Are communicators perceived as committed to what they actually say (what is explicit), or to what they mean (including what is implicit)? Some research claims that explicit communication leads to a higher attribution of commitment and more accountability than implicit communication. Here we present theoretical arguments and experimental data to the contrary. We present three studies exploring whether the saying–meaning distinction affects commitment attribution in promises, and, crucially, whether commitment attribution is further modulated by the degree to which the hearer will actually rely on the promise. Our results support the conclusion that people perceive communicators to be committed to ‘what is meant’, and not simply to ‘what is said’. Our findings add to the experimental literature showing that the saying–meaning distinction is not as pivotal to social relations as often assumed, and that its role in commitment attribution might be overestimated. The attribution of commitment is strongly dependent on the (mutually known) relevance of ‘what is meant’.

中文翻译：

---

承诺和沟通：我们是否致力于我们的意思或我们所说的？

沟通者是否被认为致力于他们实际所说的（明确的）或他们的意思（包括隐含的）？一些研究声称，与隐性沟通相比，显性沟通会导致更高的承诺归属和更多的责任感。在这里，我们提出相反的理论论据和实验数据。我们提出了三项研究，探讨了说法-意义的区别是否会影响承诺中的承诺归因，以及至关重要的是，承诺归因是否进一步受到听者实际依赖承诺的程度的调节。我们的研究结果支持这样的结论，即人们认为沟通者致力于“表达的意思”，而不仅仅是“表达的意思”。我们的研究结果补充了实验文献，表明语意的区别并不像通常假设的那样对社会关系至关重要，并且它在承诺归因中的作用可能被高估了。承诺的归属在很大程度上取决于“什么意思”的（众所周知的）相关性。