital in STEM fields for innovation and progress, as it encourages creative thinking and the exploration of new ideas and perspectives.

Furthermore, abstract thinking helps us understand abstract concepts such as justice, freedom, and patriotism. By using analogies and other tools, we can consider what these words stand for, their implications in our world, and how they can be applied effectively in day-to-day life. In this way, abstract thinking helps us make sense of complex ideas and concepts and enables us to navigate the world with greater insight and understanding.

10 tips to improve your abstract thinking skills

Abstract thinking is crucial for problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking. Fortunately, there are many ways to improve these skills in your everyday life.

1. Incorporate puzzles into your life

Solving puzzles is a great way to practice abstract reasoning and exercise your brain. Whether you enjoy crosswords, Sudoku, or jigsaw puzzles, solving these types of problems improves your ability to think abstractly by requiring you to think critically and strategically to find solutions to issues that aren’t immediately obvious.

2. Learn something new

Your mind engages in the information processing cycle when learning new things. Learning something new allows you to explore different perspectives and understand how the world works. You'll gain new knowledge and practice your abstract thinking skills as you process, store, and recall what you’ve learned.

3. Explore your creativity

Creative expression is another excellent way to exercise your abstract thinking skills. Creativity engages the right side of the brain , which is responsible for abstract thinking and creative problem-solving. Through drawing, painting, writing, or photography, exploring the creative process encourages you to think outside the box and develop new ideas.

4. Practice mindfulness

Mindfulness is the practice of purposely observing the present moment without judgment or bias. Practicing mindfulness can help you improve your abstract thinking by teaching you how to observe your thoughts, feelings, and emotions objectively and without judgment. As you think more deeply and analytically about what's happening in the present moment, you will further develop your abstract thinking skills.

5. Make a habit of reading

Books and articles on various topics can help you build your understanding of complex concepts and ideas. Reading enables you to develop your ability to connect different ideas and think critically about the material. You also have to use your imagination to visualize what you're reading, which helps to improve your creative thinking abilities. Annotating your reading can step this up a notch.

6. Travel somewhere new

Traveling to new places exposes you to new cultures and ways of thinking, which can help to expand your mind and improve your abstract thinking skills. Plus, when you're in a new place, you're forced to think on your feet as you figure out how to navigate the unfamiliar landscape. This helps to build up your problem-solving skills, which are essential for developing abstract thinking abilities.

7. Get more exercise

Exercise is not only beneficial for your physical health, but it can also be beneficial for your mental health . Exercise helps to increase oxygen flow to the brain, which can improve cognitive functioning and help you think more clearly. Exercise also increases the production of endorphins, which can improve your mood and make it easier to focus on what you're doing.

8. Practice critical thinking

Critical thinking involves using your reasoning skills to evaluate information objectively. By practicing critical thinking, you can develop your abstract thinking ability by learning to analyze information, identify patterns and connections, and draw logical conclusions. Additionally, critical thinking will help you become more aware of your own biases so that you can make unbiased decisions.

9. Embrace risk-taking

Taking risks and engaging in activities that make you uncomfortable can help you practice abstract thinking. Stepping outside of your comfort zone forces you to think differently and create solutions to complex problems. It also requires you to push yourself beyond what is familiar and take a leap of faith as you learn new things .

10. Take up a new hobby

Hobbies like painting, sculpting, and photography can help you practice abstract thinking by allowing you to explore new ideas and ways of looking at the world. These activities also require you to use your imagination and creativity to devise solutions that aren’t immediately obvious. It also makes you feel accomplished when you're done, which can boost your confidence and make you more open to taking risks in other aspects of life.

Enhance your abstract thinking skills

If you've wondered, "What is abstract thinking?" now you have a better understanding. Abstract thinking skills can benefit us in many areas. From problem solving to meaningful learning to critical thinking, it's a powerful tool that can enhance our ability to navigate daily challenges.

By incorporating activities that promote the abstract thinking process into our daily routine, we can improve our ability to grasp abstract ideas, improve our decision-making skills, and see the bigger picture. With practice and dedication, we can master the art of abstract thinking and unlock its full potential.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Erin E. Rupp

Read more posts by this author

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

Managing multiple tabs: how able helps you tackle tab clutter.

Learning styles for adults: 5 ways to maximize your potential

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

From Abstract Thinking to Thinking Abstractions: Introducing Speculative Geographies

• Open Access
• First Online: 04 November 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Nina Williams 3 &
• Thomas Keating 4  

2027 Accesses

2 Citations

8 Altmetric

Writing at a time in which speculative ways of thinking appear to be undergoing a reprise across the social sciences and humanities – whether through engagements with speculative cosmology (Stengers, 2006), speculative empiricism (Debaise, 2017), speculative fabulation (Haraway, 2011), speculative research (Wilkie et al., 2017), or speculative realism (Bryant et al., 2011) – in this chapter we introduce Speculative Geographies and our motivation for assembling the collection as a way of considering what concepts and practices of speculation might mean for geography, and how speculation might itself be conceived as geographical. In approaching the relationship between speculation and geography, we introduce the book as a collective desire to complicate the modes of thought used to evaluate experience by crafting alternatives, pluralising perspectives, and thereby problematising the immediately given. Far from abstract thinking, in this chapter we conceptualise speculation, after A.N. Whitehead, as a task of thinking abstractions – a style of thinking that prioritises an openness to what thought might become, and which therefore reconfigures empirical problems beyond what seems given in an immediate experience. The chapter traces key genealogies of this speculative practice including speculative philosophy, speculative fiction, and speculative design. Finally, we provide an overview of how the three themes of the book – ethics, technologies, aesthetics – speak to the chapters making up this edited collection.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Speculative Research

The Future at Stake: Modes of Speculation in The Highest Frontier and Microbiology: An Evolving Science

Why speculation.

We are bringing this collection together at a time in which speculative ways of thinking appear to be undergoing a reprise across the social sciences and humanities. Whether through engagements with speculative cosmology (Stengers, 2006 ), speculative empiricism (Debaise, 2017 ), speculative fabulation (Haraway, 2011 ), speculative research (Wilkie et al., 2017 ), or speculative realism (Bryant et al., 2011 ), what is striking about this moment is that ‘speculation’ is approached as a diverse set of conceptual and empirical endeavours that construct plural rather than singular narratives, recuperate multiple rather than complete forms of knowledge, value holding open what is at stake and can be brought into purview and, in doing so, intensify alternative possibilities. Central to these endeavours, as Alfred North Whitehead suggests, is the sense that speculation presents a certain form of reason whose “business is to make thought creative of the future” ( 1929 : 82). Thinking with this notion of speculative reason, our motivation for assembling this collection is to assay what this speculative intervention might mean for geography, and how speculation might itself be conceived as geographical. In approaching the relationship between speculation and geography, this collection of essays manifests a collective desire to complicate the modes of thought used to evaluate experience by crafting alternatives, pluralising perspectives, and thereby problematising the immediately given.

If speculation has until recently occupied a somewhat marginal position in academia, this might be because it is often considered a form of futile guesswork that, as Alex Wilkie ( 2018 : 347) observes, would seemingly be “the very antithesis of sober empirical research”. More troubling, perhaps, is the sense that speculation implies a zealous celebration of the immaterial and an avoidance of this world’s material politics (Hallward, 2006 ). With its connotations of abstract thinking, discourses of first principles, and transcendental reasonings, speculation seemingly inherits a sense of detachment from the empirical particularities and differences of this world. Working against these tendencies, in this book we consider speculation as something other than futile guesswork, vague suppositions, or immaterial escape. On the contrary, we insist that speculations expand, complicate, and invent abstractions that modify the possibilities of what thought might become. To ask what thought might become is to cultivate a mode of speculative thinking that is at odds with prophetic positions that are themselves only capable of answering questions posed from within the bounds of the contemporary regimes of knowledge production. Developing this line of thought, the chapters in this book differently, and in their own way, foreground speculation as a style of thinking that prioritises an openness to what thought might become, and which therefore reconfigures the empirical beyond what seems given in an immediate experience . A key motivation of the book is thus to develop speculation as a practice that, in asking what thought might become, reformulates the problems that can be staged as part of empirical enquiry.

Speculation, we contend, is uniquely placed to problematise the kinds of questions we are capable of asking out of the conditions of thought in the present. As with Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s ( 1994 ) ‘geophilosophy’, speculation is a term that engenders a mode of attention to the ways problems are always staged and valued from the bounds of dominant abstractions and territories of thought—and it is through a spirit to cultivate thought in its capacity to think difference that this mode of attention maintains a generosity to the way thinking could be otherwise. Here we take our cue from Didier Debaise and Isabelle Stengers ( 2017 ) in arguing that speculation is concerned with the formulation of problems of a new kind. Debaise and Stengers call for a ‘speculative’ mode of thought capable of responding to a crisis of “lazy thinking”, “false problems” (p. 14) and a rising “inability to think that what we care about might have a future” (p. 18). Speculative thinking, here, is concerned with sensing the virtual possibilities—interpretations, ideas, connections—that saturate any situation. It is a call to develop a sense of openness in the most expanded terms possible to “what, in this situation, might be of importance” (Debaise & Stengers, 2017 : 18–19). It is owing to this sense of openness to what thought might become that speculation can be said to complicate certain majoritarian knowledge claims expressed, as they often are, according to normative politics, calculative logics, and risk-management strategies (Savransky et al., 2017 ). Our contention is that speculation must itself be understood as something that instructs majoritarian political formations concerning how life could, or should, be organised. Put differently, we are less concerned with what speculation imagines for the future than with how, in doing so, it complicates what is deemed important through current epistemic habits.

In problematising epistemic habits, speculation presents a renewed understanding of what counts as the empirical that resists reducing and channelling experience according to immediate facts, off-the-shelf abstractions, or clichéd diagnoses. The diverse approaches to speculation developed in this book evince a unique mode of empiricism that is variously concerned with amplifying experience in its pluralism (Debaise, 2017 ). In seeking to articulate a pluralism of experience, speculation would be something capable of signalling (im)possibilities outside of recognisable ontological frameworks (Brown, 2021 : 6), and which diffracts in order “to make visible all those things that have been lost in an object; not in order to make the other meanings disappear, but rather to make it impossible for the bottom line to be one single statement” (Haraway, 2000 : 105). The empirical emerges here not as something that simply appears to us through perception, but as an experiential event that necessarily exceeds and modifies the frameworks in which it gets placed. Each of these thinkers can thus be said to be elaborating a mode of speculation that, as Martin Savransky writes ( 2018 : 6), dramatises philosophy with the ‘earthly’ such that speculation becomes “an immanent and situated act of creation concerned with whens and wheres and hows, with abstractions and their consequences, with practices and their dreams, with events and the possibles they create”. It is owing to such investments in the relations between thought and the earthly that we are interested here in elaborating how speculation is geographical.

Indeed, whilst acknowledging that geographical research has in certain ways always been speculative (see Doel and Clarke, Chap. 4 ), this is not to say speculation has always been geographical. How might imbuing speculation with a geographic awareness solicit abstractions of thought as they come to force and fruition in relation to diverse ‘earthly’ processes and virtual potentialities? What becomes of the practice of earth writing when it is directed towards a reappraisal of the abstractions it uses to think the experiential? What does it take to leave behind conventional abstractions of thought and instead engage in what Whitehead ( 1929 : 65) terms “the flight after the unattainable”? And how might this pursuit of the unattainable, as it intersects with the mundane, in turn help revaluate those “daily affirmations, which have become too comfortable and prejudice us to a future that has yet to be determined” (Sharpe et al., 2014 : 124)?

In posing these questions it is worth adding a note of clarification: this is a book about speculation in a capacity that is resolutely not a transcendent mode of thought that is detached from the world or from contextual placings (whether historical, theoretical, cultural, political, geographical). Nor do we suggest speculation is something without certain limits. For us this mode of speculation, which is attentive to the conditions that produce thought, gains particular resonance in the Leibnizian refrain favoured by Stengers ( 2005 , 2008b ) dic cur hic [say why here]: a call for precise occasions of decision making such that we attend to the singularity of each occasion in which our thinking takes flight. In other words, dic cur hic states that generalisable justifications provide a shaky cause for our evaluative thinking. In this always situated mode, speculation is thus not simply about hesitant guesswork: our aim in this book goes beyond a celebration of a general sense of uncertainty as part of contemporary scholarly claims, since to argue speculation concerns an openness to what thought might become is not to say it resists scepticism and precise forms of evaluation (Williams, 2022 : 10). Instead, we argue that speculation is a method of evidencing precise, albeit diverging, lines of enquiry that need not mean that “every issue is readily decided by recourse to facts currently available” (Connolly, 2019 : 10), and thus are no less rigorous than formal calculative or statistical evidence. Far from abstract thinking, then, this is a book about speculation dedicated to the task of thinking abstractions and the forms of value, intellectual horizons, and the modes of existence they give rise to.

The remainder of this introduction has three sections: the next section develops the question of ‘who speculates?’ by tracing certain genealogies of speculative thinking; the chapter then develops what it means to think abstractions; finally, we provide an overview of how the three themes of the book—ethics, technologies, aesthetics—speak to the chapters in this edited collection.

Who Speculates?

Speculation abounds, whether in the social sciences and humanities, architecture and design, the creative industries, financial markets and urban investments, or philosophy and social theory wherein speculation becomes oriented around a politics seeking to negotiate complex social, environmental, or epistemological change, albeit in very different ways. Speculations are also present, of course, in less formal modes such as those moments when a mind wanders and contemplates something unforeseen: What does the future hold? What is the weather going to be like? Is the universe infinite or finite? What is consciousness? How to distinguish the living from the non-living? To what extent might one think different imperceptible relations of sense? (Do you believe in life after love?). Speculations, in this reflective and fleeting mode, do not necessarily concern fantastical visions of the future, nor privileged moments of discovery, since they “occur all the time” (Parisi, 2012 : 237) involving a mediation on abstractions that, in their realisation, pose alternative problems and thus change what appears thinkable and possible.

And yet, writing in an era of anti-establishment populisms marked by a cynicism towards expertise, it might be argued that what is required today is more conviction in the value of rigorously evidenced logics. Amidst continued hesitancy by various governments in the face of innumerable ecological and mass extinction crises, what would seemingly be required are deliberative actions that themselves anticipate practical solutions. Speculation, in this context, might appear at once untimely and dangerously impractical. In our reading, if speculation is untimely then it is so only in the sense that Nietzsche argues that philosophy of the future must be untimely if it is to resist the power of facts, the tyranny of the real, or the ‘inadequacy of false problems’ (Gerlach, Chap. 5 ). And if speculation is considered impractical, this might be because it is often evaluated through a lens of applicability and its value decided against certain calculated measures derived from extant regimes of knowledge mired by reactionary thinking (see Gerlach & Jellis, 2015 ; Burdon, Chap. 13 ). In recognising a certain value in the untimeliness and impracticality of speculative thinking, we are not suggesting speculation is a remedy to all twenty-first-century problems; this collection is not intended as a guide to living on in the Anthropocene not least because speculation here is opposed to that timely ethos of solution-oriented thinking, and resits ‘practico-theoretical’ applications (de La Herrán Iriarte, Chap. 6 ). However, what we are interested in is how and why the speculative has a certain appeal in the context of contemporary political, social, or ecological problems precisely as a means of pluralising the onto-epistemologies used to formulate problems in catastrophic times (Stengers, 2015 ; see also Brown, Chap. 2 ; Fearns, Chap. 9 ; Kraftl, Chap.  12 ).

Posing the question ‘who speculates?’, therefore, is also to ask ‘who and what gets to speculate?’, or as Aimee Bahng ( 2018 : 5) puts it, who ‘narrates’ such speculations? Moreover, it at once asks ‘which speculations will be heard?’ since the task of surveying proponents of speculative thinking itself risks omitting certain othered voices of speculative thought who are less likely to be cited in academic publications (Oswin, 2020 ; Müller, 2021 ). Whilst we commenced with a moment of speculation that has a genealogy in Western philosophy as well as with a distinct disciplinary attachment, we want to be explicit that this collection is indebted to a plurality of forms of speculative thinking. Glancing through the contents page of this book reveals that this is not just a book by or for geographers: it is a collection indebted to different commitments across the social sciences and humanities, including within theories of decolonialisation and post-colonialism, feminist and queer theories, and theories of race and alterity that seek to unsettle universal categories and, in doing so, decentre the legacies of European imperialism and problematise capitalist destruction by listening to a plurality of earthbound onto-epistemologies already in existence today (Brown, 2021 ; Jackson, 2021 ; Savransky, 2021 ; Tsing, 2015 ). Crucially, for us part of this plurality means recognising that speculations are more often than not irreducible to individuated forms of intentionality and decision. Partly, speculations exceed individuated forms because they are often enacted by collections of different bodies and materials (Fannin, Chap. 8 ; Patchett, Chap.  15 ; Rousell et al., Chap. 16 ; Wakefield-Rann and Lee, Chap. 17 ). To develop this reading of speculation, in what follows we tentatively survey a number of conversations engaging speculative thinking which inform the spirit of this collection.

