Trust was one of pandemic’s casualties

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/11/2022 (1396 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Trust has been described as the “social glue” that contributes to cohesion within society, which in turn supports economic prosperity and a more vibrant democracy.

The phenomenon has been the subject of extensive studies in multiple disciplines since the 1970s, with much of the research driven by a concern over the decline of trust.

After briefly discussing the elusive nature of trust, I will offer observations on how trust shaped the policy responses of governments to the pandemic, and how the impacts of those events created new trust challenges going forward.

Trust is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, which, despite thousands of studies, is still not fully understood. Put simply, trust refers to positive assumptions about the motivations and competence of individuals and institutions to deliver on promises and tasks. Placing trust in someone or something entails risk and vulnerability.

Trust operates in many domains and on multiple levels. There are affective (emotional), cognitive (reasoning) and behavioural components to trust, which affect one another.

Interpersonal trust involves trusting people based on our interactions with them and/or their presumed competence, such as the trust we are forced to place in doctors and garage mechanics.

There is also systemic or generalized trust, which enables us to simplify and to cope with complex, unpredictable environments by placing trust in overall systems and institutions such as governments.

Trust in persons and institutions is seldom unconditional, which is appropriate. Skepticism toward government is healthy in a democracy.

A complete loss of trust and confidence in government would constitute a crisis; existing low levels of trust would more accurately be described as a worrisome trust deficit.

Research indicates multiple factors influence trust levels: changed social values (e.g., mistrust of “experts” of all kinds), economic inequality, demographic backgrounds of individuals, unrepresentative institutions, corruption and scandals, and others.

Marginalized groups exhibiting high levels of mistrust toward authorities are, not surprisingly, more likely to engage in protests of various kinds. Trust is slow to develop, and once bonds of trust are broken, they are exceedingly difficult to repair.

Research on the pandemic and trust is extensive, varied in terms of methodology, and incomplete in terms of providing a full understanding the impacts of a rare and fundamental threat to society and individuals.

Two broad concerns drove most of the research: how did levels of trust influence policy responses by governments, and what are the impacts, currently and over the longer term, of the pandemic on trust in various institutions and individuals? I do not claim to have read all the studies, but here are some brief points that I took away from a sample of articles:

Existing trust levels within countries affected public perceptions of the risks of COVID-19. High-trust societies had lower risk perception, presumably because they had greater confidence that governments and health authorities would deal appropriately with the crisis.

Slower policy responses in such countries suggest governments, in turn, trusted citizens to modify their own behaviours to minimize risk.

The context of how well prepared and transparent countries were in terms of plans and resources to cope with a crisis would also be a factor.

Collective anxiety about the threat of the virus initially had a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, which increased trust levels and led to greater compliance with vaccination requirements, lockdowns and other control measures. Higher compliance has reduced hospitalizations and mortality rates.

Delayed and mistaken responses, when combined with unclear and inconsistent messaging from political leaders and health officials, led to personal tragedies and generalized harm that damaged trust. The suspicion was that politicians were overruling health experts.

There were calls to put all our trust in experts; however, experts have their own blinkers and, in a democracy that depends on accountability, we cannot leave the final word to them.

As the crisis progressed, intense minority opinions about “freedom,” expressed in violent words and deeds, reflected deep mistrust of the motivations and judgments of decision-makers.

This dissent reflected longer-term trends of growing mistrust, emotional reactions to restrictions and calculative reasoning based on observations about what policies were seen to be working or failing to work.

People facing unemployment and business losses might understandably be more inclined to question shutdown decisions.

The uniqueness of the COVID-19 shock raises the question of what generalizations should be made about the future of trust within democratic societies. It is safe to assume governments will be seeking to build trust in different, more challenging environments than previously.

Unfortunately, research on trust is long on diagnosis and short on prescriptions. Academics who study trust should be ready to assist with research leading to practical actions when the necessary independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic takes place.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.