Search

Cheating is harmful to others and society at large. Promises have been shown to increase honesty in children, but their effectiveness has not been compared between different cultural contexts. In a study (2019) with 7‐ to 12‐year‐olds (N = 406, 48% female, middle‐class), voluntary promises reduced cheating in Indian, but not in German children. Children in both contexts cheated, but cheating rates were lower in Germany than in India. In both contexts, cheating decreased with age in the (no‐promise) control condition and was unaffected by age in the promise condition. These findings suggest that there may exist a threshold beyond which cheating cannot be further reduced by promises. This opens new research avenues on how children navigate honesty and promise norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been extensive research into the development of selective trust in testimony, but little is known about the development of selective trust in promises. The present research investigates children's (N = 264) selective trust in others' promises to help. In Study 1, 6-year-olds selectively trusted speakers who had previously kept a promise. In Study 2, 5-year-olds displayed selective trust for speakers who had previously kept a prosocial promise (promise to help). In Study 3, 5-year-olds trusted a speaker, who kept a prosocial promise, over a helper. These data suggest that from the age of 5 children show selective trust in others' promises using prosociality, promise keeping, or both to inform their judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promises are speech acts that create an obligation to do the promised action. In three studies, we investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds ( N = 278) understand the normative implications of promising in prosocial interactions. In Study 1, children helped a partner who promised to share stickers. When the partner failed to uphold the promise, 3- and 5-year-olds protested and referred to promise norms. In Study 2, when children in this same age range were asked to promise to continue a cleaning task—and they agreed—they persisted longer on the task and mentioned their obligation more frequently than without such a promise. They also persisted longer after a promise than after a cleaning reminder (Study 3). In prosocial interactions, thus, young children feel a normative obligation to keep their promises and expect others to keep their promises as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are sometimes legitimate reasons for breaking a promise when circumstances change. We investigated 3- and 5-year-old German children's understanding of promise breaking in prosocial (helping someone else) and selfish (playing with someone else) conditions. In Study 1 (n = 80, 50% girls), preschoolers initially kept their own promise in all conditions. When they eventually broke their promise, 3-year-olds' justifications mostly referenced salient events, whereas 5-year-olds also referenced social norms. In Study 2 (n = 65, 49% girls), 5-year-olds preferred others' promise-breaking more in prosocial than selfish conditions; 3-year-olds showed the reverse pattern. Three-year-olds' justifications focused on desires, whereas 5-year-olds focused on relevant events. Overall, 3-year-olds were able to offer justifications, but 5-year-olds started to distinguish what counted in the eyes of others as "good" and "bad" reasons for promise breaking. • We studied children's understanding of promise-breaking in prosocial and selfish conditions. • 3- and 5-year-olds kept their own promises in all conditions. • 3- and 5-year-olds reasoned differently about others' promise-breaking. • 5-year-olds distinguish good and bad justifications for promise-breaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]