The first of these engagements is the penchant within human geography for assaying and amplifying the plurality of events and experiences as they are constituted through particular spacetimes. The question of spacetimes has long held a prominent place as a geographical concept for approaching certain forms of complexity (Massey, 1999 ). Recently, for instance, spacetimes have operated as a device for rendering future contingency open to certain logics of preemptive governance (Anderson, 2010 ), are used to articulate rhythms of exhaustion in practices of work (Straughan et al., 2020 ), and are developed to reconceptualise relations between technology, media objects, and affect (Ash, 2017 ), to name but a few lines of enquiry. Whilst ‘speculation’ is not always explicit in the lexicon of these works, this conversation speaks to the notion of speculative thinking at work in this collection since it concerns precisely how articulating abstractions of spacetime itself helps think different metaphysical relations between time, space, and matter. By engaging questions of metaphysics, albeit often indirectly, spacetimes have given rise to a concomitant imperative to rethink the boundaries of fieldwork within the discipline (Katz, 1994 ), such that fieldwork is thought less as bounded space and “more as a series of graspings” (Gerlach & Jellis, 2015 : 136–7).

Second includes the way speculative thinking is discernible in nonrepresentational theories (Simpson, 2020 ), including cognate research into notions of the elemental (Engelmann, 2020 ; Jackson & Fannin, 2011 ), the atmospheric (McCormack, 2017 ), the inorganic (Roberts & Dewsbury, 2021 ; Grosz, 2011 ), the unsayable (Harrison, 2007 ), the inhuman (Clark & Yusoff, 2017 ), the spectral (Wylie, 2007 ; Enigbokan & Patchett, 2012 ), the pre-individual (Lapworth, 2020 ; Keating, 2019 ), and the aleatory and contingent (Doel, 2004 ). Throughout, we are drawn to these attempts to admit articulations of experience that may be tensed with affective orientations yet lack any pre-given necessity and meaning: How to write about an impasse of thinking and doing without reducing such moments to universal judgement and justification? And how to speculate elementally, without assuming a fully formed subject or object who carries out such speculations and is able to appraise them as such? By approaching these questions, these engagements with spacetime and nonrepresentational registers seek other ways of thinking experience spatio-temporally, or what Keith Woodward ( 2016 : 350) refers to in his speculative geography of Orson Welles as those “spaces that are thinkable, but not tangible, visible, or manifest”. Imbuing geography with a certain speculative impulse, then, as Barry et al. ( 2021 : 126) do through the notion of planetary speculative listening, might open geography up to different expressions of experience and thought that “nurtures, cultivates and affirms the potentialities of possible futures”. Thought as forms of speculative thinking, these geographies put forward diverse attempts to think—through the invention of abstractions—something of the invisible, imperceptible, affective, and infra-sensible processes that elide the human sensorium.

Third, this commitment within geographical scholarship to render something of those imperceptible and infra-sensible expressions of experience can itself be recognised in line with a set of theoretical speculations that have advanced different kinds of processual and relational thinking. Without wanting to blur the distinction between a diverse set of works, we are thinking here of theorisations of matter (Bennett, 2010 ), ecologies of experience (Manning & Massumi, 2014 ), assemblage theory (DeLanda, 2006 ), post-humanism (Braidotti, 2013 ), plant thinking (Marder, 2013 ), hyperobjects (Morton, 2013 ), and perspectivism (Viveiros de Castro, 2014 ), which engage differing modes of speculation via their attention to dimensions of the world that exceed human recognition. Such theoretical orientations have themselves led to a proliferation of techniques and technologies taken up within research concerned with citizen sensing (Gabrys, 2019 , Pritchard & Gabrys, 2016 ) and the politics and poetics of listening and attuning to nonhuman ecologies (Kanngieser & Todd, 2020 ; Gallagher et al., 2017 ; Brigstocke & Noorani, 2016 ). Across these diverse conversations, there is a speculative impulse that considers alternative forms of experience through the problematisation of anthropocentrism, by attending to the agency of nonhuman processes and technologies, and in grasping subjectivity as embedded in the materiality of the world.

The fourth key area of speculative thought informing this collection concerns the way speculative fictions across literature, music, and the arts have been engaged as sites of critical thinking across the humanities and social sciences (Dawson, Chap. 14 ). From Donna Haraway’s ( 2013 ) reading of Ursula Le Guin; Aimee Bahng’s ( 2017 , 2018 ) work on Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany; Jayna Brown’s ( 2021 ) theorisation of Alice Coltrane and Sun Ra; to Kodwo Eshun’s ( 2018 ) exploration of Afrofuturist sonic fiction, a central tenet of each of these works is to take speculative fictions themselves as modes of creative and critical enquiry. For example, Elizabeth de Freitas and Sarah Truman ( 2021 : 4) explore “how examples of [speculative fiction] pursue an ecological cosmic sympathy with the non-human, and how close readings of these texts allow scholars to think creatively about new kinds of inquiry in the Anthropocene”. Here, a politics of thinking futurity is palpable that does not cease when one leaves the otherworldly visions presented within speculative fictions. Moreover, it is a politics much more radical than one of being hopeful, since the ways we story the future determines how we invest in the present (Bahng, 2018 : 3). Advancing this politics through what she terms Black utopias, Jayna Brown liberates the term ‘utopia’ from its connotations of a universal hopefulness; she attests:

I am not arguing for life according to a model in which we have been restored to some original state, or for life in which we have been granted rights according to some social contract. I don’t hope for that. In fact, I don’t think utopia needs hope at all. Hope yearns for a future. Instead, we dream in place, in situ, in medias res, in layers in dimensional frequencies. The quality of being I find in the speculations considered here is about existence beyond life or death, about the ways in which we reach into the unknowable, outside the bounds of past, present, and future, of selfhood and other. This is what I call utopia: the moments when those of us untethered from the hope of rights, recognition, or redress here on earth celebrate ourselves as elements in a cosmic effluvium. (Brown, 2021 : 1–2)

The fifth engagement includes speculative and critical design practices that produce novel ways of thinking the future as a way of responding to specific ethico-political problems (see Cutting, Chap. 7 ; Fearns, Chap. 9 ). As with speculative fictions, such speculations are committed to a politics of this world in their inclination to problematise the kinds of questions that are possible to be posed within the conditions of the present (Malpass, 2013 ). We see such political propositions in the work that appears on the cover of this book; The Other Place by Olivier Cotsaftis: an urban architectural design that aims to open up different ways of speculating with the future of urban life besides the logics of limitless consumption and, we might add, beyond more troubling capitalistic ‘speculative urbanisms’ (see Woodworth, 2020 ; Leszczynski, 2016 ). As Cotsaftis argues (Chap. 3 ), speculative design pushes beyond the problem-solving practices within which design is often confined. Presenting instead a form of speculation that is not directed with utopian ideals, Cotsaftis’ images grasp at ‘alternative nows’ as ideas about social organisation and living that change what appears possible in the present. Far from the production of new possibilities ex nihilo , to focus on alternative nows means thinking speculations that arise instead, as Vyjayanthi Rao ( 2014 : 19) argues, out of an already existing “murky, indeterminate terrain of potential”.

The sixth and final engagement directly concerns the advancement of speculation and speculative thinking in philosophy. Whilst several philosophers undergo careful attention in this collection as speculative thinkers—including Irigaray (Fannin), Guattari (Burdon; Dawson), Haraway (Kraftl; Patchett), Derrida (Doel and Clarke), Borges (Doel and Clarke), and Spinoza (Gerlach)—most notable for us is to recognise a specific genealogy of speculative thinking linking Whitehead, William James, Stengers, Debaise, and Deleuze. Contrary to the tradition of speculative thinking in philosophy posited as a task of thinking outside of experience and thus beyond the empirical (Kant, 1998 ), this genealogy develops speculation as a precise task of producing abstractions that ‘thicken’ the category of experience (Debaise & Keating, 2021 ). If Kantian transcendental deduction insists on a split between noumena and phenomena—of the thing as it is and the thing as it is perceived—speculative reason would be something necessarily opposed to the practical and active. Pursuing something different, the genealogy we are turning to recuperates speculation by insisting that one of the most important problems today is to develop forms of speculative thinking so as to exclude nothing from experience. Whether through speculative reason (Whitehead, 1929 ), radical empiricism (James, 1996 ), in characterising immanence as “Spinoza’s speculative proposition” (Deleuze, 1980 ), or in the insistence of the possible (Debaise & Stengers, 2017 ), speculation emerges not as something that is ultimately superfluous or marginal to practical action but itself as a process that is precisely capable of problematising the conditions of the present and altering the limits of the calculative logics that characterise it (Wilkie et al., 2017 ). Here it is worth elaborating two of the ways this reading of speculation is detectable in philosophy and social theory today, and particularly how this mode of speculation comes to rethink what gets counted as the ‘empirical’ besides transcendental limits.

On the one hand, this genealogy is crystalised in the Speculative Turn (Bryant et al., 2011 ): a book developing the value of speculation across object-oriented, correlationist, and panpsychist modes of thought, amongst others. Whilst recognising the diverging approaches to speculative thinking housed within this turn (see Harman, 2011 ; Shaviro, 2014 ), at least part of the enthusiasm surrounding this speculative and object-oriented turn, as Povinelli ( 2016 : 84) notes, hinges on the sense that these conversations rethink the relationship between aesthetics and aesthesis to “provide us with a sense-perception of objects independent of our cognitive capture”. In doing so, this recent engagement with speculative thinking might be read as an attempt to stretch the categories of objects and matter beyond the logics of simple localisation that deem them inert, inoperative, and outside of the ontological.

On the other hand, this philosophical genealogy also gains expression today through the work of the Groupe d’études constructivistes founded by Stengers and Debaise. Different to the speculative turn, the work on speculation developed out of this group informs a commitment to questions of experience and the production of abstractions that speaks to a number of the ideas expressed by this collection. This community of speculative thought does not advance a new ontology of objects, but directly seeks to reappraise experience as central to a pluralistic universe that is already primed with alternative modes of living and thinking. At the forefront of this work is Stengers’ ( 2005 , 2006 ) revisitation of Whitehead and development of speculative thinking as it intersects diverse ecologies of practice (see also Landau, 2021 ; Puig de La Bellacasa, 2017; Savransky, 2021). Refusing to limit thought to toxic modern categories that poison our thinking, and paraphrasing her own appeal to Whitehead’s philosophy, we too are drawn to Stengers’ inventive style that dares “to propose that we [are] not prisoners of those categories” (Stengers, 2008a : 50–1).

One notable theoretical contribution here is the way Debaise develops this speculative genealogy through what he terms a ‘speculative empiricism’. Responding to a radical empiricist imperative to excluding nothing from experience, and drawing especially on Whitehead’s ( 1957 ) speculative philosophy, Debaise ( 2017 : 164) introduces speculative empiricism as a technical philosophy for contemplating experience besides all a priori limits and dualisms (perception vs the imperceptible, conscious vs unconscious thinking, intentional vs non-intentional, etc.). For Debaise, a speculative empiricism alters the kinds of questions philosophy is able to ask since “the speculative problem is constituted not by an analysis of perceptual experience, nor by a philosophical anthropology, nor by a relation to given experience, but rather by an approach to existence as such” ( 2017 : 116). In rethinking the metaphysical terms articulating existence, speculative empiricism responds to a tendency within Western philosophy to assume that the abstractions created to understand empirical things adequately qualify their ontological qualities and possibilities for experience. As Russell Duvernoy ( 2019 : 477) explains, the problem with abstractions in the context of a speculative empiricism is: “What gets left out is the way that vaguely felt or sensed intensities, not subsumable under a category of identity, drive our experience at a subrepresentative level”. Hence, the primary question of a speculative empiricism is to ask: “[t]o what extent do unexamined assumptions about conceptual abstraction hinder, block, or prefigure experiential attention?” (Duvernoy, 2019 : 460–461). Questioning the assumptions of abstraction, speculative empiricism insists on the risky imperative of constructing different lines of thought that attend to those elements of experience that are disqualified and deemed not worth paying attention to.

How To Think Abstractions?

At the beginning of this introduction, we suggested that speculation is geographical. This claim goes beyond disciplinary implications—we are arguing that speculating is geographical because it demands considered investments in the relations between thinking and the earthly. Speculating is to think-practice the force of abstractions as they register, differently, across various terrains and have the power to transform those settings. Here we delve into this practice of thinking abstractions as a speculative and pragmatic affair concerned with the consequences of abstractions—how they configure the frameworks for evaluating experience and offer opportunities for what Savransky ( 2021 : 25) refers to as a “situated art of noticing”. Speculation, in this manner, is thus pertinent for intensifying aspects of events that dominant abstractions demand we overlook: it “stipulates that we must reject the right to disqualify” (Debaise & Stengers, 2017 : 15).

Abstractions extract and generalise certain peculiarities or resonances in the world out of broader processes, and therefore enable a consistency of perception in grouping together the disparate in the form of the individual or the similar. As such, we cannot think without abstractions. And yet, abstractions also limit thought when such suppositions are deemed to have a self-evidence that gets mistaken for the reality that they represent (see Jeyasingh, Chap. 10 )—what Whitehead ( 1948 ) describes as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. This is why Whitehead insists on greater vigilance over abstractions arguing that “a civilisation which cannot burst through its current abstractions is doomed to sterility” ( 1948 : 59), or “produces minds in a groove” (p. 196). Thus the task of Whitehead’s philosophy, as Tom Roberts argues, “is to create concepts that go beyond the specialised ‘grooves’ of professionalised knowledge practices” ( 2014 : 973).

Whilst Whitehead ( 1948 : 59) maintains that it is philosophy that is the critic of abstractions, the call to be vigilant over abstractions is one that Derek McCormack ( 2012 : 716) has extended in order “to affirm the value of a differentiated sense of abstraction for geographical thinking and research in a world where what counts as lived space is arguably becoming increasingly complex”. Such vigilance is critical if we are to better come to terms with the present in which it has become increasingly apparent that our abstractions, as Debaise and Keating ( 2021 ) discuss, have “become machines that have run empty”. The very stakes of this problematic, and precisely why abstractions come to matter in determining not just theoretical choices but what forms of experience are made possible, are explicated by Susanne Langer when writing that:

The formulation of experience which is contained within the intellectual horizon of an age and a society is determined, I believe, not so much by events and desires, as by the basic concepts at people’s disposal for analyzing and describing their adventures to their own understanding. (Langer, 1978 : 6)

Abstractions in Langer’s account are the conceptual possibilities of an intellectual horizon that condition experience: abstractions matter for determining what, in an era, it is possible to think. The inverse of this is that abstractions equally determine what is made impossible and what is disqualified. To ‘think’ abstractions, then, to take care of what they do and what they restrict—it is to encounter the force of concepts as they effectuate different resonances and different ways of thinking and living. Indeed, as Debaise ( 2017 : 23) argues, “it would be no exaggeration to see Whitehead’s philosophy as one of the boldest attempts to give abstractions a fundamental role in experience. Abstractions are neither representations nor generalizations of empirical state of affairs but constructions ”. Thinking abstractions, therefore, is a far cry from a mode of ‘lofty thinking’ divorced from a material politics of this world. Equally, thinking abstractions is not merely concerned with circulating new neologisms. To flesh out this position, in what follows we propose that thinking abstractions must instead dismantle the opposition between subjective knowledge and objective fact ; fold together theory and practice ; and, consequently, reconfigure modes of evaluation.

