research vs abstract thinking

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• 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

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

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."

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

Psychologily

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.

• 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

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.

The art and science of abstract thinking

Anne-Laure Le Cunff

What is something we only become capable of doing after age eleven, that helps us solve complex problems and write poetry, but needs to be yielded carefully? That’s abstract thinking, a powerful tool for creativity and innovation which anyone can learn how to use better.

The difference between concrete and abstract thinking

Concrete thinking is closely related to experiences that can be directly observed. It involves everyday, tangible facts and physical objects. On the other hand, abstract thinking is a higher-order reasoning skill. It deals with conceptual ideas, patterns, and theories.

For instance, thinking about the Statue of Liberty is a concrete thought, but thinking about what it represents — the idea of liberty — is an abstract thought. Listing the names of everyone on the team who are working on a specific project is concrete thinking, but questioning whether this is the best team for the project is abstract thinking.

Another way to put it is that concrete thinking asks how whereas abstract thinking asks why . In the words of researchers from Tel-Aviv University: “Focusing on the means required to achieve a specific goal ultimately entails transforming an abstract idea into a concrete action and thus primes a concretizing mindset; likewise, focusing on the purpose of an action primes an abstracting mindset.” 

According to famous psychologist Jean Piaget, it is not until around eleven years old that children become able to think abstractly and to use metacognition . Before that age, we are only able to think logically about objects we can physically manipulate. Our ability to think abstractly keeps on expanding as we grow up, but most people take this ability for granted, and very few proactively practice their abstract reasoning skills.

Three concrete ways to practice abstract thinking

It is possible to improve your abstract reasoning skills.

• Reframe the question. Go from “how?” to “why?” in order to take a step-back and tap into your abstract reasoning skills. For example, if you feel stuck trying to write a blog post, ask yourself: why am I writing this, who is this for, what exactly am I trying to achieve? This higher-order approach may help you discover a fresh angle to tackle your project.
• Look for patterns. Instead of looking at each concrete element in isolation, practice networked thinking to uncover abstract patterns and underlying dynamics in the relationship between those elements. Don’t be afraid to use your imagination. Sometimes patterns can be hard to detect, but the simple process of looking for them will help you improve your abstract reasoning skills.
• Take inspiration from abstract thinkers. Philosophers, artists, and scientists are great abstract thinkers. Like a philosopher, examine the nature of ideas such as success, reality, or community. Like a poet, go from concrete thinking to abstract thinking by using metaphors, simile, analogies, and symbolism. Like a scientist, formulate a theory by going from the particular to the general. Is the concrete event you are currently observing an occurrence of a wider phenomenon? Could you test your hypothesis?

Abstract thinking is essential in order to solve complex problems, come up with innovative ideas, and collaborate with other people. It allows us to analyse situations, understand new concepts, formulate theories, and to put things in perspective.

Without abstract thinking, we would not be able to grasp concepts such as friendship, hope, democracy, imagination, success, wisdom, happiness, or even love. However, while it’s a powerful tool to add to your thinking toolbox, it should not be the only tool, and it should be used wisely.

A balancing game

As with any powerful tool, abstract thinking can be a double-edged sword. First, abstract thinking without concrete thinking amounts to imagination without execution. Creativity requires an ambidextrous mindset which balances exploration and exploitation. Once you have figured out why an idea needs to see the light of day, you need to think about how you will make it happen. In other words, you need to go from abstract thinking to concrete thinking.

It can also be dangerous for your mental health to always default to abstract thinking, especially when thinking about past events. Psychology researchers explain that “abstract rumination is characteristic of depressed individuals, as is the tendency to experience post-decisional regret.” It is particularly true of thinking about traumatic events, where concrete thinking has been found to be much more helpful than abstract thinking.

Despite these caveats, abstract thinking skills are particularly helpful in situations that require thinking outside the box, uncovering hidden patterns, and generating innovative ideas. Just make sure you are balancing it with concrete thinking and monitoring your thought patterns so abstract thinking doesn’t turn into abstract rumination.

Join 80,000 mindful makers!

Maker Mind is a weekly newsletter with science-based insights on creativity, mindful productivity, better thinking and lifelong learning.

One email a week, no spam, ever. See our Privacy policy .

Don’t work more. Work mindfully.

Ness Labs provides content, coaching, courses and community to help makers put their minds at work. Apply evidence-based strategies to your daily life, discover the latest in neuroscience research, and connect with fellow mindful makers.

Ness Labs © 2022. All rights reserved .

Abstract Intelligence

• First Online: 25 July 2021

Cite this chapter

• Matthew N. O. Sadiku 2 &
• Sarhan M. Musa 2  

1506 Accesses

This chapter introduces the reader to abstract thinking and abstract intelligence. Abstract thinking is the ability to understand concepts that are real but not tied to concrete physical objects and experiences. In other words, abstract thinking is the ability to consider concepts beyond what we observe physically. Abstract intelligence is a form of driving force that transfers information into behaviors or actions. It is the ability to respond to words, numbers, letters, etc. It is the ability to carry on abstract thinking. It is a measure of one’s ability to reason and understand complex concepts and assimilate new information beyond previous experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Y. Wang, On abstract intelligence: Toward a unifying theory of natural, artificial, machinable, and computational intelligence. Int. J. Soft. Sci. Comput. Intell. 1 (1), 1–17 (2009)

Article   Google Scholar  

M. Vital, 9-types-of-intelligence – Infographic, https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intelligence-infographic/

Y. Wang, On abstract intelligence and its denotational mathematics foundations, in Proceedings of the 2008 7th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (2008)

Google Scholar  

R.J. Sternberg, Intelligence. Wires Cogn. Sci. 3 (5), 501–511 (2012)

R. Joy, Abstract thinking: what it is, why we need it, and when to rein it in (2019), https://www.healthline.com/health/abstract-thinking

M.N.O. Sadiku, O.D. Olaleye, S.M. Musa, Abstract intelligence: An introduction. Int. J. Trend Res. Develop. 7 (3), 21–23 (2020)

J. Thomas, The difference between concrete vs. abstract thinking (2020), https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/self-esteem/the-difference-between-concrete-vs-abstract-thinking/

Abstract reasoning test, https://www.123test.com/abstract-reasoning-test/

Y. Wang et al., Abstract intelligence: embodying and enabling cognitive systems by mathematical engineering. Int. J. Cogn. Inform. Nat. Intell. 11 (1), 1–22 (2017)

Abstract thinking: what it is, why we need it, and when to rein it in, https://www.healthline.com/health/abstract-thinking#takeaway

Tutorial: concrete vs. abstract thinking, http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html#:~:text=Abstract%20thinkers%20are%20able%20to,attributes%20or%20share%20those%20relationships.&text=A%20concrete%20thinker%20can%20count,thinker%20can%20think%20about%20numbers

S. Gautam, Intelligence: definitions and characteristics, Term paper, Psychology, https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/term-paper/intelligence-term-paper/intelligence-definitions-and-characteristics-term-paper-psychology/13524

Abstract intelligence test, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=c21pdGh2aWxsZS5rMTIubW8udXN8YXAtcHN5Y2hvbG9neXxneDo4MDE2NWYwMmRkODNlNzM

I. Yardley, Abstract Intelligence: How to Survive, and, Excel, in Digital Reality (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017)

Y. Wang, Advances in Abstract Intelligence and Soft Computing (IGI Global, 2012)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX, USA

Matthew N. O. Sadiku & Sarhan M. Musa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Sadiku, M.N.O., Musa, S.M. (2021). Abstract Intelligence. In: A Primer on Multiple Intelligences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77584-1_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77584-1_16

Published : 25 July 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-77583-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-77584-1

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (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

WHAT ARE CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT THINKING?

Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug ; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations , like “on”. A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers . A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions , like affection.

Another example of concrete thinking in young children is a two or three year old who thinks that as long as he stays out of his bedroom, it will not be bed time. In this case, the abstract concept of time (bedtime) is understood in terms of the more concrete concept of place (bedroom). The abstract idea of bedtime comes to mean the concrete idea of being in my bedroom.

Another example that applies to two or three year olds is the following. One of the favorite Dr. Seuss books is Green Eggs and Ham, which ends with the narrator changing his mind from rejecting green eggs and ham under any circumstances to trying them and actually liking them. At a concrete level of understanding, the story is about a stubborn person changing his mind. At a more abstract level of understanding, it is about people in general being capable of modifying their thoughts and desires even when they are convinced that they cannot or do not want to do so. This more abstract level of understanding can be appreciated by two and three year old children only if the higher level of meaning comes out of a discussion of the book with a more mature adult. At older ages and higher levels of thinking, this same process of more mature thinkers facilitating higher levels of abstraction in less mature thinkers characterizes the process of teaching abstract thinking. For example, this is how great philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, taught their pupils how to think abstractly.

An example of concrete versus abstract thinking in adolescence is the following. A concrete thinking adolescent can recognize that a good strategy in football is to make maximal use of the team’s most talented players. An abstract thinking adolescent can recognize that this strategy in football is the same as using ones cognitive strengths in studying for an exam. In general, abstract thinkers are able to perceive analogies and relationships that others may not see and thereby understand higher levels of abstraction.

The term abstraction also applies to uses of language. Abstract language is said to include terms that refer to entities other than physical objects and events, for example, “justice” and “freedom” as opposed to terms that refer to actual physical things, like “chair” and “car”. Abstract language also includes indirect uses of language, such as metaphors and figures of speech. For example, a concrete thinker would interpret “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones” to refer literally to breakable panes of glass. An abstract thinker, in contrast, would understand that the figure of speech means that people who have faults of their own should not criticize others. One should be careful, however, not to equate metaphor with abstract. Metaphors that were well understood before the injury (e.g., “Go take a hike”) may be just as concrete and easy to understand as their literal equivalents (“Please leave”). Sometimes metaphors come to be so commonly used and easy to understand that we forget that they are metaphors, like “He’s a barrel of laughs.”

The terms concrete and abstract are also used to suggest how practical or impractical an idea might be. In this sense, concrete ideas are those that have relevance to action (e.g., a recipe is concrete because it states how to cook a dinner; a differential equation is abstract because it is not tied to action in this way). This connection to action offers teachers and parents a way to make abstract ideas more concrete (and therefore more understandable) by showing their relevance to action. For example, chemistry can be connected to cooking or medicine; mathematics can be connected to construction. These connections with practical activity help concrete thinkers understand and appreciate abstract concepts.

Abstraction is a relative concept, related to the age of the child. For a two year old, “the day after tomorrow” is a highly abstract concept. For a college student, the day after tomorrow is relatively concrete, as opposed to highly abstract ideas like Heisenberg’s Indeterminancy Principle. And of course there are many degrees of abstraction between these two extremes. A major component of intellectual development is this process of gradually moving from extremely concrete thinking to increasingly abstract thinking in an ever increasing array of content areas.

To some extent, concrete and abstract are domain specific For example, for a mathematician, concepts like exponent and equation are second nature and relatively concrete in their meaning. However, that same mathematician might find concepts like value as used in political economy to be quite abstract. The reverse might be true for a political economist. Familiarity with the content in a given domain or speciality area dictates to some extent what will be considered concrete (and therefore easy to understand) and what will be considered abstract (and therefore hard to understand).

The ability to think concretely and abstractly is also associated with the ability to transfer what is learned from one context to another. For example, a student who is a reasonably abstract thinker might learn the organization of an essay in English class and then transfer that learning to her writing in social studies class. In contrast, a concrete thinker might need to be specifically taught in both classes.

WHY ARE CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT THINKING IMPORTANT FOR MANY STUDENTS AFTER TBI?

It is often said that individuals with TBI have difficulty with abstract levels of thinking. Frontal lobe injury is typically identified as the source of this difficulty. In students with brain injury, impaired abstract thinking is frequently associated with reduced foresight, judgment, insight, reasoning, creativity, problem solving, and mental flexibility.

Indeed, one popular theory of frontal lobe function maintains that many of the symptoms associated with injury to the frontal lobes can be grouped under the general heading “stimulus-bound”. In addition to the difficulties listed in the last paragraph, these individuals tend to be impulsive (directed in their actions by whatever is most salient in the here and now) and distractible (attending to events in the here and now, however irrelevant). They have difficulty with multi-step activities and in general have difficulty sustaining goal-directed activity. Within this theory, difficulties at the level of abstract thinking have the same underlying cause as impulsive behavior and difficulty modifying behavior as a result of experience.

There are other theories that account for difficulty with abstract thinking after TBI. However, most investigators agree that these difficulties are common and need to be attended to in rehabilitation and special education. Brain injury-related difficulties must, of course, be distinguished from normal developmental phenomena. In section 1 above, emphasis was placed on gradual development in childhood and adolescence from very concrete to increasingly abstract thinking. The concrete thinking of a child with brain injury may be developmentally normal, not a result of the injury.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN FEATURES OF TEACHING OR TRAINING THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH ABSTRACT THINKING?

Understanding the Problem As always, the first task for teachers and parents is to correctly understand the problem. The concrete thinking associated with brain injury can easily be misidentified as mental retardation or a general problem with learning. Students with abstract thinking problems might be reasonably effective learners and processors of information in select domains.

Having identified the difficulty with abstract thinking, parents and educators should become familiar with the compensations they can implement and procedures to gradually improve the student’s ability to think abstractly.

Environmental Compensations and Strategies Competent and Sensitive Communication Partners: Knowing that a student is a concrete thinker, communication partners, including teachers and parents, should adjust their language accordingly. They should either avoid the use of language that is at too high a level of abstraction, or link abstract language with its concrete equivalent. For example, in encouraging a student to study hard, a parent might say, “You’ve got to give it your best shot – study real hard.” “Give it your best shot” is a metaphor that might be too abstract; “study real hard” is a literal or concrete equivalent.

Using Concrete Meanings to Support Comprehension of Abstract Concepts: When learning to add and subtract, first graders commonly rely on their fingers or other physical objects to represent the abstract numbers. The children’s conceptual transition into the world of abstract numbers is supported by the representation of those numbers in physical things that can be seen, held, and moved. Similarly, concrete thinking high school students might be able to understand an abstract social arrangement, like the caste system in India, by comparing it to social cliques they are familiar with in their school. Discussing similarities and differences between that which is unfamiliar and distant (i.e., abstract) and that which is familiar and close to home (i.e., concrete) is a valuable way to help students grasp the abstract concept.

