School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Aug;5(8):1074-1088. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
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 .
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在道德困境中如何解决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：牺牲一些人来拯救更多人（“工具性伤害”）会降低信任，而平等地使每个人的福利最大化（“公正的善行”）可能会增加信任。在一项跨越六大洲 22 个国家的多地点实验中，参与者（N=23929）完成了对领导者信任的自我报告（N=17591）和行为（N=12638）测量，这些领导者在涉及 COVID-19 大流行的困境中支持功利主义或非功利主义原则。在自我报告和行为测量中，对工具性伤害的支持降低了信任，而对公正善行的支持则增加了信任。这些结果表明，对不同伦理原则的支持如何影响对领导者的信任，并为全球危机时期的有效公共沟通提供信息。注册报告的第 1 阶段方案已于 2020 年 11 月 13 日原则上被接受。该方案已被期刊接受，可在 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13247315.v1 找到。
