Self-Conscious or Fear of Hurting Another’s Feeling? An Experimental Investigation on Promise-Keeping

Wenjie Zhang,Xianchen Zhu,Hongyu Guan,Tao Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.576824
IF: 3.8
2020-09-30
Frontiers in Psychology
Abstract:We conducted an experimental investigation into whether the effect of non-binding verbal promises in enhancing cooperation among promisors is derived from the internalized norm mechanism or the expectation-based mechanism. We proposed a new experimental design based on the standard trust game to separate the two possible influence mechanisms of promises and assess the empirical support for these two mechanisms for the effect of promises. We also identified individuals' cooperation preferences to further investigate whether the effect of promises and its underlying mechanism differ between individuals with different preferences. The results show that promises significantly improve promisors' cooperation level, and this effect is only in line with the internalized norm mechanism rather than with the expectation-based mechanism. Additionally, the introduction of non-binding promises has different impacts on the behavior of selfish individuals and conditional cooperators, but both sets of the impacts can be interpreted as evidence for the internalized norm mechanism, while neither is supportive of the expectation-based mechanism. This paper provides empirical evidence consistent with the internalized norm mechanism for the effect of promises in promoting cooperation. There appears to be no support for the expectation-based mechanism.
psychology, multidisciplinary
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem this paper attempts to address is: Is the effect of non-binding verbal commitments on enhancing the level of cooperation among committers due to an intrinsic norm mechanism or an expectation-based mechanism? Specifically, the authors distinguish between these two possible influencing mechanisms through experimental design and assess their empirical support for the commitment effect. Additionally, the authors explore the differences in commitment effects and their potential mechanisms among individuals with different preferences (e.g., selfish individuals and conditional cooperators). ### Main Research Questions: 1. **Effect of Commitment**: Can non-binding verbal commitments significantly increase the level of cooperation among committers? 2. **Influencing Mechanisms**: - **Intrinsic Norm Mechanism**: Does commitment increase the level of cooperation by activating the committers' intrinsic norms (i.e., self-awareness)? - **Expectation-Based Mechanism**: Does commitment increase the level of cooperation by changing the committers' perception of the other party's expectations (i.e., avoiding hurting the other party's feelings)? 3. **Individual Differences**: Are there differences in the commitment effect and its potential mechanisms among individuals with different preferences (e.g., selfish individuals and conditional cooperators)? ### Research Methods: 1. **Experimental Design**: - **No Commitment Treatment (T1)**: Standard trust game with no commitment phase. - **Self-Commitment Treatment (T2)**: Committer B makes a commitment before Trustor A decides on the transfer amount, but this commitment is not known to Trustor A. - **Public Commitment Treatment (T3)**: Committer B makes a commitment before Trustor A decides on the transfer amount, and this commitment is known to Trustor A. 2. **Participants**: 60 undergraduates (24 economics majors), including 24 males and 36 females. 3. **Experimental Procedure**: - All participants sequentially participate in the no commitment treatment, self-commitment treatment, and public commitment treatment. - Each treatment includes 2 rounds, with participants playing the roles of Trustor A and Committer B in each round. - Participants are informed of their earnings after the experiment. ### Research Results: 1. **Overall Results**: - The return level of Committer B in the self-commitment treatment is significantly higher than in the no commitment treatment. - The return level of Committer B in the public commitment treatment does not significantly differ from that in the self-commitment treatment. 2. **Individual Differences**: - **Selfish Individuals**: The return level in the self-commitment treatment is significantly higher than in the no commitment treatment, but the return level in the public commitment treatment is slightly lower than in the no commitment treatment. - **Conditional Cooperators**: The return level in the self-commitment treatment is significantly higher than in the no commitment treatment, and the return level in the public commitment treatment does not significantly differ from that in the self-commitment treatment. ### Conclusion: - **Main Conclusion**: Commitment significantly increases the level of cooperation among committers, and this effect aligns with the intrinsic norm mechanism, not supporting the expectation-based mechanism. - **Individual Differences**: There are differences in the commitment effect and its potential mechanisms among individuals with different preferences, but these differences still support the intrinsic norm mechanism. This study provides empirical evidence for understanding the role of commitment in promoting cooperation and further validates the effectiveness of the intrinsic norm mechanism.