Facilitating the Development of Abstract Thinking There are no known “exercises” in abstract thinking that have the effect of turning a concrete thinker into an abstract thinker across domains of content. Sometimes practice with “brain teasers” or math and logic problems is suggested as a means to facilitate more abstract thinking. However, there is no evidence that practice of this sort enhances abstract thinking in a generalizable way. That is, a person can improve performance with brain teasers, math problems, and logic problems with no transfer to other domains of thinking. This failure of transfer is connected with the theme of “domain specificity” introduced earlier: a person can be a reasonably flexible and abstract thinker in one area (e.g., sports) and remain a concrete thinker in another area (e.g., literature). Therefore, attempts to facilitate increasingly abstract thinking should be made within all relevant academic areas (e.g., math, literature, science, social studies), without expecting that improvements in one area will yield improvements in another area. If possible, similar language and analogies should be used (e.g., by parents and teachers) across areas so as not to overwhelm students with too much information or too many comparisons. Schools should not expect that exercises in abstract thinking in a therapy context (e.g., a speech-language therapist using workbook exercises in abstract thinking) will transfer to other academic or social domains.

An alternative to “exercises” (like brain teasers) is to consider how the great thinkers of the past successfully taught their students how to think more deeply and abstractly, and how parents of young children facilitate the development of their child’s thought processes. In the latter case, there is considerable evidence showing that parents who think out loud with their children in ways suggested by the following list facilitate their child’s cognitive development. That is, parents who think out loud with their children in these ways have children who, other things being equal, develop organized, deep, and abstract thinking more quickly than comparable children who do not spend time with adults who think out loud with them in these ways. Teachers can play the same thinking-out-loud role with students. In effect, adults are taking children on as “apprentices in thinking” as they think out loud with the children. As adults think out loud with children, they should routinely seek feedback from the student to ensure that the adult’s “out-loud thinking” is being understood and perhaps even triggering the student’s thought processes.

Specialists in cognitive development and intervention may be able to assist school staff in their attempts to facilitate development of abstract thinking in students with brain injury.

Written by Mark Ylvisaker, Ph.D. with the assistance of Mary Hibbard, Ph.D. and Timothy Feeney, Ph.D.

LEAR Net A program of the Brain Injury Association of New York State, and funded by the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.

Copyright 2006, by The Brain Injury Association of New York State 10 Colvin Avenue, Albany, NY 12206 - Phone: (518) 459-7911 - Fax: (518) 482-5285

.Designed and Powered by Camelot Media Group .

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, types of thinking.

Thinking is the cognitive activities you use to process information, solve problems, make decisions, and create new ideas. You use your thinking skills when you try to make sense of experiences, organize information, make connections, ask questions, make plans, or decide what to do.

There are several different types of thinking or ways to think.

Creative thinking  – refers to the ability to conceive new and innovative ideas by breaking from established thoughts, theories, rules, and procedures. It involves putting things together in new and imaginative ways. Creative thinking is often referred to as “thinking outside the box.”

Analytical thinking – refers to the ability to separate a whole into its basic parts in order to examine the parts and their relationships. It involves thinking in a logical, step-by-step manner to break down a larger system of information into its parts.

Critical thinking – refers to the ability to exercise careful evaluation or judgment in order to determine the authenticity, accuracy, worth, validity, or value of something. In addition to precise, objective analysis, critical thinking involves synthesis, evaluation, reflection, and reconstruction.   And rather than strictly breaking down the information, critical thinking explores other elements that could have an influence on conclusions.

Concrete thinking – refers to the ability to comprehend and apply factual knowledge. It is about thinking of objects or ideas as specific items, rather than as a theoretical representation of a more general concept. It involves thinking only on the surface, always literal, and to-the-point.

Abstract thinking – refers to the ability to use concepts to make and understand generalizations then relating or connecting them to others items, events, or experiences. It involves paying attention to the hidden meanings thus allowing you to observe and understand theories and possibilities.

Divergent Thinking – refers to the ability to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions in an effort to find one that works. It involves bringing facts and data together from various sources and then applying logic and knowledge to solve problems or make decisions. It starts from a common point and moves outward in diverging directions to involve a variety of aspects or perspectives.

Convergent thinking – refers to the ability to put a number of different pieces or perspectives of a topic together in some organized, logical manner to find a single answer. It involves focusing on a finite number of solutions rather than proposing multiple solutions.

Sequential (linear) thinking – refers to the ability to process information in orderly prescribed manner. It involves a step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be obtained before another step is taken.

Holistic (nonlinear) thinking – refers to the ability to see the big picture and recognize the interconnectedness of various components that form the larger system.  It involves expanding your thought process in multiple directions, rather than in just one direction, and understanding a system by sensing its patterns.

Opposing Categories of Types of Thinking

Types of thinking can be divided into several opposing categories;

Concrete Thinking vs. Abstract Thinking

• Convergent Thinking vs. Divergent Thinking
• Creative Thinking vs. Analytical Thinking
• Sequential (linear) Thinking vs. Holistic Thinking

Concrete thinking refers to the thinking on the surface whereas abstract thinking requires much more analysis and goes deeper. Concrete thinking will only consider the literal meaning while abstract thinking goes deeper than the facts to consider multiple or hidden meanings.

Concrete thinking refers to the process of comprehending and applying factual knowledge. It involves only those things which are visible and obvious allowing any individual to observe and understand. Abstract thinking goes beyond all the visible and present things to find hidden meanings and underlying purpose.

A concrete thinker will look at the flag and only sees specific colors, marking, or symbols that appear on the cloth. An abstract thinker would see the flag as a symbol of a country or organization. They may also see it as a symbol of liberty and freedom.

Convergent thinking vs. Divergent thinking

Convergent thinking involves bringing facts and data together from various sources and then applying logic and knowledge to solve problems or to make informed decisions. Convergent thinking involves putting a number of different pieces or perspectives of a topic back together in some organized, logical manner to find a single answer.

The deductive reasoning that the Sherlock Holmes used in solving mysteries is a good example of convergent thinking. By gathering various bits of information, he was able to put the pieces of a puzzle together and come up with a logical answer to the question of “Who done it?”

Divergent thinking, on the other hand, involves breaking a topic apart to explore its various component parts and then generating new ideas and solutions. Divergent thinking is thinking outwards instead of inward. It is a creative process of developing original and unique ideas and then coming up with a new idea or a solution to a problem.

Analytical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking

Analytical thinking is about breaking information down into its parts and examining those parts their relationship. It involves thinking in a logical, step-by-step manner in order to analyze data, solve problems, make decisions, and/or use information. Creative thinking, on the other hand, refers to conceiving new and innovative ideas by breaking from established thoughts, theories, rules, and procedures. It is not about breaking things down or taking them apart, but rather putting things together in new and imaginative ways.

An analytical thinker may look at a bicycle to determine how it works or what is wrong with it. A creative thinker may look at the same bicycle and think or an new way to make it faster or a new way to use it.

Sequential Thinking vs. Holistic Thinking

Sequential thinking is processing information in orderly prescribed manner. It involves a step-by-step progression where the first step needs to be completed before then second step occurs.

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c

Holistic thinking, on the other hand, is about seeing the big picture and recognize the interconnectedness of various components that form larger systems.  It involves expanding your thought process in multiple directions, rather than in one direction, in order to understand how everything connects. Holistic thinkers want to understand the patterns and how thing connect to each other.

When assembling a table, a sequential thinker would follow the step-by-step directions. A holistic thinker would want to see or mentally visualize how the table would look when it is completed.

Author:  James Kelly, July 2015

Related Links

Types of thinking

Critical thinking

Brainstorming

Blooms taxonomy

Blooms taxonomy revised

Mind mapping

Mind mapping tips

How to mind map

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2016

Relational thinking and relational reasoning: harnessing the power of patterning

• Patricia A Alexander 1  

npj Science of Learning volume  1 , Article number:  16004 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

19 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

This article offers an overview of the nature and role of relational thinking and relational reasoning in human learning and performance, both of which pertain to the discernment of meaningful patterns within any informational stream. Distinctions between thinking and reasoning relationally are summarized, along with specific forms of patterning that might be discerned. Next, the article summarizes what is presently known about relational reasoning, and then moves to explore future directions in educational research and in instructional practice that warrant attention based on the empirical literature.

Similar content being viewed by others

What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019

Interviews in the social sciences

Principal component analysis

Introduction.

A baby reaches for his mother among a gathering of women; a student becomes enrapt in a story, seeing herself in the main character; an attending physician realizes that her patient is displaying abnormal symptoms indicative of acute myocardial infarction; and a physicist sets out to disprove an espoused cosmological theory. At the core of all human learning and performance, as with the diverse episodes just described, is the foundational ability to perceive patterns that thread through all of nature, including human nature. Those patterns can be as intimate as a hand gesture; 1 as academically core as literacy comprehension; 2 as critical as effective medical diagnosis; 3 or as sweeping as the laws of the physical universe. 4

Without the ability to discern meaningful patterns in the stream of data that continually flood the senses, humans would remain prisoners within a world of isolated sights, smells, and sounds, unable to comprehend or to build on experiences across time and space. Thankfully, humans enter the world with the capacity to perceive patterns within the sensory information that surrounds them and then draw on that capacity in intentional, effort, and strategic ways to promote higher-order cognitive processing. 5 – 7 Granted that initial capacity, which we labeled as relational thinking, 8 can be quite primitive and can vary greatly from person to person or from situation to situation, but it is nonetheless the neurobiological functioning that guides the development of human perception and cognition across the lifespan.

This contention that the ability to discern patterns within any informational stream is rudimentary, pervasive, and essential is by no means new. From the philosophical writings of Heraclitus, Aristotle, and Immanuel Kant to William James and John Dewey, from the Gestalt school of psychology to contemporary research in cognitive science 9 , 10 and neuroscience, 11 , 12 the foundational nature and potency of relational thinking appears undeniable. Yet, there is still much to be learned about pattern perception and its purposeful utilization. Toward that end, what new insights are offered herein pertain to the emerging body of psychological, cognitive neuroscience, and psychometric research on the character of the relations that might be spontaneously perceived (i.e., relational thinking) and, more particularly, on the intentional harnessing of pattern recognition to drive higher levels of human learning and performance (i.e., relational reasoning).

Thinking and reasoning relationally

To move forward in the discussion of harnessing the power of patterning, it is important to first disentangle the two associated processes I have referenced, relational thinking, and relational reasoning—processes that operate in concert to allow for the coupling of percepts and concepts. Further, it is essential to consider how those notions compare with associated concepts that populate the cognitive science and neuroscience literatures. 13 – 15

Relational thinking and reasoning in comparison

According to Peirce, 16 percepts, which are mental impressions formed in the moment from the sensory systems data, 17 – 19 are “the starting point of all our reasoning” (p 308). Percepts are not isolated, occasional, or singular occurrences. Rather, at any given moment, minds are being bombarded by innumerable percepts. 20 , 21 Further, those percepts continue unabated, regardless of human will, judgment, or knowledge.

In fact, these configurations are, for the most part, fleeting sensations, remaining largely outside of human awareness, 20 that is, unless those percepts garner attention or become consciously accessible. 22 It is through relational thinking that the onslaught of perceptions becomes recognizable or consciously accessible as some discernible object or idea (i.e., concepts). Without relational thinking, the innumerable percepts would remain separate pieces and never assemble into impressions or rudimentary forms that could potentially influence human thought or action. In effect, without relational thinking, there is no mechanism for building on percepts or for the coupling of those percepts with the concepts that populate the human mind. 8

Nonetheless, more is required of human performance than a reliance on more instinctual, spontaneous, and fleeting discernments of patterns (i.e., relational thinking). For the attainment of more sustained, deeper, and what are popularly regarded as higher-order forms of cognitive thought and performance, humans must build on the more innate capacity to perceive patterns. The mechanism that my colleagues and I have targeted that serves the fundamental need to purposefully harness the power of patterning is relational reasoning. 8 , 23

Although it is important to acknowledge that the boundaries between these more intuitive and intentional systems of mental processing may not be categorically distinct, 24 I nonetheless juxtapose these two forms of pattern recognition on several key dimensions, including locus, temporal frame, and cognitive demands to sharpen the salient contrasts ( Table 1 ). As the comparison offered in Table 1 suggests, relational thinking can, thus, be characterized as more fleeting, external, and rather effortless and unconscious in nature. This stands in contrast to relational reasoning, which has a more enduring, representational quality and which demands effort and intentionality on the part of the human mind. Although a more in-depth consideration of the neurobiological underpinnings of relational reasoning is beyond the scope of this overview, there is ample evidence that this capacity, which emerges within the first years of life, rapidly develops into middle and late adolescence. 11 , 25 Further, particular regions of the brain, most notably the rostrolateral prefrontal cortex, seem especially implicated when children and adult engage in relational reasoning tasks.

Relational thinking and reasoning in perspective

With the brief comparison of relational thinking and relational reasoning as a backdrop, let me situate those characterizations within the broader literatures in cognitive science and neuroscience that touch upon such underlying mental capacities and processes. For one, the distinction my colleagues and I have drawn between the more intuitive versus the more intentional systems of relational processing is not commonly addressed within the cognitive science and neuroscience literatures. Rather, a more consolidated focus on higher forms of cognition predominates, and understandably so given the emphasis on relational processes within sophisticated problem-solving areas such as mathematics, rational thought, and scientific reasoning. 13 , 26 For example, in their review of relational knowledge, Halford et al. 27 (p 488) focused on “relational representations”, which they distinguish from more automatic, modular, or nonanalytic processes.

When the discussion progresses to more intentional and effortful relational processes, the similarities and differences that arise between the conceptualizations and operationalizations offered herein and those populating the cognitive science and neuroscience literatures are more intricate and nuanced. At the conceptual level, for instance, the definition of relational reasoning framing my colleagues’ and my program of research is generally compatible with that associated with the neuroscience literature. For instance, Krawczyk et al. 28 (p 588) characterize relational reasoning as the human brain’s “unique capacity to reason about abstract relationships among items in our environment”—a conception that parallels our characterization of relational reasoning as the ability to discern meaningful patterns in the stream of data. 23 To this base definition, others 11 , 27 make explicit reference to relations between “mental” representations. Although multiple representations are involved in our conceptualization and operationalization of relational reasoning as well, those representations may be in mundi as well as in mente —a subtle but relevant distinction that allows for the percept–concept coupling with which I previously eluded.