Principally for Whitehead, speculation is a task of developing abstractions that are distinct from the closed perspectives of either primary brute facts or, on the other hand, secondary values. One way to understand this task is the way Whitehead identifies the bifurcation of nature into two distinct realities as a disastrous abstraction for thought. “Another way of phrasing this theory which I am arguing against”, Whitehead writes, “is to bifurcate nature into two divisions, namely into the nature apprehended in awareness and the nature which is the cause of awareness” ( 1964 : 30). Modern thought, for Whitehead, has been determined according to a bifurcation of nature that results in a tendency to explain away that which does not coincide with scientific materialism as simply subjective, secondary qualities. As Stengers argues ( 2006 : 1), this Modern abstraction of nature is reducible to either the values we assign to it through perception (such as, for Whitehead, the red glow of a sunset) or the “dull affair” of material obeying laws of nature (such as the molecules and electric waves through which scientists explain a sunset). Reacting against the bifurcation of nature, Whitehead dismantles this opposition between subjective knowledges and objective facts. As Whitehead continues:

The nature which is the fact apprehended in awareness holds within it the greenness of the trees, the song of the birds, the warmth of the sun, the hardness of the chairs, and the feel of the velvet. The nature which is the cause of awareness is the conjectured system of molecules and electrons which so affects the mind as to produce the awareness of apparent nature. The meeting point of these two natures is the mind, the causal nature being influent and the apparent nature being effluent. (Whitehead, 1964 : 31)

In this proposition Whitehead signals a particularly exciting possibility for thought where, and speaking now in our reflections as cultural geography researchers, we frequently run up against empirical occasions that expose “the sheer ugliness of the opposition between valid, rational knowledge and mere subjective opinion” (Stengers, 2018 : 414). For instance, J.D. Dewsbury ( 2000 ) responds precisely to this problem when staging the intuitive utterances of the ‘performative’—whether in the theatre or scenes of social action—“where the unfounded and unmediated status of becoming is valorised such that society (the objective) and the individual (subjective) are simultaneously enacting a conjunct substantiality” (p. 488). Following Whitehead, we might also refuse in pedagogical spaces to capitulate to the terms of the supposedly more valid objective knowledge of scientific materialism. Crucially, as Stengers ( 2018 : 409) attests, “this is not a formula for a conquering enlightenment but for a cautious, relational exploration, and a situated one, as the effects are never ‘objectively’ good or bad, but are not ‘only subjective’ either”. Whitehead’s philosophy offers a radical refusal of this distinction between the false alternative of subjective and objective that is neither concerned with fading into a universal totality nor clinging to the relativistic knowledge of subjectivity.

In refusing this false alternative of the subjective and objective, the call to think abstractions must apprehend thought within the fields in which they gain resonance, to fold together theory and practice . This does not privilege epistemology at the expense of ontology, as with Cartesian, Kantian or phenomenological traditions that tend to be concerned with what we can know at the expense of questions about what there is. Instead, as Steven Shaviro shows, Whitehead adopts a radically speculative position: “I do not come to know a world of things outside myself. Rather, I discover—which is to say, I feel —that I myself, together with things that go beyond my knowledge of them, are all alike inhabitants of a ‘common world’” (Shaviro, 2014 : 3). Here, ideas and abstractions come about through engagements with the world, a folding together of theory and practice, such that any speculative adventure, as David Rousell ( 2021 : 1) suggests, must refuse “to cleave the activities of thought from the activities of sensing, feeling, moving, and living”. Philosophy after Whitehead is thus a matter of feeling as knowing. In exposing the limits of disqualifying, empty categories, thinking abstractions involves an intensification of experience vis-à-vis the potential manners through which we apprehend it, which become indistinguishable from each other. As Andrew Lapworth ( 2015 : 5) argues, “Whitehead’s philosophy thus implicates the becoming of thought and bodies within the world’s material process, re-directing our attention towards ecologies of nascent abstractions that present opportunities for creative experiment with different immanent forces and potentials”. Thinking abstractions, here, arises as a method of experimenting with ideas in their emergence by way of practices, to sense difference within repetition as Merle Patchett ( 2016 ) writes.

What, in other words, thinking abstractions necessitates, is an enquiry into modes of evaluation How do we register the force of events according to that which is possible to articulate within certain framings? Which concepts become inscribed and reinscribed as part of the apprehension of experience—and, accordingly, at what point do those concepts run empty? What becomes unknowable or unsayable due to the absences within epistemic habits? Perhaps too, how do we negotiate (and value) the multiplicity of possibilities and alternatives that speculative reason calls to attention? Exposing the limits of critique, whilst also necessarily pursuing its own mode of evaluation, speculation demands that we rethink versions of events that had appeared fixed or singular according to ready-made values and abstractions. At the same time, as a new mode of evaluation—now more situated and immanent—speculation might register the alternatives of such events. Evaluation itself, as Williams ( 2022 : 11) suggests, must speculate with its own pluralism, thus “holding open the possibility that something different might arise out of this world or this event”.

The Collection

The collection is grouped into themes which situate this speculative imperative to think abstractions across three domains: ethics, technologies, aesthetics. In what follows, we tease out each of these themes both as possible trajectories for extending the ethos of the book, and to introduce how the chapters in the collection amplify these problematics as components of speculative geographies. The allocation of chapters across these themes is not meant to be exhaustive, and we encourage readers to engage each of these works with a spirit of speculation attuned to what other framings, interpretations, and connections are possible.

This first theme of the book is concerned with an impulse to take care of the alternative as a way of pluralising experience. Such a focus demands a speculative ethics engaged with the ways “categorical abstractions are something we may fabricate in order for them to fabricate us” (Stengers, 2008a : 51). Taking care of the alternative is a practice of holding open the possibility that we might be able to think the world differently; the point being that the bounds of our ways of thinking are not set in stone. A speculative ethics, in this way, is also a question of analysis and evaluation: it is about how we register the force of the possible as constitutive to what appears materially concrete in the environments we inhabit (Williams & Collet, 2021 ; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017 ). In holding open the possibility of the alternative, Whitehead is resolute in his claim that speculation has been the salvation of the world, for speculation “made systems and then transcended them” (Whitehead, 1929 : 76). What is striking about this sentiment is that it demonstrates a mode of speculation capable of transcending already existing evaluative frames and abstractions, but without itself ever become transcendent .

To consider this claim further we turn to the notion of speculative ethics advanced by Maria Puig de la Bellacasa as “everyday ecological doings” ( 2017 : 22), which she contrasts with the transcendent “moralism of anthropocentric ethics” (p. 13). For Puig de la Bellacasa, it is through speculation that we might cultivate forms of ethics beyond the myth of transcendent truths and universalising moralism, which has been catastrophic in its location of ethics in terms of human life rather than across ecological systems, and is moreover deadly in its privileging of particular human lives over others. Speculative ethics, rather than moralistic judgements, as Joe Gerlach suggests, can be “considered an ongoing and experimental speculation in how to generate—and attend to—different forms, atmospheres, spaces, affects, bodies, and materialities of existence” ( 2020 : 200).

Let us be clear that this is as much about conceptual possibilities as it is about cultivating practical possibilities in the form of new behaviours and activities. We would go so far as to say that the two are inseparable for, as Whitehead argues, “[a]s we think, we live” ( 1968 : 63). As Melanie Sehgal suggests ( 2014 ), we might see Whitehead as cultivating a renewed form of ethics that is concerned with being lured into non-conformity with environments that shape us according to modern habits of thought. Speculative ethics, therefore, is a mode of thought capable of getting us outside of the toxicity of dominant abstractions in order to construct different ways of knowing and living.

Situated as part of this question of ethics, in Chap. 2 Jayna Brown develops an ethics of terraformation capable of troubling assumptions about humans and their relationship with broader ecologies. Turning to the speculative visions of Black and Indigenous women directors, Brown suggests that—at a time of planetary crises—possibilities for renewal must involve reconceiving the very criteria through which the human is defined. Brown traces a connection between the racial, gendered, and ableist category of the human within European thought, and the expression terra nullius , in order to problematise the role of this violent abstraction in colonial devastation.

In Chap. 3 , Olivier Cotsaftis presents The Other Place : a speculative ‘urban heterotopia’ that problematises resource-intensive and human-centred forms of urban design and living. Commencing with a discussion of Foucault’s concept of heterotopia, Cotsaftis examines the innovations staged through a series of experimental cities and the possibilities for urban life they give rise to. Recognising a certain failure of these examples, however, Cotsaftis emphasises the potential for biophilic design principles as well a ‘pluriversal’ politics. A central proposition of the chapter, and one which we might consider a form of speculative ethics, is to insist on the importance of a practice of thinking the alternative as part of speculative architectural and urban design.

In Chap. 4 , Marcus Doel and David Clarke question the pursuit of speculative geographies through the writing of Jacques Derrida and Jorge Luis Borges, amongst others. In doing so they evocatively address how Zeno’s paradoxes provide ways of thinking relations of space and time that are no longer defined in terms of their real or speculative qualities. The authors foreground an impossible space and time that endures in spite of both British idealist attempts to position movement and space in terms of its ‘unreality’, and in recent attempts to think space and time as relational and speculative; neither satisfy Zeno’s paradoxes, leaving behind only a certain unthinkability of space and time.

In Chap. 5 , Joe Gerlach proffers a gentle insistence on Spinoza’s passion as capable of intensifying the ethical import of the speculative. Putting forth the unique coupling of Whitehead’s process philosophy and Spinoza’s substantialist monism, Gerlach suggests that both thinkers practice an attentive ethics: “to dismiss nothing from their enquiries, but to instead afford the same philosophical dignity and gentleness to all modes, material and immaterial”. Speculative ethics, here, is indebted to a commitment to passion and passionate forms of reason—a technique for confronting false problems, which emphasises that how one conceives of, and negotiates, the problem of the false problem matters.

Problematising the idea that speculation is reducible to ‘practico-theoretical tools’, in Chap. 6 , Carlota de La Herrán Iriarte insists that speculation must become an experimental, micro-subjective venture if it is to amplify the pre-cursive, and not pre-meditative, registers of the world. The chapter draws primarily on the notion of faith within the radical empiricism of William James, and skirts around the speculative question of what it might mean to take a leap of faith—as one such experimental venture. Constructing some precise opportunities for such an approach, de La Herrán Iriarte theorises three speculative dispositions which engender a particular openness towards novel and unforeseen connections.

Technologies

The second theme aims to grasp the force of speculation as it arises through particular technologies and techniques, wherein speculation is understood to be modified, at least in part, by the operations and mediations of technical things capable of enacting certain kinds of spatio-temporal exteriorisation. The motivation here is to explore what kinds of techniques and technologies might complicate dominant abstractions that risk disqualifying and deadening experience. This attention to the technological is critical because, if speculative thinking comes to refer just to the speculations of a particular subject, we might ask: what privileges are enforced when researchers appeal to the importance of their singular views? Our aim to understand speculation besides the interiority of the subject is thus because the alternative approach tends to locate speculative thinking within human experience—experience that, more often than not, is itself primarily derived from exteriorisations of technical processes of perception (Stiegler, 2010 ).

In arguing that speculation is not limited to the perceptive registers of human subjects, we are thus interested in exploring the interconnections between speculative thinking, technological systems, and experimental techniques. There are a number of ways in which we can gauge the significance of this focus. For example, when in Cosmopolitics I Stengers ( 2010 ) develops the idea that the ‘neutrino’ particle has a paradoxical mode of existence, in doing so she is not just merely drawing attention to the non-objectivity of scientific knowledge practices but is instead developing the case for thinking the neutrino as a technological speculative entity par excellence. As Stengers observes, the neutrino—this “genuinely phantom particle, which ignores walls and barriers”—is of interest, at least in part, because it is “an object that is difficult to observe” ( 2010 : 21). On one level, the neutrino is difficult to observe because it exists in an empirical reality in the sense that it is something made evidencable through certain technologies of observation: the neutrino requires “an enormous number of instruments, interpretations, and references to other particles” (Stengers,  2010 : 21) that makes it possible for this theoretical particle’s existence (its mass) to be classified as part of the empirical real. And yet, on another level, the neutrino exists in a speculative reality that is something open to certain kinds of theoretical thinking prior to its discovery as a thing with an observable mass: the neutrino “had been postulated, for theoretical-aesthetic reasons of symmetry and conservation, long before the means for ‘detecting’ it were created” (Stengers, 2010 : 21–22). Insofar as it had been postulated, theorised, and used operationally in technical thinking prior to its actual discovery as an observable entity, the neutrino is a unique way of thinking about how technologies offer opportunities to mediate abstractions that engage in different modes of thinking the experiential. As one instance of thinking the interconnections between speculation, technologies, and techniques, then, the process of thinking the unobserved neutrino in a speculative reality is possible precisely because it involves the technological production, movement, and circulation of certain abstractions .

In Chap. 7 , Kieran Cutting presents how a workshop card game acts as a set of deterritorialising forces and techniques that modifies a subject’s sense of the future. The chapter theorises the notion of ‘speculative praxis’ by turning to Deleuzian engagements with speculation in the context of youth workshops organised in collaboration with UK charities. Uniquely, by considering some of the productive tensions between capitalist realism (‘there are no alternatives’) and speculative praxis (‘other futures are possible’), the chapter gathers impressions of other material futures: futures that, whilst being enacted through the semiotics and affects of the card game, remain stubbornly irreducible to pre-conceived calculative logics.

In Chap. 8 , Maria Fannin questions how traditional notions of time become modified by technologies of gamete freezing that are able “to arrest, reset, and restart the time of fertility”. Advancing this as a practice of speculative reproduction, the chapter advances the concept of ‘speculative time’ as a way to understand precisely how speculative reproduction involves certain leveraging of human biological risk. Problematising the idea that speculative time would merely reinforce neoliberal logics, Fannin argues that a more affirmative reading is possible through the emerging possibilities speculative reproduction offers for “non-normative reproductive arrangements”.

In Chap. 9 , Vera Fearns examines the potential of speculative design in education, and specifically for the task of thinking about planetary futures. The chapter presents a set of immersive and experiential activities that took place as part of the NeoRural Futures summer school in Rome in 2019—including examining resources for ‘signals’ as matters on the margins of dominant modes of thought, and constructing figurative ‘amulets’ as speculative technologies for future scenarios. The chapter thus seeks to reinvigorate traditions of both speculation and educational work via a commitment to aesthetic and embodied practices, which are capable of making the abstract seem more immediate.

In Chap. 10 , Tara Elisabeth Jeyasingh brings Deleuze’s concept of fabulation together with Berberian Sound Studio by Peter Strickland, a film notable for its playful illumination of Foley work—the post-production tactic whereby a film’s sound effects are re-created through various materials for the purpose of enhancing audio quality. Challenging the idea that Foley work is valuable simply as a means of creating more accurate encounters with the sounds of cinema, Jeyasingh demonstrates how the audio-image of Berberian Sound Studio mediates between reality and unreality and, in so doing, poses speculative questions about the generative potential of cinematic encounters in producing a people to come.

In Chap. 11 , Thomas Keating asks, ‘what remains of nuclear remains when the human no longer remains?’. In doing so, the chapter considers how the concept of remains opens thought up to the speculative qualities and materialities of nuclear waste. Arguing for a speculative empirical approach to thinking nuclear waste futures, the chapter focuses on the way nuclear semiotics—specifically, the Spike Field nuclear marker concept by Safdar Abidi and Michael Brill—highlights the value of pre-individual expressions of sense, which may prove important for transferring memory of nuclear permanent geological repositories for nuclear waste 100,000 years into the future.

In Chap. 12 , Peter Kraftl thinks speculatively about geographies of childhoods, plastics and other ‘stuff’. Drawing on Haraway’s ( 2011 ) speculative fabulation, the chapter evokes two events: on the one hand, an event of sculpture making from scavenged plastic and, on the other hand, a gathering and analysing of microplastics through nanoscience biosampling. Across these events what emerges is a way of making palpable, at different registers of experience, the multiple entanglements of a child’s life with plastics. Significantly, the chapter attends to plastics as technologies for constructing different stories that, through their performative manifestation, produce alternative dispositions for thinking human and nonhuman life differently.

The final theme explores the styles of thought within artistic and creative practices that, like any proposition in Whitehead’s terms, serve to lure feeling . In following Whitehead, as Lapworth suggests, “we might reframe the transformative potential of art in terms of its capacity to disrupt habitual modes of experience, acting to “lure” thinking and feeling beyond the representational territories of the already familiar” ( 2015 : 4). To be clear, ‘feelings’ for Whitehead are not limited to conscious states: “they strive towards the feeler, towards the subject, and yet they do so only insofar as the latter is presented as a virtual form of existence” (Debaise, 2017 : 70). In this section, we consider aesthetics as a domain that is uniquely capable of intensifying or animating such virtual forms of subjectivity.

We want to insist on a certain coupling between such manners of intensification and the abstractions available across histories of practices. Tarrying with the task of thinking abstractions, speculative aesthetics is concerned with the particular problems that are being animated by the arts, such as the universes of reference (values, norms, institutional codes, etc.) that characterise a given era or milieu. To give an example: in the context of the genre of ‘abstract art’ of the twentieth century the predominant problem will likely be that representational painting does not get at the experiential—indeed, we might argue that it is owing to a refusal to represent ‘reality’ in any concrete way that abstract art transforms virtual subjectivities. The activity of looking at a painting and being modestly transformed, then, is always scaffolded according to a whole other set of abstractions that permeate an artwork in ways that are not necessarily visible or recognisable. Such scaffolds might be an encounter with impressionism, the beauty ascribed to geometry in Greek philosophy, or the unacknowledged influence of non-European art.

