Discrepancies

Discrepancies between the predictions of our meaning schemas and our actual experiences drive the reflective process in attempts to resolve those discrepancies. Discrepancy is similar to the Piagetian concept of disequilibrium.

See Working with discrepancies 

Imagine the following situation. 

You are dozing and a buzzing sound starts nearby. Consider the following four scenarios:

1. You recognise the sound as your mobile phone vibrating. You pick up the phone but, in doing so, knock over a glass of water that you failed to notice. Frustrated, you make a mental note to check for hazards before reaching for your phone in future.

2. You assume the sound is your phone. When you pick it up, you are surprised that your phone is not the source of the sound. You look for other potential sources and identify the sound as the buzzer of your alarm clock. You make a mental note that you have two things that might buzz in your vicinity.

3. You have a moment of confusion about whether the buzzing is coming from your phone or your clock. You pay more attention to the buzzing and attempt to note the difference between the two devices.

4. The buzzing does not sound like either the phone or the clock. You rack your brain for possible explanations and experience growing fear that it might be a sign of something dangerous.

Types of discrepancy

• Schema performance discrepancy. The outcomes of the situation do not accurately match the expectations of the active meaning schema. ("That doesn't normally happen in this situation!") [Corresponds to scenario 1 above]

• Schema mismatch discrepancy. The schema activated is not the most relevant one for the circumstances.  ("I totally misread the situation!") [Corresponds to scenario 2 above]

• Schema ambiguity or conflict discrepancy. The best-fit schema cannot be identified from multiple candidate schemas.  ("I'm in two minds about what situation this is!") [Corresponds to scenario 3 above]

• Schema absence discrepancy. No suitable candidate schemas can be identified to match the perceived phenomenon. ("I've never encountered a situation like this!") [Corresponds to scenario 4 above]

Discrepancy valence

We are more likely to engage in reflection when there is a negative discrepancy — the real experience fails to live up to our predictions.

However, exploring positive discrepancies (where things turn out better than we expected) can also be fruitful. It still counts as a failure of our meaning  schemas to accurately account for the world around us.