Another similarity between the conception of relational reasoning evoked in our current program of research and that populating the cognitive science and neuroscience literatures centers on executive function factors such as working memory and inhibitory control that seemingly underlie this and other forms higher cognition. 29 – 31 Further, depending on the nature of the symbols entailed in in mundi or in mente representations (e.g., linguistic, numeric, figural, or graphic), additional individual differences factors such as visuospatial memory, reading fluency, and domain-specific knowledge can prove influential to the discernment of meaningful patterns within informational displays. 27 , 32 – 34 Moreover, when relational reasoning is examined within novel problem-solving tasks or contexts, it is indicative of fluid intelligence. 25 , 35 , 36

As the noted similarities suggest, much of the essence of relational processing represented in the cognitive science and neuroscience literatures is preserved in the theoretical and empirical work my colleagues and I have undertaken. However, what my colleagues and I have sought to contribute to the discourse pertains more directly to the manifestations of relational reasoning being explicitly explored by cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, and the manner in which those manifestations are systematically investigated. Specifically, as will be elaborated in the ensuing sections, my colleagues and I have attempted to push the exploration of relational reasoning beyond its more routine foci so as to consider multiple forms, measures, and techniques that can be utilized to unearth the varied forms of this foundational mental capacity.

Toward that end, I will now turn to the specific forms and processes associated with relational reasoning that have been the focus of theoretical and empirical work by my colleagues and me, as well as by others (e.g., references 37 – 39 ). Subsequently, I will attempt to outline what my colleagues and I have come to learn about the relational reasoning, and what remains to be understood. Although not seeking to diminish the efforts underway in the broader research communities, I will highlight the recent work my collaborators and I undertaken in this brief survey. I will also consider how relational reasoning manifests in everyday functioning and problem solving, and what steps can be taken to harness that nature in service of fostering learning and academic development.

Relational reasoning in form

Over the past 4 years, my colleagues and I have delved into the construct of relational reasoning for the purpose of finding ways to ascertain its nature and to gauge its role in human learning and performance. Among our initial realizations was that much of the recent work in cognitive science and neuroscience, while theoretically informative, did not entirely serve the needs of educational researchers for several reasons. 29 For one, the methods employed to examine relational reasoning within cognitive science and neuroscience are highly specialized (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging or event-related potential) and cannot be pragmatically or widely utilized in educational research. Second, although the term relational reasoning as applied within these fields is similarly defined in terms of pattern perception, only one form of such pattern perception is routinely examined (i.e., analogical reasoning 35 ).

Further, the research in neuroscience demonstrates an overreliance on a singular measure, the Raven’s Matrices, 40 thereby restricting examination to only one form (analogical reasoning) and only one mode of representation (figural 29 , 35 ). Thus, in our research, we sought to investigate multiple forms of relational reasoning and to devise multiple psychometrically sound measures of relational reasoning entailing both figural and linguistic representations. We also wanted measures that could be easily administered to children, adolescence, and adults either online or in print. Samples of items from two of the resulting measures suitable for older adolescents and adults—the Test of Relational Reasoning (TORR 41 – 43 ), and the Verbal Test of Relational Reasoning (vTORR 44 , 45 )—are provided in the Supplementary Appendix .

As the sample items in the Supplementary Appendix illustrate, the TORR is figural in form and intended to function as a more fluid measure of relational reasoning ability. In contrast, vTORR was conceived as a somewhat more crystallized test of relational reasoning due to its linguistic content, although the novelty of the items still entail fluid or flexible problem solving on the part of respondents. A third measure, the Test of Relational Reasoning-Junior (TORRjr 46 , 47 ) was developed for use with children and early adolescents. The TORRjr was devised to be an easier version of the TORR and as such parallels that measure in its scales, items, and overall format.

Drawing on the extant literatures in reasoning (e.g., reference 48 ), mathematical set theory (e.g., reference 49 ), and philosophy (e.g., reference 50 ), my colleagues and I ultimately settled on four forms of relational reasoning that we felt encompassed key patterns of similarity and dissimilarity that could be discerned within any informational stream. 23 , 35 Those four forms, as illustrated in the sample items in the Supplementary Appendix , pertained to patterns of similarity (analogical reasoning), discrepancy (anomalous reasoning), opposition (antithetical reasoning), and exclusivity (antinomous reasoning). Although other forms of relational reasoning likely exist, these four forms were found to have theoretical and empirical grounding within the educational, psychological, and philosophical literatures.

Such grounding is especially apparent for the empirical investigations of analogical reasoning, which has garnered the most attention in the explicit study of relational reasoning (e.g., references 10 , 51 ), and anomalous reasoning, which has focused largely on the domains of science and mathematics (e.g., references 52 , 53 ). For example, Hofstadter 54 (p 499) has described analogies as “the very blue that fills the whole sky of cognition”. With similar conviction, Chinn and Brewer 38 (p 1) contended that “understanding how science students respond to anomalous data is essential to understanding knowledge acquisition in science classrooms”, as well as how students undergo theory change more broadly.

Although the empirical evidence for antinomous and antithetical reasoning may be somewhat less prevalent, it exists nonetheless. For instance, the research dealing with ontological categories within the sciences, especially the biological science (e.g., alive versus not alive; animal or plant), requires individuals to reason antinomously. 37 , 55 These very notions of antinomous and antithetical reasoning can be found within the writings of the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, who wrote about the unity of opposites. 56 In essence, what Heraclitus contended was that we can only really come to know something through its relation to its true opposite. At first glance, Heraclitus would seem to be making a case for antithetical reasoning. However, his discussion of “true” opposites takes on a more paradoxical orientation. In effect, to know happiness, we must juxtapose it to “not happiness”, or to understand “good” there must be “not good”. Support for more antithetical orientations can be found in the substantial literatures dealing with persuasive text and with conceptual change that consistently indicate the power of reasoning about opposing views or counterarguments to improve comprehension 57 , 58 and to dismantle misconceptions within academic domains. 59 – 61

In vitro studies

Over the past 5 years, my colleagues and I have sought the empirical evidence of these four forms and examined the association between relational reasoning and performance in varied cognitive domains. These empirical investigations have been both in vitro and in vivo in nature. For the in vitro studies (i.e., laboratory or experimental research), we submitted the previously described measures of relational reasoning (i.e., TORR, vTORR, and TORRjr) to various analyses within a number of academic domains. These analyses were undertaken to establish the psychometric properties of these measures, examine item functioning, determine underlying factor structures, and test differing structural models of relational reasoning. We also explored the association between relational reasoning and select executive function and individual difference indicators (e.g., comprehension ability and visuospatial working memory).

What this collection of investigations has revealed is that these three formal measures are psychometrically sound assessments of relational reasoning with items that operate within acceptable difficulty parameters (i.e., references 30 – 70 ) and that factor as expected. Further, we have ascertained that visuospatial working memory and reading comprehension ability were only moderately associated with the performance on TORR and vTORR, respectively. 42 , 43 , 45 We also tested the degree of association between TORR and the Raven’s Matrices, 40 which is so commonly used in neurobiological studies of relational reasoning. We determined that there was a significant positive correlation between these two presumed measures of relational reasoning, and that the TORR was more difficult for participants than the Raven’s. 42

One recent investigation by Grossnickle et al. 62 used items from the TORR to explore the componential processes underlying the four forms of relational reasoning via Bayesian network analyses. Grossnickle et al. found that the component processes of encoding, inferring, mapping, and applying that Sternberg 48 ascribed to analogical reasoning were also evident in students’ processes of anomalies, antitheses, and antinomies. These researchers also determined that low-performing students struggled more with working memory demands at the point of inferring and mapping.

There has also been evidence of significant associations between TORR scores and performance in the domains of engineering design 63 and maternity nursing (Fountain 64 ). For example, Dumas and Schmidt 63 determined that those with higher TORR scores, especially for the antinomy scale, produced more creative solutions to engineering design problems. Similarly, Fountain 64 found that relational reasoning capacity, as measured by the TORR, was a significant predictor of maternity nurses critical thinking as measured by their analysis of medical cases.

In vivo studies

Alongside these more experimental investigations, we have been exploring relational reasoning in vivo , that is, within naturally occurring settings that involve complex problem solving. These studies have uncovered evidence of analogical, anomalous, antithetical, and antinomous reasoning in the interactions between an attending physician and resident physicians engaged in diagnosing and treating patients. 3 In this investigation, Dumas et al. also demonstrated how these various forms of relational reasoning worked in concert to lead to more effective clinical outcomes. Jablansky et al. 65 similarly identified occasions of relational reasoning as first through twelfth graders thought aloud about the form and function of more or less familiar technological tools. What was significant about this study was not only the manifestation of all forms of relational reasoning even among the youngest students but also the differences in the quantity and quality of reasoning associated with the grade level and object familiarity.

Relational reasoning in principle

Together, the in vitro and in vivo investigations of relational reasoning just overviewed have contributed to certain insights about its nature and its importance to human learning and development. Recently, my colleagues and I 66 were asked to share what we have come to learn about relational reasoning with a particular eye toward educational policies. Here I revisit those insights and then subsequently turn to the implications of this emerging literature to next steps in empirical research and instructional practices for all those broadly concerned with human learning and development. I also take the liberty to outline some of the lingering questions that each of these principles about relational reasoning brings to the surface.

Specifically, according to Alexander et al. , 66 the following claims about relational reasoning can be forwarded:

The ability to reason relationally is foundational and pervasive.

Relational reasoning can be observed and measured in diverse ways.

Relational reasoning varies by age, domain, and context.

Relational reasoning is malleable and teachable.

Foundational and pervasive

As I have sought to establish from the outset, relational reasoning, especially when coupled with its more intuitive, spontaneous counterpart, relational thinking, underlies all human performance—an observation shared by cognitive scientists and neuroscientists. 10 , 27 , 39 Early in the twentieth century, Spearman, 67 one of the progenitors of modern intelligence testing and someone strongly influenced by the Gestalt school, came to see human intellectual capacity largely in terms of pattern perception. His search for the unitary intelligence factor “ g ” was orchestrated around certain “fundamental laws”, including the law of the eduction of relations, which pertains to the power to bring relations to mind.

Although I am not seeking to make a case for any “ g ” factor of intelligence, I do see certain parallels between Spearman’s arguments for the essentialness of perception and attention to patterns and the contemporary work on relational reasoning. Simply stated, if individuals cannot perceive and do not attend to the relations embedded within sensory information that continually floods them, then they will undoubtedly be relegated to a world that consists solely of noise or fragmentary pieces of sensory data that carry little or no meaning. For these reasons, relational reasoning is unquestionably a fundamental and pervasive capacity.

Further, this underlying capacity to perceive patterns is sufficiently fluid or flexible to allow for iterations when problems are nested within specific domains (e.g., engineering, mathematics, medicine, or reading). For that reason, and as seen in the studies in the medical professions 3 , 64 and engineering, 63 certain forms of reasoning may be more evident when domain-specific problems are engaged. What cannot be ascertained at this point, however, is the precise nature of interplay between domain-general and domain-specific iterations of relational reasoning forms.

Observable and measurable

As an empirical researcher, more is required than simply believing in the foundational nature of relational reasoning. What is necessary is to observe and measure relational reasoning in psychometrically sound ways. Through observation, researchers are able to bear witness to relational reasoning’s presence within naturally occurring occasions of reasoning and problem solving, as my colleagues and I have done in eavesdropping on the interactions within a medical team 3 or children whose technological literacy is being gauged. 65

By comparison, through measurement, researchers have ascertained the role that relational reasoning has in human learning and performance for a range of situations and contexts. For my colleagues and I, the TORR, vTORR, and the TORRjr have become portals onto the processes and power of relational reasoning. The connections documented between relational reasoning and creative engineering designs 63 and effective critical thinking in maternity nursing 64 are two such cases in point. Through the process of establishing the psychometric qualities of these measures, we also found that relational reasoning, although correlated at a low or moderate level with measures of comprehension, visuospatial working memory, and even the Raven’s Matrices, makes significant and unique contributions to cognitive outcomes over and above such well-established indicators.

What is less understood about these processes has more to do with the way in which relational thinking and relational reasoning work together within more dynamic and collective problem-solving situations. We see hints of this interactivity in the in vivo studies that shed some light on the process by which the patterning of one individual sparks the relational processing of others. 3 For instance, when a medical resident notes a particular anomaly in the symptoms of a patient, there is a greater likelihood that other residents will interject additional anomalies into the discussion. Or, when the attending physician, a recognized expert, reminds the residents of an analogous case, the direction of the diagnosis shifts and new similarities and differences are introduced into the discourse. Of course, much more needs to be explored about dynamic and collective problem-solving contexts and the influence that these contexts exert on the flow of relational reasoning.

Age, domain, and context dependent

Employing both observations and measures, we have come to learn that the fundamental and pervasive character of relational reasoning does not translate into uniformity across ages, domains, or contexts. Nowhere is this more evident than in the cross-sectional data that Jablansky et al. 65 gathered for students in first to twelfth grade. For one, these researchers found that although relational reasoning occurred at all these grade levels, younger students required more external support or scaffolding than older students. In addition, among younger students, there were more occasions of analogical and anomalous reasoning and relative fewer instances of antithetical and antinomous reasoning. Conversely, the older students relied more on antithetical and antinomous reasoning rather than on analogical and anomalous reasoning. Finally, Jablansky et al. determined that the problem-solving context mattered. Specifically, there were significantly more occurrences of analogical reasoning over the other four forms when the objects being analyzed for their form and function were familiar rather than unfamiliar.

