ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Neither inaccurate nor biased in later life: Age-related differences in the accuracy and bias of facial trustworthiness judgment.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neither inaccurate nor biased in later life: Age-related differences in the accuracy and bias of facial trustworthiness judgment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People tend to form impressions of others' trustworthiness based on their facial appearance and make trust-related decisions accordingly. In such face-based trustworthiness judgments (FBTJs), older adults are generally more likely than younger adults to attribute higher trustworthiness. This pattern is sometimes referred to as positivity bias and has been proposed as a potential risk factor for fraud victimization in later life. However, previous studies lack objective ground-truth measures of the actual trustworthiness of FBTJ targets, thus limiting their ability to assess the accuracy and bias of such judgments. To address this gap, we conducted three studies to examine age-related differences in FBTJ accuracy and bias using behavior in a trust game (Studies 1 and 2, Japanese participants) and records of political corruption convictions (Study 3, British participants) as ground-truth indicators of trustworthiness. In participant-level analyses, older adults demonstrated either higher accuracy (Studies 1 and 3) or comparable accuracy (Study 2) relative to younger adults. Furthermore, younger adults consistently tended to judge others as untrustworthy; however, older adults did not exhibit this negativity bias (Studies 1 and 2), and only a milder positivity bias emerged in Study 3. Although these age-related differences, particularly in accuracy, became less evident when face-level variability was considered, the overall results suggest that older adults perform as well as, or even better than, younger adults in terms of FBTJ accuracy and bias. This finding challenges the conventional view that older adults' FBTJs are positively distorted and increase their vulnerability to deception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.