If we are unable to see that our perception of the world is clouded by our biases, when someone’s perception is different from ours, we believe them to be “wrong” or “stupid.” Instead of expanding our knowledge by trying to understand the world through a different perspective, we think of ourselves and our point of view as being superior. Even when we are the ones who are ignorant, biased, or not well-informed, we end up thinking that the other person who doesn’t share our point of view is all of those things.³

Naive realism causes us to overlook conflicting perceptions, which can lead to missing out on opportunities to expand our worldview. If we saw our perception of the world as an opinion rather than an objective worldview, we could have more interesting and fruitful conversations with others. For example, naive realism can cause us to think our opinion that Missy Elliot is the best artist is a fact, and not bother listening to the up-and-coming indie artist that our friend loves. 

Debates over musical taste may not be a significant issue, but naive realism also affects more serious topics of debate. On a more serious note, it can mean that we fail to consider other political views, philosophical schools of thought, or cultural beliefs. While we can identify the influences that impact someone else’s behavior, we often find it difficult to recognize our own biases.⁴

While naive realism might lead to harmless arguments like a debate over Friends and The Office, our inability to understand others’ points of view can have negative consequences for society.

Because of naive realism, different cultures can struggle to understand one another. A respectful gesture in one culture might actually be a sign of disrespect in another. For example, the “OK” sign, a thumbs-up, or crossing your fingers might be perfectly acceptable in regions like the U.S. and Canada, but these same gestures can be seen as vulgar or insulting in many other parts of the world.⁵

We’re also living in an increasingly polarized society, in part due to naive realism.⁶ These days, it is easy to find supporting evidence for our opinion, which makes us more likely to believe our perception of what is real is the “right” one. Consider the COVID-19 pandemic—whether we are in favor of the vaccine, think it contains a microchip, or believe it hasn’t been sufficiently researched, it’s easy to find supporting evidence online for our belief. We also seek out more information that will confirm our opinions, a phenomenon known as the confirmation bias. 

This has led to an inability for different political sides to even talk to one another. It might seem like Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on anything. Think back to January 6, 2021, when far-right extremists stormed the Capitol. Everyone saw the same speeches, the same footage, and the same pictures of the raid, yet both sides of the political spectrum had radically different opinions on what happened. People’s political affiliation skewed their perception of reality, yet neither side recognized their own bias.⁷

Similar effects can play out in courtrooms. The idea that our subjective experience mirrors objective reality can influence how we perceive visual evidence such as pictures and videos. Judges and jury members are often unaware of the potential biases that can skew their visual perception, leading them to believe they are observing objective reality.¹⁵ For example, what one juror sees as aggressive body language, another might see as defensiveness, each assuming that their view of the evidence is the right one. As a result, legal decision-makers might dismiss alternative interpretations or struggle to resolve conflicting perspectives.

UX designers can also be prone to cognitive biases that distort their understanding of others’ perspectives, experiences, and needs. When designers assume their perspective is universal, they might conclude that their designs are inherently intuitive, overlooking usability challenges for people with different abilities, cognitive styles, or cultural backgrounds. Designers might not realize how much of their perspective is shaped by their experience and knowledge—and that most users don’t possess the same understanding that they do. This skewed perception can create usability imbalances that make digital products and services inaccessible to certain people.¹⁶ 

The same issues can arise when interpreting user research. While UX testing plays a critical role in designing digital products that deliver a reliable and consistent user experience, cognitive biases rooted in naive realism can jeopardize the value of these tests.¹⁷ For example, app designers might look for evidence supporting their perspective that their tools are easy to use while dismissing negative usability feedback. Designers often favor information that confirms their existing beliefs, assuming that a product will make sense to others because it makes sense to them. As a result, instead of attributing user issues to design flaws, designers might attribute negative responses to user error, missing key opportunities to improve the product for their intended users.