Lures for feeling within aesthetic practice are situated then—they inherit a history and a socio-cultural context—and, thus, it is imperative to acknowledge how aesthetic transformations are conditioned according to the abstractions of a particular milieu, and also to examine the particular problems that animate those aesthetic practices. And yet, such practices are also irreducible to their singular situation. Returning to the proposition of feeling with which we started this theme, they are irreducible to a particular situation because they animate virtual subjectivities and sensibilities. A vital proposition as part of speculative aesthetics then, as Stengers suggests, is to “say why you choose to tell, or to do, this, on this precise occasion … do not shield yourself behind general justifications that block pragmatic imagination, the envisagement of the kinds of difference this choice is liable to make here and now” (Stengers, 2008b : 29).

In Chap. 13 , George Burdon insists on the importance of Felix Guattari’s philosophy for speculative thought insofar as it challenges us to think outside of the comfortable and predictable style of thinking that he terms ‘common sense’. Common sense, for Burdon, is at the core of a contemporary spirit of cynicism by which thought recuperates the similar over the greater challenge of harbouring the different and the unforeseen. Introducing us to the sonic experiments of Irish composer Jennifer Walshe, Burdon alerts us to the generative potentials of novel incorporeal universes—what we might conceive as lures of feeling—emergent through aesthetic practices.

Also turning to Guattari, in Chap. 14 Oliver Dawson theorises the notion of ecosophic acts of feeling as speculative and aesthetic intensifications of experience. Dawson presents an encounter with artist and poet Sophie Herxheimer, whose poems, collages, and cuttings, Dawson suggests, pivot more on a certain transformation rather than any imitation of a world ‘out there’ and, as such, expand what counts as experience. Deftly weaving together vignettes of Herxheimer’s work with the ecosophy of Guattari, as well as theorisations of Amerindian animist subjectivities, Dawson makes explicit a speculative propensity of aesthetics to produce intensities with which to feel the future into the present.

In Chap. 15 , Merle Patchett advances speculative taxidermy as a pedagogical tool for thinking in risky and creative ways about histories and futures beyond the human. Patchett takes us through a speculative workshop of artefacts of the plumage trade, including pages from fashion or anthropological magazines, a piece of Paradisaea apparel, and natural history illustrations—all of which themselves played a key part in the formation of the particularly peculiar abstraction of the Apoda myth: a legless, perpetually in-flight, bird-of-paradise. Working through these materials, the chapter problematises the erasure of Indigenous knowledge and names in scientific nomenclature, and offers alternate ways of re-writing and re-enchanting human-avian histories.

In Chap. 16 , David Rousell, Michael Gallagher, and Mark Peter Wright present the Listening Body: a series of experimental sound walks organised with children attending a community arts programme in Manchester, UK. In retelling this series of events, the authors demonstrate how learning can take place speculatively through shifting affective atmospheres that are irreducible to singular enclosure since they envelop bodies, environments, histories, discourses, feelings, sensations, and ideas. There is, moreover, a micropolitical intervention highlighted here, where—in discussing some acts of humorous rebellion by the participants—the authors recognise how sonic experiments might disrupt spaces of pedagogical authority and social stratification.

In Chap. 17 , Rachael Wakefield-Rann and Thomas Lee survey the dominant abstractions used to define dust and soil since the nineteenth century. Whether understood as amorphous containers of other (unhygienic) things, and despite research into the composition of these substances during the technoscientific orientation at the molecular scale in the twentieth century, the authors maintain that dust and soil are not readily sensed or specified. In response, they turn to citizen-sensing projects that make the microbial dynamics of these substances more legible. Introducing ‘exposme’ and ‘senstance’—concepts that might lure different ways of feeling—Wakefield-Rann and Lee speculatively transform how we think about soil and dust.

Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34 (6), 777–798.

Google Scholar  

Ash, J. (2017). Phase media: Space, time and the politics of smart objects . Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Bahng, A. (2017). Plasmoidial improprieties: Octavia E. Butler, Slime molds, and imagining a Femi-Queer commons. In C. Cipolla, K. Gupta, D. A. Rubin, & A. Willey (Eds.), Queer feminist science studies (pp. 310–326). University of Washington Press.

Bahng, A. (2018). Migrant futures: Decolonizing speculation in financial times . Duke University Press.

Barry, K., Duffy, M., & Lobo, M. (2021). Speculative listening: Melting sea ice and new methods of listening with the planet. Global Discourse, 11 (1–2), 115–129.

Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter . Duke University Press.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman . Polity Press.

Brigstocke, J., & Noorani, T. (2016). Posthuman attunements: Aesthetics, authority and the arts of creative listening. GeoHumanities, 2 (1), 1–7.

Brown, J. (2021). Black utopias: Speculative life and the music of other worlds . Duke University Press.

Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism . Re.press.

Clark, N., & Yusoff, K. (2017). Geosocial formations and the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture and Society, 34 (2–3), 3–23.

Connolly, W. E. (2019). Climate machines, fascist drives, and truth . Duke University Press.

de Freitas, E., & Truman, S. E. (2021). New empiricisms in the Anthropocene: Thinking with speculative fiction about science and social inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27 (5), 522–533.

Debaise, D. (2017). Speculative empiricism: Revisiting whitehead . Edinburgh University Press.

Debaise, D. & Keating, T. (2021). Speculative empiricism, nature and the question of predatory abstractions: A conversation with didier debaise. Theory, Culture and Society (pp. 1–15).

Debaise, D., & Stengers, I. (2017). The insistence of possibles: towards a speculative pragmatism. Parse Journal, 7 , 12–19.

DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity . Continuum.

Deleuze, G. (1980). Spinoza: The velocities of thought seminar . https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/seminars/spinoza-velocities-thought/lecture-01 .

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Verso.

Dewsbury, J. D. (2000). Performativity and the event: Enacting a philosophy of difference. Environment and Planning: Society and Space, 18 , 473–496.

Doel, M. A. (2004). Waiting for geography. Environment and Planning A, 36 (3), 451–460.

Duvernoy, R. J. (2019). A genesis of speculative empiricisms: Whitehead and Deleuze read Hume. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 57 (4), 459–482.

Engelmann, S. (2020). Sensing art in the atmosphere: Elemental lures and aerosolar practices . Routledge.

Enigbokan, A., & Patchett, M. (2012). Speaking with specters: Experimental geographies in practice. Cultural Geographies, 19 (4), 535–546.

Eshun, K. (2018). More brilliant than the sun: Adventures in sonic fiction . Verso.

Gabrys, J. (2019). Sensing a planet in crisis. Media + Environment, 1 (1), 1–6.

Gallagher, M., Kanngieser, A., & Prior, J. (2017). Listening geographies: Landscape, affect and geotechnologies. Progress in Human Geography, 41 (5), 618–637.

Gerlach, J. (2020). A brief word on ethics. GeoHumanities, 6 (1), 199–204.

Gerlach, J., & Jellis, T. (2015). Guattari: Impractical philosophy. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5 (2), 131–148.

Grosz, E. (2011). Becoming undone . Duke University Press.

Hallward, P. (2006). Out of this World: Deleuze and the philosophy of creation . Verso.

Haraway, D. (2000). How like a leaf: An interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve/Donna J. Haraway . Routledge.

Haraway, D. (2011). Speculative fabulations for technoculture’s generations: Taking care of unexpected country. Australian Humanities Review, 50 , 1–18.

Haraway, D. (2013). SF: Science fiction, speculative fabulation, string figures, so far. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology (3). doi: https://doi.org/10.7264/N3KH0K81 .

Harman, G. (2011). Response to Shaviro. In L. Bryant et al. (Eds.), The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism (pp. 291–303). Re.press.

Harrison, P. (2007). “How shall I say it…?” Relating the nonrelational. Environment and Planning A, 39 (3), 590–608.

Jackson, M. (2021). On decolonizing the Anthropocene: Disobedience via plural constitutions. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111 (3), 698–708.

Jackson, M., & Fannin, M. (2011). Letting geography fall where it may: Aerographies address the elemental. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29 (3), 435–444.

James, W. (1996). Essays in radical empiricism . University of Nebraska Press.

Kanngieser, A., & Todd, Z. (2020). From environmental case study to environmental kin. History and Theory, 59 (3), 385–393.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason : translated and edited by P. Guyer, & A. W. Wood. Cambridge University Press.

Katz, C. (1994). Playing the field: Questions of fieldwork in geography. The Professional Geographer, 46 (1), 67–72.

Keating, T. (2019). Pre-individual affects: Gilbert Simondon and the individuation of relation. Cultural Geographies, 26 (2), 211–226.

Landau, D. (2021). Images and places sense as surfacing . Doctoral thesis (pp. 1–217). University of the West of England.

Langer, S. (1978). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art . Harvard University Press.

Lapworth, A. (2015). Beyond bifurcation: Thinking the abstractions of art-science after AN Whitehead. Transformation, 26 (5), 1–12.

Lapworth, A. (2020). Gilbert Simondon and the technical mentalities and transindividual affects of art-science. Body and Society, 26 (1), 107–134.

Leszczynski, A. (2016). Speculative futures: Cities, data, and governance beyond smart urbanism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48 (9), 1691–1708.

Malpass, M. (2013). Between Wit and reason: Defining associative, speculative, and critical design in practice. Design and Culture, 5 (3), 333–356.

Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the Act: Passages in the ecology of experience . University of Minnesota Press.

Marder, M. (2013). Plant-thinking: A philosophy of vegetal life . Columbia University Press.

Massey, D. (1999). Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship between physical geography and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24 (3), 261–276.

McCormack, D. (2012). Geography and abstraction: Towards an affirmative critique. Progress in Human Geography, 36 (6), 715–734.

McCormack, D. (2017). Stratospheric envelopes: Notes for a speculative mode of atmospheric address. Geohumanities, 3 (2).

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world . University of Minnesota Press.

Müller, M. (2021). Worlding geography: From linguistic privilege to decolonial anywheres. Progress in Human Geography, 45 (6), 1440–1466.

Oswin, N. (2020). An other geography. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10 (1), 9–18.

Parisi, L. (2012). Speculation: A method for the unattainable. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive methods: The happening of the social (pp. 246–258). Routledge.

Patchett, M. (2016). The taxidermist’s apprentice: Stitching together the past and present of a craft practice. Cultural Geographies, 23 (3), 401–419.

Povinelli, E. A. (2016). Geontologies . Duke University Press.

Pritchard, H., & Gabrys, J. (2016). From citizen sensing to collective monitoring: Working through the perceptive and affective problematics of environmental pollution. GeoHumanities, 2 (2), 354–371.

Puig de La Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds . University of Minnesota Press.

Rao, V. V. (2014). Speculation, now. In V. V. Rao, P. Krishnamurthy, & C. Kuoni (Eds.), Speculation now (pp. 14–26). Duke University Press.

Roberts, T. (2014). From things to events: Whitehead and the materiality of process. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32 , 968–983.

Roberts, T., & Dewsbury, J. D. (2021). Vital aspirations for geography in an era of negativity: Valuing life differently with Deleuze. Progress in Human Geography, 45 , 1512–1530.

Rousell, D. (2021). Immersive cartography and post-qualitative inquiry: A speculative adventure in research-creation . Routledge.

Savransky, M. (2018). Introduction: Isabelle Stengers and the dramatization of philosophy. SubStance, 47 (1), 3–16.

Savransky, M. (2021). Around the Day in Eighty Worlds: Politics of the Pluriverse . Duke University Press.

Savransky, M., Wilkie, A., & Rosengarten, M. (2017). The lure of possible futures: On speculative research. In A. Wilkie, M. Savransky, & M. Rosengarten (Eds.), Speculative research: The lure of possible futures (pp. 1–18). Routledge.

Sehgal, M. (2014). Diffractive propositions: Reading Alfred North Whitehead with Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. Parallax, 20 (3), 188–201.

Sharpe, S., Dewsbury, J. D., & Hynes, M. (2014). The minute interventions of Stewart Lee: The affirmative conditions of possibility in comedy, repetition and affect. Performance Research, 19 (2), 116–125.

Shaviro, S. (2014). The universe of things: On speculative realism . University of Minnesota Press.

Simpson, P. (2020). Non-representational theory . Routledge.

Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11 (1), 183–196.

Stengers, I. (2006). Whitehead and science: From philosophy of nature to speculative cosmology . McGill University.

Stengers, I. (2008a). Experimenting with refrains: Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism. Subjectivity, 22 (1), 38–59.

Stengers, I. (2008b). Thinking with Deleuze and Whitehead: A Double Test. In K. Robinson (Ed.), Deleuze, Whitehead, Bergson: Rhizomatic connections (pp. 28–44). Palgrave Macmillan.

Stengers, I. (2010). Cosmopolitics (Vol. 1) . University of Minnesota Press.

Stengers, I. (2015). In catastrophic times: Resisting the coming barbarism . Open Humanities Press.

Stengers, I. (2018). Aude Sapere: Dare Betray the testator’s demands. Parallax, 24 (4), 406–415.

Stiegler, B. (2010). Technics and time, 3: Cinematic time and the question of malaise . Stanford University Press.

Straughan, E. R., Bissell, D., & Gorman-Murray, A. (2020). Exhausting rhythms: The intimate geopolitics of resource extraction. Cultural Geographies, 27 (2), 201–216.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world . Princeton University Press.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2014). Cannibal metaphysics . Univocal.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The function of reason . Beacon Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1948). Science and the modern world . Pelican.

Whitehead, A. N. (1957). Process and reality . Macmillan.

Whitehead, A. N. (1964). The Concept of Nature . Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1968). Modes of thought . The Free Press.

Wilkie, A. (2018). Speculating. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, M. Michael, & E. Uprichard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods (pp. 347–351). Routledge.

Wilkie, A., Savransky, M., & Rosengarten, M. (2017). Speculative research: The lure of possible futures . Routledge.

Williams, N. (2022). The problem of critique in art-geography: Five propositions for immanent evaluation after Deleuze. Cultural Geographies, 29 (3), 335–352.

Williams, N., & Collet, C. (2021). Biodesign and the allure of “grow-made” textiles: An interview with Carole Collet. GeoHumanities, 7 (1), 345–357.

Woodward, K. (2016). The speculative geography of Orson Welles. Cultural Geographies, 23 (2), 337–356.

Woodworth, M. (2020). Picturing urban China in ruin: “Ghost City” photography and speculative urbanization. GeoHumanities, 6 (2), 233–251.

Wylie, J. (2007). The spectral geographies of WG Sebald. Cultural Geographies, 14 (2), 171–188.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Science, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Nina Williams

Department of Thematic Studies (TEMA), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Thomas Keating

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Williams .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Authors

About this chapter

Williams, N., Keating, T. (2022). From Abstract Thinking to Thinking Abstractions: Introducing Speculative Geographies. In: Williams, N., Keating, T. (eds) Speculative Geographies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0691-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0691-6_1

Published : 04 November 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-0690-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-0691-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Apply code CARE20 to start therapy with 20% off .

The development of concrete and abstract thinking patterns.

Try therapy tailored to your unique needs

Thinking is cognitive activity when we consciously use our brains to make sense of the world around us and choose how to respond to it. We develop our ability to think at an early age, so we often take it for granted, but it’s a very complex process that makes us what we are.

Young children tend to think of their world in concrete ways, learning facts about objects they have encountered and their own experiences. But as they grow and mature , children develop abstract thinking patterns that allow them to see a bigger picture, think beyond just the “here and now,” and reflect on events and ideas.

Fully grown-up adults can adopt their styles of thinking according to the demands of the environment, depending on the situations and contexts, although some people may have difficulty with abstract thinking. So here, we’ll talk about the difference between abstract vs. concrete thinking and provide you with some tips on how to develop abstract reasoning skills.

What is abstract thinking ?

Abstract thinking can be defined as the ability to think about complex concepts and ideas without being tied to specific examples, experiences, situations, objects, and people. It is considered a type of high-order thinking because it’s more complicated than other styles of thinking that are centered around real-life facts and information based on data.

Abstract thinking allows us to absorb information from our senses, process it, and connect it to a wider world . As a result, abstract thinkers can reflect on events and ideas as well as attributes and relationships separate from the real-life objects that share those relationships or have those attributes.

Abstract thinking also allows us to exercise creativity, think critically, and solve problems in unique ways even if there isn’t enough existing knowledge. Examples of abstract thinking include using humor in conversations, being hopeful in tough situations , recognizing that the value of things is defined by what we place on them, etc.

We use abstract thinking in different aspects of our daily lives, for example, when we:

• Describe something using metaphor or analogy
• Analyze situations and come up with creative solutions
• Notice patterns and relationships between objects, events, and processes
• Continue to explore options in a situation after we have found a resolution
• Consider someone else’s point of view
• Predict something based on available information and our thoughts

Abstract thinking vs. concrete thinking

Abstract thinking and concrete thinking are opposite approaches. Concrete thinking is closely connected to objects and experiences that we can observe directly . Concrete thinkers perceive things that are present physically around them through their senses (smell, sight, sound, taste, and touch) and interpret them as they are. Whatever can be seen, heard, smelt, or touched is analyzed at a superficial level, but concrete thinkers don’t generalize information to other meanings and situations and don’t establish further connections.

