Advertisement

Cueing Implicit Commitment

  • Francesca Bonalumi
  • Margherita Isella
  • John Michael
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the importance of commitment for distinctively human forms of sociality, it remains unclear how people prioritize and evaluate their own and others’ commitments - especially implicit commitments. Across two sets of online studies, we found evidence in support of the hypothesis that people’s judgments and attitudes about implicit commitments are governed by an implicit sense of commitment, which is modulated by cues to others’ expectations, and by cues to the costs others have invested on the basis of those expectations.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Starting Grant from the European Research Council (nr 679092, SENSE OF COMMITMENT). We would like to thank Jinnie Ooi and Eszter Salamon for assistance with data collection, as well as Christophe Heintz, Thom Scott-Phillips and Barbora Siposova for helpful comments and discussion.

References

  1. Bicchieri, C. 2005. The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bratman, M. 1993. Shared intention. Ethics 104: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charness, G., and M. Rabin. 2010. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (3): 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, H.H. 2006. Social actions, social commitments. In Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. S.C. Levinson and N.J. Enfield, 126–150. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  5. Dana, J., D.M. Cain, and R.M. Dawes. 2006. What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100 (2): 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilbert, M. 2006. A theory of political obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, M. (1990) Walking together: a paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 15(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  8. Guala, F. & Mittone, L. (2010) How history and conventions create norms: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology 31, 749–756Google Scholar
  9. Heintz, C., J. Celse, F. Giardini, and S. Max. 2015. Facing expectations : Those that we prefer to fulfil and those that we disregard. Judgment and Decision making 10 (5): 442–455.Google Scholar
  10. Hume, D. 1978. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Original work published in 1739–1740).Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. MacCormick, N., and J. Raz. 1972. Voluntary obligations and normative powers. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46 (1972): 59–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michael, J., and E. Pacherie. 2015. On commitments and other uncertainty reduction tools in joint action. Journal of Social Ontology 1 (1).  https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2014-0021.
  14. Michael, J., N. Sebanz, and G. Knoblich. 2016. The sense of commitment: A minimal approach. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (1968).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01968.
  15. Ockenfels, A., and P. Werner. 2012. “Hiding behind a small cake” in a newspaper dictator game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 82 (1): 82–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rusch, H., and C. Luetge. 2016. Spillovers from coordination to cooperation: Evidence for the interdependence hypothesis? Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 10 (4): 284–296 Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-58974-001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sugden, R. 2000. The motivating power of expectations. In Rationality, rules, and structure. Theory and decision library, ed. J. Nida-Rümelin and W. Spohn, 103–129. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Székely, M., and J. Michael. 2018. Investing in commitment: Persistence in a joint action is enhanced by the perception of a partner’s effort. Cognition 174: 37–42 ISO 690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyVita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations