Naïve Realism in Terrain Appreciation

Previously, we have shown that shaded perspective view (“3-D”) displays are better for understanding the shape and rough layout of terrain than conventional 2-D views. We have coined the term Naïve Realism for users’ misplaced, blanket faith in these 3-D displays (Smallman & St. John, 2005). There are hints in the individual difference literature that those of low spatial ability may be particularly prone to Naïve Realism. Here, we integrate these notions to test several theoretical predictions and to develop a new terrain simplification concept. Thirty-three participants had their spatial ability and problemsolving style measured. Then participants predicted which displays would, and then did, best support them in performing a task of threading a concealed route through realistic terrain. Depth relief (shading vs. topographic lines), viewing angle (90° vs. 45°) and terrain fidelity (high/unfiltered sharp vs. low/spatially smoothed) were all varied. Of the eight display combinations, Naïve Realism correctly predicted the greatest preference for the highest fidelity, realistic 3-D view (sharp, shaded, 45°). Yet the routing task was best performed with lower fidelity views. Spatially filtering terrain unmasks canyons and other gross terrain features, enabling them to pop-out more easily. Individuals of high spatial ability had better task performance and better calibrated their post-task display preferences, suggesting they are generally more savvy about the ways that display format affects their performance.