The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adult Age Differences in Dual Information Processes: Implications for the Role of Affective and Deliberative Processes in Older Adults' Decision Making
Abstract
Age differences in affective/experiential and deliberative processes have important theoretical implications for judgment and decision theory and important pragmatic implications for older-adult decision making. Age-related declines in the efficiency of deliberative processes predict poorer-quality decisions as we age. However, age-related adaptive processes, including motivated selectivity in the use of deliberative capacity, an increased focus on emotional goals, and greater experience, predict better or worse decisions for older adults depending on the situation. The aim of the current review is to examine adult age differences in affective and deliberative information processes in order to understand their potential impact on judgments and decisions. We review evidence for the role of these dual processes in judgment and decision making and then review two representative life-span perspectives (based on aging-related changes to cognitive or motivational processes) on the interplay between these processes. We present relevant predictions for older-adult decisions and make note of contradictions and gaps that currently exist in the literature. Finally, we review the sparse evidence about age differences in decision making and how theories and findings regarding dual processes could be applied to decision theory and decision aiding. In particular, we focus on prospect theory ( Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ) and how prospect theory and theories regarding age differences in information processing can inform one another.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · Cited by 6,128
The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition
Salthouse, T. A. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 · Cited by 5,902 · cited 3×
“For example, research demonstrating a Volume 2—Number 1 7 variety of age-related cognitive deficits (e.g., in speed of processing and working memory; Salthouse, 1996) leads us to believe that judgment and decision-making capabilities may decline as an inevitable course of the aging process.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
A Voxel-Based Morphometric Study of Ageing in 465 Normal Adult Human Brains
Good, C. D., Johnsrude, I. S., Ashburner, J., Henson, R. N. A., Friston, K. J., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (2001) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0786 · Cited by 4,561
Bower, G. H. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.2.129 · Cited by 4,154
Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · Cited by 3,547
Cited by
Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms
Juslin, P. N., & Västfjäll, D. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08005293 · Cited by 1,914
Self-citationCharles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448 · Cited by 1,630
Trevena, L. J., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P. K., King, J., Lawson, M. L., Linder, S. K., Lipkus, I., et al. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-s2-s7 · Cited by 538
Self-citationMitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.003 · Cited by 330
De keersmaecker, J., & Roets, A. (2017) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, E., Hess, T. M., Västfjäll, D., & Auman, C.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-23
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2153746377
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 11.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adult Age Differences in Dual Information Processes: Implications for the Role of Affective and Deliberative Processes in Older Adults' Decision Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x
- The paper
- Peters, E., Hess, T. M., Västfjäll, D., & Auman, C. (2007). Adult Age Differences in Dual Information Processes: Implications for the Role of Affective and Deliberative Processes in Older Adults' Decision Making. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.