Understanding conditional promises and threats

Deontic reasoning reviewed: psychological questions, empirical findings, and current theories

“…While such a speech act poses no obligation for the addressee, is does pose an obligation for the speaker: to cooperate if the addressee accepts the promise and fulfills the speaker's request (Beller et al 2005). Further, people associate this obligation with a permission to cooperate ('must Q' implying 'may Q' according to the subaltern relation), and they regard cooperation, in the absence of an obligation, as deontically indifferent, that is, as not necessary but allowed for the speaker and the addressee (Beller et al 2005(Beller et al , 2009.…”

“…Deciding whether to violate a rule or to conform to it also depends on weighing up costs and benefits. Finally, the fact that rule keeping and, to a greater extent, rule violation are highly emotional situations (Beller et al 2005(Beller et al , 2009 emphasizes the influence of positive and negative values. However, the deontic implications of a rule-whether an action is forbidden or allowed, obligatory or not-do not depend on considerations about costs and benefits, but on the normative character of the rule.…”

Sensitivity to speaker control in the online comprehension of conditional tips and promises: An eye-tracking study.

“…In addition to the importance perceived speaker control in conditional speech acts, other research has also highlighted an influence of the credibility of the speaker (Verbrugge, Dieussaert, Schaeken, & Van Belle, 2004) and the possible emotional consequences that follow from different conditional inducements (Beller, Bender, & KuhnmŸnch, 2005). Furthermore, Beller et al discuss a level of analysis associated with inducements that highlights the motivational nature underlying this type of speech act.…”

Age differences in understanding precedent-setting decisions and authorities’ responses to violations of deontic rules

“…This claim is supported by research in cognitive psychology, social psychology, sociology, and adolescent psychology. For instance, when authorities punish subordinates who have not violated rules, anger is the most common emotional reaction (Beller, Bender, & Kuhnmunch, 2005). When the legitimacy of an authority declines, conflicts with adolescents increase (Darling, Cumsille, & Peña-Alampay, 2005;Woolard, Harvell, & Graham, 2008).…”