Why these developmental shifts in reasoning patterns would arise is a question worthy of further exploration. At this point, there is reason to speculate that some of the shifts occurred because of the children’s increased knowledge and experiences—in this instance about various technologies and their functions. However, increased knowledge alone does not account for the greater reliance on antitheses and antinomies among the older students in this investigation. Perhaps some of the explanation lies in the neurobiological changes that occur in middle and late adolescence—changes that are seen to support relational reasoning capability. 11 , 25

Malleable and teachable

Just as intelligence has been shown to be changeable as a consequence of relevant experiences, 68 , 69 relational reasoning should likewise be regarded as malleable and teachable. However, the degree of malleability or teachability remains open to debate. For instance, as evident in the cross-sectional study of students from grades 1 to 12 by Jablansky et al. , 65 there were apparent quantitative and qualitative shifts in relational reasoning that occurred from childhood and into adolescence, even in the absence of any explicit training of these reasoning forms. By contrast, Fountain 64 found no significant change in TORR performance for maternity nurses at prelicensure through to those with >10 years of experience. Such an outcome suggests relatively stability in the level of relational reasoning after late adolescences when no cognitive maturation, pertinent experiences, or direct interventions were implicated.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that analogical reasoning performance can be directly trained, including the studies my colleagues and I have conducted with children and adults. 70 – 72 Others have documented similar effects for interventions involving analogical reasoning. 39 The question remains whether similar training outcomes to those documented for analogies would be expected for the other forms of relational reasoning, anomaly, antithesis, and antinomy.

In effect, would we anticipate that individuals’ overall relational reasoning performance could be either directly or more indirectly manipulated? On the basis of certain evidence, my response to that question is “yes”. For one, there is now empirical evidence that the component processes of analogical reasoning (i.e., encode, infer, map, and apply 48 ) that my colleagues and I employed in the training of this form of relational reasoning 72 also underlie anomalous, antithetical, and antinomous reasoning. 62 Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these same component processes can be used as the basis for training relational reasoning more broadly.

Further, it has been shown that relevant interventions that do not expressly target the four forms can produce shifts in TORR scores. Such indirect effects were apparent in Dumas and Schmidt’s 63 study of engineering design students. These researchers found that students’ exposure to a design intervention resulted in an even stronger association between creative engineering design solutions and relational reasoning, especially for antinomous reasoning. Others are presently exploring the effects that interventions aimed at critical analytic thinking on both written arguments and oral discussions. 73 , 74 For instance, students in the Murphy et al. 74 study were trained to formulate elaborated explanations in writing, which are detailed justifications for claims made. Although all four forms were identified in students’ written products, instances of analogies and antitheses were more prevalent. Similarly, when training high-school physics and chemistry students to engage in exploratory talk (i.e., two or more people exchanging responses around a provocative question or issue), Greene et al. 73 documented frequent occasions of antithetical and anomalous reasoning. Both of these investigations illustrate fruitful approaches for enhancing students’ relational reasoning when focused primarily on improving the quality of written or oral argumentation skills.

Although I am fairly confident in the teachability of relational reasoning to some level, there are lingering questions as to the form that any explicit training should take, especially with regard to the domain specificity of the intervention. What the rich literatures on strategy or problem-solving training suggest, however, is that efforts that are entirely generic in form are less likely to have lasting effects. 75 Thus, embedding such training within a knowledge domain and aligning it with problems and tasks that are central to that domain—be it medical diagnosis, mathematical problem solving, or reading comprehension—seems more likely to promote immediate and enduring effects.

Future directions for research and practice

Given what the field has come to understand about the nature and importance of relational reasoning, the question remains as to what lies ahead for this field of inquiry. Let me identify several directions that appear especially promising in light of known and emerging findings about relational reasoning.

For research

There are several obvious avenues for research in relational reasoning that need to be actively pursued to elaborate on and extend what I have outlined in this overview. Those avenues pertain to: (a) longitudinal examinations; (b) studies that incorporate physiological or neurological data; and (c) cross-cultural and cross-context investigations. For example, to date the construction of relational reasoning’s developmental trajectory has relied largely on cross-sectional research. Thus, it is imperative to undertake more longitudinal investigations of relational reasoning, especially ones that encompass points of significant cognitive, neurobiological, experiential, and psychosocial transition such as that marked by the movement from middle school into high school or into college. Such longitudinal studies could be incorporated into ongoing studies of expertise development as well, in order to ascertain whether transitions from acclimation into competence or expertise are accompanied by concomitant transformations in relational reasoning capacity or performance patterns.

As I noted, much of the work on relational reasoning within neuroscience has looked exclusively at analogical reasoning 3 , 29 and has relied extensively on items from the Raven’s Matrices. 40 Consequently, what is not understood is whether the engagement in anomalous, antithetical, or antinomous reasoning would produce similar brain activation patterns to those documented for analogical reasoning. As all four forms apparently share underlying componential processes, and are moderately correlated, 62 there is reason to hypothesize that they operate in neurologically similar ways. Yet, there is also cause to presume that there is sufficiently neurological variability, especially for the processing of antinomies, which demand the establishment of exclusion between two sets of information.

Finally, the tests that my colleagues and I have devised were intended to serve as more novel or fluid measures of relational reasoning capacity. 42 That is even true of the vTORR, which relies on linguistic information but still entails the performance of non-traditional reasoning tasks. At present, we do not know whether there is measure non-invariance for any of these tests for different ethnic or gender groups, although the ongoing study by Dumas 76 on the TORR has found no evidence of non-invariance at the item level. Similarly, the international studies currently underway in Israel and New Zealand are expected to shed light on any cultural differences that might manifest on the TORRjr. But much more needs to be learned about how relational reasoning might iterate not only within diverse cultures but also across varied contexts such as in professional practices like medicine, nursing, or engineering and the complex problem solving they involve.

For practice

Within the educational and psychological research communities to which I belong, there are certainly avenues that merit exploration related to practice. Those avenues include: (a) predictive studies that explore the use of relational reasoning as a measure to identify academic potential; (b) classroom-based investigations that seek to expressly train relational reasoning within such a dynamic environment; and (c) domain-specific studies that explore the enactment of relational reasoning for contrasting fields such as physics or history. I raise the notion of predictive studies because one of my primary purposes for embarking on the study of relational reasoning and the development of relevant measures was to forge tools that could lead effectively to the identification of fundamental cognitive capabilities that might otherwise be overlooked by more traditional screening measures. Will performance on the TORR signal unrecognized potential missed by traditional crystallized measures of achievement or aptitude? In what way will performance on the TORR or one of its iterations unearth future success in academics or in later professional practice? To what extent do students with identified learning or cognitive problems perform differently on the TORR, vTORR, or TORRjr compared with their non-identified peers? Ultimately, having psychometrically sound measures of relational reasoning is only the first step toward addressing such important questions.

This issue of screening for academic potential raises another ethical concern regarding relational reasoning. To be more precise, if relational reasoning is a foundational and pervasive capability and if relational reasoning can be trained or improved, then is there no obligation to train individuals to reason better analogically, antithetically, antithetically, and antinomously? This has long been my personal position. For that very reason, my colleagues and I are committed to articulating models for relational reasoning training based on the componential processes we have utilized in the past.

As mentioned, one of the lessons that I learned from those prior forays into classroom-based training is that the processes of reasoning relationally cannot be treated generically, that is, relational reasoning training should not be isolated from the content with which students are typically or routinely engaged. Rather, it makes sense that relational reasoning be naturally nested within the academic domains that frame the educational experience for students. Thus, future efforts to enact relational reasoning within learning environments demand that educators recognize the place of analogies, anomalies, antitheses, and antinomies in the subjects they teach—whether those subjects are reading, history, mathematics, or science.

Further, teachers must themselves be familiar and comfortable with all forms of relational reasoning and their manifestations in the content of schooling. Likewise, educators at all levels of educational practice must become models of relational reasoning. Those who do not reason relationally, as a habit of mind, or who do not engage in relational reasoning, as a course of action, cannot be expected to promote relational reasoning in those whose academic development they seek to foster. Consequently, it would seem that the path to improved relational reasoning in students must pass through the teachers and the educational systems that those teachers and their students inhabit.

Conclusions

It was my goal in this treatise to introduce the reader to the construct of relational reasoning and to grapple with the way in which relational reasoning may be manifested and measured. The past 5 years have been replete with discoveries and insights about this foundational capacity to find meaningful patterns within the deluge of information that washes over us all. Although there is unquestionably more to be discovered about relational reasoning, I feel that the field has garnered sufficient evidence to move to action. In effect, it is the time to put the knowledge of relational reasoning to work, to harness its potential in service of improved learning and development.

Chambers, G. S., Venkatesh, S., West, G. A. & Bui, H. H. in Proc. 16th International Conference on Pattern recognition Vol. 2, 1082–1085 (IEEE, 2002).

Kendeou, P. & O’Brien, N. in Relational Reasoning in STEM Domains: What empirical research can contribute to the national dialogue (ed. Sinatra, G. M.) (American Educational Research Association, 2015).

Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., Baker, L. M., Jablansky, S. & Dunbar, K. N. Relational reasoning in medical education: patterns in discourse and diagnosis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 , 1021–1035 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Feyman, R. The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press, 1967).

Dunbar, K. in The Nature of Insight (eds Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J.) 365–396 (MIT Press, 1995).

Karmiloff-Smith, A. Précis of beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 17 , 693–707 (1994).

Schunn, C. D. & Anderson, J. R. The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognit. Sci. 23 , 337–370 (1999).

Alexander, P. A. & Baggetta, P. in Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences (eds Rapp, D. N. & Braasch, J. L. B.) 297–328 (MIT Press, 2014).

DeWolf, M., Bassok, M. & Holyoak, K. J. Conceptual structure and the procedural affordances of rational numbers: relational reasoning with fractions and decimals. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 , 127–150 (2015).

Holyoak, K. J. in The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G.) 234–259 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

Crone, E. A. et al. Neurocognitive development of relational reasoning. Dev. Sci. 12 , 55–66 (2009).

Krawczyk, D. C. The cognition and neuroscience of relational reasoning. Brain Res. 1428 , 13–23 (2012).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Halford, G. S. & Andrews, G. in Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognitive, Language and Perceptual Development (eds Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R.) 557–608 (John Wiley & Sons, 2006).

Miller Singley, A. T. & Bunge, S. A. Neurodevelopment of relational reasoning: implications for mathematical pedagogy. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 3 , 33–37 (2014).

Wendelken, C., Nakhabenko, D., Donohue, S. E., Carter, C. S. & Bunge, S. A. ‘Brain is to thought as stomach is to??’: investigating the role of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex in relational reasoning. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 20 , 682–693 (2008).

Peirce, C. S. Philosophical Writings of Peirce (Courier Corporation, 2012).

Ernst, M. O. & Bülthoff, H. H. Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cognit. Sci. 8 , 162–1699 (2004).

Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G. The brain's concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognit. Neuropsychol. 22 , 455–479 (2005).

Portas, C. M., Strange, B. A., Friston, K. J., Dolan, R. J. & Frith, C. D. How does the brain sustain a visual percept? Proc. Biol. Sci. 267 , 845–850 (2000).

Mandler, J. M. On the birth and growth of concepts. Philos. Psychol. 21 , 207–230 (2008).

Schyns, P. G. Categories and percepts: a bi-directional framework for categorization. Trends Cognit. Sci. 1 , 183–189 (1997).

Carey, S. The Origin of Concepts (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

Alexander, P. A. The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. Reading into the future: competence for the 21st century. Educ. Psychol. 47 , 259–280 (2012).

Evans, J. S. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59 , 255–278 (2008).

Ferrer, E., O'Hare, E. D. & Bunge, S. A. Fluid reasoning and the developing brain. Front. Neurosci. 3 , 46–51 (2009).

Morrison, R. G. et al. A neurocomputational model of analogical reasoning and its breakdown in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 16 , 260–271 (2004).

Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H. & Phillips, S. Relational knowledge: the foundation of higher cognition. Trends Cognit. Sci. 14 , 497–505 (2010).

Krawczyk, D. C., McClelland, M. M. & Donovan, C. M. A hierarchy for relational reasoning in the prefrontal cortex. Cortex 47 , 588–597 (2011).

Baggetta, P. & Alexander, P. A. Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function. Mind Brain Educ. 10 , 10–33 (2016).

Richland, L. E. & Burchinal, M. R. Early executive function predicts reasoning development. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 87–92 (2013).

Waltz, J. A. et al. A system for relational reasoning in human prefrontal cortex. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 119–125 (1999).

Cho, S., Holyoak, K. J. & Cannon, T. D. Analogical reasoning in working memory: Resources shared among relational integration, interference resolution, and maintenance. Mem. Cognit. 35 , 1445–1455 (2007).

Eslinger, P. J. et al. Developmental shifts in fMRI activations during visuospatial relational reasoning. Brain and Cognit. 69 , 1–10 (2009).

Hambrick, D. Z. & Oswald, F. L. Does domain knowledge moderate involvement of working memory capacity in higher-level cognition? A test of three models. J. Mem. Lang. 52 , 377–397 (2005).

Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A. & Grossnickle, E. M. Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: a systematic review of the literature. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 25 , 391–427 (2013).

Duncan, J. Intelligence tests predict brain response to demanding task events. Nat. Neurosci. 6 , 207–208 (2003).

Chi, M. T. & Slotta, J. D. The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognit. Instruct. 10 , 249–260 (1993).

Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Rev. Educ. Res. 63 , 1–49 (1993).

Richland, L. E., Chan, T. K., Morrison, R. G. & Au, T. K. Young children’s analogical reasoning across cultures: Similarities and differences. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 105 , 146–153 (2010).

Raven, J. C. Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. Br. J. Med. Psychol. 19 , 137–150 (1941).

Alexander, P. A. The Test of Relational Reasoning (Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2012).

Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., Grossnickle, E. M., List, A. & Firetto, C. M. Measuring relational reasoning. J. Exp. Educ. 84 , 119–151 (2016).

Dumas, D. & Alexander, P. A. Calibration of the test of relational reasoning. Psychol. Assess. , (in the press).

Alexander, P. A. The Verbal Test of Relational Reasoning (Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2015).

Alexander, P. A., Singer, L. M., Jablansky, S. & Hattan, C. Relational reasoning in word and in figure. J. Educ. Psychol. , (in the press).

Alexander, P. A. The Test of Relational Reasoning-Junior (Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2016).

Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A. & Singer, L. in Examining the Relational Reasoning Capabilities of Elementary and Middle-School Students with Learning Needs (American Education Research Association, 2016).

Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning: The Componential Analysis of Human Abilities (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977).

Russell, B. Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. Am. J. Math. 30 , 222–262 (1908).

James, W. The Principles of Psychology Vol. 1 (Holt, 1890).

Gentner, D. Structure‐mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognit. Sci. 7 , 155–170 (1983).

Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: how is conceptual change impeded? J. Educ. Psychol. 94 , 327–343 (2002).

Sfard, A. in Constructing Mathematical Knowledge: Epistemology and Mathematics Education (ed. Ernest, P.) 248–273 (Falmer, 1994).

