I see, therefore it is: Naïve realism in expert chefs

Abstract

Research on naïve realism has revealed a tendency for people to think their opinions are objective because they believe they see the world the way it really is. This study examined naïve realism in an untapped area: experts who work in subjective domains. We were motivated to see if experts would view their fields as more objective than laypeople, even when they work in areas that the general population tends to think do not have objectively correct answers. To test this, we asked chefs and non-chefs to rate the objectivity of several cooking- and film-related topics. As predicted, chefs saw the cooking topics as more objective than non-chefs. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in how objective chefs and non-chefs saw the film topics. We also asked participants to estimate how many people agree with their opinions for each topic. As predicted, chefs perceived more consensus around their views than did non-chefs, but only when it came to their field of expertise. We ran a mediation analysis between chefs, consensus perceptions, and objectivity ratings and found support for our hypothesis: chefs’ greater perceptions of objectivity in cooking topics was mediated by their greater perceived consensus. This research opens the door to a new area of naïve realism to explore, while also cautioning us to rethink how we value experts’ opinions and teachings. Keywords: naïve realism, expertise, consensus, objectivity, subjectivity, bias