{"id":3003,"date":"2017-04-17T16:39:47","date_gmt":"2017-04-17T20:39:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=3003"},"modified":"2017-06-27T13:54:16","modified_gmt":"2017-06-27T17:54:16","slug":"naive-realism-our-misinterpretation-of-how-we-interpret-the-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2017\/04\/17\/naive-realism-our-misinterpretation-of-how-we-interpret-the-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Na\u00efve Realism: Our Misinterpretation of How We Interpret the World"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cI disagree.\u201d Words that make us cringe. We have an innate desire for our worldview to be the correct<\/em> one. This motivation is further exacerbated by our overconfidence in ourselves. We enter arguments thinking we are correct, but in reality, we have subconscious\u00a0biases that may lead to us not being as accurate as we think we are.<\/p>\n

Imagine that you are having an argument with a close friend about who deserves the title of the best baseball player of all time. You are adamant that the title goes to Barry Bonds, but your friend is dead set on Babe Ruth. You present your respective arguments, stating your opinions and even backing them up with the players\u2019 incredible stats. You wonder to yourself, why doesn’t your friend have the same opinion as you? You figure they must be ill informed, that any logical person would choose Barry Bonds. However, you forget to take into account that your dad brought you to the Giants game on August 7, 2007, when Bonds broke the record for most career home runs<\/a> (Baseball-Reference, 2017). The crowd went wild, the atmosphere was electric, and this became your favorite sports moment of all time. However, because you experienced this momentous event, you have a strong emotional connection to Bonds that tampers with your ability to objectively analyze him as a baseball player. Even though statistically, he may NOT be the best baseball player, your opinion is subconsciously swayed by your incredible experience that day at the ballpark. This highlights the basis of the cognitive error in psychology called na\u00efve realism.<\/p>\n

Na\u00efve realism refers to the notion that our world view is strictly\u00a0objective and veridical. We also believe that others will interpret information with this same view, and if their view differs, they must be biased or have an irrational thought process (Ross & Ward, 1996). To read about all the different psychological concepts that\u00a0contribute evidence to na\u00efve realism, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The first study in support\u00a0of na\u00efve realism was conducted by Ross, Greene, & House (1977). In this study, they explained\u00a0the false consensus effect,<\/em>\u00a0the idea that people tend to assume that the majority of others share their same views.\u00a0Individuals filled out questionnaires with a series of different hypothetical situations. The situations were followed by the questions: \u201cwould you do this?\u201d and \u201cwhat percentage of people do you think would do this?\u201d The results showed that people who answered \u201cyes\u201d also estimated that the majority of the population would do the action in question in the given scenario. And vice versa if they had answered \u201cno.\u201d So people have this sense of overconfidence that others would agree with their own personal view.<\/p>\n

It is our innate nature to believe\u00a0that people have this homogeneous method of understanding their environment, but in reality, how people interpret the world is immensely variable. The process of identifying an object, situation, or environment begins with cognition. Then, the next step is interpreting these organizations of information. To do this, we\u00a0integrate prior experience, knowledge, and representations into the concept at hand. This is called top-down processing<\/a>. It is from this that we derive our opinions, which we then portray to the rest of the world. This process is essential because it allows us to come to conclusions about our surrounding environment relatively quick, especially if we have had similar previous experiences. However, these quick reactions sometimes lead us to be substantially\u00a0biased, which can potentially lead to some problems for us, especially when approaching an argument or conflict. The act of engaging in top-down processing leaves us vulnerable to na\u00efve realism because it can result in a\u00a0biased opinion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Na\u00efve realism typically carries\u00a0a negative connotation because it can lead to people viewing the world in a unilateral manner. Without incorporating the views of others into your opinions, they tend to remain oversimplified. Na\u00efve realism can also cause you to ignore or reject contradicting opinions, thus subsequently leading to missed opportunities to change and expand your worldview. Because of this, na\u00efve realism is extremely relevant in any argument, especially political arguments and hot button issues. Robinson et al. (1995) conducted a study analyzing na\u00efve realism within the extremely contentious topic of abortion. They recruited college students who were associated with campus activism groups involved in the debate on the ethics and legality of abortion. Pro-choice students read a rationale written in favor of pro-life, and then answered a questionnaire about the validity of their opinions and the opinions in the passage. The results showed that the participants perceived their views on the matter to be logical and original, and\u00a0the opposing views to be influenced by political ideology and false
\ninformation. We believe we approach the situations without any previous knowledge or preconceptions affecting us, and our opponent has been influenced by their top-down processing to create bias. However, in reality,\u00a0we are wrong, we are both using top-down processes! Maintaining this na\u00efve view is unproductive to our everyday interactions and even our\u00a0personal relationships. A previous blog post<\/a>\u00a0discusses how na\u00efve realism can lead to the blind spot bias and being overly self-confident.<\/p>\n