Abstract thinking goes deeper and allows us to make generalizations and classify objects and experiences . It’s a form of abstract reasoning when we don’t rely on concrete facts but instead use our imagination to think about something that isn’t immediately obvious or real. While concrete thinking focuses on the physical world and emphasizes facts, abstract thinking involves thinking about concepts in general terms rather than concrete details.

How do we develop abstract thinking?

Abstract thinking isn’t something that we’re born with – abstract thinking skills are an important part of cognitive development in childhood . The Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget explained how children’s thinking abilities change as they get older and outlined this process from birth to early adulthood. He described four distinct stages of cognitive development:

• Sensorimotor stage is an early period when children are gaining information from their senses (touching, grasping, watching, and listening) and exploring the world using their motor skills. This is often why you see babies putting everything they can grab in their mouth! They aren’t able to think further than what is in front of them, though they do start to understand object permanence. Those things are still there even when they can no longer see them.
• Preoperational stage (from ages 2 to 7) is the time when children develop the ability to think symbolically. They learn that such symbols as pictures, sounds, and letters can represent the objects in the real world. This is often where you see engagement in pretend play, imitation of others, mental imagery (such as creating an imaginary friend), and drawing pictures that represent past and future events. This is the beginning of when the capability for abstract thinking starts to develop though is likely not expressed. Kids at this stage believe that other people see things the same way as they do.
• Concrete operational stage (from age 7 until around 11), children become more logical, but their thinking still remains tied to what they directly observe. Kids also begin to realize that not everyone sees the world the same as them, and are open to new ideas and problem-solving. This is the stage where they realize that water can turn to ice and then back to water as well as begin sorting and organizing objects by color or type.
• Formal operational stage begins at age 11 and continues into adulthood. Children improve their ability to reason about concrete information and begin to think abstractly. They become more skilled at thinking about something from the perspective of another person and grow their ability to empathize . Kids also develop skills to mentally manipulate abstract ideas and notice certain patterns and relationships between abstract concepts. This is where they can start to think of different theories or entertain thoughts of “what if.”

Conditions that impact abstract thinking

Abstract thinking is a vital skill, but it can be challenging for some. So why can’t some people think abstractly? There are some disorders and mental health conditions that may limit abstract reasoning , including:

• Autism spectrum disorder
• Learning disabilities
• Schizophrenia
• Traumatic brain injury (TBI)

The natural aging process can also impact abstract thinking abilities, especially those associated with fluid intelligence, which can be defined as the ability to solve problems in unique ways. Research suggests that skills associated with fluid intelligence reach their peak around the ages of 30 or 40 and tend to decline as people reach later adulthood.

People who think too concretely may find it difficult to understand how other people feel because they can’t accurately interpret such social signs as body language, facial expressions, words, tones of voice, and behaviors in a social context. Sometimes, concrete thinkers stick to literal interpretations of phrases and figurative expressions and use rigid behaviors, and which may cause conflicts with other people. Concrete thinkers may also have difficulties with problem-solving, imagination, and creating things.

How to communicate with a concrete thinker

If some people in your life have a condition that makes them prone to concrete thinking, you can use these tips to communicate with them more effectively:

• Always be as specific as possible and look for opportunities to present facts
• Avoid using metaphors, analogies, and idioms
• Use illustrations and photos when you explain something
• Limit sarcasm and jokes because they often rely on abstract ideas and plays on words
• Anticipate that a concrete thinker might compare, contract, and categorize things in concrete ways

Can abstract thinking not be helpful?

People with strong abstract thinking skills tend to score well on IQ tests and excel in areas that require creativity, such as art, writing , and other related areas. But you should remember that in some cases, the ability to make connections, predict, and imagine can lead to problems.

For example, a cognitive distortion known as catastrophizing, when people habitually imagine the worst possible potential outcomes, can cause feelings of fear and anxiety or worsen depression symptoms.

Research has also shown that abstract thinking is sometimes associated with rumination . This thinking style can occasionally become problematic for people with such mental health conditions as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The good news is that researchers have found it can be helpful to practice concrete thinking skills and use them to improve symptoms of depression because it can stop people from overgeneralizing. Training people to think concretely about traumatic experiences has been shown to help trauma survivors build resilience and decrease the number of intrusive memories.

On the flip side, those that are good at abstract thinking can learn how to use it to combat these symptoms in conjunction with the concrete thinking skills mentioned above. By focusing on building mindfulness as to when they are ruminating, this allows for an opportunity to catch these thoughts when they are happening and then, with the guidance of a text therapist , use abstract skills to shift and engage in using their imagination to envision coping effectively with challenges in their life.

How to improve abstract thinking skills

Abstract thinking is a skill that you can learn and improve through active practice. This can be done in a number of ways:

• Solving puzzles, optical illusions, crosswords, and other brain teasers will help you learn to view information from different perspectives and angles and improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
• You can also play with figurative language and write metaphors, similes, analogies, and pieces of personification.
• Try to expose yourself to completely new experiences and ideas regularly. For example, learning about new cultures will allow you to get rid of biases and prejudice, think more freely, and minimize stereotypes.
• Seek a few efficient solutions to a single problem. Think out of the box, and don’t be afraid to come out of your comfort zone and experiment with your ideas.

Bottom line

Abstract thinking and concrete thinking are two types of thought processes. Concrete thinking focuses on things that are real and tangible, while abstract thinking is a higher-level mode of thinking that involves processing theoretical concepts and allows us to make connections and see patterns. It’s important to remember that you need both concrete and abstract thinking skills to solve problems and maintain good mental health . At Calmerry , we understand the significance of this balance and offer support to help you nurture these essential cognitive skills.

Calmerry editorial process and standards

• Personalized online therapy Choose video, messaging, or both to fit your schedule and comfort. Get matched with your therapist within 1 hour. Learn more
• One 60-minute live video session See how online therapy works and get quick support with a single therapy session. No commitments. Learn more

Latest articles

How Do Men Fall in Love and How Their Brain Responds?

By: Calmerry Care Team August 20, 2024

Am I Depressed or Just Lazy?

By: Saya Des Marais August 15, 2024

Is Online Therapy Effective? Here’s What Research Says

By: Dr. Jenni Jacobsen August 13, 2024

The Power of Abstract Thinking in Aphantasia

• on February 12, 2024

Table of Contents

I was first introduced to C.S. Peirce’s concept of tokens and types in my conversation on Meta-Imagination with researcher Christian Scholz. This framework was especially insightful for someone like me with aphantasia , who navigates a world rich in visual imagery without the ability to visualize. 

The concept of ‘types’ and ‘tokens’ helped me better understand some of the different ways we think differently: visualizers use specific imagery, while aphantasics excel in abstract thinking. Token and type thinking are complementary cognitive styles, each enriching our understanding of the human mind.

This article delves into their unique strengths, challenges, and interplay, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of token vs type thinking in mental imagery.

Tokens: The Specifics of Imagery

When you think of a horse , what comes to mind? For many, the mind’s eye conjures a detailed, specific image—perhaps a chestnut stallion galloping across a sunlit meadow. Or imagine a beach; a visualizer might instantly recall the sunny shoreline and turquoise waves of a specific beach they visited last summer. 

The vivid, detailed, and often personal recollection of an object or scene represents a specific application of an ontological distinction that aligns with the broader philosophical framework of types and tokens described by C.S Pierce. Peirce’s distinction delineates between abstract, general concepts (types) and their concrete, particular instances (tokens) in the world. Applying this framework to mental imagery allows for a nuanced understanding of how individuals may or may not generate visual representations in the mind. 

Token thinking is rich in sensory details and emotional connections. These mental images are not mere pictures; they draw from our memories, sensory experiences, and, often, our deepest desires or fears. This more specific way of thinking is captured by Temple Grandin, animal behaviorist and author of Visual Thinking; The Hidden Gifts of People Who Think in Pictures, Patterns, and Abstractions . Grandin describes her experience:

“When I was in my 20s, I thought everyone thought it pictures the way I thought […] But one time at a conference I asked a speech therapist: think about a church steeple. I was shocked that the only image she saw was a very vague two lines, where I see specific churches. They come up like a series of 35mm slides, or Powerpoint slides. As I start to see more and more of these churches, I can put them into categories like New England, stone cathedral, looks like a warehouse, etc. I can make finer categories as I get more and more specific images. ~Temple Grandin

Types: The Essence of Concepts

For those of us with aphantasia, our approach is fundamentally different. The focus isn’t on vivid, sensory-rich images (because we can’t imagine them) but rather on the essence, the concept of the object or idea. 

When we think of a horse, we don’t ‘see’ a specific animal in our mind. Instead, we think about the general characteristics, the idea of ‘horseness’—its context, sounds, and typical environments. 

The same goes for a beach. Rather than picturing a specific shoreline, we think about the concept of a beach . What does it represent? What are its essential qualities? This way of thinking in ‘types’ as opposed to ‘tokens’ allows us to bypass the specific imagery of our personal experiences and dive directly into the essence of the concept. This cognitive style is less about sensory details and more about abstract thinking, finding connections and relationships between ideas.

This more abstract way of thinking is succinctly captured by Blake Ross, a writer and software engineer with aphantasia. Ross describes his experience:

“ If you tell me to imagine a beach, I ruminate on the ‘concept’ of a beach. I know there’s sand. I know there’s water. I know there’s a sun, maybe a lifeguard. I know facts about beaches. I know a beach when I see it, and I can do verbal gymnastics with the word itself. But I cannot flash to beaches I’ve visited. I have no visual, audio, emotional or otherwise sensory experience. I have no capacity to create any kind of mental image of a beach, whether I close my eyes or open them, whether I’m reading the word in a book or concentrating on the idea for hours at a time—or whether I’m standing on the beach itself. And I grew up in Miami. “ ~ Blake Ross

The Unconscious Bias in Tokens

The allure of visualizing vivid, detailed images for someone with aphantasia is undeniable. Many aphantasics I talk to often express a desire to imagine in this sensory-rich way. The notion of engaging with a fictional technology to suddenly gain the ability to visualize conjures an enticing future. But before embracing this fantasy, it’s important to consider the complexities and potential downsides of token thinking. I’m particularly interested in some of the unconscious biases it may introduce.

With token thinking, many, if not most, details of a visualized object or scene are not consciously chosen but emerge automatically from the depths of our subconscious. This process is influenced by our past experiences, cultural background, personal biases, and emotional states. When visualizers conjure an image of a horse, for example, the specifics of this image—its colour, environment, and actions—are not typically the result of a deliberate choice. Instead, these details are an assemblage of past encounters, perceptions, and perhaps media influences. Depending on the individual’s past interactions or current perceptions about horses, the horse might appear in a field or on a racetrack and look majestic or weary.

This unconscious selection can significantly colour perceptions and reactions. For instance, a visualizer might picture a horse pulling a plow through the mud, evoking feelings of sympathy or nostalgia, influenced perhaps by a rural upbringing or historical movies. Conversely, another might imagine a horse drawing a carriage through the elegant streets of Vienna, invoking feelings of romance or luxury, possibly shaped by travel experiences or classical literature. These varying images can lead to different emotional responses and judgments about the same concept—in this case, a horse.

Such unconscious biases extend beyond simple objects to more complex ideas and situations. When visualizers imagine concepts like ‘home,’ ‘success,’ or ‘adventure,’ their token images are suffused with personal experiences and cultural connotations. For instance, the idea of ‘home’ may conjure an image of a specific type of house or family setting, influenced by one’s upbringing and cultural background. This specific image can colour a person’s perception of what ‘home’ means, potentially limiting their ability to fully appreciate the diverse forms that ‘home’ can take in different cultures or personal circumstances.

Similarly, when visualizers think of ‘success,’ their mental images might be filled with symbols and scenarios representative of success as defined by their personal experiences or societal norms—such as a high-ranking corporate job, material wealth, or public recognition. This specific visualization can narrow perspective, making it challenging to recognize and value other forms of success, such as the artist-entrepreneur or the indie hacker that may not align with these ingrained images. Additionally, this visual bias towards certain ‘tokens’ of success can inadvertently lead us to latch onto or dismiss ideas, as we might overlook more fundamental aspects of the idea or concept. In essence, the focus on these visual tokens can obscure a deeper, more inclusive understanding of what success truly means.

Abstract Thinking: The Unexpected Strength of Aphantasia

Individuals with aphantasia, who are unable to visualize and often lack any form of mental imagery , perceive concepts such as a horse, a home, or success through a broader, more abstract lens by default. This ‘type’ of abstract thinking can offer distinct advantages in certain contexts. 

One of the key strengths of ‘type’ thinking is its focus on the essence rather than the details, on the universal rather than the particular. This form of abstract thinking allows for a broader view, unencumbered by the constraints of specific imagery. This can be especially powerful in fields that, ironically, require ‘big-picture’ thinking.

Fields like strategic planning or theoretical science, where detaching from specific instances to consider wider possibilities and connections is crucial. In disciplines such as philosophy or complex problem-solving, where abstract thinking is paramount, aphantasics can excel by connecting dots across a wide conceptual landscape, often leading to novel insights and solutions.

Interestingly, one study has highlighted certain advantages of aphantasia, particularly within technical sectors. People with aphantasia are  more likely to work in scientific and mathematical industries  than in creative sectors. This suggests that the absence of specific tokens may, paradoxically, enhance the ability for abstract conceptualization, enabling unique contributions to fields that thrive on ‘type’ thinking.

The Potential Divergence in Complex Concepts

As we move beyond the realm of simple, tangible objects like horses to more intricate and abstract ideas, the potential for divergence in the way these concepts are visualized—or tokenized —becomes markedly pronounced. This divergence, inherent in token thinking, can have profound implications on both our individual cognitive processes and our collective communication dynamics.

When it comes to complex concepts—be it justice, love, freedom, or innovation—the range of imagery that different individuals might conjure is vast and varied. For one person, the concept of justice might evoke images of a courtroom, a balanced scale, or even a personal experience of fairness. For another, it might bring forth entirely different visualizations, perhaps influenced by cultural symbols, historical events, or literary depictions. Such variability in token thinking, while enriching the individual’s cognitive experience, also introduces a significant challenge in achieving a common understanding or consensus. The same language generates an infinite collection of tokens that shape perceptions and beliefs in a way that’s difficult to comprehend.

This divergence is not merely academic. In practical terms, it affects how we interpret and communicate about these concepts. In discussions or debates, people may believe they are talking about the same thing—justice, for instance—but in reality, they might be envisioning fundamentally different scenarios or principles. This can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and even conflicts, as each party operates from a different cognitive framework shaped by their unique token images. 

Mental imagery is an extension of past personal experience. For everyone, aphantasic or not, experience shapes and biases our understanding of concepts. However, in the case of the visual image that iconically represents an interpretation of past experiences, this bias on thought and behaviour might be strengthened for the visualizer. I wonder whether the commonly reported deficits in some aphantasics’ autobiographical memory would lessen these biases even further.

Moreover, this divergence in conceptualization can influence how information is processed, and decisions are made. When faced with complex problems or decisions, individuals may draw upon their specific token images, which can subtly guide or bias their reasoning and conclusions. This can be particularly impactful in fields like policy-making, education, or therapy, where understanding and addressing complex human experiences and societal issues are crucial.

It’s important to note, though, that this token divergence is not inherently negative. It reflects the rich diversity of human experience and thought. The challenge lies in acknowledging and bridging these cognitive gaps. In environments where understanding and collaboration are essential—such as in multicultural teams, interdisciplinary research, or international relations—recognizing and navigating this divergence becomes crucial. It calls for heightened empathy, open communication, and a willingness to explore and understand the varied mental landscapes of different individuals.

Token vs. Type: Understanding Our Cognitive Differences

In the expansive world of human cognition, it’s imperative not to regard ‘type’ thinking as inherently superior to token thinking or vice versa. Each cognitive style brings to the table its unique strengths and valuable applications. ‘Type’ thinking, predominant among aphantasics, excels in abstract thinking and conceptualization. This can be beneficial to big-picture analysis, offering a clear, uncluttered perspective often crucial in strategic decision-making and theoretical exploration. On the other hand, thinking in tokens, with its rich, vivid imagery, profoundly enhances emotional depth, creative visualization, and experiential learning, often leading to a deeper emotional connection with both personal and shared human experiences.

