ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Recursive mentalizing and public salience in the perception of common knowledge.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recursive mentalizing and public salience in the perception of common knowledge.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Common knowledge-what everyone knows that everyone knows, ad infinitum-is theoretically required for coordination. But a finite mind cannot represent infinitely embedded propositions, and even a few are cognitively taxing. We propose that people perceive common knowledge by combining a capacity-limited ability for recursive mentalizing with an intuitive sense of public salience: When an event is jointly and openly witnessed, they infer that recursively embedded beliefs are licensed. We probed participants' attributions of embedded beliefs to characters in fictitious vignettes. Study 1 presented narratives in which the information available to characters was either asymmetrical, reciprocal, or public. Participants indicated their confidence in the characters' beliefs with 0, 2, 4, 6, and 18 embeddings (the latter judged indirectly). Ratings showed i) a decline with number of embeddings, reflecting cognitive load, ii) modest overattribution of embedded beliefs in the nonpublic conditions, iii) far higher attribution of embedded beliefs in the public conditions, and iv) high indirect judgments that arbitrarily deep beliefs were justified. Study 2 replicated these findings with animated videos in which the characters' information was private, reciprocal, doubly reciprocal, or public. Together, the studies indicate that people attribute common knowledge to observers of a publicly salient event, while being susceptible to capacity-driven recursion collapse and heuristic extrapolation (false embedded beliefs). This can explain how humans achieve coordination from sparse cues, yet sometimes miscoordinate when publicness is absent or embedding grows complex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.