A systematic review and meta-analysis of age-related differences in trust.

Bailey, PE; Leon, T

A systematic review and meta-analysis of age-related differences in trust.

Bailey, PE Leon, T

Permalink

Publisher:: AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Psychol Aging, 2019, 34, (5), pp. 674-685
Issue Date:: 2019-08

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	A systematic review and meta-analysis of age-related differences in trust.docx	Accepted version	182.56 kB	Microsoft Word	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bailey, PE
dc.contributor.author	Leon, T https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4976-758X
dc.date.accessioned	2024-03-05T23:58:03Z
dc.date.available	2024-03-05T23:58:03Z
dc.date.issued	2019-08
dc.identifier.citation	Psychol Aging, 2019, 34, (5), pp. 674-685
dc.identifier.issn	0882-7974
dc.identifier.issn	1939-1498
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176159
dc.description.abstract	This systematic review and meta-analysis quantifies the magnitude and breadth of age-related differences in trust. Thirty-eight independent data sets met criteria for inclusion. Overall, there was a moderate effect of age group on trust (g = 0.22), whereby older adults were more trusting than young adults. Three additional meta-analyses assessed age-related differences in trust in response to varying degrees of trustworthiness. This revealed that older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to neutral (g = 0.31) and negative (g = 0.33), but not positive (g = 0.15), indicators of trustworthiness. The effect of age group on trust in response to positive and neutral cues was moderated by type of trust (financial vs. nonfinancial) and type of responding (self-report vs. behavioral). Older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to positive and neutral indicators of trustworthiness when trust was expressed nonfinancially, but not financially. There was also an age-related increase in self-reported, but not behavioral, trust in response to neutral cues. Older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to negative indicators of trustworthiness regardless of the type of trust or type of responding. The reliability of information about trustworthiness did not moderate any of the effects of age group on trust. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
dc.relation.ispartof	Psychol Aging
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1037/pag0000368
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1701 Psychology, 1702 Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Experimental Psychology
dc.subject.classification	5201 Applied and developmental psychology
dc.subject.classification	5202 Biological psychology
dc.subject.classification	5204 Cognitive and computational psychology
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Age Factors
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Aged, 80 and over
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Trust
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Trust
dc.subject.mesh	Age Factors
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Aged, 80 and over
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Age Factors
dc.subject.mesh	Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Aged, 80 and over
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.mesh	Trust
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult
dc.title	A systematic review and meta-analysis of age-related differences in trust.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	34
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
utslib.for	1702 Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Clinical Psychology
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-03-05T23:58:02Z
pubs.issue	5
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	34
utslib.citation.issue	5

Abstract:

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantifies the magnitude and breadth of age-related differences in trust. Thirty-eight independent data sets met criteria for inclusion. Overall, there was a moderate effect of age group on trust (g = 0.22), whereby older adults were more trusting than young adults. Three additional meta-analyses assessed age-related differences in trust in response to varying degrees of trustworthiness. This revealed that older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to neutral (g = 0.31) and negative (g = 0.33), but not positive (g = 0.15), indicators of trustworthiness. The effect of age group on trust in response to positive and neutral cues was moderated by type of trust (financial vs. nonfinancial) and type of responding (self-report vs. behavioral). Older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to positive and neutral indicators of trustworthiness when trust was expressed nonfinancially, but not financially. There was also an age-related increase in self-reported, but not behavioral, trust in response to neutral cues. Older adults were more trusting than young adults in response to negative indicators of trustworthiness regardless of the type of trust or type of responding. The reliability of information about trustworthiness did not moderate any of the effects of age group on trust. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176159