Naive realism can also drive polarization around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), where one side idealizes the technology as an unrealistic solution to complex world problems, and the other side is overly critical and disproportionately focused on its negative aspects.¹⁸ Because of naive realism, people tend to assume their perspective on artificial intelligence (AI) is the correct one, while seeing those who disagree as uninformed or biased. This can lead to people misinterpreting the capabilities and limitations of AI. Those in the “AI is bad” camp can overlook areas where it can benefit society. Those in the “AI is the solution to all our problems” camp can overlook the risks of overrelying on the technology and its potential to perpetuate human biases.

Naive realism essentially distorts our perspective on AI based on our limited experiences. On the flip side, experts suggest that AI can help us avoid these kinds of biases by exposing us to new information and diverse perspectives that counter our intuitive worldviews.¹⁸ Ideally, this wider access to information will allow more of us to expand our understanding of topics like AI and adopt a more nuanced perspective on both the risks and benefits of the emerging technology.

Naive realism is an egocentric cognitive distortion that distorts our perception of the world, as we tend to rely too heavily on our perceptions as reality. It’s reinforced by the false consensus bias, which causes us to assume that other people share the same opinions as us and therefore that our opinions are more like facts.⁷

Naive realism is also a product of the way our brains process information. We use top-down processing, where we begin with our general beliefs and expectations and move down to specific sensory input. Instead of focusing on the particulars in front of us, our general opinions influence our perception of new information. This mental shortcut helps us process the vast amount of information we encounter on a daily basis.⁸

Another reason naive realism occurs is that it’s difficult for us to wrap our heads around the idea that material reality might not actually exist objectively. We think that things exist independently of us, which is why their ‘real’ state can be perceived. Yet, some philosophical schools of thought suggest that there is no such thing as an independent material world, at least not one that we can perceive through our senses. These philosophical theories, known as indirect realism and idealism, suggest that the material world can’t actually be disentangled from our perceptions of it.⁹

As mentioned above, naive realism can have negative consequences and lead to conflict. It causes us to adopt a narrow worldview and complicates our ability to engage in meaningful dialogue about differences. In a digital world of algorithm-driven media, understanding naive realism is important for avoiding echo chambers and epistemic bubbles, where it can seem like everyone agrees with our point of view. Likewise, in high-stakes industries such as healthcare, law, education, and politics, naive realism can cloud the judgment of key decision-makers. Recognizing the tendency to assume one’s worldview is accurate can help people open up to multiple viewpoints and make fairer decisions.

Of course, naive realism not only hinders our decision-making abilities but can negatively impact our relationships as well. When someone disagrees with us, we assume they are irrational or uninformed. This can fuel conflict in our personal lives, whether it manifests as political division among families or cultural misunderstandings among friends. If you don’t treat your friends’ and family’s opinions with the respect they deserve, you may quickly find yourself in strained relationships. Being aware that your perspective is not objective and that other people might see things differently is crucial for having constructive conversations with people who disagree with you.

Thankfully, awareness of naive realism can help combat its effects. If we realize our perception of the world is subjective and skewed by our biases, we can begin to challenge our egocentrism. 

In 2014, Israeli professor Meytal Nasie and his colleagues conducted a study to see if naive realism could be overcome through awareness. They asked one group of students to read a description of naive realism, while another control group read a passage unrelated to the psychological phenomenon. The two groups then read a passage by a Palestinian writer about social issues. The historical Israeli-Palestinian conflict was assumed to be an obstacle to openness to the opinions expressed in the passage and empathy with the writer. However, Nasie et al. found that the students who read the description of naive realism reported greater openness to the writer’s ideas and opinions than the control group.¹⁰ 

In a similar study from 2022, researchers found that raising awareness of naive realism can boost acceptance of cultural differences.¹⁹ Learning about naive realism increased the participants’ openness to new ideas, especially for those who started out with higher levels of prejudice. In the study, participants were less able to maintain an overly positive view of themselves once they were made aware of the bias, which in turn increased their cultural acceptance—even though the awareness intervention did not mention culture at all. This suggests that making people aware of naive realism could be a powerful tool for reducing xenophobia and increasing acceptance of those from other cultures.

