IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v73y2018i4p573-583..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Persistent Reliance on Facial Appearance Among Older Adults When Judging Someone’s Trustworthiness

Author

Listed:
  • Atsunobu Suzuki

Abstract

ObjectivesWhen judging someone’s trustworthiness, facial appearance is a salient but nondiagnostic cue. Such judgments should ideally be based on the memory of that person’s past behaviors during social interaction. Aging may impair memory-based decision making, predicting an age-related decline in individuals’ adjustment of trustworthiness judgment using such behavioral information. However, aging may also facilitate the use of diagnostic information for social inference, predicting an age-related improvement. I tested these competing predictions to obtain insight into the effects of aging on fraud victimization.MethodThirty-six older adults (OAs) and 36 younger adults (YAs) played four rounds of a trust game wherein they were the truster and had to learn the distinction between “good†and “bad†trustees who always cooperated with and cheated participants, respectively. The trustee’s facial appearance (trustworthy- and untrustworthy looking) and character (good and bad) were manipulated orthogonally.ResultsA memory test of the trustees’ characters revealed that even after four rounds of the game, OAs, but not YAs, were biased to guess that trustworthy-looking persons were good trustees.DiscussionPersistent reliance on facial trustworthiness could increase one’s risk of repeated fraud victimization among OAs, because fraudulent people can pretend to look trustworthy to acquire another’s trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Atsunobu Suzuki, 2018. "Persistent Reliance on Facial Appearance Among Older Adults When Judging Someone’s Trustworthiness," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 73(4), pages 573-583.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:73:y:2018:i:4:p:573-583.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbw034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric D. Leshikar & Jung M. Park & Angela H. Gutchess, 2015. "Similarity to the Self Affects Memory for Impressions of Others in Younger and Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 70(5), pages 737-742.
    2. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chao Chen & Ye Xu & Yi Sun & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Age differences in facial trustworthiness perception are diminished by affective processing," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 413-422, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    2. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    3. Robert Jiro Netzer & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Intercultural trust. An experiment in Austria and Japan," Working Papers 2009-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    5. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    6. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    7. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    8. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    9. Jason Aimone & Sheryl Ball & Brooks King-Casas, 2015. "The Betrayal Aversion Elicitation Task: An Individual Level Betrayal Aversion Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    10. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    11. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    12. Kimmich, Christian & Fischbacher, Urs, 2016. "Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 55-77.
    13. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    14. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    15. Jordi Brandts & Werner Güth & Andreas Stiehler, 2002. "I want YOU! An experiment studying the selection effect when assigning distributive power," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-13, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    16. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    17. Petra Nieken & Sven Walther, 2024. "Honesty in Virtual Communication," CESifo Working Paper Series 11094, CESifo.
    18. Diego Marino Fages, 2023. "Migration and trust: Evidence on assimilation from internal migrants," Discussion Papers 2023-08, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    19. Ziqiang Xin & Guofang Liu, 2013. "Homo Economicus Belief Inhibits Trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-5, October.
    20. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:73:y:2018:i:4:p:573-583.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.