<p>I like very much organising information in hierarchical outlines through PIM software (also names tree outliners/ treepads/ etc). I wouldn't feel comfortable if I do not have information organised this way. I have always wondered how come MS Word does not have this functionality or at least a third-party add-on. Yet, my personal observation is that the majority of people feel completely ok without any such tool. </p>

<p>It seems to me that people would rather use tags or they'd just pile up information without any special description and prefer a search function instead of browsing throughout their own structures. Whenever I have showed someone the glorious capabilities and beauty of a hierarchical PIM, I have never met an expected "WOW effect" but sheer disinterest. :)</p>

<p>Is there any research on specific inclinations people have towards organising information?</p>

<p>Related question: <a href="https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/why-is-tree-representation-of-data-becoming-unpopular">https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/why-is-tree-representation-of-data-becoming-unpopular</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-07T03:23:22.903Z
Note that MS Word does have an [_outline view_](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-use-word-2010s-outline-view.html).
Dan D.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-07T10:20:32.833Z
Outline view is not the same as having a tree in a left pane and a blank page on the right pane. The outline view simply shows you a structured page, while in hierarchical PIMs you have each branch of the tree contain a page of its own.
drabsv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-04T14:41:30.020Z
I think this is off-topic for this site and would be better suited for softwarerecs.stackexchange.com
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-06T18:05:41.297Z
@  Seanny123 - I cannot understand how this question has anything to do with software recommendations?
drabsv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-05-01T09:03:40.437Z
There is quite a bit of research on this in Human-Computer Interaction ([tag:hci]) literature. Questions on this are not common here, but we [decided that they should be on-topic](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1/21). Some terminology to google for to get you started: "filers vs pilers". The seminal paper on this by Malone has been cited 1005 times and should get you started with finding sources: _Malone, T. W. (1983). How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 1(1), 99-112._
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-05-01T09:07:34.700Z
That said, even though HCI is on topic here, we still expect questions to be based in a minimal amount of research, otherwise they are at risk of being closed as [not framed in psychology or neuroscience](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2277/21). You could google a bit for the terminology I gave you (there are many popular science articles written on this) and ask a more detailed question by including what you learned (with a reference) in an edit of this question.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-05-01T16:50:05.430Z
@  Steven Jeuris - thanks for your remark, now that makes sense and I will take it in mind. Unfortunately, the moderators have closed the question not on the grounds that you've stated but on the grounds that it "would be better suited for softwarerecs.stackexchange.com", which is plain absurd :(
drabsv
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-02T08:17:06.470Z
@drabsv Ping me in case you decide to edit the question and I will see whether I can reopen. (Remove the space after the @, otherwise I do not get a notification.)
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T01:44:41.380Z
Really don't see how this is off-topic... putting this is software recs would be ridiculous @Steven Jeuris
iceburger
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T01:45:16.097Z
Also @drabsv please edit this so it can be answered
iceburger
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T15:26:36.323Z
@iceburger Feel free to suggest an edit, or write your own better question and then we can close this one as a duplicate of yours. I never agreed on moving this to softwarerecs, and as you can see the question is still here. It never got reopened, by me personally at least, because of the reasons I stated back then.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T20:12:09.497Z
@Steven Jeuris okay, since your issue with it appeared to be that it was in the category of human-computer interaction, I'll just focus on the predisposition toward hierarchical organization of information aspect
iceburger
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T20:14:31.027Z
@iceburger where did you read that was an issue? I stated the exact opposite, and provided guidance on how to formulate it as such! I even added the appropriate tag it seems.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T20:39:52.857Z
@StevenJeuris I misread your comment, motivated perception what can I say. I added some further thoughts and sources to my new question.
iceburger
<cognitive-psychology><hci>
predisposition towards organising information in hierarchical outlines?
drabsv
# predisposition towards organising information in hierarchical outlines?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-06)

I like very much organising information in hierarchical outlines through PIM software (also names tree outliners/ treepads/ etc). I wouldn't feel comfortable if I do not have information organised this way. I have always wondered how come MS Word does not have this functionality or at least a third-party add-on. Yet, my personal observation is that the majority of people feel completely ok without any such tool.

It seems to me that people would rather use tags or they'd just pile up information without any special description and prefer a search function instead of browsing throughout their own structures. Whenever I have showed someone the glorious capabilities and beauty of a hierarchical PIM, I have never met an expected "WOW effect" but sheer disinterest. :)

Is there any research on specific inclinations people have towards organising information?

Related question: <https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/why-is-tree-representation-of-data-becoming-unpopular>

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, hci

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Note that MS Word does have an [_outline view_](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-use-word-2010s-outline-view.html).  
> **username_0**: Outline view is not the same as having a tree in a left pane and a blank page on the right pane. The outline view simply shows you a structured page, while in hierarchical PIMs you have each branch of the tree contain a page of its own.  
> **username_2**: I think this is off-topic for this site and would be better suited for softwarerecs.stackexchange.com  
> **username_0**: @  username_2 - I cannot understand how this question has anything to do with software recommendations?  
> **username_3**: There is quite a bit of research on this in Human-Computer Interaction ([tag:hci]) literature. Questions on this are not common here, but we [decided that they should be on-topic](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1/21). Some terminology to google for to get you started: "filers vs pilers". The seminal paper on this by Malone has been cited 1005 times and should get you started with finding sources: _Malone, T. W. (1983). How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 1(1), 99-112._  
> **username_3**: That said, even though HCI is on topic here, we still expect questions to be based in a minimal amount of research, otherwise they are at risk of being closed as [not framed in psychology or neuroscience](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2277/21). You could google a bit for the terminology I gave you (there are many popular science articles written on this) and ask a more detailed question by including what you learned (with a reference) in an edit of this question.  
> **username_0**: @  username_3 - thanks for your remark, now that makes sense and I will take it in mind. Unfortunately, the moderators have closed the question not on the grounds that you've stated but on the grounds that it "would be better suited for softwarerecs.stackexchange.com", which is plain absurd :(  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Ping me in case you decide to edit the question and I will see whether I can reopen. (Remove the space after the @, otherwise I do not get a notification.)  
> **username_4**: Really don't see how this is off-topic... putting this is software recs would be ridiculous @username_3  
> **username_4**: Also @username_0 please edit this so it can be answered  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Feel free to suggest an edit, or write your own better question and then we can close this one as a duplicate of yours. I never agreed on moving this to softwarerecs, and as you can see the question is still here. It never got reopened, by me personally at least, because of the reasons I stated back then.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 okay, since your issue with it appeared to be that it was in the category of human-computer interaction, I'll just focus on the predisposition toward hierarchical organization of information aspect  
> **username_3**: @username_4 where did you read that was an issue? I stated the exact opposite, and provided guidance on how to formulate it as such! I even added the appropriate tag it seems.  
> **username_4**: @StevenJeuris I misread your comment, motivated perception what can I say. I added some further thoughts and sources to my new question.  

---

## 0 answers

