Override recognition and deliberate when the situation is genuinely novel

Flag situations that don’t quite fit a familiar pattern and switch from intuitive to analytical processing.

Why it works

The RPD model assumes the recognized prototype is a good match. When it is not — when the situation is at the edge of experience or in a new domain — the speed of recognition becomes a liability rather than an asset. The expert failure mode in novel situations is not slower processing but faster: the system matches confidently to the nearest familiar prototype even when the match is poor. Deliberately checking novelty before committing to recognition-based action adds a gate that protects high-stakes novel decisions.

How to do it

1. Before acting on a recognized situation, briefly ask: "Have I actually seen this exact configuration before, or only something that superficially resembles it?"
2. If the answer is uncertain, slow down and list the features that do not fit the prototype.
3. Treat any significant mismatch as a signal to shift to explicit option comparison rather than single-option simulation.
4. Consult someone with different pattern libraries when novelty is confirmed.

Evidence

The "near miss" literature in high-reliability organizations and Klein’s own case analyses document how expert recognition applied to novel situations produces confident, rapid, incorrect action. The intervention recommended here is derived from the analysis of those failure cases rather than from independent trials. Kahneman and Klein’s regularity condition and Dillon and Tinsley’s near-miss findings together explain the mechanism: fluent recognition fires just as strongly on a poorly-matched novel case, and the resulting near-miss is easily misread as a success rather than a warning. (mechanistic)

The threshold for "novel enough to slow down" is a judgment call; being too conservative negates the speed advantage of RPD without adding proportionate accuracy.

Sources

• Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526.
• Dillon, R. L., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). How near-misses influence decision making under risk: A missed opportunity for learning. Management Science, 54(8), 1425–1440.

Common mistake

Using the speed of the recognition feeling as evidence of its accuracy — fluent pattern match feels the same regardless of whether it is accurate.