The key to harnessing the full potential of our cognitive abilities lies in understanding and strategically leveraging the strengths inherent in each cognitive style. ‘Type’ thinking, with its focus on abstract thinking and universal aspects, serves as an essential counterbalance to the sensory-rich, detail-oriented nature of token thinking. This cognitive diversity, when acknowledged and embraced, can significantly enrich our collective cognitive repertoire. It offers a broader spectrum of perspectives, enhancing creativity, empathy, and problem-solving skills in both personal and professional contexts.

For aphantasics who might long for the vivid imagery of token thinkers, it’s important to consider the broader picture. While the ability to visualize in rich detail can seem desirable, it’s important to recognize and appreciate the unique advantages that our ‘type’ thinking brings. This perspective allows for a more objective, abstract thinking and concept-oriented approach, often leading to innovative insights and solutions unencumbered by the biases of specific imagery.

In embracing our unique cognitive styles—whether as a visualizer or conceptualizer , engaging in token or type thinking—and understanding their implications, we pave the way for a richer, more nuanced appreciation of our cognitive landscapes. This recognition not only deepens our understanding of ourselves but also enhances our interactions with the world around us. It encourages us to value and integrate diverse ways of thinking, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic approach to the myriad ways in which the human mind perceives and processes the complexities of life.

The dialogue between ‘token’ and ‘type’ thinking is not about superiority but about synergy. By acknowledging and valuing the unique contributions of each cognitive style, we can cultivate a richer, more comprehensive understanding of the world, unlocking new possibilities for innovation, collaboration, and mutual understanding in an ever-evolving cognitive landscape.

Share this post

Founder of Aphantasia Network and one of the pioneering 21 cases that brought aphantasia to light. With a personal journey deeply intertwined with the phenomenon, Tom is at the forefront of raising awareness, fostering community, and championing the unique experiences of those with aphantasia

Aphantasia Network

Aphantasia Network is shaping a new, global conversation on the power of image-free thinking. We’re creating a place to discover and learn about aphantasia. Our mission is to help build a bridge between new scientific discoveries and our unique human experience — to uncover new insight into how we learn, create, dream, remember and more with blind imagination.

Privacy Overview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Associations Between Conceptual Reasoning, Problem Solving, and Adaptive Ability in High-functioning Autism

Diane l. williams.

Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Carla A. Mazefsky

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Jon D. Walker

VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA

Nancy J. Minshew

Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Gerald Goldstein

VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA, ten.bn@dlogG

Abstract thinking is generally highly correlated with problem-solving ability which is predictive of better adaptive functioning. Measures of conceptual reasoning, an ecologically-valid laboratory measure of problem-solving, and a report measure of adaptive functioning in the natural environment, were administered to children and adults with and without autism. The individuals with autism had weaker conceptual reasoning ability than individuals with typical development of similar age and cognitive ability. For the autism group, their flexible thinking scores were significantly correlated with laboratory measures of strategy formation and rule shifting and with reported overall adaptive behavior but not socialization scores. Therefore, in autism, flexibility of thought is potentially more important for adaptive functioning in the natural environment than conceptual reasoning or problem-solving.

Introduction

An important goal of treatment in autism is to help the individual successfully function as independently as possible. This notion is captured by the construct of “adaptive behavior ability,” which is an index of how one is able to function in the natural social environment across a multidimensional set of skills ( Oswald and DiSalvo 2003 ). Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have extremely high variability in adaptive behavior ( Klin et al. 2007 ; MacLean et al. 1999 ; Mazefsky et al. 2008 ). For example, Mazefsky et al. (2008) found that a sample of individuals with autism without intellectual developmental disorder had standard scores ranging from 19 (Impaired Range) to 162 (Very Superior) on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS; Sparrow et al. 1984 ), a commonly used measure of adaptive behavior. Whereas the variability in adaptive behavior in ASD is well-documented, the source of this variability is less clear. Understanding factors that influence this variability in adaptive behavior would inform the design of interventions that might improve the outcome for individuals with autism.

Most of the research conducted to understand adaptive behavior in ASD has focused on its relationship to age and intelligence quotient (IQ). This research has been fairly consistent in finding that adaptive behavior skills in autism tend to be much lower than would be expected based on IQ (e.g. Boltë and Poustka 2002 ; Fenton et al. 2001 ; Kanne et al. 2011 ; Mazefsky et al. 2008 ). It is also clear that the IQ-adaptive behavior discrepancy becomes even more apparent with increasing age, and that the gap between IQ and adaptive behavior ability is often quite significant in samples with higher IQs ( Boltë and Poustka 2002 ; Kanne et al. 2011 ; Klin et al. 2007 ; Liss et al. 2001 ; Mazefsky et al. 2008 ). Even a recent study with children with ASD (ages 4–17 years) that reported that IQ was a strong predictor of adaptive behavior, noted that having a higher IQ did not indicate that the children would perform well socially ( Kanne et al. 2011 ). The unclear nature of the relationship between IQ and adaptive behavior would suggest that the failure of verbal individuals with IQ scores in the normal range to achieve age and ability appropriate adaptive behavior is related to some other aspect of the disorder than general intellectual ability.

We have conceptualized the pattern of abilities in verbal individuals with autism as a deficit in information processing with the major tenet being that autism is characterized by impairment in complex cognitive processing in multiple domains while simpler abilities in those same domains are intact or sometimes better than normal ( Minshew et al. 1997 ). This general principle has been demonstrated in several individual cognitive domains including attention ( Goldstein et al. 2001 ), memory ( Minshew and Goldstein 2001 ; Williams et al. 2005 , 2006b ), language ( Minshew et al. 1995 ; Peppeé et al. 2007 ), and perceptual and motor skills ( Minshew et al. 1999 , 2004 ). The results from this body of research has suggested that conceptual development, and more specifically, conceptual reasoning, may function somewhat differently in individuals with autism than typically developing individuals with similar cognitive ability. Indeed, we have previously reported that individuals with autism perform well on tasks requiring concept identification or the ability to learn already established rules and have more difficulty with concept formation or the ability to develop new concepts based upon experience ( Minshew et al. 2002 ).

In individuals with typical development, the ability to think abstractly, particularly with regard to forming new concepts is thought to be highly related to the ability to solve problems. In turn, the ability to solve problems is generally thought to be predictive of better adaptive functioning ( Goldstein 1996 ). Individuals with autism, despite the presence of average or above general intelligence often have prominent deficits in the areas of conceptual reasoning and problem solving ( Adams and Sheslow 1983 ; Rutter 1983 ; Hill and Bird 2006 ; Pennington and Ozonoff 1996 ; Bogte et al. 2007 ). However, this finding is not universal across the autism spectrum, as there are some reports, particularly of individuals with Asperger Syndrome (AS), of intact or superior abstract reasoning or fluid thinking skills ( Hayashi et al. 2008 ; Soulières et al. 2011 ). In addition, significant numbers of children and adults on the autism spectrum, including those with AS, have challenges in negotiating social situations in the real world that have to be addressed with explicit training and intervention ( Krasny et al. 2003 ). Furthermore, even those individuals with autism who develop adequate conceptual reasoning abilities and the ability to problem solve in contrived situations may have difficulty in applying these abilities to situations that they encounter in daily life.

The relationship between conceptual reasoning, problem solving, and adaptive functioning may differ in individuals with autism. This would occur if they were depending on the application of rules to determine what the solution to the problem is but had difficulty with creating new concepts based upon environmental experience. Consistent with this hypothesis, social cognitive deficits in autism have been reported to be related to a decreased ability to implicitly encode and integrate contextual information with improved performance when social information is made explicit or rule-based ( Baez et al. 2012 ). Alternately, other research indicates that implicit learning is relatively intact in autism with the important factor being a deficit in the flexibility of response to novel contexts ( Kourkoulou et al. 2012 ).

The relationship between conceptual reasoning and adaptive functioning may also vary by age in individuals with autism. For example, a study of abstract reasoning and social functioning found impairments in both concept identification and concept formation in verbal children ages 8–12 years with ASD and normal intelligence ( Solomon et al. 2011 ). These results suggest that developmental differences may occur with respect to these two components of abstract reasoning; therefore, developmental differences should be considered when investigating the nature of the relationship between conceptual reasoning, problem solving, and adaptive functioning in autism.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between performance on measures of conceptual reasoning, ecologically valid measures of problem solving, and measures of adaptive behavior in verbal children and adults with autism with IQs in the normal range. The hypothesis was that, unlike individuals with typical development, for individuals with autism, conceptual reasoning and problem solving abilities would be correlated with each other but would not be correlated with adaptive function. That is, while aspects of conceptual reasoning might be intact in autism, particularly in concept identification, the ability to adapt to various aspects of the environment will not be related to the overall level of conceptual reasoning ability. Rather, consistent with recent work on learning in autism, adaptive function will be related to the level of flexible thinking or the ability to respond to contextual change.

Participants

Participants for this study were a group of 65 verbal children and adults with autism with IQ scores in the normal range and an age- and IQ-matched group of 65 children and adults with typical development. Participants ranged in age from 8 to 46 years. Demographic data for the sample are presented in Table 1 . For purposes of making age group comparisons, the participants were divided into three groups: 8–12, 13–20 years, and 21+ years, representing children, adolescents, and adults. The study is retrospective in nature, and these data were collected over a number of years; therefore, many of the participants in the present study were the same individuals as those used in previous studies, notably Minshew et al. (1997 , 2002 ), and Williams et al. (2006a) .

Demographic data

The diagnosis of autism was made by a detailed evaluation using expert clinical judgment, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R; LeCouteur et al. 1989 ; Lord et al. 1994 ), and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS; Lord et al. 1989 , 2000 ). All participants were required to have evidence of delayed and disordered language development, thus excluding individuals with Asperger’s Disorder as defined at that time in the DSM system (DSM-IV-R; American Psychiatric Association 2000 ). Participants with autism were excluded if they had associated neurologic, genetic, infectious, or metabolic disorders, such as tuberous sclerosis, fragile-X syndrome, or fetal cytomegalovirus infection.

The control participants were community volunteers recruited to match the autism participants on age, Verbal IQ, Full Scale IQ, gender, race, and years of education, and socioeconomic status of family of origin ( Hollingshead 1957 ). Potential control participants were recruited through advertisement and contacts with community organizations and were screened by questionnaire, telephone, personal interview, and observation during screening tests. Potential control participants were excluded if they had a history of birth or developmental abnormalities; brain injury; poor school attendance; current or past history of psychiatric or significant neurological disorder; family history of autism, developmental cognitive disorder, or learning disability; mood or anxiety disorder; or other neuropsychiatric disorder thought to have a genetic etiological component.

Conceptual Reasoning Tests

Tests were neuropsychological measures that were selected to target different aspects of conceptual reasoning or problem solving such as forming and changing hypotheses or plans, concept formation or deductive reasoning, concept identification or abstract reasoning based on rules or general knowledge, planning and organization to accomplish a goal, and formation of mental representations. The tests used in this analysis varied in modality of presentation, some involving language, others visual perceptual analysis, and others purposeful movements associated with problem solving. Tests included the: the Verbal Absurdities and Picture Absurdities subtests from the Stanford-Binet scales ( Thorndike et al. 1986 ), Tower of Hanoi (TOH) ( Simon 1975 ), the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) ( Heaton et al. 1993 ), the Halstead Category Test (HCT) ( Halstead and Settlage 1943 ), the Hooper Visual Organization Test ( Hooper 1983 ), the Tactual Performance Test ( Reitan and Wolfson 1993 ), the 20 Questions Task ( Laine and Butters 1982 ), and the Trail Making Test, Part B ( Reitan and Wolfson 1993 ).

Ecologically Valid Measures of Problem-Solving

Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS; Wilson et al. 1996 ). The BADS is an assessment procedure that is individually administered in a laboratory setting. It provides a micro level of analysis of the skills needed for carrying out specific types of adaptive challenge by characterizing the ability to shift rules, develop a plan of action to solve a problem, develop a plan for a course of action, make temporal judgments, create a plan when structure is minimal as contrasted to use of an externally imposed strategy, and plan and organize multiple tasks. The BADS has been reported to have a higher ecological validity than similar tests of executive function and to be useful when evaluating skills for vocational planning ( Chamberlain 2003 ). Consistent with these prior characterizations of the usefulness of the BADS, for purposes of the present study, we used the instrument as a means of evaluating cognitive function or problem solving ability that underlies adaptive function.

The BADS contains six subtests. Rule Shift requires the subject to initially go through a deck of cards, saying ‘Yes’ for red or ‘No’ for black cards. Then, the rule is shifted by asking the subject to tell whether the card just turned over is the same as or different from the previous card. Scores are time and errors. In Action Sequences the subject attempts to remove a cork from a tube in a beaker filled with water using materials made available. The score is the number of problem solving stages completed independently. Key Search assesses the subject’s ability to plan an effective course of action to find a lost key. The score is the sum of 8 components of the search process, such as entering the field at the bottom. Temporal Judgment asks questions about the duration of events, an ability that contributes to organizing and planning. The Zoo Map Test evaluates planning when constrained by a set of rules. The task is for the subject to plan to visit a series of locations on a map of a zoo while obeying a set of rules (e.g., starting at the entrance and finishing at a designated area). An error score is used. The Modified Six Elements Test requires the subject to perform a dictation, arithmetic, and picture naming task. The test is scored for organizing ability, including the number of sub-tasks completed, rule-breaking on the tasks, and maximum amount of time spent on a subtask. The raw score for each BADS subtest was converted to a profile score ranging from 0 to 4. The profile scores were used in the analyses.

Measures of Adaptive Ability

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS; Sparrow et al. 1984 ). As has been done in prior research examining the relationship between IQ and adaptive behavior, we used the VABS as a measure of functioning in the natural environment. The VABS Survey is a 261 item form that is administered to parents as a measure of how many age-appropriate, socially adaptive behaviors a child or adult exhibits in their natural environment. It is a well-recognized instrument, with demonstrable reliability and validity both for individuals who are typically developing and those with disabilities. It is also the preeminent measure for the assessment of adaptive functioning in children with autism ( Newsom and Hovanitz 1997 ). The VABS assesses three skill domains, each with three subdomains: Communication (receptive, expressive, and written language skills), Daily Living skills (personal self-care, domestic, and community living skills), and Socialization (interpersonal, play or leisure, and coping skills). The VABS provides standard scores ( m = 100, SD = 15) with higher scores indicating better functioning. Domain scores and the Adaptive Behavior composite score were used in the data analysis.

Data Analysis

For purposes of data reduction, the conceptual reasoning tests were factor analyzed in order to assess the latent variables that underlie the series of tests that were used. The principal components method was used with Varimax rotation. Regression based factor scores were computed. Factor scores are composite variables for use in subsequent analyses following performance of a factor analysis. For this study, the factor scores were then correlated with the BADS and VABS scores. Because of narrow distributions of the factor scores in some cases, Spearman’s Rho was used as the correlation coefficient rather than Pearson’s r. Preliminary inspection of the data indicated that comparable results were obtained between the two coefficients. These correlations were computed separately for each group.

Differences between the autism and control groups and among the three age groups on the eleven conceptual reasoning tests were compared using a 3×2 factorial design analysis of variance for independent samples, with presence or absence of autism constituting one independent variable and age group the other. This form of analysis was also conducted for the BADS and VABS.

Comparisons were made between the autism and control groups on the BADS and VABS using t -tests. We also wanted to evaluate the differences in discrepancies on the various abilities measured by these two instruments. While individuals with autism may generally do more poorly than typically developing individuals at adaptive abilities, this discrepancy may not be of the same order of magnitude for all abilities. Specifically, it was hypothesized that adaptive functions requiring relatively high levels of conceptual ability will show a relatively greater level of discrepancy between individuals with autism and groups with typical development. Such differences can be evaluated through obtaining effect sizes and statistical power assessing the magnitude of the statistical significance of group differences. Effect size determination and power analyses were accomplished for all variables; the items were ranked by effect size from largest to smallest. Cohen’s d ( Cohen 1988 ) was the statistic used to obtain effect sizes; it is computed by taking the difference between the two obtained means and dividing by the pooled standard deviation. The effect size reflects the magnitude of a difference, whereas power reflects the capacity to reject the null hypothesis given a particular effect size. Thus, some differences may be so robust that acceptance of a false hypothesis is unlikely, whereas minimally significant findings with low power might raise the possibility of having made a Type I error or making false discoveries ( Benjamini and Hochberg 1995 ). Correspondingly, borderline non-significant findings raise the possibility of rejecting a true hypothesis or making a Type II error. The magnitude of the test performance difference between participants with autism and demographically matched normal control participants should provide an index of the extent to which the ability measured by the test characterizes the performance of the individuals with autism. Thus, those tests found to have larger effect sizes reflected by higher d’s and relatively greater statistical power to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between autism and normal control groups could be understood as reflecting specific aspects of dysfunction in autism, whereas those tests that do not discriminate measure abilities at which individuals with autism performed relatively similarly to individuals with typical development.

