In this section we explore whether the sincerity of the promiser affects the subjects‘ understanding of promise. The sincerity effects on subjects‘ comprehension task are presented in Section 4.3.1, and Section 4.3.2 reports the interaction of promiser‘s sincerity and other factors. A thorough discussion of promiser‘s sincerity effects is given in Section 4.3.3.
4.3.1 Effects of Sincerity on Promise Judgment
The descriptive statistics of yes responses to the comprehension task is shown in Table 4-8:
Table 4-8. Descriptive Statistics of Yes Responses to the Promise Judgment Questions Concerning Sincerity
Group Sincerity Number Mean SD
p-value
6-year-olds Sincere 20 0.69 0.33 0.283
Insincere 20 0.64 0.33
7-year-olds Sincere 20 0.73 0.30 0.061
Insincere 20 0.64 0.32
8-year-olds Sincere 20 0.81 0.19 0.249
Insincere 20 0.78 0.25
9-year-olds Sincere 20 0.85 0.20 0.467
Insincere 20 0.81 0.21
Control Sincere 20 0.88 0.17 0.748
Insincere 20 0.89 0.16
No significant differences were found between the promise judgments of promise in the sincere condition and the insincere condition in all the groups, indicating that whether the promiser was sincere or not did not affect our subjects‘
concept of promising.
4.3.2 Interaction between Sincerity and Other Factors
Table 4-9 presents the descriptive statistics for the relationship between the promiser‘s sincerity in making a commitment and the promisee‘s social status.
Table 4-9. Interaction between the Promiser‘s Sincerity and the Promisee‘s Social Status
Note: S = sincere condition; I = insincere condition
In both conditions of making a promise to a person with higher or lower social status, there were still no significant differences when taking into account the promiser‘s sincerity. It was found in the experimental groups that the subjects were more likely to recognize a promise in the sincere condition. However, the mean scores of the control group on both conditions of making a promise to a person with higher or lower social status (H: 0.93 vs. 0.93; L: 0.84 vs. 0.85) were similar, indicating that the promiser‘s sincerity was not a dominant factor affecting our adults‘ promise judgments.
Table 4-10 presents the descriptive statistics of the interaction between the promiser‘s sincerity and with/without outcomes.
Table 4-10. Interaction between the Promiser‘s Sincerity and Outcomes
Note: S = sincere condition; I = insincere condition
In either condition where the outcome was informed or not informed, no
None of the participants exhibited sensitivity to the promiser‘s sincerity when making their promise judgments. Their scores of promise judgments for both sincere and insincere promises were relatively higher for the condition without outcome than in the condition with outcomes.
4.3.3 General Discussion on Effects of Sincerity
In the present study, no significant differences were found in promise judgments between the promise in the sincere condition and that in the insincere condition in all the groups. Although the participants of the experimental groups showed their preference for recognizing a sincere promise as an effective promise, the differences did not reach a statistical significant level. This result indicated that whether the promiser was sincere or not had little effect on the subjects‘ concept of a promise. Upon further examining the factor of sincerity against other factors, we still found no significant differences between sincere and insincere promises.
In the previous studies, younger children have been found to confuse the promiser‘s sincerity with the outcome of promise; therefore, it was concluded that they may fail to recognize insincere promises as effective promises (Astington, 1988a;
Maas and Abbeduto, 1998, 2001; Wang; 2009). However, the present study found no significant differences between the promise judgments made in sincere conditions and that made in insincere conditions by all the groups. Our subjects as young as 6-year-old could recognize an insincere promise as an effective promise. This result seems to conflict with the previous findings that 6-year-old children had an incomplete conceptual understanding of the sincerity condition and young children around the age of 7 held a fragile understanding of Searle‘s sincerity condition of promises (Maas, 2008; Maas and Abbeduto, 2001). when making a commitment, the promiser must be sincere in his/her intent to accomplish the future act for it to be in
the promisee‘s best interest. If the promisee is unaware of the insincerity of the promiser but the future act is later accomplished, the insincere promise would still remain an effective promise. However, there is a slight possibility that the promisee might never know whether the promiser is truly sincere; human beings are not telepathic, after all. Compared with the promising utterances, the promiser‘s sincerity may be considered more abstract since one cannot read the other‘s mind. Although the utterances are an abstract idea, at least promisee can perceive it with hearing organs.
Searle‘s (1969) sincerity condition initially postulated that, while performing the propositional act, the promiser has to make a promise with the intention to carry out the action in the future for the promisee. However, he later modified this condition to include insincere promises because ‗A promise involves an expression of intention, whether sincere or insincere. (1969: 62)‘ As long as the promiser purports to have the intention of accomplishing a future act, the utterance is considered to be a promise.
In the previous studies, it has been proved that 6-year-old English speaking children had an incomplete conceptual understanding of the sincerity condition. They felt that an insincere promise was not a promise; that is, the promiser‘s intention was found to be a factor defining a promise. The results of the present study indicate that our Chinese-speaking children come to understand of the role of promiser‘s intention in promises relatively earlier. Ancient Chinese society saw one‘s honesty as a virtue.
Many proverbs or morals focused on being true to one‘s word, such as Ren wu xin bu
li ‗a dishonest man has no ground to stand on‘ and Junzi yi yan, kuai ma yi bian ‗a
man‘s word is faster than a spurred horse (i.e., a man‘s word is as good as gold)‘, are taught in early moral education. Therefore, among Chinese-speaking children, the content of the promise expressed by a promiser may be more valued than his sincerity when making promise judgments.that the third components of personality, superego of human subconscious, develops sometime during the age of three and six. The superego tends to stand in opposition to the impulsive desires of the id4 and acts as the conscience, in which maintains one‘s sense of morality and proscription from taboos. Children at this stage will internalize the moral values and standards of their parents in order to adapt themselves to the external environment and explore the world. Therefore, it is possible that our children as young as 6-years-old could understand that sometimes even though one did not intend to fulfill a commitment, one had to keep the promise in order to adapt to the social environment.