Hofstadter, D. R. in The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (eds Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J. & Kokinov, B. N.) 499–538 (MIT Press, 2001).

Opfer, J. E. & Gelman, S. A. in The Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (ed. Goswami, U.) 213–238 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

Robinson T. M. (ed.). Heraclitus: Fragments (Univ. of Toronto Press, 2015).

Andiliou, A., Ramsay, C. M., Murphy, P. K. & Fast, J. Weighing opposing positions: Examining the effects of intratextual persuasive messages on students’ knowledge and beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 37 , 113–127 (2012).

Kardash, C. M. & Howell, K. L. Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. J. Educ. Psychol. 92 , 524–535 (2000).

Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M. & Nussbaum, E. M. ‘Pluto has been a planet my whole life!’ Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s reclassification. Res. Sci. Educ. 43 , 529–550 (2013).

Hynd, C. R. Refutational texts and the change process. Int. J. Educ. Res. 35 , 699–714 (2001).

Mason, L., Gava, M. & Boldrin, A. On warm conceptual change: the interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. J. Educ. Psychol. 100 , 291–309 (2008).

Grossnickle, E. M., Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A. & Baggetta, P. Individual differences in the process of relational reasoning. Learn. Instruct. 42 , 141–159 (2016).

Dumas, D. & Schmidt, L. Relational reasoning as predictor for engineering ideation success using TRIZ. J. Eng. Des. 26 , 74–88 (2015).

Fountain, L. M. Relations among Topic Knowledge, Individual Interest, Relational Reasoning, and Critical Thinking in Maternity Nursing (Univ. of Maryland, College of Education, 2016).

Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D. & Compton, V. Developmental differences in relational reasoning among primary and secondary school students. J. Educ. Psychol. (in the press).

Alexander, P. A., Jablansky, S., Singer, L. M. & Dumas, D. Relational reasoning: what we know and why it matters. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. (in the press).

Spearman, C. The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement (Macmillan, 1927).

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H. & Dweck, C. S. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 78 , 246–263 (2007).

Dweck, C. & Bempechat, J. in Learning and Motivation in the Classroom (eds Paris, S., Olsen, G., Stevenson, H. W.) 239–259 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983).

Alexander, P. A., Pate, P. E., Kulikowich, J. M., Farrell, D. M. & Wright, N. L. Domain-specific and strategic knowledge: effects of training on students of differing ages or competence levels. Learn. Individ. Differ. 1 , 283–325 (1989).

Alexander, P. A., White, C. S., Haensly, P. A. & Crimmins-Jeanes, M. Training in analogical reasoning. Am. Educ. Res. J. 24 , 387–404 (1987).

White, C. S. & Alexander, P. A. Effects of training on four-year-olds' ability to solve geometric analogy problems. Cognit. Instruct. 3 , 261–268 (1986).

Greene, J. A. et al. in Fostering Relational Reasoning and Scientific Understanding Through Quality Talk Discourse (ed. Dumas, D.) (American Educational Research Association, 2015).

Murphy, P. K. et al. in Promoting Relational Reasoning in Elementary Students’ Writing (ed. Dumas, D.) (American Educational Research Association, 2015).

Wagner, R. K. & Sternberg, R. J. Alternative conceptions of intelligence and their implications for education. Rev. Educ. Res. 54 , 179–223 (1984).

Dumas, D. Seeking Cultural Fairness in a Measure of Relational Reasoning (College of Education, 2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Patricia A Alexander

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A Alexander .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the npj Science of Learning website ( http://www.nature.com/npjscilearn )

Supplementary information

Supplementary appendix (doc 654 kb), rights and permissions.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alexander, P. Relational thinking and relational reasoning: harnessing the power of patterning. npj Science Learn 1 , 16004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.4

Download citation

Received : 28 December 2015

Revised : 11 March 2016

Accepted : 20 March 2016

Published : 11 May 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.4

Share this article

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

This article is cited by

Sulcal variability in anterior lateral prefrontal cortex contributes to variability in reasoning performance among young adults.

• Ethan H. Willbrand
• Samantha Jackson
• Kevin S. Weiner

Brain Structure and Function (2024)

The effects of testing the relationships among relational concepts

• Daniel Corral
• Alice F. Healy

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2022)

The neurocognitive gains of diagnostic reasoning training using simulated interactive veterinary cases

• Maaly Nassar

Scientific Reports (2019)

Eye gaze patterns reveal how reasoning skills improve with experience

• Belén C. Guerra-Carrillo
• Silvia A. Bunge

npj Science of Learning (2018)

Integrating neuroscience and learning: now’s the time...

• Michael Fanselow
• Stephen Williams

npj Science of Learning (2016)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Abstract Thinking Vs. Concrete Thinking

“The human brain is the most complex physical object known to us in the entire cosmos.” —Professor Owen Gingerich. If…

“The human brain is the most complex physical object known to us in the entire cosmos.” —Professor Owen Gingerich.

If you look at three sides of a solved Rubik’s cube and start guessing the color of the fourth side, you are an abstract thinker. When someone says every cloud has a silver lining and you start looking at the sky, then you are a concrete thinker.

Of course, nothing is so black and white. Human beings have evolved over the centuries. So have our brains, developing multiple abilities to look at things from varying perspectives. Everyone has the potential to understand things differently. Our thinking has been broadly categorized as creative, analytical, critical, linear, divergent, convergent, abstract and concrete.

Today we will delve into concrete and abstract thinking.

What Are Concrete Thinking And Abstract Thinking?

Difference between abstract and concrete thinking, abstract vs. concrete thinking: which category are you in, what are concrete thinking and abstract thinking .

Concrete thinking means thinking of something literally.

But, who is a concrete thinker?

A concrete thinker is a person who perceives information in physical form without thinking beyond words or actions. Children are the best example of concrete thinkers. They believe in what they see and trust the words they hear. For example, if you tell a child where his eyes and nose are, they will take your word for it without questioning you.

What is abstract thinking, and who is an abstract thinker?

Abstract thinking means understanding words, actions and the meaning behind them. If you can look beyond words and actions and relate to the emotions driving them, you’re an abstract thinker. As children grow up, they begin to understand their surroundings and perceive things not directly communicated to them. They start taking note of emotions, psychology and math.

When it comes to concrete and abstract thinking in kids, it is believed that most children develop abstract thinking during their teenage years, which is also the time they develop the ability of versatile thinking; for example – during teenage, they start to think of their career and where they fit-in, they start to form opinions about various social issues like what is correct and what practices should stop, they start to differentiate between different concepts.

One of the commonly cited differences between concrete and abstract thinking is that a concrete thinker may find it difficult to empathize with others. On the other hand, abstract thinking paves the path for empathy, exploration and experimentation.

However, saying that concrete thinking is the initial stage of abstract thinking isn’t incorrect either. This is because an abstract thinker would also see, hear and observe the situation and surroundings before exploring multiple threads linked to it.

Another major difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking is that explaining and understanding abstract thinking can be a little tricky, whereas with concrete thinkers, things are simpler.

Abstract thinking can be beneficial in problem-solving, reframing difficult concepts simply and understandably, solving patterns, improving aptitude and asking genuine and correct questions.

To understand the difference between abstract and concrete thinking, let us take the example of an engineer who wants to write code for a feature. He spends most of his time designing the strategy, thinking of possible customer expectations and corner cases for a perfect product. He spends much more time thinking than he does in writing it. This means he has an abstract way of thinking.  

We can compare abstract thinking vs. concrete thinking in a problem-solving situation. When someone leans toward concrete thinking, feels frustrated about work, deadlines, or a crucial task, abstract thinking can come to their rescue.

This balance between the two doesn’t come easy. But, with gradual implementation, it can be made a part of your routine.

Abstract Vs. Concrete Thinking : Which Category Are You In?

You might be an abstract thinker if:.

• You think about tangential things not directly related to the task.
• You think about the possible outcomes.
• You think about the consequences of an action.
• You relate to someone or something in the way it demands.

You might be a concrete thinker if:

• You find it hard to empathize with others. Or if you find it difficult to understand a person’s tone, body language, or facial expressions.
• You lack imagination.
• You lack creativity.

There are exercises and learning methods that can improve your concrete or abstract  thinking. You can try to come up with theories about an incident, use metaphors and analogies to explain an occurrence and ask more questions. 

Brain exercises, building vocabulary, meditation, using all your senses, skill-sharing, learning a new language, listening to music, and dancing can also help expand your horizons and improve your thought processes.

To understand the difference between abstract and concrete thinking, let’s consider an example. There are times in every person’s life when they have to be strict. This is easy for a concrete thinker, whereas an abstract thinker might find it difficult as they always try to reason things out.

We can achieve best results by practicing hybrid or concrete abstract thinking, which will help us make more efficient decisions.

When it comes to concrete thinking and abstract thinking, it is believed that abstract thinkers are good problem-solvers, intelligent and can be creative in all forms of art. Concrete thinkers remain focused on immediate experiences, physical objects and exact interpretations. They are logical, clear and decisive. So, concrete vs. abstract thinking factor in when analyzing thought processes.

Want to know more about abstract thinking and concrete thinking?  Harappa’s  Inspiring Faculty Program will help you develop the thought process you need to move ahead in your career.

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as What Is Visual Thinking Strategies , Difference Between Convergent And Divergent Thinking , Steps Involved In Design Thinking Process and Importance Of Creative Thinking to upgrade your knowledge and skills.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Why writing by hand beats typing for thinking and learning

Jonathan Lambert

If you're like many digitally savvy Americans, it has likely been a while since you've spent much time writing by hand.

The laborious process of tracing out our thoughts, letter by letter, on the page is becoming a relic of the past in our screen-dominated world, where text messages and thumb-typed grocery lists have replaced handwritten letters and sticky notes. Electronic keyboards offer obvious efficiency benefits that have undoubtedly boosted our productivity — imagine having to write all your emails longhand.

To keep up, many schools are introducing computers as early as preschool, meaning some kids may learn the basics of typing before writing by hand.

But giving up this slower, more tactile way of expressing ourselves may come at a significant cost, according to a growing body of research that's uncovering the surprising cognitive benefits of taking pen to paper, or even stylus to iPad — for both children and adults.

Is this some kind of joke? A school facing shortages starts teaching standup comedy

In kids, studies show that tracing out ABCs, as opposed to typing them, leads to better and longer-lasting recognition and understanding of letters. Writing by hand also improves memory and recall of words, laying down the foundations of literacy and learning. In adults, taking notes by hand during a lecture, instead of typing, can lead to better conceptual understanding of material.

"There's actually some very important things going on during the embodied experience of writing by hand," says Ramesh Balasubramaniam , a neuroscientist at the University of California, Merced. "It has important cognitive benefits."

While those benefits have long been recognized by some (for instance, many authors, including Jennifer Egan and Neil Gaiman , draft their stories by hand to stoke creativity), scientists have only recently started investigating why writing by hand has these effects.

A slew of recent brain imaging research suggests handwriting's power stems from the relative complexity of the process and how it forces different brain systems to work together to reproduce the shapes of letters in our heads onto the page.

Your brain on handwriting

Both handwriting and typing involve moving our hands and fingers to create words on a page. But handwriting, it turns out, requires a lot more fine-tuned coordination between the motor and visual systems. This seems to more deeply engage the brain in ways that support learning.

Shots - Health News

Feeling artsy here's how making art helps your brain.

"Handwriting is probably among the most complex motor skills that the brain is capable of," says Marieke Longcamp , a cognitive neuroscientist at Aix-Marseille Université.

Gripping a pen nimbly enough to write is a complicated task, as it requires your brain to continuously monitor the pressure that each finger exerts on the pen. Then, your motor system has to delicately modify that pressure to re-create each letter of the words in your head on the page.

"Your fingers have to each do something different to produce a recognizable letter," says Sophia Vinci-Booher , an educational neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University. Adding to the complexity, your visual system must continuously process that letter as it's formed. With each stroke, your brain compares the unfolding script with mental models of the letters and words, making adjustments to fingers in real time to create the letters' shapes, says Vinci-Booher.

That's not true for typing.

To type "tap" your fingers don't have to trace out the form of the letters — they just make three relatively simple and uniform movements. In comparison, it takes a lot more brainpower, as well as cross-talk between brain areas, to write than type.

Recent brain imaging studies bolster this idea. A study published in January found that when students write by hand, brain areas involved in motor and visual information processing " sync up " with areas crucial to memory formation, firing at frequencies associated with learning.

"We don't see that [synchronized activity] in typewriting at all," says Audrey van der Meer , a psychologist and study co-author at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She suggests that writing by hand is a neurobiologically richer process and that this richness may confer some cognitive benefits.

Other experts agree. "There seems to be something fundamental about engaging your body to produce these shapes," says Robert Wiley , a cognitive psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. "It lets you make associations between your body and what you're seeing and hearing," he says, which might give the mind more footholds for accessing a given concept or idea.

Those extra footholds are especially important for learning in kids, but they may give adults a leg up too. Wiley and others worry that ditching handwriting for typing could have serious consequences for how we all learn and think.

What might be lost as handwriting wanes

The clearest consequence of screens and keyboards replacing pen and paper might be on kids' ability to learn the building blocks of literacy — letters.

"Letter recognition in early childhood is actually one of the best predictors of later reading and math attainment," says Vinci-Booher. Her work suggests the process of learning to write letters by hand is crucial for learning to read them.

"When kids write letters, they're just messy," she says. As kids practice writing "A," each iteration is different, and that variability helps solidify their conceptual understanding of the letter.

Research suggests kids learn to recognize letters better when seeing variable handwritten examples, compared with uniform typed examples.

This helps develop areas of the brain used during reading in older children and adults, Vinci-Booher found.

"This could be one of the ways that early experiences actually translate to long-term life outcomes," she says. "These visually demanding, fine motor actions bake in neural communication patterns that are really important for learning later on."

Ditching handwriting instruction could mean that those skills don't get developed as well, which could impair kids' ability to learn down the road.

"If young children are not receiving any handwriting training, which is very good brain stimulation, then their brains simply won't reach their full potential," says van der Meer. "It's scary to think of the potential consequences."

Many states are trying to avoid these risks by mandating cursive instruction. This year, California started requiring elementary school students to learn cursive , and similar bills are moving through state legislatures in several states, including Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina and Wisconsin. (So far, evidence suggests that it's the writing by hand that matters, not whether it's print or cursive.)