The good news is that na\u00efve realism can be overcome. Nasie et al. (2014) conducted a study in which Israeli college students read either a passage describing the psychological basis of na\u00efve realism, or a control group passage that was completely unrelated to na\u00efve realism. The passage on na\u00efve realism explained how it\u00a0can negatively impact people by maintaining fixed viewpoints and rejecting other opinions. The participants then read a narrative, written by a Palestinian, about certain social issues, and were then asked about their openness to this narrative. Given the historical Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it could be assumed that there would be a lack of cross-cultural empathy between the two groups. The results showed that participants who were made aware of na\u00efve realism reported greater openness to the ideas in the narrative than the control group. In this study, people are actually using top-down information to resolve\u00a0na\u00efve realism. Thus, it seems that top-down processing is\u00a0a double-edged sword within the context of\u00a0na\u00efve realism. If we subconsciously incorporate knowledge and preconceptions, we are vulnerable to\u00a0na\u00efvety. But, if we consciously access\u00a0knowledge about\u00a0na\u00efve realism, we can work to reduce the bias.<\/p>\n

Since na\u00efve realism is the default reaction, there is not much that you can change about your immediate view, however, your interpretations and expressions of your views are\u00a0malleable. With a little effort and situational awareness, you can overcome na\u00efve realism! The benefits of overcoming it are immense. It allows you to perceive\u00a0situations and opinions in a different light, and, most importantly, it leads you to the path of increasing your feelings of empathy. Empathy<\/a> is the awareness and understanding of another person\u2019s thoughts and experiences (Merriam-Webster). By\u00a0putting yourself in someone else\u2019s shoes, you are able to vicariously experience what he or she sees. So the next time you think someone else\u2019s opinion is wrong, put yourself in their shoes. Try to understand their thought process. Be empathetic. Overcome na\u00efve realism.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Career Leaders & Records for Home Runs (2017).\u00a0 Retrieved 15 April 2017, from http:\/\/www.baseball-reference.com\/leaders\/HR_career.shtml<\/p>\n

Definition of Empathy. (2017). Merriam-webster.com<\/em>. Retrieved 17 April 2017, from https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/empathy<\/p>\n

Nasie, M., Bar-Tal, D., Pliskin, R., Nahhas, E., & Halperin, E. (2014). Overcoming the barrier of narrative adherence in conflicts through awareness of the psychological bias of na\u00efve realism. Personality and social psychology bulletin<\/em>, 40, 1543\u20131556<\/p>\n

Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal:” Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict.\u00a0Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>,\u00a068<\/em>(3), 404.<\/p>\n

Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes.\u00a0Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,\u00a013<\/em>, 279-301.<\/p>\n

Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, T. Brown, E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, T. Brown (Eds.) ,\u00a0Values and knowledge<\/em>\u00a0(pp. 103-135). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cI disagree.\u201d Words that make us cringe. We have an innate desire for our worldview to be the correct one. This motivation is further exacerbated by our overconfidence in ourselves. We enter arguments thinking we are correct, but in reality, we have subconscious\u00a0biases that may lead to us not being as accurate as we think […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5594,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[80216,266316,130416],"tags":[266347,266291],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3003"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5594"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3003"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3003\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3408,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3003\/revisions\/3408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}