These studies suggest that just by reading this article, you’re less likely to be influenced by naive realism! That’s a great start.

What is the difference between naive realism and direct realism?

The terms naive realism and direct realism are often used interchangeably, but they come from different schools of thought with different implications.²⁰ Direct realism refers to a philosophical theory of perception, claiming that we perceive the world exactly as it is—that our sensory experience gives us an accurate and objective view of reality. This perspective opposes indirect realism, which suggests that we only perceive the world through sense data or through mental representations of the world.

In social psychology, naive realism refers to the belief that our perspective is a natural, unbiased reflection of reality, and that anyone who disagrees with us is biased, uninformed, or simply wrong.²⁰ In this way, naive realism is not just a philosophical theory, but a cognitive bias that distorts our view of the world and prevents us from recognizing how our perspective is shaped by experiences, beliefs, and other personal factors.

How does naive realism cause the bias blind spot?

The bias blind spot refers to our tendency to think that others are more susceptible to biases than we are. Research suggests that—due to naive realism—people are poor bias detectors when focusing on themselves, but good bias detectors when considering the judgments and actions of others.²¹ Generally, people tend to rate themselves as more objective than their peers, assuming that their own views are grounded in reality while the views of others are susceptible to bias. 

Naive realism essentially creates a biased perception of our own freedom from bias.²¹ Even when we know about cognitive biases and how they can influence our decisions, we continue to see those biases as problems that affect others, not ourselves, because naive realism reinforces the idea that we are seeing things as they are. This underscores the importance of building awareness around naive realism alongside discussions about cognitive bias and how it shapes our behavior.

Naive realism was first conceptualized in the early 1900s by German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin. He developed field theory, which suggests that people’s behavior is a function of the person and the psychological environment, which means that our behavior—including our perception—is subjective and distinct from physical reality. Lewin did not coin the term ‘naive realism,’ but he was a catalyst for interest in the relationship between perception and the material world. 

Based on Lewin’s work, Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget studied children’s perceptions and found that they viewed the world through an egocentric lens. He found that children have trouble separating their beliefs from the beliefs of others—and apparently, we don’t grow out of that!¹¹

Many years later, American social psychologists Lee Ross and Andrew Ward officially developed the phenomenon of ‘naive realism’ in their 1996 paper “Naive Realism: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding.” They examined construal—the way that people perceive and interpret their world—and demonstrated, as their subtitle suggests, that we make “insufficient allowance for construal difference.”¹²

One powerful demonstration of naive realism comes from the Wall Street/Community Game experiment, in which Ross and colleagues demonstrated that the name of the game significantly influenced the players’ behavior.¹² Participants who were told they were playing the Wall Street Game acted less cooperatively than those told they were playing the Community Game. Most importantly, the framing of the game appeared to shape behavior regardless of the participants’ personalities, challenging predictions based on their reputations. Both players and observers assumed that game decisions would be driven by the personalities of the players, overestimating the objectivity of their perception and failing to consider how significantly one’s behavior can be shaped by context.

As more research was conducted into naive realism, other cognitive biases were discovered, such as the fundamental attribution error and actor-observer bias. These errors describe our tendency to perceive others’ actions very differently from how we perceive our own.

Although naive realism is one of the causes behind polarizing political views, we expect heated debates when it comes to politics. We’re less familiar with situations where society is so divided on a scientific matter or the risk of everyday behaviors, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We often surround ourselves with people who have similar opinions to ours, which means we are not confronted with our own naive realism too often. Yet, the pandemic saw members of the same families have vastly different perceptions of what kind of behavior is appropriate during the pandemic. You might have felt that going for a walk with your best friend presented a low risk, but your parents (who you moved in with during the pandemic to save money) might have told you it was too dangerous. How do you navigate these differences with loved ones? 

