Naïve realism (psychology)
In
Naïve realism provides a theoretical basis for several other
, among others.The term, as it is used in
Several prominent social psychologists have studied naïve realism experimentally, including Lee Ross, Andrew Ward, Dale Griffin, Emily Pronin, Thomas Gilovich, Robert Robinson, and Dacher Keltner. In 2010, the Handbook of Social Psychology recognized naïve realism as one of "four hard-won insights about human perception, thinking, motivation and behavior that ... represent important, indeed foundational, contributions of social psychology."[5]
Main assumptions
Lee Ross and fellow psychologist Andrew Ward have outlined three interrelated assumptions, or "tenets", that make up naïve realism. They argue that these assumptions are supported by a long line of thinking in social psychology, along with several empirical studies. According to their model, people:
- Believe that they see the world objectively and without bias.
- Expect that others will come to the same conclusions, so long as they are exposed to the same information and interpret it in a rational manner.
- Assume that others who do not share the same views must be ignorant, irrational, or biased.[1]
History of the concept
Naïve realism follows from a subjectivist tradition in modern social psychology, which traces its roots back to one of the field's founders, German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin.[1][6] Lewin's ideas were strongly informed by Gestalt psychology, a 20th-century school of thought which focused on examining psychological phenomena in context, as parts of a whole.[7]
From the 1920s through the 1940s, Lewin developed an approach for studying human behavior which he called
During this time period, subjectivist ideas also propagated throughout other areas of psychology. For example, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget argued that children view the world through an egocentric lens, and they have trouble separating their own beliefs from the beliefs of others.[10]
In the 1940s and 1950s, early pioneers in social psychology applied the subjectivist view to the field of social perception. In 1948, psychologists David Kretch and Richard Krutchfield argued that people perceive and interpret the world according to their "own needs, own connotations, own personality, own previously formed cognitive patterns".[1][11][12]
Social psychologist
Experimental evidence
"They saw a game"
In a seminal study in
False consensus effect
A 1977 study conducted by
Hostile media effect
A phenomenon referred to as the
"Musical tapping" study
More empirical evidence for naïve realism came from psychologist Elizabeth Newton's "musical tapping study" in 1990. For the study, participants were designated either as "tappers" or as "listeners". The tappers were told to tap out the rhythm of a well-known song, while the "listeners" were asked to try to identify the song. While tappers expected that listeners would guess the tune around 50 percent of the time, the listeners were able to identify it only around 2.5 percent of the time. This provided support for a failure in perspective-taking on the side of the tappers, and an overestimation of the extent to which others would share in "hearing" the song as it was tapped.[1]
Wall Street Game
In 2004,
Consequences
Naïve realism causes people to exaggerate differences between themselves and others. Psychologists believe that it can spark and exacerbate conflict, as well as create barriers to negotiation through several different mechanisms.[11]
Bias blind spot
One consequence of naïve realism is referred to as the
False polarization
When an individual does not share our views, the third tenet of naïve realism attributes this discrepancy to three possibilities. The individual either has been exposed to a different set of information, is lazy or unable to come to a rational conclusion, or is under a distorting influence such as bias or self-interest.
Reactive devaluation
The assumption that others' views are more extreme than they are, can create a barrier for conflict resolution. In a sidewalk survey conducted in the 1980s, pedestrians evaluated a nuclear arms' disarmament proposal (Stillinger et al., 1991).[23] One group of participants was told that the proposal was made by American President Ronald Reagan, while others thought the proposal came from Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The researchers found that 90 percent of the participants who thought the proposal was from Reagan supported it, while only 44 percent in the Gorbachev group indicated their support. This provided support for a phenomenon called reactive devaluation, which involves dismissing a concession from an adversary on the assumption that the concession is either motivated by self-interest or less valuable.[11]
See also
- List of cognitive biases
- Attribution theory
- Naïve cynicism
- Depressive realism
- Egocentric bias
- False-consensus effect
- Bias blind spot
- Curse of knowledge
- Hindsight bias
- Hostile media effect
- Attitude polarization
- Reactive devaluation
- Fundamental attribution error
- Empathy gap
- Hot-cold empathy gap
- Confirmation bias
- Theory of mind
- False-belief task
- Spotlight effect
- Actor–observer bias
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. S. Reed & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and Knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- ISBN 978-0-7456-1663-6.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-495-50621-8.
- ^
- ^ S2CID 16246373.
- ^ Gestalt psychology. (2015). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-psychology
- ^ ""Field Theory". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968. Retrieved November 17, 2015 from Encyclopedia.com
- S2CID 143603759.
- ^ Piaget, J. (1926) The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
- ^
- ^ Kretch, D.; Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 94.
- ^ Ichheiser, G. (1949). "Misunderstandings in Human Relations: A study in false social perception". American Journal of Sociology, Supplement to the September issue, pp. 1–72.
- .
- ^ Asch, Solomon (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. pp. 46–47.
- S2CID 40577816.
- .
- S2CID 16311781.
- S2CID 14259317.
- ^ Moskowitz, G.B. Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. NY, NY: The Guilford Press, 2005.
- ISBN 978-0-521-78699-7.
- ^ Ross, Lee (1995). "Reactive Devaluation in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution." In Kenneth Arrow, Robert Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, Robert B. Wilson (Eds.). Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: WW Norton & Co.
Further reading
- Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 27., (pp. 255–304). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, ix, 317 pp.
- Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2010) 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior. Chichester, West Sussex; Wiley-Blackwell.
- Pronin, Emily; Gilovich, Thomas; Ross, Lee (2004). "Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others". Psychological Review. 111 (3): 781–799. PMID 15250784.
- Liberman, V.; et al. (2011). "Naïve realism and capturing the "wisdom of dyads"". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (2): 507–512. .
- Keltner, Dacher; Robinson, Robert J. (1993). "Imagined Ideological Differences in Conflict Escalation and Resolution". International Journal of Conflict Management. 4 (3): 249–262. doi:10.1108/eb022728.
- Liberman, Varda; Samuels, Steven M.; Ross, Lee (2004). "The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner's Dilemma Game Moves". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (9): 1175–1185. S2CID 19094952.
- Ross, Lee (2014). "Barriers to agreement in the asymmetric Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict. 7 (2–3): 120–136. S2CID 144631018.
- Ross, Lee; Nisbett, Richard E. (2011). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers. ISBN 978-1-905177-44-8.