Are communicators perceived as committed to what they actually say (what is explicit), or to what they mean (including what is implicit)? Some research claims that explicit communication leads to a higher attribution of commitment and more accountability than implicit communication. Here we present theoretical arguments and experimental data to the contrary. We present three studies exploring whether the saying–meaning distinction affects commitment attribution in promises, and, crucially, whether commitment attribution is further modulated by the degree to which the hearer will actually rely on the promise. Our results support the conclusion that people perceive communicators to be committed to ‘what is meant’, and not simply to ‘what is said’. Our findings add to the experimental literature showing that the saying–meaning distinction is not as pivotal to social relations as often assumed, and that its role in commitment attribution might be overestimated. The attribution of commitment is strongly dependent on the (mutually known) relevance of ‘what is meant’.
Communication often involves making a commitment of some sort, for instance to a future action. But what does communicators’ commitment amount to? Specifically, are communicators taken to be committed to what they actually say (what is explicit), or to what they mean (including what is implicit)? Some researchers claim that communicating implicit information leads to a lower attribution of commitment and less accountability than does communicating explicit information. Here we present two studies exploring whether the implicit-explicit distinction affects commitment attribution in promises (commissive speech acts), and, crucially, whether commitment attribution is further modulated by degree to which the hearer will actually rely on the promise. Our results support the conclusion that people perceive communicators to be committed to ‘what is meant’, and not simply to ‘what is said’. More generally, our findings add to the experimental literature showing that the implicit-explicit distinction is less pervasive than previously claimed, and that its role in commitment attribution might have been overestimated.
Communication often involves making a commitment of some sort, for instance to a future action. But what does communicators’ commitment amount to? Specifically, are communicators taken to be committed to what they actually say (what is explicit), or to what they mean (including what is implicit)? Some researchers claim that communicating implicit information leads to a lower attribution of commitment and less accountability than does communicating explicit information. Here we present two studies exploring whether the implicit-explicit distinction affects commitment attribution in promises (commissive speech acts), and, crucially, whether commitment attribution is further modulated by degree to which the hearer will actually rely on the promise. Our results support the conclusion that people perceive communicators to be committed to ‘what is meant’, and not simply to ‘what is said’. More generally, our findings add to the experimental literature showing that the implicit-explicit distinction is less pervasive than previously claimed, and that its role in commitment attribution might have been overestimated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.