In September 2020, pioneer of behavioral science George Loewenstein and psychologist Elke Weber published an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times to help guide individuals facing these family conflicts. They informed individuals of naive realism and the false consensus effect and explored how it impacts our relationships during stressful times like the COVID-19 pandemic.¹³

Naive realism suggests we believe all people perceive the pandemic and the risks associated with it in the same way we do. When our parents tell us we’re not allowed to go on the walk, we don’t pause and think, “they must associate the walk with greater risk to our health than I do.” We probably think they are being unfair and unreasonable, punishing us for no reason. Similarly, if a friend turns down our invite for a picnic in the park, we might believe there’s another reason for their rejection—like they are mad at us—instead of acknowledging they might have a different perception of what is appropriate behavior during the pandemic.¹³ 

The article also noted that we have to be considerate when broaching the topic of differing opinions. People don’t like to have their perceptions of reality challenged, so arguing with someone that they are biased isn’t going to get you anywhere. Instead, it is important to try to put yourself in the other’s position and try to understand their point of view, and explain where your own perception comes from instead of acting as if it reflects an objective understanding of reality.¹³ 

There are multiple philosophical theories on what exactly ‘reality’ is that all differ in their beliefs about whether reality exists independently from perception, and whether we can access that material reality. The three predominant ones are naive realism (as discussed in this article), indirect realism, which suggests that while material reality does exist independently, we are not able to perceive it objectively, and idealism, which suggests that material reality doesn’t exist at all, only our perception of reality exists.¹⁴

Let’s take the example of a tree to demonstrate how these three theories differ. Naive realists argue that the tree exists in a material, objective sense, and that our perception of the tree is real because it is based on its objective physical attributes. Whether or not someone is there to perceive the tree, it exists independently.¹⁴ 

Indirect realists would agree that the tree exists in a material, objective sense, but would claim that we do not perceive the tree as it is. Instead, we process and interpret it subjectively.¹⁴

Idealists, on the other hand, suggest that if a person does not perceive the tree, then the tree does not exist, because the only thing that exists is our minds’ perceptions of reality, not material reality itself.¹⁴

What it is

Naive realism is an egocentric bias that causes us to believe that our perception of reality is objective and uninfluenced by our biases. It leads us to believe other people are “wrong” if their perceptions do not match ours. 

Why it happens

Naive realism occurs because we find it hard to understand how others can perceive material reality differently from us. While we are good at pointing out the biases that influence others’ opinions, we are much worse at recognizing our own subjective influences. 

Naive Realism and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us that everyone has a different perception of reality. Friends and family members might have had different opinions on which behaviors were appropriate and what activities were too risky, which could easily have led to conflict. To avoid this, we must be empathetic to others’ points of view and understand that each person perceives reality subjectively. 

The Three Theories of Reality

Naive realism is just one philosophical theory of reality. It states that we perceive material objects exactly as they are, whereas indirect realism suggests our perceptions are filtered subjective interpretations, and idealism suggests the material world does not exist independently of our perceptions. 

How to avoid it

The influence of naive realism is diminished through awareness. By understanding that our own perceptions are not facts, but opinions that are shaped by an array of influences, we might begin to understand that people who have conflicting opinions are not ‘wrong’, but simply have a different perception of reality. 

Learning Within Limits: How Curated Content Affects Education

Naive realism shows us that we are living in realities that we construct ourselves, an effect that is only increasing due to curated content that reinforces our existing beliefs. For example, if we like a post related to Democrats, our social media algorithm will show us more similar content. In this article, contributor Katharine Sephton explores how curated content limits our knowledge and how trigger warnings—despite their intent—can end up sheltering people from views different from their own. 

Materialism

If you’re interested in the philosophical side of naive realism, you should read our reference guide on materialism. Like naive realism, materialism suggests that things truly exist as matter, and our perception is a product of interacting with that material. The guide explores the fact that materialism precludes the existence of non-material entities—such as God, ghosts, or spirits—even though these ideas can have profound impacts on people’s lives.