Naive realism in the unmarried cohabitation controversy in the United States

Andrea A Mccracken,Matthew S Mcglone

doi:10.5964/ijpr.v10i1.202

Abstract

We explored the role of “naïve realism” in perceptions of attitudinal differences between proponents and opponents of unmarried cohabitation (UC) in the United States. Participants were presented with UC vignettes, asked to describe their own impressions of the couple in each scenario, and then to speculate about the impressions of the typical UC proponent and opponent. A comparison of these impressions yielded a pattern of false polarization in their perceptions, such that partisans’ self-reported sympathy was reliably more similar than the degree of sympathy either side attributed to the other. Partisans also exhibited egocentric bias regarding the basis for each side’s stances on UC. The relevance of this misperception and faulty assumptions toward the resolution of the debate over unmarried cohabitation is discussed.

Highlights

We explored the role of “naïve realism” in perceptions of attitudinal differences between proponents and opponents of unmarried cohabitation (UC) in the United States
Self-focused questions assessed respondent’s own attitudes (e.g. How sympathetic do you feel toward the couple in this scenario?); proponent-focused questions gauged respondent’s perceptions of the attitudes held by those who support UC (e.g. How sympathetic would a typical person who supports cohabitation feel toward the couple in this scenario?); and opponent-focused questions probed respondent perceptions of the attitudes held by those that oppose UC (e.g. How sympathetic would a typical person who opposes cohabitation feel toward the couple in this scenario?)
The principal statistical evidence for naïve realism in the ratings data is an interaction between UC stance and question focus

Summary

Introduction

We explored the role of “naïve realism” in perceptions of attitudinal differences between proponents and opponents of unmarried cohabitation (UC) in the United States. Seldom enforced in criminal court, anti-cohabitation laws in several states (West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, and North Dakota) have been employed in other legal contexts to deny unmarried couples rights to child custody and visitation, unemployment financial assistance, and protection from housing and employment discrimination. The persistence of these laws reflects the reluctance of relationship traditionalists to grant legitimacy to any living arrangement other than heterosexual marriage. In-depth interview and focus group research suggests that male participants infer social disapproval from their female partner’s family when they engage in a UC relationship and female participants perceive UC as having lower social status and legitimacy, as compared to marriage (Huang, Smock, Manning, & Bergstrom-Lynch, 2011)

Methods

Results

Conclusion