Heterarchical versus Hierarchical Modes of Imageless Thinking

Abstract

In this factor-analytic study of imaging and thinking, measures of vivid visual and auditory imaging loaded onto a unitary “vivid imaging” factor, on which no measures of thinking loaded. This first factor-analytic finding, like previous findings of no correlation between vivid imaging and productive thinking, is consistent with Külpe's classic argument and Kunzendorf's contemporary argument that visually and auditorily imaged sensations are not building blocks for “spatial” and “temporal” thinking, respectively, but are sensory representations which vivid imagers construct from their imageless thoughts. Moving beyond individual differences in vivid imaging to individual differences in imageless thinking, this factor-analytic study found, in addition, that radically different measures of styles of thought load onto a unitary “heterarchical versus hierarchical thinking” factor. These differing measures of thinking styles instructed research participants to find embedded spatial and temporal patterns, to organize two unstructured data sets into matrices or outlines, and to rank their preferences for 12 competitive events—6 events defined by “how close, “how high,” or “how far” competitors can perform on a heterarchical measure, and 6 events defined by “how well synchronized,” “how long,” or “how fast” competitors can perform on a hierarchical measure. Engineering students in this research exhibited significantly more heterarchical thinking and significantly less hierarchical thinking; management students exhibited significantly less heterarchical thinking and significantly more hierarchical thinking; and male students and female students exhibited, on average, no significant differences in their modes of thinking. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that people's “imageless thinking” can be characterized in terms of two orthogonal modes of thinking: heterarchical thinking and hierarchical thinking.

Individual Differences in Deductive Logic, Abductive Logic, and Cognitive Styles

“…Finally, the presently suggested complementarity of deduction and Abduction 2 (discovery) is indirectly supported by our newfound association of “visual” cognition with Abduction 2 logic and our newfound association of tree structure cognition with both nondeductive and nonabductive logic, especially when interpreted in the light of research on individual differences in generating visual imagery (Kunzendorf & Buker, 2008–2009; Kunzendorf, Lyman, Sousa, & Hilly, 2012–2013; Kunzendorf & Reynolds, 2004–2005) and individual differences in using heterarchical representations or matrices (Kunzendorf et al., 2013–2014; Novick, 2006; Novick & Hurley, 2001; Schwartz, 1971; Schwartz & Fattaleh, 1972). Kunzendorf's recent imagery research indicates that the eventual discovery of a hypothesis accounting for unanticipated data is abetted by logically inferring and mentally constructing visual “test images” from potential hypotheses—test images which, if they incorrectly predict previously or newly perceived experiences, falsify any and all potential hypotheses from which the test images were inferred.…”