The Ethics of Smart Pills and Self-Acting Devices: Autonomy,Truth-Telling,and Trust at the Dawn of Digital Medicine

Digital medicine is a medical treatment that combines technology with drug delivery. The promises of this combination are continuous and remote monitoring, better disease management, self-tracking, self-management of diseases, and improved treatment adherence. These devices pose ethical challenges for patients, providers, and the social practice of medicine. For patients, having both informed consent and a user agreement raises questions of understanding for autonomy and informed consent, therapeutic misconception, external influences on decision making, confidentiality and privacy, and device dependability. For providers, digital medicine changes the relationship where trust can be verified, clinicians can be monitored, expectations must be managed, and new liability risks may be assumed. Other ethical questions include direct third-party monitoring of health treatment, affordability, and planning for adverse events in the case of device malfunction. This article seeks to lay out the ethical landscape for the implementation of such devices in patient care.     

信任还是设防？互动博弈中社会善念对合作行为的促进效应

社会善念是个体在人际互动中充满善意地关注、尊重并保护他人选择的需要和权利的行为,通过实施社会善念有助于提升他人的合作行为。为检验这一假设,本实验设置了“施—受”双方的互动博弈情境,采用“物品选择游戏”操纵实施者的社会善念水平,分别利用信任博弈和公共物品游戏测查接受者在互动过程中的信任水平和合作行为。结果发现：相比于低社会善念组,被试在高社会善念组中表现出更高的信任水平和合作行为。进一步路径分析也发现,信任在感知社会善念与合作行为间发挥着部分中介作用。由此可见,社会善念行为的实施为互动双方建立信任关系提供了重要线索,降低了人们时时“设防”的监控动机,使合作带来的利益双赢成为可能。     

组织间信任研究述评

随着组织联盟与合作的增多,组织间信任问题日益得到研究者关注。文章尝试从动、静态的角度对组织间信任的前因变量和结果变量进行梳理：单方组织层面的人口学特征及获得性特征,以及涉及双方互动层面的过去经历、目前状态及未来期望等因素会影响组织间信任的建立,降低双方合作的风险;而已经形成的组织间信任又会起到促进新知识的应用,提高联盟绩效及合作满意度的作用。今后的研究应关注组织信任的多层次分析、重视研究对象领域和地域的多样化以及互动（配对）和纵向数据的收集等。     

信任及其对公共财物两难博弈中合作行为影响

社会两难的行为动机研究认为,害怕和贪婪是人们选择不合作的原因。信任的心理学研究为社会两难的合作行为提供了另一种观点,即害怕被利用的背后实际上体现了博弈者对对方的信任的缺失。鉴于传统社会两难范式存在难以区分信任和合作两个因素的问题,本研究设计了“信任一合作”二阶段模拟实验,通过操作重复信托博弈中的信息反馈,研究虚拟多人信托博弈中初始信任和基于经验的信任对随后的公共财物两难博弈中合作行为的影响,结果发现：（1）初始信任对基于经验的信任的建立具有一定的积极影响,但是它对合作行为的作用远不如随后的基于经验的信任;（2）基于经验的信任水平高的被试在随后的公共财物两难博弈中也表现出较高的合作行为。     

Birth of the subject: the ethics of monitoring development programmes

NGO-based and rigorously monitored development programmes are bringing about important and positive socio-economic changes in the developing world. However, there are numerous instances of the employment of aggressive and grueling monitoring techniques which objectify the subject of development, the primary stakeholder, claiming development results as the successful achievement of goals of the donor or implementing organization. It is in this context that one can speak of an ethic of monitoring development programmes. The paper argues that such an ethic can be positively based on principles like empowering people through development work without hurting their sense of self-worth, the principle of trust and partnership and, negatively, never striving to objectify any person or people for the achievement of some objective, even if this objective is in itself honourable and desirable. The paper contends that if development is freeing the subject, the central player, to exercise their capability to live their life to the fullest, then development monitoring and development work in general has to enhance freedom, autonomy and openness.     

