How Much We Trust Someone Depends on Their Response to This Moral Dilemma
A recent study by researchers from Oxford and Cornell University examines the relationship between trust and moral principles.
Who would you trust more: a person who always acts for the greater good, or a person who sticks to their moral principles? According to a recent study by researchers from Oxford and Cornell University, most people overwhelmingly prefer the person who sticks to their principles, even when the cost of doing so can be quite high.
The study involved the famous “Trolley Problem”, which asks subjects whether they would sacrifice one individual to save five others. In this experiment, participants rated the morality and trustworthiness of people who answered the trolley problem either as consequentialists or as deontologists. Here are those terms defined:
Consequentialism holds that the consequences of an action render it good or bad: was more happiness created or lost by the action? A person who endorses these ethics would support killing one person to save five. Deontological ethics on the other hand ignores consequences, and judges the goodness of an action based on how well it adheres to a set of moral rules. A person who makes decisions deontologically would reject killing under any instance no matter what the cost, as killing is always wrong.
In nearly every case, subjects trusted the deontological agent much more than the consequentialist one. The deontological agent was more trusted with money, and when asked how they would act in the same situation, most people also agreed with the deontologist. They weren’t just trusting people who they agreed with, however. The subjects who acted as consequentialists didn’t think their fellow consequentialist was any more or less trustworthy than the deontologist. Even though they agreed with the consequentialist on what the moral thing to do was.
Even when the consequentialist acknowledged a difficulty in making their choice, they were seen as less trustworthy with money. Only when the manner of the sacrifice changed did subjects not express a clear preference for the deontological agent. In variations of the experiment where the five individuals standing on the trolley track are saved by diverting the trolley onto a spur with one person standing on it, as opposed to pushing a fat man into the way of the oncoming trolley to stop it, most people not only agree with killing the man standing on the trolley’s new route but also now view the consequentialist agent as equally trustworthy.
In the final experiment, subjects were offered The Soldier's Dilemma. In this thought experiment, a mortally wounded soldier either asks to be killed (to end his suffering) or to be taken back for treatment. In both cases, his chances to survive are zero and risk of capture and torture high. Subjects were asked to rate an officer on trustworthiness and morality based on his response to his dying comrade.
This time, subjects were given three options to choose from: the deontologist, the consequentialist, and one who always respected the wishes of the soldier no matter what they were. Who was trusted the most? The deontologist who disrespected the wishes of the soldier and allowed him to live when he asked to be killed, even though the subjects agreed that killing the soldier, who requested death, was morally acceptable.
It seems that we trust people who treat us as, well, people. In the “push the fat man” variations of the trolley problem, the man pushed onto the tracks is being used as a tool rather than being treated as a person with rights. In the “switch the track” variations, the sacrifice just happens to be in the way. They are still being treated as a person, if an unlucky one, but not as a “tool”. Their death is now a side effect of saving the five, rather than a means to it.
Even when they don’t respect our wishes, as seen in the deontological response to the soldier's dilemma, they are still treating us as a person by not doing as we ask and allowing us to live. To some extent this is the ultimate in trustworthiness: even if we beg them to break their principles, both for us and for the greater good, they won’t do it. Who can compete with that?
But, why do we act like this? Why do we trust the person who isn’t working for the greater good? Who will disrespect our wishes in the name of moral principles? Who always follows their rules no matter what the consequences?
Socially speaking, being seen as trustworthy is a commodity, and a hot one at that. Evolutionarily speaking, it is a vital one. According to the so-called “mutualistic partner choice” model of morality, individuals inclined to act in mutually beneficial ways are most likely to be chosen as partners in cooperative actions, improving their chances for reproduction. Those who can be relied on to stick to certain moral principles under all circumstances can be trusted as social partners more than any other group if this hypothesis is correct.
This has some odd implications given that sticking to moral principles may result in worse consequences for the group at large. Researchers behind the study have suggested that our initial gut reactions to situations are deontological in nature and that when given time to reflect, we tend to become utilitarian. It seems then we tend to trust people who have used less cognition in making a moral choice. So long as they stuck with common principles when acting.
