Friend or Foe? Age Moderates Time-Course Specific Responsiveness to Trustworthiness Cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence of a greater focus on positive relative to negative information in older adulthood. Up to date, the age-related positivity effect in affective processing has been only investigated with respect to explicit emotional cues. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether similar age-related differences would be observed in reference to subtler cues, such as emotionally suggestive structural facial characteristics. METHOD: We used a gaze following paradigm and investigated the temporal dynamics of responding to facial trustworthiness cues in younger and older adults. RESULTS: Both age groups provided similar trustworthiness evaluations. Nonetheless, under responding conditions that allowed for volitional modulatory influences (600 ms), older (but not younger) adults with superior cognitive resources showed more gaze following in response to trustworthy than to untrustworthy looking faces. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided initial evidence that the age-related positivity effect in affective processing extends to subtle emotional cues, generally interpreted as being reflective of socially relevant personality traits. Implications for aging theories of motivated cognition and developmental changes in reliance on superficial affective cues are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".