Slowing down and processing information

For adults, one of the main benefits of writing by hand is that it simply forces us to slow down.

During a meeting or lecture, it's possible to type what you're hearing verbatim. But often, "you're not actually processing that information — you're just typing in the blind," says van der Meer. "If you take notes by hand, you can't write everything down," she says.

The relative slowness of the medium forces you to process the information, writing key words or phrases and using drawing or arrows to work through ideas, she says. "You make the information your own," she says, which helps it stick in the brain.

Such connections and integration are still possible when typing, but they need to be made more intentionally. And sometimes, efficiency wins out. "When you're writing a long essay, it's obviously much more practical to use a keyboard," says van der Meer.

Still, given our long history of using our hands to mark meaning in the world, some scientists worry about the more diffuse consequences of offloading our thinking to computers.

"We're foisting a lot of our knowledge, extending our cognition, to other devices, so it's only natural that we've started using these other agents to do our writing for us," says Balasubramaniam.

It's possible that this might free up our minds to do other kinds of hard thinking, he says. Or we might be sacrificing a fundamental process that's crucial for the kinds of immersive cognitive experiences that enable us to learn and think at our full potential.

Balasubramaniam stresses, however, that we don't have to ditch digital tools to harness the power of handwriting. So far, research suggests that scribbling with a stylus on a screen activates the same brain pathways as etching ink on paper. It's the movement that counts, he says, not its final form.

Jonathan Lambert is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance journalist who covers science, health and policy.

• handwriting

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets: An umbrella review

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Alma Mater Studiorum–University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, Interdisciplinary Research Center for Health Science, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Tuscany, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Alma Mater Studiorum–University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, (UNIUPO), Novara, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Programma Neurochirurgia Ipofisi—Pituitary Unit, Bologna, Italy

• Angelo Capodici, 
• Gabriele Mocciaro, 
• Davide Gori, 
• Matthew J. Landry, 
• Alice Masini, 
• Francesco Sanmarchi, 
• Matteo Fiore, 
• Angela Andrea Coa, 
• Gisele Castagna, 

• Published: May 15, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711
• Reader Comments

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer are the two main leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Suboptimal diet, poor in vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grain, and rich in processed and red meat, refined grains, and added sugars, is a primary modifiable risk factor. Based on health, economic and ethical concerns, plant-based diets have progressively widespread worldwide.

This umbrella review aims at assessing the impact of animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs) on the risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases, cancer and their related mortalities.

Data sources

PubMed and Scopus were searched for reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published from 1st January 2000 to 31st June 2023, written in English and involving human subjects of all ages. Primary studies and reviews/meta-analyses based on interventional trials which used A/APFDs as a therapy for people with metabolic diseases were excluded.

Data extraction

The umbrella review approach was applied for data extraction and analysis. The revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool was applied to assess the quality of reviews/meta-analyses.

Overall, vegetarian and vegan diets are significantly associated with better lipid profile, glycemic control, body weight/BMI, inflammation, and lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer. Vegetarian diet is also associated with lower mortality from CVDs. On the other hand, no difference in the risk of developing gestational diabetes and hypertension were reported in pregnant women following vegetarian diets. Study quality was average. A key limitation is represented by the high heterogeneity of the study population in terms of sample size, demography, geographical origin, dietary patterns, and other lifestyle confounders.

Conclusions

Plant-based diets appear beneficial in reducing cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as CVDs, cancer risk and mortality. However, caution should be paid before broadly suggesting the adoption of A/AFPDs since the strength-of-evidence of study results is significantly limited by the large study heterogeneity alongside the potential risks associated with potentially restrictive regimens.

Citation: Capodici A, Mocciaro G, Gori D, Landry MJ, Masini A, Sanmarchi F, et al. (2024) Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets: An umbrella review. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0300711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711

Editor: Melissa Orlandin Premaor, Federal University of Minas Gerais: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BRAZIL

Received: January 8, 2024; Accepted: March 4, 2024; Published: May 15, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Capodici et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer currently represent the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Studies performed on large cohorts worldwide have identified several modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Among them, robust evidence supports diet as a major modifiable risk factor [ 1 ].

A suboptimal diet, marked by insufficient consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, coupled with an excessive intake of meat (particularly red and processed), salt, refined grains and sugar, has been shown to notably elevate both mortality rates and disability-adjusted life years. Over time, these dietary choices have led to a concerning increase in health-related issues [ 1 , 2 ].

Additionally, the reduction of products of animal origin in favor of vegetarian ones has been suggested to reduce CVD and cancer risk [ 3 , 4 ]. Several major professional and scientific organizations encourage the adoption of vegetarian and vegan diets for the prevention and treatment of a range of chronic metabolic diseases such as atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and obesity [ 5 , 6 ]. Ethical, environmental, and socio-economic concerns have contributed to the widespread growth of plant-based diets, particularly vegetarian and vegan options [ 7 – 9 ]. 2014 cross-national governmental survey estimated that approximately 75 million people around the globe deliberately followed a vegetarian diet, while an additional 1,45 million were obliged to because of socio-economic factors [ 10 , 11 ].

At the same time, study heterogeneity in terms of plant-based dietary regimens (from limitation of certain types to the total exclusion of animal products), their association with other lifestyle factors, patient demographic and geographical features, associated diseases, as well as study design and duration, significantly limit the assessment of the real benefits associated with animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs). Finally, an increasing number of studies have highlighted the potential threatening consequences of chronic vitamin and mineral deficiencies induced by these diets (e.g., megaloblastic anemia due to vitamin B12 deficiency), especially more restrictive ones and in critical periods of life, like pregnancy and early childhood [ 5 ].

Based on these premises, our umbrella review aims at assessing the impact of animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs) on the risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases, cancer and their related mortalities in both the adult and the pediatric population, as well as pregnant women.

Search strategy

PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) and Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic ) databases were searched for reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 1st January 2000 to 31st June 2023. We considered only articles written in English, involving human subjects, with an available abstract, and answering to the following PICO question: P (population): people of all ages; I (intervention) and C (comparison): people adopting A/APFDs vs. omnivores; O (outcome): impact of A/APFD on health parameters associated with CVDs, metabolic disorders or cancer.

Articles not specifying the type of A/APFD regimen were excluded. If not detailed, the A/APFDs adopted by study participants was defined as “mixed diet”. Vegetarian diets limiting but not completely excluding certain types of meat/fish (i.e. pesco- or pollo-vegetarian diet) were excluded. Studies focusing on subjects with specific nutritional needs (i.e., athletes or military personnel) -except pregnant women-, or with known underlying chronic diseases (i.e., chronic kidney disease), as well as articles focusing on conditions/health parameters related to disorders different from CVDs or cancer, and, finally, reviews/meta-analyses including interventional studies assessing A/APFDs comparing it with pharmacological interventions were excluded.

Ad hoc literature search strings, made of a broad selection of terms related to A/APFDs, including PubMed MeSH-terms, free-text words and their combinations, combined by proper Boolean operators, were created to search PubMed database: ((vegetari* OR vegan OR Diet , Vegetarian[MH] OR fruitar* OR veganism OR raw-food* OR lacto-veget* OR ovo-vege* OR semi-veget* OR plant-based diet* OR vegetable-based diet* OR fruit-based diet* OR root-based diet OR juice-based diet OR non-meat eate* OR non-meat diet*) AND ((review[Publication Type]) OR (meta-analysis[Publication Type]))) AND (("2000/01/01"[Date—Publication] : "2023/06/31"[Date—Publication])) and Scopus database: ALL(vegetari* OR vegan OR Diet , Vegetarian OR fruitar* OR veganism OR raw-food* OR lacto-veget* OR ovo-vege* OR semi-veget* OR plant-based diet* OR vegetable-based diet* OR fruit-based diet* OR root-based diet OR juice-based diet OR non-meat eate* OR non-meat diet) AND SUBJAREA(MEDI OR NURS OR VETE OR DENT OR HEAL OR MULT) PUBYEAR > 1999 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , "re"))

Research design and study classification

An umbrella review approach [ 12 ] was applied to systematically assess the effect of A/APFDs on risk factors related to CVDs, metabolic disorders and cancer as derived from literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Table 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.t001

Study selection

The list of articles identified by literature search was split into 5 equivalent parts, each assigned to a couple of readers (AC, DG, CW, ML, AM, FS, MF, AAC, GC and FG), who independently and blindly read the title and then the abstract of each article to define its pertinence. Papers included in the umbrella review had to focus on one/some of the following A/APFDs: vegans, lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians. No restriction was applied for age, gender, ethnicity, geographical origin, nor socio economic status. Primary studies, reviews/meta-analyses not written in English, or focusing on non-previously mentioned dietary regimens (including the Mediterranean diet) were excluded. Abstract meetings, editorials, letters to the editor, and study protocols were also excluded. To reduce study heterogeneity, at least in terms of dietary regimens, we excluded studies based on vegetarian regimens limiting but not avoiding fish or poultry, and prospective trials directly comparing A/AFPDs to pharmacological interventions.

In case of discordance between readers, we resorted to discussion amongst the authors to resolve it, based on the article’s abstract or, if not decisive, the full text. The study selection process is summarized in Fig 1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.g001

This review was registered on PROSPERO (Record ID: 372913 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk /prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=372913 ).

Quality literature analysis

Three raters (AC, DG, FS) independently and blindly assessed the quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses using the revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool, developed by the PEROSH group [ 13 ]. In case of disagreement, the score of each item and the final decision were discussed among the three raters.

Data extraction and reporting

Ten investigators (AC, DG, GM, ML, AM, FS, MF, AAC, GC, FG) independently extracted data from eligible articles. Disagreements in data extraction were resolved by consensus. Using a predefined protocol and a Microsoft Excel sheet, the following data were extracted: first author’s affiliation country; type of review; type of diet; target population; number of aggregated participants; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol; triglycerides; apolipoprotein B; C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Body Mass Index (BMI); body weight; fasting glucose; glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c); systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; cardiac events (type; risk); cardiovascular diseases (type; risk); gestational diabetes; gestational hypertension; cancer (type; risk); death due to CVDs/cancer (risk). Data were reported as mean difference (MD), weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95%CI, while the estimated risk could be reported as relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), or hazard ratio (HR), according to the data reported by the study authors. Articles assessing the risk of gestational diabetes and hypertension, as well as risk of low birth weight, and their determinants were examined separately.

Results from studies focusing on both vegetarian and vegan diets were analyzed and reported separately if authors had stratified the results according to the type of diet. On the contrary, if data from vegan and vegetarian subjects were mixed, we arbitrarily considered all of them as “vegetarian”.

Group 1: Cardiovascular endpoints and risk factors

I. total cholesterol (tc)..

Eight studies examined the levels of total serum cholesterol (TC) in vegetarians. Two focused on the general population and included 5,561 [ 14 ] and 576 [ 15 ] respectively, and, based on data meta-analysis, found a significant reduction in TC among vegetarians and people who assumed plant-based proteins (MD: -1.56 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.73, −1.39; and -0.11 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.22, −0.01, respectively).

Data were confirmed by Wang et al. (N = 832 total; Ovolacto/lacto-vegetarians: 291) [ 16 ], showing a greater dietary effect in subjects with a BMI ranging from 18.5 to 25 kg/m 2 (mean TC reduction: −0.94 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.33, −0.55), and from 25 to 30 kg/m 2 (−0.58 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.89, −0.27), than in those with a BMI >30 kg/m 2 (−0.16 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.30, −0.01), and by Xu et al. (N = 783) [ 17 ], reporting lower TC in overweight and obese people (WMD: −0.37 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.52, −0.22) adopting a vegetarian diet.

Another systematic review by Elliott et al., including 27 randomized controlled trials on plant based vs. normal western diets [ 18 ], found lower TC levels in vegetarians. These results were in line with other two descriptive reviews, the first including 2,890 overweight/obese adults [ 19 ], the second 8,969 vegetarian children aged 0–18 years [ 20 ]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Liang et al. described significantly lower TC (from -0.36 to -0.24 mmol/L) in people adopting plant based diets vs. people adopting western habitual diets [ 21 ].

Moreover, the review and meta-analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], based on 19 studies for a total of 1,272 adults, reported significantly lower levels of TC among vegans than in omnivores (WMD: −1.72 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.93, −1.51).

II. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Eight reviews focused on the effects of vegetarian diet on serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. Six [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 21 – 23 ] found no significant difference between vegetarians and omnivores, when considering normal weight and overweight/obese people. On the contrary, the study by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], based on 51 studies, for a total of 6,194 vegetarian adults, reported a WMD −0.15 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.19, −0.11). Liang et al. [ 21 ] analyzed 4 studies and reported a pooled estimated MD of −0.10 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.14, −0.05; p<0.001) in vegetarian diet adopters vs. western diets adopters. Finally, Zhang et al. [ 22 ] did not find any statistically significant differences in HDL-C levels when assessing vegetarian diets compared to non-vegetarians; on the same note Dinu et al. [ 14 ], analyzing data from 15 studies, for a total of 1,175 adults, found no significant differences in HDL-C levels between vegans and people following other dietary regimens.

III. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

Ten reviews summarized the effect of vegetarian diets on serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Seven [ 14 – 18 , 21 , 23 ] found significantly lower LDL-C levels associated with vegetarian diet, both in the general population and in diabetic patients. In particular, Elliot et al. [ 18 ], analyzing 43 observational and interventional studies, described lower LDL-C in people adopting plant based diets; a significant difference was reported by the study of Liang et al. [ 21 ] based on 68 studies (MD: -0.29 to -0.17), and similar to data by Lamberg et al. [ 15 ], based on 13 RCTs including for a total of 576 participants (MD: -0.14 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.25, -0.02). The impact of vegetarian diet appeared even greater in overweight or obese people, according to the analysis by Xu et al. [ 17 ], based on 7 RCTs (N = 783; MD: -0.31 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.46, -0.16). Two reviews [ 19 , 20 ] reported similar results in overweight/obese patients and children aged 0–18 years, but no meta-analyses were conducted. Wang et al. [ 16 ] reported a MD of −0.34 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.57, −0.11; p<0.001) in the general adult population. Ferdowsian et al. [ 23 ] reported an overall reduction of LDL-C associated with vegetarian diet, but no synthesis analyses were performed. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 46 studies encompassing 5,583 vegetarians and found a WMD of -1.18 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.34, -1.01). Finally, Viguiliouk et al. [ 24 ] reported a MD of −0.12 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.20, −0.04) in 6 trials involving 602 diabetic patients.

