Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis,Nature Human Behaviour

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Nat. Hum. Behav. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis
Nature Human Behaviour ( IF 21.4 ) Pub Date : 2021-07-01 , DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y
Jim A C Everett ₁ , Clara Colombatto ₂ , Edmond Awad ₃ , Paulo Boggio ₄ , Björn Bos ₅ , William J Brady ₂ , Megha Chawla ₂ , Vladimir Chituc ₂ , Dongil Chung ₆ , Moritz A Drupp ₅ , Srishti Goel ₂ , Brit Grosskopf ₃ , Frederik Hjorth ₇ , Alissa Ji ₂ , Caleb Kealoha ₂ , Judy S Kim ₂ , Yangfei Lin ₃ , Yina Ma _{8,

9} , Michel André Maréchal ₁₀ , Federico Mancinelli ₁₁ , Christoph Mathys _{11,

12,

13} , Asmus L Olsen ₇ , Graeme Pearce ₃ , Annayah M B Prosser ₁₄ , Niv Reggev ₁₅ , Nicholas Sabin ₁₆ , Julien Senn ₁₀ , Yeon Soon Shin ₂ , Walter Sinnott-Armstrong ₁₇ , Hallgeir Sjåstad ₁₈ , Madelijn Strick ₁₉ , Sunhae Sul ₂₀ , Lars Tummers ₂₁ , Monique Turner ₂₂ , Hongbo Yu ₂₃ , Yoonseo Zoh ₂ , Molly J Crockett ₂

Affiliation

School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Social and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Economics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, South Korea.
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Key Laboratory of Brain Imaging and Connectomics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China.
Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (SISSA), Trieste, Italy.
Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Translational Neuromodeling Unit (TNU), Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Department of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Department of Philosophy and Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, Pusan National University, Busan, South Korea.
School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

Abstract

Trust in leaders is central to citizen compliance with public policies. One potential determinant of trust is how leaders resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas. Past research suggests that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: sacrificing some people to save many others (‘instrumental harm’) reduces trust, while maximizing the welfare of everyone equally (‘impartial beneficence’) may increase trust. In a multi-site experiment spanning 22 countries on six continents, participants (N = 23,929) completed self-report (N = 17,591) and behavioural (N = 12,638) measures of trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian or non-utilitarian principles in dilemmas concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Across both the self-report and behavioural measures, endorsement of instrumental harm decreased trust, while endorsement of impartial beneficence increased trust. These results show how support for different ethical principles can impact trust in leaders, and inform effective public communication during times of global crisis.

Protocol Registration Statement

The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 November 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13247315.v1.

中文翻译：

全球健康危机期间的道德困境和对领导者的信任

摘要

对领导者的信任是公民遵守公共政策的核心。信任的一个潜在决定因素是领导者如何解决道德困境中功利主义和非功利主义伦理原则之间的冲突。过去的研究表明，对困境的功利主义反应既可以削弱也可以增强对领导者的信任：牺牲一些人来拯救许多其他人（“工具性伤害”）会降低信任，而平等地最大化每个人的福利（“公正的善行”）可能会增加信任。在跨越六大洲 22 个国家的多地点实验中，参与者 ( N = 23,929) 完成了自我报告 ( N = 17,591) 和行为 ( N = 12,638) 对在 COVID-19 大流行的困境中支持功利主义或非功利主义原则的领导人的信任度量。在自我报告和行为测量中，对工具性伤害的认可降低了信任，而对公正善行的认可增加了信任。这些结果表明，对不同道德原则的支持如何影响对领导者的信任，并在全球危机时期为有效的公众沟通提供信息。