Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313518›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2024

Older adults are relatively more susceptible to impulsive social influence than young adults.

Zhilin Su, Mona M Garvert, Lei Zhang, Sanjay G Manohar, Todd A Vogel, Louisa Thomas, Joshua H Balsters, Masud Husain, Matthew A J Apps, Patricia L Lockwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Genoeconomics of Impulsive Intertemporal Choice: A Critical Review.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Zhilin SuCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. zhilinsu1312@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6941-0970
Mona M GarvertFaculty of Human Sciences, Junior professorship of Neuroscience, University of Würzburg, 97070, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8678-5536
Lei ZhangCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9586-595X
Sanjay G ManoharNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Todd A VogelCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0895-3845
Louisa ThomasDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Joshua H BalstersDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Masud HusainNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6850-9255
Matthew A J AppsCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5793-2202
Patricia L LockwoodCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. p.l.lockwood@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7195-9559

Funding

Royal Society 223264/Z/21/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People differ in their levels of impulsivity and patience, and these preferences are heavily influenced by others. Previous research suggests that susceptibility to social influence may vary with age, but the mechanisms and whether people are more influenced by patience or impulsivity remain unknown. Here, using a delegated inter-temporal choice task and Bayesian computational models, we tested susceptibility to social influence in young (aged 18-36, N = 76) and older (aged 60-80, N = 78) adults. Participants completed a temporal discounting task and then learnt the preferences of two other people (one more impulsive and one more patient) before making their choices again. We used the signed Kullback-Leibler divergence to quantify the magnitude and direction of social influence. We found that, compared to young adults, older adults were relatively more susceptible to impulsive social influence. Factor analyses showed that older adults with higher self-reported levels of affective empathy and emotional motivation were particularly susceptible to impulsive influence. Importantly, older and young adults showed similar learning accuracy about others' preferences, and their baseline impulsivity did not differ. Together, these findings suggest highly affectively empathetic and emotionally motivated older adults may be at higher risk for impulsive decisions, due to their susceptibility to social influence.

Identifiers

PMID39313518
PMCPMC11420232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.