Four reviews identified a significant reduction in LDL-C in vegans as compared to omnivores [ 14 , 19 , 23 , 25 ]. Benatar et al. [ 25 ] analyzed 31 studies, for a total of 3,355 healthy vegan adults and 53,393 non-vegan controls and found MD of -0.49 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.62, -0.36; p<0.0001). Ferdowsian et al. [ 23 ] reported a reduction of LDL-C in healthy vegans, and Ivanova et al. [ 19 ] in overweight patients, but no meta-analysis was performed. Finally, Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 13 studies, for a total of 728 healthy vegan adults, and found a significant LDL-C reduction (WMD: −1.27 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.66, −0.88).

IV. Triglycerides (TG).

Seven systematic reviews [ 14 , 16 – 18 , 20 , 23 , 26 ] analyzed serum triglycerides (TG) in vegetarians vs. omnivores. Specifically, Wang et al. [ 16 ] described no differences between the two, with a pooled estimated effect of 0.04 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.05, 0.13; p = 0.4). Zhang et al. [ 26 ] analyzing 12 studies for a total of 1,300 subjects, found a MD of −1.28 mmol/L (95%CI; −2.14, −0.42). Schürmann et al. and Ferdowsian et al. [ 20 , 23 ] reported lower TG in vegetarians in both children and adults but did not perform data meta-analysis. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 55 studies including 4,008 vegetarians and found a WMD of −0.63 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.97, −0.30; p = 0.02). Conversely, in the review by Elliott et al. [ 18 ] no differences were reported in triglycerides. Xu et al. [ 17 ] reported a significant increase of TG (WMD: 0.29 mmol/L; 95%CI: 0.11, 0.47) in vegetarians as compared to meat eaters.

The effect of vegan diet on TG remains debated as one review [ 23 ] reported significative changes in TGs (-0.14 mmol/L, CI -0.24 to -0.05), while another [ 14 ] did not find any differences between vegans and omnivores since, after having analyzed 13 studies for 483 vegans, they reported a WMD of -0.52 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.13; 0.09).

V. C-reactive protein (CRP).

Three studies reported lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in normal weight, overweight and obese vegetarians as compared to non-vegetarians. Craddock et al. and Menzel et al. reported a WMD of -0.61 mg/L (95%CI: -0.91, -0.32; p = 0.0001) [ 27 ]; -0.25 mg/L (95%CI: -0.49, 0; p = 0.05) [ 28 ], respectively.

Data derived from the analysis by Menzel et al. [ 28 ] in vegan subjects were in line with previously mentioned studies performed in vegetarians (WMD: -0.54 mg/L; 95%CI: -0.79, -0.28; p<0.0001).

Two reviews [ 29 , 30 ] focused on the effects of mixed vegetarian diets on CRP levels. The first [ 29 ] included 2,689 obese patients and found a WMD of -0.55 mg/L (95%CI: -0.78, -0.32; I 2 = 94.4%), while the other [ 30 ], based on 2,398 normal weight subjects found no significant differences between vegetarians and omnivores in the primary analysis; alas, when considering a minimum duration of two years vegetarianism they described lower CRP levels vs. omnivores (Hedges’ g = -0.29; 95%CI: -0.59, 0.01).

VI. Plant-based diets and lipids.

Three studies [ 23 , 26 , 31 ] assessed the lipid profile in people following plant-based diets (without differentiating among diet subtypes) in comparison with omnivores. All of them found significantly lower levels of TC, HDL-C and LDL-C in subjects following plant-based diets. Specifically, Yokoyama et al. [ 31 ] reported a WMD of −1.62 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.92, −1.32; p< 0.001; I 2 = 81.4) for TC, −1.27 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.55, −0.99; p< 0.001; I 2 = 83.3) for LDL-C, −0.2 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.26, −0.14; p< 0.001; I 2 = 49.7) for HDL-C, and −0.36 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.78, 0.06; p = 0.092; I 2 = 83.0) for TG when considering observational studies, and of −0.69 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.99, −0.4; p<0.001; I 2 = 54.8) for TC, −0.69 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.98, −0.37; p<0.001; I 2 = 79.2) for LDL-C, −0.19 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.24, −0.14; p<0.001; I 2 = 8.5) for HDL-C, and a non-statistically significant increase of TG based on prospective cohort studies. Additionally, Zhang et al. [ 26 ] in their meta-analysis, including 1,300 subjects, found a SMD of -1.28 mmol/L in TG (95% CI -2.14 to -0.42).

Finally, Picasso et al. [ 32 ] did not find any differences in triglycerides for mixed vegetarian diets (MD: 0.04 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.09, 0.28), but did find statistically significant differences in HDL-C (MD: -0.05 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.07, -0.03).

VII. Blood pressure.

A . Systolic blood pressure (SBP) . Various studies found significantly lower mean levels of systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels in vegetarians compared to the general population [ 33 – 36 ]. Specifically, Gibbs et al. [ 33 ] reported a SMD of -5.47 mmHg (95%CI: -7.60, -3.34; p<0.00001) in ovo-lacto-vegetarians, as did Lee et al. [ 34 ] reporting a SMD of -1.75 mmHg (95%CI: -5.38, 1.88; p = 0.05); furthermore, they reported a SBP decreased by -2.66 mmHg (95%CI: -3.76, -1.55), in people adopting generic vegetarian diets. Moreover, Garbett et al. [ 35 ] reported a 33% lower prevalence of hypertension in vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians. On the contrary, Schwingshackl et al. [ 36 ], analyzing data from 67 clinical trials overall including 17,230 pre-hypertensive and hypertensive adult patients with a BMI between 23.6 and 45.4 kg/m 2 , followed for 3 to 48 months, did not find any significant reductions in SBP associated with vegetarian diet.

Four reviews investigated the differences in SBP between vegans and non-vegans. Benatar et al. and Lee et al. [ 25 , 34 ] reported significantly lower mean SBP levels in vegans vs. omnivores (MD: -2.56 mmHg; 95%CI: -4.66, -0.45; and WMD: -3.12 mmHg; 95%CI: -4.54, -1.70; p<0.001, respectively). On the other hand, Gibbs et al. [-1.30 mmHg (95%CI: -3.90,1.29)] and Lopez et al. (-1.33 mmHg; 95%CI: −3.50, 0.84; P = 0.230) [ 33 , 37 ] did not find any significant difference in mean SBP levels between vegans and omnivores.

Both reviews [ 32 , 38 ] focusing on SBP in mixed-plant-based dietary patterns found significantly lower levels in vegetarians than in omnivores. The meta-analysis by Picasso et al. [ 32 ], based on 4 RCTs did not find any differences, alas, analyzing 42 cross sectional studies, they described a MD of -4.18 mmHg (95%CI -5.57, -2.80; p<0.00001), in agreement with Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ], who reported a MD of -4.8 mmHg (95%CI: -6.6, -3.1; p<0.001; I 2 = 0) according to the 7 controlled trials, 6 of which being randomized (311 participants), included in the analysis, and of -6.9 mmHg (95%CI: -9.1, -4.7; p<0.001; I 2 = 91.4) based on the other 32 observational studies (21,604 participants).

B . Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) . Garbett et al. [ 35 ] reported reduced mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values in vegetarians vs. omnivores, confirmed by the analysis of Gibbs et al. [ 33 ] (WMD: –2.49 mmHg; 95%CI: –4.17, –0.80; p = 0.004; I 2 = 0%) in ovo-lacto-vegetarians, by Lee et al. [ 34 ] [WMD: -1.69 mmHg (95%CI: -2.97, -0.41; p<0.001)] who included 15 randomized controlled trials (N = 856) performed in vegetarians; and by Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ], who highlighted a MD -2.2 mmHg (95%CI: -3.5, -1.0; p<0.001; I 2 = 0%) and -4.7 mmHg (95%CI: -6.3, -3.1; p<0.001; I 2 = 92.6%) according to data from 7 controlled trials (N = 311) and 32 observational studies (N = 21,604), respectively. Conversely, Schwingshackl et al. [ 36 ] did not find significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

Three reviews [ 25 , 34 , 37 ] examined the impact of vegan vs. non-vegan diet on DBP and described statistically significant reductions. Benatar et al. described reduction of DBP, corresponding to a MD of -1.33 mmHg (95%CI: -2.67, -0.02) [ 25 ]. Lee et al. described a reduction in DBP of a WMD of -1.92 mmHg (95%CI: -3.18, -0.66; p<0.001) [ 34 ]. Finally, Lopez et al. [ 37 ] described the same reduction amounting to WMD: -4.10 mmHg (95%CI: -8.14, -0.06).

Four studies agreed upon the lower mean DBP levels in subjects following mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores [ 32 – 34 , 38 ], quantified as MD -3.03 mmHg (95%CI: -4.93, 1.13; p = 0.002) by Picasso et al. [ 32 ], and −2.2 mmHg (95%CI: −3.5, −1.0; p<0.001) and −4.7 mmHg (95%CI: −6.3, −3.1; p <0.001) by the analysis performed on clinical trials and observational studies, respectively, by Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ].

VIII. Body weight and body mass index (BMI).

Berkow et al. [ 39 ] identified 40 observational studies comparing weight status of vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians: 29 reported that weight/BMI of vegetarians of both genders, different ethnicities (i.e., African Americans, Nigerians, Caucasians and Asians), and from widely separated geographic areas, was significantly lower than that of non-vegetarians, while the other 11 did not find significant differences between the two groups. In female vegetarians, weight was 2.9 to 10.6 kg (6% to 17%) and BMI 2.7% to 15.0% lower than female non-vegetarians, while the weight of male vegetarians was 4.6 to 12.6 kg (8% to 17%) lower and the BMI 4.6% to 16.3% lower than that of male non-vegetarians. The review by Schürmann et al. [ 20 ], focusing on 8,969 children aged 0–18 years old found similar body weight in both vegetarian and vegan children as compared to omnivore ones. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed data from 71 studies (including 57,724 vegetarians and 199,230 omnivores) and identified a WMD BMI of -1.49 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -1,72, -1,25; p<0.0001) in vegetarians when compared to omnivores.

Barnard et al. [ 40 ] found a significant reduction in weight in pure ovolactovegetarians (−2.9 kg; 95% CI −4.1 to −1.6; P<0.0001), compared to non-vegetarians from control groups; furthermore, they found in vegans the mean effect was of -3.2 kg (95% CI: -4.0;-2.4, P: <0.0001); overall they included 490 subjects in their analysis, excluding subjects who did not complete the trials.

Benatar et al. [ 25 ]–including 12,619 vegans and 179,630 omnivores from 40 observation studies–and Dinu et al. [ 14 ]–based on 19 cross sectional studies, for a total of 8,376 vegans and 123,292 omnivores–reported the same exact result, with a mean lower BMI in vegans vs omnivores, equal to -1.72 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -2.30, -1.16) and -1.72 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -2.21,-1.22; p<0.0001), respectively. The meta-analysis by Long et al. [ 41 ], performed on 27 studies, reported a MD of -0.70 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -1.38, -0.01) for BMI in vegans vs. omnivores. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Agnoli et al. [ 42 ] found mean BMI to be lower in subjects adhering to mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores. Additionally, Tran et al. [ 43 ] described weight reductions in clinically healthy patients, as well as in people who underwent vegetarian diets as a prescription, but no meta-analysis was performed.

Finally, Huang et al. [ 44 ] found significant differences in both vegans and vegetarians, who were found to have lost weight after having adopted the diet as a consequence of being assigned to the intervention group in their randomized studies. For vegetarians the WMD was -2.02 kg (95%CI: -2.80 to -1.23), when compared to mixed diets, and for vegans the WMD was -2.52 kg (95%CI: -3.02 to -1.98), when compared to vegetarians.

IX. Glucose metabolism.

Viguiliouk et al. [ 24 ] found a significant reduction in HbA1c (MD: −0.29%; 95%CI: −0.45, −0.12) and fasting glucose (MD: −0.56 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.99, −0.13) in vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians.

The meta-analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], reported for vegetarians (2256) vs omnivores (2192) WMD: -0.28 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.33, -0.23) in fasting blood glucose.

These findings were confirmed by Picasso et al. [ 32 ] who found a MD of -0.26 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.35, -0.17) in fasting glucose in mixed-vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores.

A meta-analysis by Long et al. [ 41 ], based of 27 cross sectional studies, showed a MD for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance -measured as HOMA-IR, a unitless measure ideally less than one- of -0.75 (95%CI: -1.08, -0.42), fasting plasma glucose in vegetarians who adhered also to an exercise intervention as compared to omnivores.

Lee & Park [ 45 ] reported a significantly lower diabetes risk (OR 0.73; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.87; p<0.001) in vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians, being the association stronger in studies conducted in the Western Pacific region and Europe/North America than in those from Southeast Asia.

Regarding vegans, the review by Benatar et al. [ 25 ] determined a mean reduction of 0.23 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.35, -0.10) of fasting blood glucose in vegans (N = 12,619) as compared to omnivores (N = 179,630). The finding was in line with Dinu et al. [ 14 ], who reported a WMD of -0.35 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.69, -0.02; p = 0.04) of fasting blood glucose in vegans (n = 83) than omnivores (n = 125).

A systematic review, finally, including 61 studies [ 42 ] found mean values of fasting plasma glucose, and T2D risk to be lower in subjects following mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores.

X. Cardiovascular events.

Huang et al. [ 46 ] found a significantly lower risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) (RR: 0.71; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.87), but no significant differences for cerebrovascular mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The review by Remde et al. [ 47 ] was not conclusive, as only a few studies showed a reduction of the risk of CVDs for vegetarians versus omnivores, while the others did not find any significant results.

Dybvik et al. [ 48 ] based on 13 cohort studies for a total of 844,175 participants (115,392 with CVDs, 30,377 with IHD and 14,419 with stroke) showed that the overall RR for vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.79–0.92, I 2 = 68%; 8 studies) for CVD, 0.79 (95%CI: 0.71–0.88, I 2 = 67%; 8 studies) for IHD, 0.90 (95%CI: 0.77–1.05, I 2 = 61%; 12 studies) for total stroke, while the RR of IHD in vegans vs. omnivores was 0.82 (95%CI: 0.68–1.00, I 2 = 0%; 6 studies).

