Analogous to the sociological approach of work flexibility, the detached attitude toward preexisting aspects also remains crucial in the neuropsychological approach. Indeed, in this approach learned and familiar habits are opposed to higher-order actions.
Schemes of Action
The executive functioning model is based on the voluntary versus automatic dichotomy (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Van der Linden & Andrés, 1999). The priorities manager is an automatic process that would intervene in routine activities to coordinate overlearned actions, which would be necessary to realize these activities. This process would be involved in situations for which the procedures are known and thus require few or no attentional checks. The habits of the action constitute the schemes of action (action sequences known to the individual), which differ according to the familiarity of the situation (Norman & Shallice, 1980). Each schema can be triggered by perceptual stimuli or by other schema’s products when its activation level (the balance between excitation and inhibition) exceeds the critical threshold. Given that cognitive resources are limited, only one schema can be active at a time. If there are two or more conflicting schemas in familiar situations, the mechanism called conflict manager intervenes to select a single schema. The schemas activated in the automatic manner are often based on prior learning. In dealing with new material or a new problem, one of the negative effects of this learning would be proactive interference (Postman & Underwood, 1973; Baüml & Kliegl, 2013). Berthoz (2003) also mention perseveration as a difficulty in disengaging oneself from the current action and engaging in a new. Perseveration (habituation in the Psychology of the Form) or applying the learned method even if it has proved ineffective (Luchins, 1942), is opposed to flexible behavior, which here would be the ability to change the strategy or method (Barkley, 2012).
In new or complex activities for which the resolution procedures are not known or have proven to be ineffective, the second process called the system of attentional supervision can overcome the automaticity. This particular system would intervene to analyze the situation, define the goals, or recognize or create temporary schemes, as well as perform the action with direct control over verifying the objective’s achievement (Burges & Shallice, 1996). According to Shallice (Shallice, 1988; Shallice & Cooper, 2011), this system is likely to be manifested by inhibiting automatic actions, initiating new actions, deducing and generating the operating rules, and would have the ability to maintain a correct rule or move from one rule to another. According to Norman and Shallice (1980; 1986), the system of attentional supervision can modulate the conflict manager activity by intensifying or reducing the activation of a given schema and, in this way, promote its activation, despite its initial low activation. This modulation would intervene in five situations in which automatic activation is not sufficient to obtain optimal performance: 1) situations involving a process of planning or decision-making, 2) situations involving correcting errors, 3) situations containing new action sequences, 4) situations with high technical difficulty or that are dangerous, and 5) situations that usually require a strong response to be thwarted or for the temptation to be resisted.
As Kant (1975 [2006]) stated, there is a part of knowledge prior to experience—our a priori. Hume (1739 [2015]) seems to recommend distrust toward mental routines. His famous problem about the swan (all swans are white because all of the swans I have seen were white) warns against generalizing on the basis of daily experiences. This kind of generalizing not only prevents individuals from finding the solution facing the problem-solving cognitive situations, but can also lead them to stereotype and behave on the basis of these stereotypes when facing social situations instead of questioning the situation.