Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

This study replicates Lagattuta, Sayfan, and Harvey (2014) in an online experiment with ~70 adults recruted on prolific. In this task, each trial begins with a simple picture (a cloud, a castle, or a panda) that is then covered so only a small 1.5"×1.5" fragment remains visible. Informed participants first view and label the full picture, then see only the fragment. Uninformed participants see only the fragment from the start. All participants are asked to judge what a naïve observer—who has never seen the full picture—would think is behind the cover. They first freely guess, then rate a set of seven possible images (the true picture, a basic shape, and various more or less plausible alternatives) on a 0–10 probability scale, removing the ones they believe the observer "definitely would not" choose. By comparing ratings from those who knew the whole image versus those who did not, the task reveals how privileged knowledge distorts our predictions of another person’s thoughts: informed participants overestimate the chance that the observer would pick the correct picture and downplay options that seem plausible when the fragment is viewed in isolation.