IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujoag/v19y2022i3d10.1007_s10433-021-00643-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Age differences in facial trustworthiness perception are diminished by affective processing

Author

Listed:
  • Chao Chen

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Ye Xu

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Yi Sun

    (Peking University)

  • Xin Zhang

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

Abstract

While perceptions of facial trustworthiness usually serve as our first references for social interactions, these impressions may ultimately turn out to be inaccurate or unreliable. Compared with younger adults, older adults generally face a higher risk of fraudulent exploitation; the characteristics of older adults’ facial trustworthiness perception may play an important role in revealing the underlying mechanism of their being cheated. Previous studies have demonstrated that, in comparison with their younger counterparts, older adults tend to overestimate strangers’ facial trustworthiness. In the present study, two experiments were conducted, aiming at testing (1) the age-related differences in facial trustworthiness perceptions (Experiment 1) and (2) whether any interventions (e.g., encouraging more deliberative processing or more affective processing) could be applied to help older adults reduce their tendency to overestimate trustworthiness, thus reducing their facial trustworthiness ratings to a lower level (Experiment 2). The results indicated that (1) consistent with previous studies, older adults provided higher trustworthiness ratings for unfamiliar faces than did younger adults (Experiment 1) and (2) more importantly, affective processing instead of deliberative processing could benefit older adults in their assessments of facial trustworthiness, leading them toward demonstrating similar—not significantly higher—levels of trust toward strange faces as younger adults (Experiment 2). A possible mechanism was offered, suggesting that affective processing might help older adults to detect negative cues in unfamiliar faces.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujoag:v:19:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10433-021-00643-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10433-021-00643-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10433-021-00643-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10433-021-00643-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Ted Ruffman & Susan Sullivan & Nigel Edge, 2006. "Differences in the Way Older and Younger Adults Rate Threat in Faces But Not Situations," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 61(4), pages 187-194.
    3. Thomas M. Hess & Sandra J. Waters & Cheryl A. Bolstad, 2000. "Motivational and Cognitive Influences on Affective Priming in Adulthood," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 55(4), pages 193-204.
    4. Mara Mather & Marisa R. Knight, 2006. "Angry Faces Get Noticed Quickly: Threat Detection is not Impaired Among Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 61(1), pages 54-57.
    5. Phoebe E Bailey & Katherine Petridis & Skye N McLennan & Ted Ruffman & Peter G Rendell, 2019. "Age-Related Preservation of Trust Following Minor Transgressions," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 74(1), pages 74-81.
    6. Jasmine Boshyan & Leslie A. Zebrowitz & Robert G. Franklin, Jr. & Cheryl M. McCormick & Justin M. Carré, 2014. "Age Similarities in Recognizing Threat From Faces and Diagnostic Cues," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(5), pages 710-718.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stacey Y. Ng & Leslie A. Zebrowitz & Robert G. Franklin, 2016. "Age Differences in the Differentiation of Trait Impressions From Faces," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 71(2), pages 220-229.
    2. Donald G. MacKay & Laura W. Johnson & Elizabeth R. Graham & Deborah M. Burke, 2015. "Aging, Emotion, Attention, and Binding in the Taboo Stroop Task: Data and Theories," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-31, October.
    3. Ellen M. Peters & Burt Burraston & C. K. Mertz, 2004. "An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1349-1367, October.

    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:spr:eujoag:v:19:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10433-021-00643-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.