Author ORCID Identifier
0009-0007-9348-7039
Date of Award
Summer 7-10-2026
Document Type
Thesis (Ph.D.)
Department or Program
Psychological & Brain Sciences
First Advisor
Luke Chang
Second Advisor
Jonathan Phillips
Third Advisor
Thalia Wheatley
Abstract
Some conversations make us feel connected while others fall flat. It is tempting to credit the obvious: what we share, a good conversation, a shared experience. But another person's inner world remains hidden; all we have is what we infer from what they say. Does connection come from those things, or from what they let us infer about who someone is? To find out, I built multiplayer experiments where strangers meet and talk in real time. In Chapter 2, I ask what one opinion suggests about a person's other views. Strangers discussed, or only learned, a partner's stance on one topic, then guessed their views on everything else. One agreement ripples outward: people expect to agree on related issues, less on distant ones. They are not projecting their own views but drawing on a sense of how beliefs cluster. Conversation leads people to expect more in common than learning a stance does, especially when they had disagreed. In Chapter 3, I test whether sharing an experience is enough. Groups of four watched a reality TV show while chatting, all believing they saw the same footage — though some saw a different version. Shared footage alone does not make people closer. People instead feel connected to a partner reacting to the same thing as it happens, but only when both watch the same version. In Chapter 4, I ask how deeply we must share something to feel close. Groups of six took turns disclosing experiences while others reported whether they knew it, lived it, or could relate. Connection climbed with each deeper layer, highest when the other person could relate. Relating earns more connection the rarer it feels — a rare thing in common narrows who someone is. Together, these findings show connection is actively built through conversation. From a single signal — a stance, a reaction, a disclosure — we infer what lies behind it: what it tells us about their other views, what they feel in the moment, how it points to who they are, especially when rare. We do not read closeness directly — we reason toward it, one inference at a time.
Recommended Citation
Mahaphanit, Wasita, "Accessing another's inner world: an inferential account of social connection" (2026). Dartmouth College Ph.D Dissertations. 530.
https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/dissertations/530
