When Experience Becomes a Liability: How Cognitive Rigidity Undermines Decision-Making in High-Risk Environments
- Matthew Hood
- Jan 20
- 3 min read
In military and first responder communities, experience is rightly valued. Repetition, exposure, and time on task build confidence and competence.
Yet research increasingly shows that under high stress, experienced personnel may rely more heavily on familiar patterns and prior solutions, even when situational demands change - resulting in reduced adaptability rather than improved performance (Sekel et al., 2023; Giles et al., 2024).
This paradox does not reflect a lack of skill or training. Instead, it reflects how stress interacts with cognition, shaping how experience is accessed and applied under pressure.
What Is Cognitive Rigidity?
Cognitive rigidity refers to a reduced capacity to update mental models when incoming information no longer matches expectations. Under stress, decision-making shifts toward efficiency and pattern recognition rather than flexible reassessment (Giles et al., 2024).
In tactical populations, this often manifests as:
Persistent commitment to an initial assessment
Delayed recognition of environmental change
Difficulty abandoning a previously effective plan
Empirical research shows that reduced cognitive flexibility under stress is associated with poorer task performance in military-relevant environments (Jamro et al., 2025).
Why High-Stress Environments Amplify Cognitive Rigidity
Operational stress alters both physiological and cognitive functioning. Elevated arousal increases reliance on heuristic-based processing while reducing cognitive resources available for updating decisions (Sekel et al., 2023).
Three mechanisms are consistently identified in recent research:
Dominance of pattern recognition over analytical reassessment
Perceived cost of cognitive updating during time-pressured decisions
Social and hierarchical reinforcement once a plan is initiated
These mechanisms contribute to what researchers describe as decision inertia, continued action without sufficient re-evaluation (Klymkiv et al., 2025).
The Cost of Rigidity in Tactical Operations
Cognitive rigidity rarely results in immediate failure. Instead, it produces incremental decision errors that accumulate over the course of an operation.
Observed consequences include:
Missed cues indicating escalation or de-escalation
Inefficient allocation of resources
Reduced inter-team coordination
Delayed recognition of emerging threats
Experimental and simulated operational studies demonstrate that adaptive decision-making declines as stress exposure increases, particularly when cognitive flexibility is not explicitly trained (Sekel et al., 2023).
SOPs vs. Adaptive Judgment: A False Dichotomy
Concerns are often raised that adaptability undermines discipline or adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs). Current evidence does not support this assumption.
Research indicates that high performers maintain procedural structure while adjusting execution based on evolving situational demands, a process dependent on cognitive flexibility rather than rule abandonment (Jamro et al., 2025; Forse et al., 2025).
Adaptive judgment does not replace SOPs; it determines when and how those procedures are applied.
Training for Adaptability Without Creating Hesitation
Recent military and first-responder research emphasizes that adaptability must be trained deliberately, not assumed to emerge from experience alone.
Effective training approaches include:
Decision checkpoints that require reassessment under stress
Scenario variability rather than repeated identical drills
Physiology-first regulation strategies to support cognitive updating
Virtual-reality and simulated operational studies show that these approaches improve tactical decision-making without increasing hesitation or slowing response time (Forse et al., 2025).
Leadership’s Role in Preventing cognitive Rigidity
Leadership behavior significantly influences whether teams remain cognitively flexible under stress.
Studies show that environments which normalize reassessment and model course correction support more adaptive decision-making, whereas cultures that equate decisiveness with inflexibility increase rigidity under pressure (Klymkiv et al., 2025).
Adaptability is therefore not solely an individual skill, it is a cultural outcome shaped by leadership norms.
Closing Thought
Experience should increase the number of viable responses available under pressure, not constrain individuals to familiar patterns. When cognitive rigidity is left unaddressed, even elite training can lead to predictable decision failures. When adaptability is trained intentionally, experience becomes a platform for better judgment, faster updating, and safer outcomes (Giles et al., 2024; Jamro et al., 2025).
If you would like to bring this conversation to your organization through a keynote, workshop, or applied training, Matt works with military units, first responders, and leadership teams to translate research into operational performance.
MIND • BODY • MISSION
Sources
Forse, L., et al. (2025). Psychological, physical, and cognitive factors influencing tactical performance during a military-relevant virtual reality scenario. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10(1).
Giles, G. E., et al. (2024). State and trait predictors of cognitive responses to acute stress in soldiers. Psychophysiology, 61(3).
Jamro, D., et al. (2025). Cognitive flexibility predicts live-fire rifle marksmanship in military cadets. Military Psychology, 37(1), 45–58.
Klymkiv, O., et al. (2025). Cognitive and emotional features of decision-making under combat stress: A review. Inter Collegas, 12(2), 45–56.
Sekel, J., et al. (2023). Military tactical adaptive decision-making during simulated operational stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
Comments