Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis (preprint)

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 behavioral (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 behavioral 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.

Cooperation and acting for the greater good during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Cooperation is essential to overcome global pandemics and other health crises, as many preventative measures require people to bear a personal cost to benefit other people or society as a whole. Wearing a face mask, for example, protects other people more than it protects oneself. In this essay, we discuss several mechanisms that are known to promote cooperation in economic games and real-world scenarios, with a special focus on message-based interventions that might be helpful to promote social distancing, mask wearing, physical hygiene, vaccine uptake, and information seeking. Lessons learned and future research ideas are offered.

National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic (preprint)

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors that associated with people reported adopting public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = -.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.

The best-case heuristic: Relative optimism in a global health pandemic (preprint)

In the first wave of COVID-19, we examined how people evaluate personal risk in a global pandemic. Three experiments identified two kinds of relative optimism (N=2,300 Americans). Consistent with a best-case heuristic, participants made "realistic" predictions of infection risk that were closer to their own best-case scenario than to their worst-case scenario. Infection risk was also rated as lower for oneself than the average person, indicating unrealistic optimism. Both effects were successfully replicated in a high-powered replication (nationally-representative). More generally, infection risk predictions were positively correlated with emotional distress, pro-social intentions, and support of public-health lockdown policies. Although a bipartisan majority supported lockdown, right-leaning conservatives made lower risk predictions and were less supportive than left-leaning liberals. Resistance to early lockdown was also associated with the belief in national superiority. Finally, the best-case heuristic generalized to predicted waiting time for a COVID-19 vaccine and future relationship satisfaction, suggesting a broader pattern.