To estimate a more global association between conceptual reasoning and adaptive abilities, entry method and stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed. The three factor scores were the predictor variables and the summary scores (i.e., the Total Standard Score from the BADS and the Adaptive Behavior Composite Score from the VABS) were the dependent variables. The following method was used. Group was coded 1 for autism and 0 for control and multiplied by the factor scores. These new variables, often characterized as “dummy variables”, represent interaction between group and factor score. They were entered into the regression equations along with the unweighted diagnostic code itself (Autism or Control) and the factor scores were used as predictor variables with either the BADS or VABS summary score as the dependent variable. The analyses were performed using both the enter all variables and stepwise methods. In addition to the multiple regression coefficients (R), this analysis also provides Beta coefficients for the predictor variables. β represents the independent contributions of each independent variable to the prediction of the dependent variable. t tests were performed to determine the significance of the difference in β between groups for the predictor variables. Thus, for example, a significant difference for one of the factors would indicate that the groups differed with regard to their association with the dependent variable.

Factor Analysis of Conceptual Reasoning Tests

As a way of assessing the relationship between conceptual ability, problem solving, and adaptive function, we first performed a principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the scores from the conceptual reasoning tests and then computed correlations between the obtained factor scores and the BADS and VABS. Using Kaiser’s Rule requiring stopping extraction of factors when an eigenvalue of below 1 is obtained, a three factor solution was obtained for the conceptual tests. The rotated component matrix is presented in Table 2 . The first factor received exceptionally high (>.5) loadings on the Verbal and Picture Absurdities test, the perseverative errors score from the WCST, and the number of constraint seeking questions from the 20 Questions task. These measures assess a high degree of flexibility of thought that underlies concept formation or the ability to spontaneously organize strategies for problem solving. We therefore named it the Flexible Thinking factor. The second factor received high loadings from the Tactual Performance test and the Hooper Visual Organization test, and a moderately high loading from the Picture Absurdities test. It would, therefore, appear to mainly describe reasoning based on perceptual characteristics. We named this the Perceptual Reasoning factor. The third factor received high loadings from the Category and Trail Making Tests and the Tower of Hanoi task. These procedures assess what we have described as concept identification or applying a previously established organizational strategy, and so we called it a Rule Application factor.

Rotated factor loadings for the conceptual reasoning tests

Relationship of Conceptual Reasoning Factors to Problem Solving and Adaptive Ability

Spearman Rho correlations between the conceptual reasoning factor scores and the scores from the BADS and VABS are presented Table 3 . In general, there were few statistically significant correlations ( p <.05), with only four significant correlations in the autism group and three in the control group. Significant correlations in the autism group for the BADS were found between the Flexible Thinking factor and the BADS Key Search (strategy formation) and Rule Shift (changing an established pattern of responding) scores, and between the Perceptual Reasoning Factor and BADS Zoo Map (which involves topographical planning) score. Significant correlations in the autism group for the VABS were obtained between the Flexible Thinking factor and the VABS Adaptive Behavior composite score. In the control group, for the BADS, there were significant correlations between the Perceptual Reasoning factor and the Modified Six Elements (planning and performance monitoring). Significant correlations were found in the control group for the Flexible Thinking factor and the Socialization Domain and Adaptive Composite Behavior Scores on the VABS.

Rho correlations between factor scores, BADS, and VABS

Relationship Between Problem Solving and Adaptive Function

We ranked differences between autism and control groups on the measures from the BADS and VABS with regard to effect sizes and statistical power to evaluate what aspects of problem solving and adaptive behavior distinguish most strongly between the two groups (see Table 4 ). It was thought that the functions that made the greatest discrimination would have the largest effect size and greatest statistical power to reject the null hypothesis, with less discriminating abilities having lower effect sizes and power. Using Cohen’s (1988) conventions indicating that an effect size in the .2 range is small, one in the .5 range is medium, and one in the .8 range is large, then it is clear that there is a wide range of effect sizes. Only one of the BADS subtests, Action Sequences which involves practical problem solving, adequately discriminated between the autism and control groups. On the VABS, the Adaptive Behavior Composite score and Socialization Domain score had highly significant group differences and large effect sizes. The VABS Daily Living Skills and Communication Domains did not distinguish between individuals with autism and controls. Apparently adaptive function as measured by the VABS was more sensitive to differences between the autism and control groups than was the case for most of the tasks on the BADS, even though they are generally considered to have ecological validity (i.e., Chamberlain 2003 ).

Differences between autism and control groups on adaptive functioning ranked by effect size (d)

Overall and Age Group Differences

Given previous reports of differences in the relationship between cognitive abilities and adaptive functioning at different ages for individuals with ASD (e.g., Kanne et al. 2011 ) and the possibility that the components of abstract reasoning, concept identification and concept formation, are influenced by developmental factors in autism ( Solomon et al. 2011 ), we conducted some analyses by age group. As described earlier, the data was separated into three age groupings for children, adolescents, and adults. ANOVA results for comparisons on the conceptual reasoning tests between the participants with and without autism and among the age groups are presented in Tables 5 and ​ and6. 6 . Overall, the autism group performed significantly differently from the control group on all tests but the Halstead Category Test. These results suggest that the autism group as a whole was weaker in conceptual reasoning than the age and IQ-matched controls. As indicated in Table 6 , there were also several significant differences among the age groups. However, there were no significant interactions, leading to the conclusion that there are no significant differences in the age related changes in conceptual reasoning test performance between the autism and control groups.

Means and SDs of the three age groups in the autism and control groups on the cognitive tests

F-ratios for main effects and interaction for conceptual reasoning tests

The only significant group difference for the BADS was for Action Sequences which involves practical problem solving, with the autism group performing significantly poorer than the group with typical development. However, no significant age by diagnostic group interaction was obtained.

With regard to the adaptive functioning scale, only the age group main effect was significant for the VABS Daily Living Domain scale. In the autism group the 8–12 year olds group did more poorly than the older groups while in the control group there were very small mean differences among the age groups. Thus, the significant main effect was probably attributable to poor performance by the 8–12 year old autism group. There were two significant age group X diagnostic group interactions one for the VABS Socialization Domain Scale and the other for the VABS Adaptive Behavior Composite Score. Essentially the same patterns appeared in the Socialization Domain and Adaptive Behavior Scale. There were substantially higher mean scores obtained by the controls in the younger age groups, but essentially equal mean scores obtained by adult members of the autism and control groups. These findings would suggest that there were substantial differences in adaptive functioning in individuals with autism and typical development at younger ages, but that this difference was no longer evident in adulthood ( Tables 7 and ​ and8 8 ).

Means and SDs for adaptive function variables of the three age groups in the autism and control groups

F-ratios for main effects and interaction for BADS and VABS

Multiple Regression Analyses

Results for the BADS Total Standard Score are presented in Table 9 . This score shows a high Multiple R (R = .459, p < .001). Using the stepwise method only the factor scores weighted by group membership were entered. Group membership alone and the three factor scores themselves were not entered. This finding would indicate that the multivariate association between the conceptual reasoning factors and the BADS measure interacts with group membership. If group membership is not considered, as when only the factor scores themselves are used, they are not entered.

Multiple regression analyses using conceptual reasoning factor scores as predictor variables and BADS total standard or VABS adaptive behavior composite summary scores as dependent measures

For the VABS Adaptive Behavior variable, the enter method also yields a significant multiple R of .428. However, the stepwise method entered group alone (autism vs. control) and Group weighted by Factor Score 1 (Flexible Thinking). It would appear that membership in the control group has little or no influence on the factor scores while membership in the autism group has a substantial influence. However, the analysis of the data presented in Table 3 indicates that the Rho correlation between the VABS Adaptive Behavior Scale and the Flexible Thinking factor is positive (.299) in the autism group while it is negative (−.263) in the control group. This discrepancy would not appear to justify the conclusion that adaptive behavior is negatively correlated with flexible thinking, particularly since the entire set of correlations considered are non-significant. However, this pattern of correlations might affirm the result of the regression analysis indicating that in typically developing individuals, level of adaptive functioning does not appear to be associated with intelligence.

In general, individuals with autism have relatively weaker conceptual reasoning abilities than individuals with typical development of similar age and overall cognitive ability. Despite this weakness, individuals with autism appear to be able to apply these conceptual reasoning abilities on most of the laboratory measures of adaptive flexibility, planning, and problem solving, resulting in a lack of differentiation from controls. The level of conceptual reasoning for most of these children and adults with autism allowed them to demonstrate problem solving abilities in a variety of structured or hypothetical situations as measured by the BADS. However, as indicated by the VABS data, individuals with autism may fail to apply these reasoning abilities to real life situations, resulting in dissociation between overall level of cognition and adaptive functioning. This result is consistent with reports of problems with adaptive functioning in children and adults with autism who have average or above IQs ( Kanne et al. 2011 ; Mazefsky et al. 2008 ). This dissociation between performance on structured tasks and observed daily performance may help explain the rather poor outcome in adult life of verbal individuals with autism despite their academic success in school programs ( Farley et al. 2009 ).

The underlying reason for the disconnect between the ability to apply reasoning in a controlled setting and the ability to demonstrate reasoning in real life situations is not clear, but some understanding may be gained by examining the obtained relationships between the measures of conceptual reasoning and the measures of problem solving and adaptive functioning. For the autism group, the Flexible Thinking factor was significantly correlated with the BADS subtests that assess strategy formation and rule shifting. This relationship suggests that individuals with autism who had more ability to think flexibly were able to form strategies and were more flexible in applying rules. It was not surprising to find that the Flexible Thinking factor was also associated with overall better adaptive functioning in autism. Taken together, these results suggest that the ability to flexibly form concepts is particularly important for better adaptive behavior in individuals with autism.

In a related area of research, it has been proposed that learning difficulties encountered in social situations by individuals with autism are not related to the implicit nature of the information but to a problem with flexibility of response to novel contexts ( Kourkoulou et al. 2012 ). In that study, intact implicit learning was found for contextual cuing tasks; however, deficits occurred in novel contexts, particularly when the paradigm biased learning to local stimuli, suggesting that flexibility of response to novel contexts was the underlying problem not implicit learning per se ( Kourkoulou et al. 2012 ).

The conclusion about the importance of flexible thinking to adaptive functioning in autism is generally supported by the results of the multiple regression analysis. These modest findings may suggest several potential explanations for this reversal of patterns of relationships. First, it may be due to the BADS being a laboratory-based assessment that provides a more micro-level analysis of the conceptual skills needed for carrying out a specific type of adaptive challenge, whereas the VABS scores reflect the integrative use and flexible application of these skills to solve real world problems. It is possible that individuals with autism can demonstrate problem solving and planning when there are reduced temporal demands and the problems are clearer and the solutions more limited. That is, they have adequate cognitive resources to meet these challenges and, therefore, can explain what should be done in a hypothetical situation. However, real world problems are seldom this structured and explicit, beginning with the necessity to identify what the problem to be solved is. Therefore, individuals with autism would have difficulty translating their knowledge into success in real life situations because the complexity of the processing task has increased exponentially. The impact of conceptual reasoning deficits in autism may not be as apparent in highly structured settings that provide rules like schools but is likely to become more evident under open field conditions such as jobs and independent living where there are few established rules that address a particular situation with constantly changing contexts that demand flexibility of thought. Individuals with autism who have a relatively stronger ability to manipulate and form new concepts, to think flexibly, would be at an advantage even as the environmental demands increase.

In addition to Flexible Thinking, another significant relationship was obtained between the Perceptual Reasoning factor and performance on the BADS Zoo Map subtest for the autism group. Abilities associated with the Perceptual Reasoning factor include ideational planning as measured by the TPT and visual imagery and integration assessed with the Hooper Visual Organization Test. Perceptual ability, involving the requirement of the tactual and visual processing demanded by these two measures, may be particularly important for individuals with autism for the aspect of adaptive functioning that involves imaging and planning. Therefore, perceptual reasoning is a type of process that might be capitalized on when helping individuals with autism develop skills to negotiate ever-changing social environments.

The results regarding age differences are of particular interest. It is understood that this was a cross-sectional study and inferences may not be made to the effect that differences noted would be observed in the development of individuals, as could be determined only by a longitudinal study. However, it has been noted for some time that the results of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are typically the same ( Heaton and Drexler 1987 ). The cross-sectional results obtained here reflect differences among age groups that are not always the same for the autism and control groups, and may reflect differences in developmental course. The pattern for both the measures of conceptual reasoning and problem solving of improved performance from childhood until young adulthood is comparable in individuals with typical development and individuals with autism. Test scores were fairly consistently lower in the autism group, although linear trajectories were noted in both groups. A different pattern emerged for adaptive behavior as measured by the VABS with significant interactions between autism status and age group on the Socialization Doman and Adaptive Behavior Composite scores. We made the remarkable finding that, while the scores of the group with typical development far exceeded those of the autism group in the child and adolescent age groups, they were essentially equal in the adult groups, and, furthermore, were in the average range on these scales. In summary, age differences in cognitive abilities were found to be linear in both groups but at differing performance levels; however, some adaptive abilities do not have parallel trajectories in the autism and groups with typical development. Rather, the child and adolescent groups showed marked group differences between autism and control groups, while in the adult groups there was essentially no difference. Because this is not longitudinal data, we cannot infer the source for this difference to be developmental in nature. It is, however, important to note that this relatively high functioning group of adults with autism has been able to achieve strong adaptive skills even if they are continuing to be challenged in functioning in the social domain.

The results regarding age differences raise the obviously major question of whether or not individuals with autism undergo a course of development in which they possess certain normal adaptive abilities during adulthood they did not have during childhood, perhaps as a result of lifelong treatment or developmental changes associated with the course of the disorder. Longitudinal data, even retrospective information, might ultimately clarify this matter.

Clinical Implications

The findings from this study have important implications related to the provision of services to verbal individuals with autism who are relatively higher functioning. First, we provide further support for the argument that adults with autism should not be denied social support services because they have an IQ in the average range if they are demonstrating difficulties with real world functioning. Unlike individuals with typical development, the ability to perform well on formal measures such as the BADS may not necessarily reflect actual functioning for individuals with autism.

In particular, better adaptive functioning in autism appears to be related to the development of concept formation, flexible thinking and perceptual reasoning. Given that successful independent living is a goal for individuals with autism, cognitive remediation therapies explicitly targeting these skills seem warranted. However, the way in which this intervention is delivered would appear to be of particular importance for successful skill acquisition in individuals with autism.

Even when individuals with autism can explain what should be done in a hypothetical situation, they may not be able to translate this knowledge into success in real life situations. Based on the results of this study, we would predict that interventions that are limited to answering questions about hypothetical situations and artificial problem solving would have little to no impact on adaptive functioning in individuals with autism. Knowing how to solve a problem does not appear to be enough. Similarly, approaches that emphasize the acquisition of social skills through explicitly teaching social rules or engaging through role playing of social interactions (e.g. MacAfee 2002 ) may also result in a failure to translate this knowledge into a change in adaptive behavior unless these skills are practiced in the contexts in which they are to be applied.

Although time-consuming and resource intensive, practice of skills in the real world, appears to be essential for individuals with autism ( Rao et al. 2008 ). In fact, this recommendation is consistent with the conclusions of a recent review of research on behavioral interventions for adaptive skills in verbal young adults with autism with normal IQ scores ( Palmen et al. 2012 ). To further facilitate the transfer of reasoning abilities to everyday problem solving, the primary interaction partners of the individuals with autism should be trained to recognize opportunities for learning and to assist the individual with autism in the application of problem solving when faced with real world challenges.

Alternative intervention approaches such as those that incorporated virtual reality techniques may serve as cost efficient alternatives to training in the real world. Virtual reality has reportedly been used to successfully develop the social interaction and theory-of-mind skills in young adults who were on the autism spectrum ( Kandalaft et al. 2013 ). A similar approach could present individuals with autism with more realistic challenges, requiring them to develop solutions to common problems in a contextually-rich environment that might facilitate flexible thinking and generalization to real world settings.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grant Sponsor: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Grant Number: HD35469, a Collaborative Program of Excellence in Autism (CPEA); Grant Sponsor: National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), Grant Number K23DC006691 to Dr. Williams and by the VISN IV Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System Pittsburgh PA.

The research described here has been approved by the appropriate IRB and full informed consent or assent has been obtained for all subjects.

Contributor Information

Diane L. Williams, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Carla A. Mazefsky, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Jon D. Walker, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA.

Nancy J. Minshew, Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Gerald Goldstein, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA, ten.bn@dlogG .