Unequal but not separate: Emergence of rich–poor cooperation in resource exchange

Addressing inequality is a critical challenge for society as a whole and requires sustained efforts to promote fairness and opportunity for all. Filling in the resource gap across social classes is essential in reducing inequality. Previous studies have revealed that ingroup favouritism hinders the rich from cooperating with the poor and expands the wealth gap. Nevertheless, how to find ways of narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor remains an open question. Inducing rich–poor cooperation could be effective in eliciting resource flow across classes. In this study, two experiments using a modified Prisoner's Dilemma game were conducted in Japan (N = 213) and China (N = 150) to examine whether highlighting partners' cooperativeness under permeable group boundaries induces rich–poor cooperation. All participants were allocated to the rich group and participated in the game with programmed rich- or poor-group partner bots, whose cooperation rates were manipulated. Despite the initial resource disparities between participants and the partner bots, participants were more likely to select and cooperate with cooperative poor-group partners than with non-cooperative rich-group partners. Generalized trust played an important role in the enhancement of rich–poor cooperation. The findings shed light on the possibility of reducing inequality and promoting social mobility in society.     

感知社会善念对信任修复的促进：社会距离与时间距离的调节作用

从信任修复的时间阶段模型来看,以往研究主要探讨了信任违背发生后的修复策略及效果,而鲜有研究从违背前的视角对此展开探索。为检验社会善念能否作为信任修复的‘事前’策略及其修复效果的边界条件,本研究采用Somi范式操纵违背方的社会善念,通过让信任方完成信任博弈游戏来考察其感知到的社会善念对信任修复的效果及社会距离与时间距离在其中发挥的调节作用。实验1结果表明,感知社会善念有助于促进受损信任的修复,感知高(vs.低)社会善念的被试修复效果更好;实验2发现社会距离调节了感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,面对社会距离远(vs.近)者的信任违背,感知到高社会善念的被试有更好的修复效果;实验3不仅再次验证了前两个实验的发现,还进一步发现时间距离调节了社会距离与感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,即当社会距离远的违背方回应时间距离短时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好,当社会距离近的违背方回应时间距离长时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好。由此可见,违背发生前信任方感知到违背方的社会善念能在一定程度上修复受损信任,但其效果受到社会距离与时间距离的制约。这些发现对未来探讨信任修复的事前策略及社会善念理论的应用均有一定启示意义。     

Does partisan media make a pawn of mistrust? Institutional trust and preventive COVID-19 health behaviors in a polarized pandemic

In a rapidly developing crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, people are often faced with contradictory or changing information and must determine what sources to trust. Across five time points (N = 5902) we examine how trust in various sources predicts COVID-19 health behaviors. Trust in experts and national news predicted more engagement with most health behaviors from April 2020 to March 2022 and trust in Fox news, which often positioned itself as counter to the mainstream on COVID-19, predicted less engagement. However, we also examined a particular public health behavior (masking) before and after the CDC announcement recommending masks on 3 April 2020 (which reversed earlier expert advice discouraging masks for the general public). Prior to the announcement, trust in experts predicted less mask-wearing while trust in Fox News predicted more. These relationships disappeared in the next 4 days following the announcement and reversed in the 2 years that follow, and emerged for vaccination in the later time points. We also examine how the media trusted by Democrats and Republicans predicts trust in experts and in turn health behaviors. Broadly we consider how the increasingly fragmented epistemic environment has implications for polarization on matters of public health.     

Why do U.S. conservatives take fewer COVID-19 precautions? The role of worry,perceived risk,and governmental trust

Research suggests a U.S. political ideology gap for taking COVID-19 precautions, but we do not know the role of cognitive risk (assessed here as perceived risk) and affective risk (assessed here as worry) in explaining why conservative Americans participated in fewer recommended precautions (e.g., mask wearing) and whether governmental trust attenuates the effect. We predicted that conservatives (compared with liberals) would take fewer precautions because they thought they were less at risk and were less worried about COVID-19, but that this would be more pronounced for those with low governmental trust. In this study, U.S. adults (representative sample: N = 738; M_age = 46.8; 52% women; 78% white) who had not had COVID-19 took two online surveys 2 weeks apart during the first wave of the pandemic (April 2020). Participants reported ideology, perceived risk of getting or dying of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, and trust in the CDC and state officials at baseline. At follow-up, participants reported on COVID-19 precautions: (1) prevention behavior participation (e.g., mask wearing) and (2) behavioral willingness for future behaviors (e.g., vaccination). Results showed that, politically conservative Americans took fewer precautions due to lower worry (but unexpectedly not due to lower perceived risk). As predicted, when trust was high, the ideology gap was muted for predicting precautions as well as for predicting perceived risk and worry. In sum, conservatives worried less about COVID-19 which predicted fewer precautions, but trust in governmental institutions reduced this ideological gap. Improving governmental trust could be one fruitful path to increasing COVID-19 precautions.