The world's leaders faced a series of moral dilemmas as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe in 2020. Schools and businesses should be closed down. If so, how long? When there isn't enough, who should be given scarce resources like ventilators? To control the spread and spread of infection, should people be required practice contact trace? Life-saving medicine should be reserved for citizens of a country or shared with people in greater need.Global leaders advocated a utilitarian approach for these dilemmas. This would allow for impartially maximising the maximum good for the largest number of people even if it meant causing harm to a small percentage of the population. However, utilitarianism is controversial and not everyone who uses it might be trusted.Molly Crockett is an associate professor of psychology at Yale. She examined whether people trust leaders that make utilitarian decisions in a pandemic. She and her co-first authors, Clara Colombatto from Yale and Jim Everett from the University of Kent, assembled a multidisciplinary team of 37 researchers around the world to examine people's trust in global leaders. Nearly 24,000 people were asked by the team whether they trusted leaders after a series online experiments. The experiment was conducted in late 2020 as cases were increasing.These results were published in Nature Human Behavior on July 1, and show that people have a nuanced approach to judging leaders' policy decisions. People were more likely to trust leaders who are concerned about saving the lives of others than they were about their own citizens. They were less likely to trust people whose policies would harm the well-being or benefit of others.Some leaders suggested that ventilators be reserved for those who are more likely to survive severe COVID-19. This form of utilitarianism is known as instrumental harm, and people distrust leaders who accept it. They trusted those who would share their scarce medicine in the most need areas, an aspect called impartial beneficence of utilitarianism.The results were consistent across all countries, including Australia, Brazil and Chile, China. Dangerously, France, Germany. India. Israel. Italy. Mexico. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mexico. Spain. The United Kingdom.These patterns were true regardless of whether people agreed or disagreed with the leader's decision. "People prefer leaders who agree on policies. But even after controlling for individual policy preferences, people trust leaders who endorse impartiality and distrust leaders that accept instrumental harm," stated Colombatto, a Ph.D. student at the Department of Psychology.Everett concluded that leaders need to be aware of the fact that utilitarian approaches can undermine and increase trust in times of crisis communication, even if they don't have the power or the ability to solve them.Are you able to trust leaders who make pandemic decisions?Nearly 24,000 people from 22 countries were asked by researchers to share their thoughts on the moral dilemmas faced by leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Below are two examples of these difficult moral decisions. Respondents were asked to rate the leadership decisions and make decisions about whether they trust each leader in control of financial resources. The subjects were also asked if they would vote to elect a leader with a specific policy position.You can see a demonstration of the trust rating survey here.https:/// / yalesurvey. ca1. qualtrics. qualtrics.Medicine DilemmaNon-Utilitarian LeaderImagine the mayor of a major American city arguing that U.S.-made medicines should only be used to treat American citizens.The mayor stated, "We have the right to use our resources to help our citizens before anyone else." COVID-19 can be treated in different countries.Average self-reported trust is 3.93 out 7; votes are 38.93%Leadership in the Utilitarian SectorImagine the mayor of a major urban area in your area arguing that U.S.-made medicines should be provided to anyone who needs them most, even if it means sending it to foreign countries.The mayor stated that COVID-19 was a pandemic that affected all people equally. We must be fair and send the treatment to those who can benefit most.Average self-reported trust is 4.57 out 7; votes are 61.07%Ventilators: The DilemmaNon-Utilitarian LeaderImagine the mayor of a major urban area in your region arguing that all patients should have equal access to COVID treatment.The mayor stated, "It's not my place to decide who lives." Everybody has the right to equal treatment and we can't abandon our most vulnerable people in order to save more lives.Average self-reported trust is 5.41 out 7; votes are 85.15%Leadership in the Utilitarian SectorImagine the mayor of a major urban area in your region arguing that COVID treatment should be given to younger, healthier individuals.The mayor stated, "We must think about how to do the most good using the resources we have. This means prioritizing people who have the best chance at recovering and living a long, healthy life."Average self-reported trust is 2.97 out 7; votes are 14.85%###