• Adams WV, Sheslow BV. A developmental perspective of adolescence. In: Schopler E, Mesibov GB, editors. Autism in adolescents and adults. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1983. pp. 11–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, D.C: Author; 2000. rev. ed. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baez S, Rattazzi A, Gonzalez-Gadea ML, Torralva T, Vigliecca NS, Decety J, et al. Integrating intention and context: Assessing social cognition in adults with Asperger syndrome. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012; 6 (302):1–21. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 1995; 57 :289–300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogte H, Flamma B, van der Meere J, van Engeland H. Cognitive flexibility in adults with high functioning autism. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2007; 11 :1–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boltë S, Poustka F. The relation between general cognitive level and adaptive behavior domains in individuals with autism with and without co-morbid mental retardation. Child Psychiatric and Human Development. 2002; 33 :165–172. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chamberlain E. Behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome (BADS): Test review. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Employment and Disability. 2003; 5 :33–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farley MA, McMahon WM, Fombonne E, Jenson WR, Miller J, Gardner M, et al. Twenty-year outcome for individuals with autism and average or near-average cognitive abilities. Autism Research. 2009; 2 :109–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fenton G, D’Ardia C, Valente D, Del Vecchio I, Fabrizi A, Bernabei P. Vineland adaptive behavior profiles in children with autism and moderate to severe developmental delay. Autism. 2001; 7 :269–287. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein G. Functional considerations in neuropsychology. In: Shordone RJ, Long CJ, editors. Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing. Delray Beach, FL: Gr Press/St Lucie Press; 1996. pp. 75–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein G, Johnson CR, Minshew NJ. Attentional processes in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2001; 31 :433–440. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halstead WC, Settlage PH. Grouping behavior of normal persons and persons with lesions of the brain. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 1943; 49 :489–506. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayashi M, Kato M, Igarashi K, Kashima H. Superior fluid intelligence in children with Asperger’s disorder. Brain and Cognition. 2008; 66 (3):306–310. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaton RK, Chelune CJ, Talley JL, Kay GG, Curtiss G. Wisconsin card sorting test manual, revised and expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaton RK, Drexler M. Clinical and neuropsychological findings in schizophrenia and aging. In: Miller NE, Cohen GD, editors. Schizophrenia and aging. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1987. pp. 145–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill EL, Bird CM. Executive processes in Asperger syndrome: Patterns of performance in a multiple case series. Neuropsychologia. 2006; 44 :2822–2835. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingshead AB. Two-factor index of social position. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Sociology; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooper HE. Hooper visual organization test (VOT) Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandalaft MR, Didehbani N, Krawczyk DC, Allen TT, Chapman SB. Virtual reality social cognition training for young adults with high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2013; 43 (1):34–44. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanne SM, Gerber AJ, Quirmbach LM, Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Saulnier CA. The role of adaptive behavior in autism spectrum disorders: Implications for functional outcome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2011; 41 :1007–1018. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klin A, Saulnier CA, Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Volkmar FR, Lord C. Social and communication abilities and disabilities in higher-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders: The Vineland and ADOS. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2007; 37 :748–759. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kourkoulou A, Leekam SR, Findlay JM. Implicit learning of local context in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2012; 42 (2):244–256. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krasny L, Williams BJ, Provencal S, Ozonoff S. Social skills interventions for the autism spectrum: Essential ingredients and a model curriculum. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics in North America. 2003; 12 (1):107–122. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laine M, Butters N. A preliminary study of the problem solving strategies of detoxified long-tern alcoholics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1982; 10 :235–242. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeCouteur A, Rutter M, Lord C, Rios P, Robertson S, Holdgrafer M, et al. Autism diagnostic interview: A standardized investigator-based instrument. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1989; 19 :363–387. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liss M, Harel B, Fein D, Allen D, Dunn M, Feinstein C, et al. Predictors and correlates of adaptive functioning in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2001; 31 :219–230. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH, Jr, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule—generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2000; 30 :205–223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: A standardized investigator-based instrument. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1989; 19 :185–212. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord C, Rutter M, LeCouteur AL. Autism diagnostic interview revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1994; 24 :659–685. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacAfee J. Navigating the social world: A curriculum for individuals with Asperger’s syndrome, high functioning autism and related disorders. Arlington, TX: Future Horizons Inc; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacLean JE, Szatmari P, Jones MB, Bryson SE, Mahoney WJ, Bartolucci G, et al. Familial factors influence level of functioning in pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1999; 38 :746–753. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazefsky CA, Williams DL, Minshew NJ. Variability in adaptive behavior in Autism: Evidence for the importance of family history. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2008; 36 :591–599. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew NJ, Goldstein G. The pattern of intact and impaired memory functions in autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2001; 42 :1095–1101. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew NJ, Goldstein G, Siegel DJ. Speech and language in high-functioning autistic individuals. Neuropsychology. 1995; 9 :255–261. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew NJ, Goldstein G, Siegel DJ. Neuropsychologic functioning in autism: Profile of a complex information processing disorder. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 1997; 3 :303–316. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew N, Luna B, Sweeney J. Oculomotor evidence for neocortical systems but not cerebellar dysfunctions in autism. Neurology. 1999; 52 :917–922. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew NJ, Meyer J, Goldstein G. Abstract reasoning in autism: A dissociation between concept formation and concept identification. Neuropsychology. 2002; 16 :327–334. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minshew NJ, Sung K, Jones B, Furman J. Underdevelopment of the postural control system in autism. Neurology. 2004; 63 :2056–2061. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newsom C, Hovanitz CA. Autistic disorder. In: Mash EJ, Terdal LG, editors. Assessment of childhood disorders. 3. New York, NY: Guilford; 1997. pp. 408–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oswald DP, DiSalvo CA. Adaptive behavior assessment. In: Ollendick TH, Schroeder CS, editors. The encyclopedia of pediatric and clinical child psychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palmen A, Didden R, Lang R. A systematic review of behavioral intervention research on adaptive skill building in high-functioning young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012; 6 :602–617. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Ozonoff S. Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1996; 37 :51–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peppeé S, McCann J, Gibbon F, O’Hare A, Rutherford M. Receptive and expressive prosodic ability in children with high-functioning autism. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 2007; 50 :1015–1028. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao PA, Beidel DC, Murray MJ. Social skills interventions for children with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism: A review and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2008; 38 (2):353–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reitan RM, Wolfson D. The Halstead-retain neuro-psychological test battery: Theory and clinical interpretation. 2. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutter M. Cognitive deficits in the pathogenesis of autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 1983; 24 :513–531. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. The functional equivalence of problem solving skills. Cognitive Psychology. 1975; 7 :268–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon M, Buaminger N, Rogers SJ. Abstract reasoning and friendship in high functioning preadolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2011; 41 (1):32–43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soulieères I, Dawson M, Gernsbacher MA, Mottron L. The level and nature of autistic intelligence II: What about Asperger syndrome? PLoS ONE. 2011; 6 :e25372. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sparrow SS, Balla DA, Cicchetti DV. Vineland adaptive behavior scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndike RL, Hagen EP, Sattler JM. The stanford-binet intelligence scale. 4. Chicago: Riverside Publishing; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams DL, Goldstein G, Minshew NJ. Impaired memory for faces and social scenes in autism: Clinical implications of the memory disorder. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2005; 20 :1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams DL, Goldstein G, Minshew NJ. Neuropsychologic functioning in children with autism: Further evidence of disordered complex information processing. Child Neuropsychology. 2006a; 12 :279–298. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams DL, Goldstein G, Minshew NJ. Profile of memory function in children with autism. Neuropsychology. 2006b; 20 :21–29. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson BA, Alderman N, Burgess PW, Emslie H, Evans JJ. Behavioural assessment dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, England: Thames Valley Test Company; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]

Cognition and Psychopathology Lab

Why vs. how: the role of abstract and concrete thinking in anxiety and depression, by jenna vieira.

June 29, 2020

Research has shown that anxious and depressed individuals tend to think about their problems abstractly. In a study conducted by Joachim Stöber and Thomas Borkovec (2002), individuals diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were asked to describe the two main problems that they were currently worried about and their potential negative consequences. It was found that compared to people without the disorder, individuals with GAD described their problems in terms that were less specific and less distinct to the situation. A similar study carried out by Edward Watkins (2007) with depressed individuals found that compared to non-depressed people, they also described their problems less specifically and less distinctly.

Abstract thinking is vague, general, and non-specific to a situation. Thoughts are concerned with  why  something happened, what it means, and what it implies for the future. For example, an individual who is at a restaurant awaiting the arrival of a friend and notices that they are running late may wonder if something bad happened to their friend, if their friend does not like them anymore, or why this is happening to them. Rather than focusing on the details that make a situation unique (“I noticed there was an interruption in public transit when I was on my way to the restaurant, perhaps that’s why my friend is late”), one is instead thinking about the broad implications of the situation (“Maybe my friend does not respect me”).

Thinking about a problem generally rather than specifically makes it challenging to find alternative, more neutral explanations. It also makes it difficult to carry out specific actions to prepare for, prevent, or solve a problem. This encourages avoidance of the problem rather than head-on confrontation of it, meaning that it is never truly eliminated, and worry and negative thinking about it will continue. 

It is clear that the tendency of anxious and depressed individuals to think about their problems abstractly is actually quite unhelpful. So how can one fix this? If thinking too generally is the issue, then one should see an improvement in their mood when they begin to think in a more specific, concrete way. To examine this idea, Edward Watkins, Celine Baeyens, and Rebecca Read (2009) developed an intervention called concreteness training (CNT), which aims to train individuals out of an abstract thinking style and into a more concrete one. In an initial study, an experimenter guided depressed individuals to practice thinking concretely about six provided scenarios (half positive and half negative) and three personal, specific scenarios from memory. This entailed focusing on the details of each scenario using all of one’s senses, noticing what made each scenario’s events unique, imagining the process of  how  the events unfolded, and coming up with a step-by-step plan of  how  to move forward. Individuals then received a recording of the training, which they were asked to practice with once per day for one week. It was found that after one week, depression symptoms for those who had received CNT (compared to those who received a comparison training that was not expected to do much) were significantly reduced.

Ultimately, concrete thinking may be beneficial because encouraging an individual to vividly imagine an event happening in the present moment urges them to confront it. This often allows them to realize that the situation is not actually that bad or threatening, leading them to overcome it. Further, this type of thinking encourages one to take action, meaning that they may be more likely to discover and use more effective strategies to cope with and solve the problems that worry or distress them. Given the success observed with training depressed individuals to adopt a more concrete thinking style, future research should seek to uncover whether this is an equally beneficial intervention for anxious individuals.

Stöber, J., & Borkovec, T. D. (2002). Reduced concreteness of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Findings from a therapy study.  Cognitive Therapy and Research ,  26 (1), 89-96. doi:10.1023/A:1013845821848

Watkins, E. (2007). Reduced concreteness of rumination in depression: A pilot study.  Personality and Individual Differences ,  43 (6), 1386-1395. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.007

Watkins, E., Baeyens, C. B., & Read, R. (2009). Concreteness training reduces dysphoria: Proof-of-principle for repeated cognitive bias modification in depression.  Journal of Abnormal Psychology ,  118 (1), 55-64. doi:10.1037/a0013642

Abstract Thinking: Meaning And Examples

Abstract thinking skills are essential to succeed in the workplace. Yes, we all have abstract thinking skills, but they’re of…

Abstract thinking skills are essential to succeed in the workplace. Yes, we all have abstract thinking skills, but they’re of varying degrees. Certain jobs require a higher level of abstract thinking skills.

Abstract thinking helps us solve problems, make evaluations and select the right team. To give an example of abstract thinking , how does an HR Head reviewing two candidates with similar resumes make a selection? They probably observe the two candidates during their interviews and deduce their personality types, which involves using abstract thinking skills.

Meaning Of Abstract Thinking

Concrete vs. abstract thinking, examples of abstract thinking, development of abstract thinking, how to improve abstract thinking, training with harappa.

So, let’s understand the meaning of abstract thinking.

  Abstract thinking is a way of reasoning—a systematic approach to problem-solving that involves conceptualizing, making generalizations and arriving at conclusions. In abstract thinking, we process information received through our senses and try to connect it to the world.

Here’s another example of abstract thinking: two supervisors have been asked to inspect 100 boxes of mangoes to see if they’ve ripened. Supervisor A checks 10 mangoes per box. If he finds them ripe, he assumes the rest are too and finishes his task in 10 minutes. Supervisor B checks every mango in every box.

  From the above abstract thinking example, it’s clear Supervisor A is able to identify a pattern, whereas Supervisor B painstakingly adopts the longer route.

  The opposite of abstract thinking is concrete thinking, which is also sometimes called literal thinking. To better understand the meaning of abstract thinking , let’s look at the difference between the two.

  Concrete thinking is reasoning based on what you can see, hear, feel and experience in the present moment. It’s sometimes called literal thinking because it focuses on the exact meaning of things. A concrete thinker will think of specific steps in a task and ‘how’ they’ll perform it, unconcerned about anything beyond the assigned task. An abstract thinker will want to know the ‘why’ behind the task.

  Abstract thinking means possessing the ability to comprehend concepts that aren’t directly tethered to concrete, physical objects or experiences but are ‘invisible’, such as wisdom or strength. They can conceptualize without the need to see or touch. Abstract thinking is considered part of higher-order reasoning. People who think abstractly can analyze situations, understand concepts, innovate and formulate theories. They’re usually good at:

• Solving complex problems
• Creating art of all types
• Coming up with innovative solutions

However, a combination of both abstract and concrete thinking skills is required in a work environment for creativity and productivity. Organizations can select the right people for a task, depending on the type of thinking they veer toward.

  Abstract skills are valued not only in the workplace but also in educational institutions. The study of languages is an example of abstract thinking because it entails the expression of abstract concepts. So do science and math, which involve testing hypotheses and theories.

  The meaning of abstract thinking can be best expressed through examples.

A wonderful example of abstract thinking is humor. A person sharing a joke is usually able to find connections between seemingly unrelated things.

  Let’s have a look at some more examples to get a better idea of the meaning of abstract thinking . A storyteller who can visualize the whole narrative before they start writing it has strong abstract thinking skills. The ability to envision the whole picture without relying solely on existing knowledge is very useful in an organization. It enables one to think critically and find creative solutions to problems.

  But, are people born with this ability or is it developed? Jean Piaget, a renowned Swiss psychologist, explained that the development of abstract thinking begins in childhood. According to Piaget, abstract thinking skills develop as children get older, interact with their environment and learn from new experiences.

  Let’s now look at Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development to understand the development of abstract thinking.

  According to Piaget, abstract thinking develops throughout the course of childhood—from birth through adolescence to early childhood. Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development identifies four distinct stages of intellectual development during childhood. They are:

• Birth—around two years: Babies think only concretely. They think about what they can observe. They lack object permanence, which means that an object ceases to exist for them if they can’t see or hear it. So, if they can’t hear or see the rattle, they will not remember it.
•   Two—seven years: Children start to understand symbols, which is when, according to Piaget, abstract thinking starts to develop in them. For example, they begin to understand that A is for Apple and realize that things that aren’t physically in front of them can exist.
•   Seven—eleven years: Children are capable of logical reasoning, though their thinking still remains ‘concrete’ and connected to what they directly experience through their five senses.
•   Twelve—adulthood : According to Piaget, abstract thinking skills come into their own in this period. This is the stage where the full development of abstract thinking takes place. For example, individuals learn how to empathize and put themselves in another’s shoes. Being able to think about hypothetical situations, they start making plans for the future.

The core idea of Piaget’s t heory is that intellectual development in children is not a quantitative process achieved by adding knowledge. As they grow older, there is a qualitative change in their thinking. According to Piaget, abstract thinking naturally develops as children begin to interact with the people and objects around them. The question then arises: Does the development of abstract thinking stop in adulthood?

  Yes, it’s possible to improve abstract thinking skills , which in turn enhance your ability to solve problems, understand and share complex concepts and get more involved in creative activities. Once you know how to improve abstract thinking skills, you can make a conscious effort to practice them.

  Activities that involve recognizing patterns, analyzing ideas, synthesizing information, solving problems and creating things help improve abstract thinking skills. Extempore theatre, playing with puzzles, optical illusions, creating models, writing poetry and all forms of art train the mind to think in multiple ways beyond the obvious. Abstract skills are also domain-specific. Research has shown those in the field of science can improve their abstract thinking abilities by pursuing art-related activities. Metaphors and analogies also stimulate abstract thinking as they connect the concrete to the abstract. So, abstract thinking is not really abstract but a matter of creating connections, a matter of training.

Harappa’s Thinking Critically course helps professionals, managers and team leaders think through situations before making decisions, engage with opposing views to evaluate all possible outcomes and articulate the reasons behind their decisions. Strengthen your problem-solving skills and grow as a leader with Harappa. Sign up today!