Claims

The naive realism perspective cannot fully explain conflicting realism effects; vague definitions of realism are a root problem

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The authors argue the naive realism perspective is unable to fully explain the conflicting results found in the literature. → Skulmowski 2022

Evidence

Skulmowski 2022

Skulmowski, A., Nebel, S., Remmele, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). Is a Preference for Realism Really Naive After All? A Cognitive Model of Learning with Realistic Visualizations. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09638-1

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

Theoretical argument in the abstract and introduction: findings such as ability-moderated and test-type-dependent effects contradict an absolute interpretation of naive realism. The article offers argumentation, not new data.

"However, we argue that this perspective is unable to fully explain the conflicting results found in the literature."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id naive-realism-insufficient-explanation
title The naive realism perspective cannot fully explain conflicting realism effects; vague definitions of realism are a root problem
description The naive realism perspective cannot fully explain conflicting realism effects; vague definitions of realism are a root problem
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2022
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — skulmowski-2022

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.