Reflective process

Our brains are constantly comparing information from our perceptions, memories and imagination with the predictions of our active meaning schema. Any discrepancy or inconsistency between the two inputs could indicate that there is something wrong with the active meaning schema — which may mean that the schema is not fit for purpose in helping us to understand and respond to events. 

If a discrepancy is detected, its possible magnitude (how big) and valence (better or worse than expected) and risk (possible consequence) is evaluated. A discrepancy evaluated above a particular threshold level of significance triggers the reflective process which seeks to resolve the discrepancy (cognitive equilibration) in a variety of ways depending on the nature and significance of the discrepancy and the extent to which we value and trust the active meaning schema whose predictions are possibly in doubt. 

Once the reflective process has been activated, it may follow a number of processing loops iteratively until the discrepancy falls below a particular threshold.

Stimulus-oriented loops (assimilation)

We tend to prioritise these loops when we trust the meaning schema that produced the questionable prediction.

• Checking (double take) — re-examining the information from perception, memory or imagination that has conflicted with the predictions of the schema. This might involve resampling an ongoing stimulus that provoked the discrepancy or replaying recent perceptions still held in sensory short-term memory for transitory stimuli.
  Reflection using this loop is attentional.

• Testing (experiment) —actively seeking additional information from the environment, memory or imagination. This could involve passive rescanning one's environment for additional sensory information that might have been missed or filtered out but could also include more active investigation, such as trying to reproduce the phenomenon. It might involve attempting to recall other relevant memories or create other imaginary scenarios to challenge or corroborate whatever input is generating the discrepancy. Reflection using this loop is investigative.

• Controlling (enact)  — actively attempting to shape external conditions so that perceptions align with the expectations of the active meaning schema. This could involve striving to make changes in one's physical circumstances or changing the opinions of other people. It might also involve redacting one's memories or labelling imagined scenarios as impossible. Reflection using this loop is agentic.

Schema-oriented loops (accommodation)

These loops will activate if we have less confidence in the challenged meaning schema or if we have failed to resolve the discrepancy via stimulus-oriented loops.

• Adjustment (improve) — making modifications to the content of the active meaning schema to improve its accuracy (adding, subtracting, reprioritising schema elements). This would involve concluding that the meaning schema is mostly OK but needs updating or correcting in some aspect (representation, comparison or causation). Reflection using this loop is meliorative.

• Reframing (replace) — finding and activating an alternative meaning schema which better fits the phenomena. This might involve switching to an existing competitor schema for the context which better predicts the current phenomenon. However, it could also mean co-opting a schema from a completely different context and applying it (metaphorically) to the current context. Reflection using this loop is substitutive.

• Metanoia (create) — constructing and activating an entirely new meaning schema. This could involve integrating two or more existing schemas that were originally separated (synthetical generation) or creating an entirely new schema from scratch (primordial generation). It's possible that this is guided by a more generic 'schema-creation' schema which encapsulates how we tend to make meaning of our experiences. Reflection using this loop is generative.

For both stimulus-oriented and schema-oriented loops, each level of change requires progressively more effort and energy and is likely to produce increasing discomfort. We are likely to seek the minimum level of change that reduces the discrepancy to below a tolerance threshold and so will only resort to the more disruptive loops if the lower-level loops fail to resolve the discrepancy. The level of the tolerance threshold will depend on a range of factors in the situation and the individual. The more we value a particular meaning schema, the less likely we are to use the more radical schema-oriented loops.

The ultimate desired outcome of the reflective process is:

• Reinforcement (confirm) — asserting the validity of the resulting active schema and strengthening its associations with a particular set of contextual stimuli. This happens when the discrepancy is evaluated to have fallen below the threshold. The reinforced active schema (whether it is the original schema or an alternative schema generated by reframing or metanoia) is more likely to be activated by similar conditions in the future. This is confirmatory reflection.