The meta-analysis by Kwok et al. [ 49 ], based on 8 studies including 183,321 subjects comparing vegetarians versus non-vegetarians. They identified a significant reduction of IHD in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) cohort, who primarily follow ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets, while other non-SDA vegetarian diets were associated only with a modest reduction of IHD risk, raising the concern that other lifestyle factors typical of SDA and, thus not generalizable to other groups, play a primary role on outcomes. IHD was significantly reduced in both genders (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.43, 0.83), while the risk of death and cerebrovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality risk reduction was significantly reduced only in men. No significant differences were detected for the risk of cerebrovascular events.

The meta-analysis by Lu et al. [ 50 ] -657,433 participants from cohort studies- reported a lower incidence of total stroke among vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians (HR = 0.66; 95%CI = 0.45–0.95; I 2 = 54%), while no differences were identified for incident stroke.

The descriptive systematic review by Babalola et al. [ 3 ] reported that adherence to a plant-based diet was inversely related to heart failure risk and advantageous for the secondary prevention of CHD, particularly if started from adolescence. Another review by Agnoli et al. [ 42 ], confirmed a lower incidence of CVDs associated with mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivorous diets. Finally, Chhabra et al. [ 51 ] found that vegetarian diet, particularly if started in adolescence and associated with vitamin B intake, can reduce the risk of stroke.

Gan et al. [ 52 ] described a lower risk of CVDs (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89; p < 0.05) in high, vs. low, adherence plant based diets, but the same association was not confirmed for stroke (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.03).

Group 2: Pregnancy outcomes

The meta-analysis by Foster et al. [ 53 ], performed on 6 observational studies, found significantly lower zinc levels in vegetarians than in meat eaters (-1.53 ± 0.44 mg/day; p = 0.001), but no association with pregnancy outcomes, specifically no increase in low children birth weight. The finding was confirmed by Tan et al. [ 54 ], who similarly reported no specific risks, but reported that Asian (India/Nepal) vegetarian mothers exhibited increased risks to deliver a baby with Low Birth Weight (RR: 1.33 [95%CI:1.01, 1.76, p =  0.04, I 2 = 0%]; nonetheless, the WMD of neonatal birth weight in five studies they analyzed suggested no difference between vegetarians and omnivores.

To our knowledge, no reviews/meta-analyses have assessed the risk of zinc deficiency and its association with functional outcomes in pregnancy in relation to mixed or vegan diets.

Group 3: Cancer

The meta-analysis by Parra-Soto et al. [ 55 ], based on 409,110 participants from the UK Biobank study (mean follow-up 10.6 years), found a lower risk of liver, pancreatic, lung, prostate, bladder, colorectal, melanoma, kidney, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lymphatic cancer as well as overall cancer (HR ranging from 0.29 to 0.70) determined by non-adjusted models in vegetarians vs. omnivores; when adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and BMI, the associations remained statistically significant only for prostate cancer (HR 0.57; 95%CI: 0.43, 0.76), colorectal cancer (HR 0.73; 95%CI: 0.54, 0.99), and all cancers combined (HR 0.87; 95%CI 0.79, 0.96). When colorectal cancer was stratified according to subtypes, a lower risk was observed for colon (HR 0.69; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.99) and proximal colon (HR 0.43; 95%CI: 0.22, 0.82), but not for rectal or distal cancer.

Similarly, the analysis by Huang et al. [ 46 ], based on 7 studies for a total of 124,706 subjects, reported a significantly lower overall/total cancer incidence in vegetarians than non-vegetarians (RR 0.82; 95%CI: 0.67, 0.97).

Zhao et al. [ 56 ] found a lower risk of digestive system cancer in plant-based dieters (RR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.78–0.86; p< 0.001) and in vegans (RR: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.86; p<0.001) as compared to meat eaters.

Additionally, DeClercq et al. [ 57 ] reported a decreased risk of overall cancer and colorectal cancer, but inconsistent results for prostate cancer and breast cancer; this was substantiated by Godos et al. [ 58 ] found no significant differences in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer risk between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

The umbrella review by Gianfredi et al. [ 59 ], did describe a lower risk of pancreatic cancer associated with vegetarian diets.

Dinu et al. [ 14 ] reported a reduction in the risk of total cancer of 8% in vegetarians, and of 15% in vegans, as compared to omnivores. They described lower risk of cancer among vegetarians (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.87, 0.98) and vegans (RR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75,0.95); nonetheless, they also described non-significant reduced risk of mortality from colorectal, breast, lung and prostate cancers. Regarding the latter, a meta-analysis by Gupta et al. [ 60 ] on prostate cancer risk found a decreased hazard ratio for the incidence of prostate cancer (HR: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.54–0.89, P<0.001) in vegetarians as compared to omnivores from the evidence coming from 3 studies. In the vegan population, similar results were observed from the only included study (HR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.49–0.85; p<0.001).

Group 4: Death by cardiometabolic diseases and cancer

According to Huang et al. [ 46 ], the mortality from IHD (RR: 0.71; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.87), circulatory diseases (RR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.54, 1.14) and cerebrovascular diseases (RR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.70, 1.06) was significantly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians.

The analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ] performed on 7 prospective studies, overall including 65,058 vegetarians, reported a 25% reduced mortality risk from ischemic heart diseases (RR 0.75; 95%CI: 0.68, 0.82; p<0.001), but no significant differences were found analyzing 5 cohort studies in terms of mortality from CVDs, cerebrovascular diseases, nor colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. Regarding vegans, they analyzed 6 cohort studies, and found no differences in all-cause mortality, but significant differences in cancer incidence (RR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75, 0.95), indicating a protective effect of vegan diets.

The literature search did not identify studies focusing on mortality risk for cardiometabolic and cancer diseases in vegans.

Quality of the included studies

The quality of the 48 reviews and meta-analyses included in this umbrella review was assessed through the AMSTAR-R tool. Results are reported in S1 Table . Overall, the average quality score was 28, corresponding to mean quality. However, 36 studies (75%) scored between 60% and 90% of the maximum obtainable score, and can, therefore, be considered of good/very good quality. The least satisfied item on the R-AMSTAR grid was #8 -scientific quality of included studies used to draw conclusions-, where as many as 19 studies (39.6%) failed to indicate the use of study-related quality analysis to make recommendations. This finding should be read in conjunction with the missing quality analysis in 15 studies (31.3%)–Item #7 scientific quality of included studies assessed and documented-. Item #10, regarding publication bias, was the second least met item, in which 18 studies (37.5%) did not perform any analysis on this type of bias. 16 studies (33.3%) lacked to indicate careful exclusion of duplicates (Item #2), but also the presence of conflict of interest (Item #11). This point is certainly another important piece to consider in the overall quality assessment of these articles. All these considerations give us a picture of a general low quality of the publications found, lowering the strength of evidence as well as the external validity of the results.

This umbrella review provides an update on the benefits associated with the adoption of A/AFPDs in reducing risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, considering both the adult and the pediatric population, as well as pregnant women.

Compared to omnivorous regimens, vegetarian and vegan diets appear to significantly improve the metabolic profile through the reduction of total and LDL cholesterol [ 14 – 21 , 23 , 25 ], fasting blood glucose and HbA1c [ 14 , 24 , 25 , 37 , 39 – 41 ], and are associated with lower body weight/BMI, as well as reduced levels of inflammation (evaluated by serum CRP levels [ 27 , 30 ]), while the effect on HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels remains debated. A much more limited body of literature suggested vegetarian, but not vegan diets also reduce ApoB levels further improving the lipid profile [ 61 ].

It should be remarked that, in the majority of the cases, people adopting plant-based diets are more prone to engage in healthy lifestyles that include regular physical activity, reduction/avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol and tobacco, that, in association with previously mentioned modification of diet [ 62 ], lead to the reduction of the risk of ischemic heart disease and related mortality, and, to a lesser extent, of other CVDs.

The adoption of vegan diets is known to increase the risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency and consequent disorders–for which appropriate supplementation was recommended by a 2016 position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ [ 5 ], but, apparently, does not modify the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension nor gestational diabetes mellitus [ 53 , 54 ].

The three meta-analyses [ 46 , 55 , 57 ] that analyzed the overall risk of cancer incidence in any form concordantly showed a reduction in risk in vegetarians compared to omnivores. These general results were inconsistent in the stratified analyses for cancer types, which as expected involved smaller numbers of events and wider confidence intervals, especially for less prevalent types of cancers.

The stratified analyses in the different reviews did not show any significant difference for bladder, melanoma, kidney, lymphoma, liver, lung, or breast cancer. Conversely the three meta-analyses that addressed colorectal cancer [ 55 , 57 , 58 ] showed a decrease in risk in two out of three with one not showing a significant difference in vegetarians versus omnivores for the generic colorectal tract.

Interestingly, one review [ 55 ] showed how analysis with even more specific granularity could reveal significant differences in particular subsets of cancers, e.g., distal, and proximal colon. Also, another recent review found significant results for pancreatic cancer [ 59 ].

Our umbrella review seems consistent with other primary evidence that links the consumption of red processed meats to an increased risk of cancers of the gastro-intestinal tract [ 63 ]. The association certainly has two faces, because while a potential risk of cancer given by increased red meat consumption can be observed, the potential protective factor given by increased fruit and vegetable consumption, shown by other previous evidence, must also be considered [ 64 ].

It has also been described that vegetarians, in addition to reduced meat intake, ate less refined grains, added fats, sweets, snacks foods, and caloric beverages than did nonvegetarians and had increased consumption of a wide variety of plant foods [ 65 ]. Such a dietary pattern seems responsible for a reduction of hyperinsulinemia, one of the possible factors for colorectal cancer risk related to diet and food intake [ 66 , 67 ]. In the same manner, some research has suggested that insulin-like growth factors and its binding proteins may relate to cancer risk [ 68 , 69 ]. This dietary pattern should not be regarded as a universal principle, as varying tendencies have been observed among vegetarians and vegans in different studies. This pattern of consumption may potentially negate the anticipated beneficial effects of their diets.

Also, some protective patterns can be attributed to the effects of bioactive compounds of plant foods, these being primary sources of fiber, carotenoids, vitamins, minerals, and other compounds that have been associated with anti-cancer properties [ 70 , 71 ]. The protective patterns are likely attributed to the mechanistic actions of the many bioactives found in plant foods such as fiber, carotenoids, vitamins, and minerals with plausible anti-cancer properties. These ranged from epigenetic mechanisms [ 72 ], to immunoregulation, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity [ 73 , 74 ].

Finally, increased adiposity could be another pathway by which food intake is associated with these types of cancers. Since our umbrella review has demonstrated that vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMI, this might be another concurrent factor in the decreased risk for pancreatic and colorectal cancers in vegetarians.

Inflammatory biomarkers and adiposity play pivotal roles in the genesis of prostate cancer [ 75 , 76 ], hence the same etiological pathways might be hypothesized even for the increase of this type of cancer in people adopting an omnivorous diet.

The study presents several noteworthy strengths in its methodological approach and thematic focus. It has employed a rigorous and comprehensive search strategy involving two major databases, PubMed, and Scopus, spanning over two decades of research from 1 st January 2000 to 31 st June 2023, thereby ensuring a robust and exhaustive collection of pertinent literature. By utilizing an umbrella review, the research enables the synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, providing a higher level of evidence and summarizing a vast quantity of information. Furthermore, its alignment with current health concerns, specifically targeting cardiovascular diseases and cancer, makes the study highly relevant to ongoing public health challenges and positions it as a valuable resource for informing preventive measures and dietary guidelines. The deployment of blinded and independent assessments by multiple raters and investigators fortifies the research by minimizing bias and reinforcing the reliability of the selection, quality assessment, and data extraction processes. Quality assessment is standardized using the revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool, and transparency is fostered through registration on PROSPERO, thus enhancing the credibility of the study. Lastly, the study’s detailed analysis and reporting, particularly the extraction of specific health measures such as cholesterol levels, glucose levels, blood pressure, and cancer risks, contribute to the comprehensiveness of the data synthesis, thereby underlining the overall integrity and significance of the research.

Main limitations to data analysis and interpretation are intrinsic to the original studies and consist in the wide heterogeneity in terms of sample size, demographic features, and geographical origin of included subjects, dietary patterns–not only in terms of quality, but, even more important and often neglected, quantity, distribution during the day, processing, cooking methods–and adherence, and other lifestyle confounders. In this regard, it is worth to mention that the impact of diet per se on the development of complex disorders (i.e. CVDs and cancer) and related mortality is extremely difficult to assess [ 71 ], especially in large populations, characterized by a highly heterogeneous lifestyle. It should also be considered the heterogeneity in dietary and lifestyle habits among countries, according to which the adoption of A/AFPDs could modify significantly habits in some countries, but not in others, and consequently have an extremely different impact on the risk of developing cardiometabolic disorders and cancer [ 25 ]. Furthermore, due to the nature of umbrella reviews, the present work may not include novel associations which were excluded from the analyzed reviews, as the main aim was to summarize secondary studies, such as reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, studies assessing the benefit of A/AFPDs on cancer risk are also limited by the heterogeneity in the timing of oncological evaluation and, therefore, disease progression, as well as in the histological subtypes and previous/concomitant treatments [ 72 – 75 ].

In conclusion, this umbrella review offers valuable insights on the estimated reduction of risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, and the CVDs-associated mortality, offered by the adoption of plant-based diets through pleiotropic mechanisms. Through the improvement of glycolipid profile, reduction of body weight/BMI, blood pressure, and systemic inflammation, A/AFPDs significantly reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, gastrointestinal and prostate cancer, as well as related mortality.

However, data should be taken with caution because of the important methodological limitation associated with the original studies. Moreover, potential risks associated with insufficient intake of vitamin and other elements due to unbalanced and/or extremely restricted dietary regimens, together with specific patient needs should be considered, while promoting research on new and more specific markers (i.e. biochemical, genetic, epigenetic markers; microbiota profile) recently associated with cardiometabolic and cancer risk, before suggesting A/AFPDs on large scale.

Supporting information

S1 table. r-amstar..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.s001

S2 Table. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.s002

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar