Naive realism
Naïve realism is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that they perceive the world objectively and that others who perceive it differently are uninformed, irrational, or biased. This bias leads to the assumption that one’s own interpretation of reality is the accurate one, while differing perspectives are flawed.
How it works
Naïve realism operates on the premise that personal perceptions are veridical, or truthfully representative of the world. However, since perceptions are inherently subjective and influenced by personal experiences, emotions, and cognitive processes, naïve realism can result in misunderstanding or conflict when engaging with others who have differing viewpoints.
Examples
- In political debates, individuals may assume that their political viewpoints are based on rational and objective assessments of facts, whereas those of opposing parties are seen as irrational or driven by ulterior motives.
- In a workplace meeting, an employee might believe their view on a project strategy is the most sensible, while dismissing alternative strategies as uninformed or lacking insight.
Consequences
This bias can lead to polarization, ineffective communication, and conflicts. When individuals fail to recognize their own biases and shortcomings in how they perceive information, it can hinder collaboration and mutual understanding, especially in social, political, and organizational contexts.
Counteracting
To counteract naïve realism, individuals can practice intellectual humility, seek diverse perspectives, and actively engage in self-reflection to recognize the subjective nature of their perceptions. Additionally, fostering environments where different viewpoints are encouraged and respected can mitigate the impact of this bias.
Critiques
Critiques of naïve realism suggest that acknowledging this bias can lead to a relativistic view where all perspectives are seen as equally valid, potentially undermining the pursuit of truth. Critics also argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of human perception and interaction.
Also known as
Relevant Research
Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. Reed, & E
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996)
Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge
Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004)
Psychological Review
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Naive realism manifests in practice
Context
A mid-size fintech startup built a new automated savings feature intended to round up transactions and move spare change into a high-yield account. Leadership and the core product team were convinced the feature reflected obvious user priorities: effortless saving and better returns.
Situation
The product team designed the feature with a single setting that automatically transferred rounded-up money into the account and surfaced nudges to increase transfer amounts. They skipped extended qualitative research after internal stakeholders—engineers, designers, and founders—expressed unanimous enthusiasm during demos and beta tests with employees.
The Bias in Action
Team members assumed their own comfort with automated transfers and financial nudges matched that of the customer base, interpreting any hesitation as a sign of user ignorance rather than different preferences. When a small pilot showed that many customers disabled the feature, the team dismissed the results as anomalies caused by poor onboarding rather than re-examining assumptions. Product managers repeatedly framed feedback that conflicted with their expectations as outlier complaints, and prioritized adding more persuasive notifications instead of exploring why customers opted out.
Outcome
After full launch, feature adoption stagnated and retention for users who enabled it was lower than the benchmark. The company spent three months iterating notification frequency and language—changes that failed to move adoption—before commissioning targeted interviews that revealed privacy concerns and a desire for more granular controls. Only after redesign and re-release did uptake grow to acceptable levels.