What does this mean? Well, if you want people to trust you; you might want to stick to your principles. If you want to focus on the greater good, get used to not being trusted as much. Perhaps most importantly, know that people don’t just trust who they happen to agree with; they trust the principled agent over the morally flexible one almost every time.
Sources: Everett, Jim A.C and Pizarro, David A. and Crockett, Molly J, Inference of Trustworthiness from Intuitive Moral Judgments (February 23, 2016). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2726330 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2726330
What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.
- Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
- Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
- Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
Great ideas in philosophy often come in dense packages. Then there is where the work of Marcus Aurelius.
- Meditations is a collection of the philosophical ideas of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
- Written as a series of notes to himself, the book is much more readable than the dry philosophy most people are used to.
- The advice he gave to himself 2,000 years ago is increasingly applicable in our hectic, stressed-out lives.
Can dirt help us fight off stress? Groundbreaking new research shows how.
- New research identifies a bacterium that helps block anxiety.
- Scientists say this can lead to drugs for first responders and soldiers, preventing PTSD and other mental issues.
- The finding builds on the hygiene hypothesis, first proposed in 1989.
Are modern societies trying too hard to be clean, at the detriment to public health? Scientists discovered that a microorganism living in dirt can actually be good for us, potentially helping the body to fight off stress. Harnessing its powers can lead to a "stress vaccine".
Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder found that the fatty 10(Z)-hexadecenoic acid from the soil-residing bacterium Mycobacterium vaccae aids immune cells in blocking pathways that increase inflammation and the ability to combat stress.
The study's senior author and Integrative Physiology Professor Christopher Lowry described this fat as "one of the main ingredients" in the "special sauce" that causes the beneficial effects of the bacterium.
The finding goes hand in hand with the "hygiene hypothesis," initially proposed in 1989 by the British scientist David Strachan. He maintained that our generally sterile modern world prevents children from being exposed to certain microorganisms, resulting in compromised immune systems and greater incidences of asthma and allergies.
Contemporary research fine-tuned the hypothesis, finding that not interacting with so-called "old friends" or helpful microbes in the soil and the environment, rather than the ones that cause illnesses, is what's detrimental. In particular, our mental health could be at stake.
"The idea is that as humans have moved away from farms and an agricultural or hunter-gatherer existence into cities, we have lost contact with organisms that served to regulate our immune system and suppress inappropriate inflammation," explained Lowry. "That has put us at higher risk for inflammatory disease and stress-related psychiatric disorders."
University of Colorado Boulder
This is not the first study on the subject from Lowry, who published previous work showing the connection between being exposed to healthy bacteria and mental health. He found that being raised with animals and dust in a rural environment helps children develop more stress-proof immune systems. Such kids were also likely to be less at risk for mental illnesses than people living in the city without pets.
Lowry's other work also pointed out that the soil-based bacterium Mycobacterium vaccae acts like an antidepressant when injected into rodents. It alters their behavior and has lasting anti-inflammatory effects on the brain, according to the press release from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prolonged inflammation can lead to such stress-related disorders as PTSD.
The new study from Lowry and his team identified why that worked by pinpointing the specific fatty acid responsible. They showed that when the 10(Z)-hexadecenoic acid gets into cells, it works like a lock, attaching itself to the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR). This allows it to block a number of key pathways responsible for inflammation. Pre-treating the cells with the acid (or lipid) made them withstand inflammation better.
Lowry thinks this understanding can lead to creating a "stress vaccine" that can be given to people in high-stress jobs, like first responders or soldiers. The vaccine can prevent the psychological effects of stress.
What's more, this friendly bacterium is not the only potentially helpful organism we can find in soil.
"This is just one strain of one species of one type of bacterium that is found in the soil but there are millions of other strains in soils," said Lowry. "We are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of identifying the mechanisms through which they have evolved to keep us healthy. It should inspire awe in all of us."
Check out the study published in the journal Psychopharmacology.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.