Growing up in an unfavorable environment not only impedes cognitive development but also weakens a person’s natural willingness to trust others later in life. Recent research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin In general, higher intelligence makes people more trustworthy, but it has been found that this social benefit is halved if a person experiences adversity in childhood. These findings suggest that childhood difficulties prevent individuals from reaping the typical rewards of cognitive skills and create long-term barriers to social mobility.
Trusting strangers is a fundamental requirement for society to function. Generalized trust is the basic belief that other people can generally be trusted and will not exploit you. Economists and psychologists believe that this kind of trust is the basis of cooperation, economic prosperity, and overall well-being. People who trust others are more likely to build strong networks and succeed in their careers.
Previous research has consistently associated higher cognitive abilities with higher levels of generalized trust. Researchers commonly define cognitive ability as a person’s ability to remember, reason, and solve problems. People with higher cognitive skills are often better able to recognize that cooperation pays off in the long run. They are also thought to be good at assessing someone’s trustworthiness and suppressing emotional, instinctive-level feelings of suspicion.
At the same time, the childhood environment plays a major role in the formation of social attitudes. Growing up in a stable, resource-rich family fosters long-term planning and cooperation. Conversely, stress and feelings of deprivation in childhood serve as warning signals for a harsh world. In unstable environments, short-term survival strategies and increased vigilance are more practical than trusting strangers.
Chris Dawson, a researcher at the School of Management at the University of Bath, wanted to understand how these two factors interact. Most previous studies have assumed that intelligence and childhood background influence trust independently of each other. Dawson wondered whether the environment in which children grow up could ultimately change how they use their brain power. Specifically, we wanted to see whether intelligence provides exactly the same social advantages for everyone, regardless of their background.
Sociologists and psychologists have debated exactly how individual skills and childhood resources interact. One theory, known as resource substitution, suggests that intelligence can compensate for a lack of environmental support. Under this idea, a highly capable child from a poor neighborhood uses his brain to figure out how to overcome his environment and grow.
Another theory suggests just the opposite. Resource proliferation theory suggests that initial advantages increase over time. A rich, supportive environment acts as an intelligence multiplier, giving smart children endless opportunities to practice cooperation and see it pay off.
To test how reality plays out in the real world, Dawson analyzed data from a large, nationally representative survey in the UK. The sample included 24,140 adults with an average age of approximately 47 years. The survey collected extensive information on household finances, personal attitudes, and cognitive abilities. This rich data set allowed researchers to look for patterns linking childhood conditions and adult beliefs.
To measure generalized trust, the study asked participants standard questions about humanity. Respondents had to choose whether they could trust most people, whether they could trust them in some situations, or whether it was okay to be too cautious these days. Although simple, this one question is widely accepted as a tool to ensure you understand a person’s long-term social prospects.
The study also tested participants on five specific cognitive tasks. These include a delayed word recall test, a subtraction challenge, and an exercise in which participants name as many animals as possible in one minute. Other tests asked participants to fill in a series of missing numbers and solve practical math problems. Dawson combined scores from these five tasks into one measure of overall cognitive ability and adjusted the final number to account for natural changes in brain function as we age.
To measure childhood disadvantage, Dawson looked at four specific hardships that participants may have experienced by the age of 14. These include living in a household without both parents, having a parent with no education, and having an unemployed parent. The final aspect was having parents in mundane, low-status jobs. Participants who experienced two or more of these symptoms were classified as having had a disadvantaged childhood.
The data revealed several different patterns. First, people who grew up with disadvantaged childhood conditions had lower scores on adult cognitive tests. They were also much more likely to say you can never be too careful when dealing with other people. Both of these patterns held true even when researchers controlled for current age, gender, and household income.
Next, Dawson examined the relationship between intelligence and trust. Among people from more advantaged backgrounds, higher cognitive ability was strongly associated with a higher likelihood of trusting others. For these people, intelligence seemed to unlock the social benefits of cooperation.
However, this relationship was significantly weaker for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Increased cognitive ability still increased trust, but the effect was only about half that of the advantaged group. The protective and cooperative benefits of intelligence were essentially suppressed.
This pattern supports the resource proliferation theory, often referred to as the Matthew effect. This concept explains how initial advantages can grow over time, allowing privileged individuals to reap disproportionate rewards from their skills. In stable environments with low crime and trustworthy institutions, smart people easily learn that trust is rewarded.
For children in harsh environments, the same cognitive resources may be directed toward survival. In unfavorable circumstances, there are often unreliable institutions and fewer opportunities for cooperation to be fruitful. Dawson explained this dynamic in a press release accompanying the study.
“We tend to think that intelligence leads to the same positive social outcomes for everyone, but these findings challenge that idea,” Dawson said. “People who grow up in difficult environments not only have poorer cognitive skills, but also appear to be less likely to translate those skills into trust and the broader benefits that come with it.”
“This is important because trust helps people build relationships, succeed within organizations, and participate in society,” Dawson says. “If early disadvantage arises and benefits are suppressed, intergenerational inequalities can become even stronger.”
The physical and emotional strain of a difficult childhood may also have a direct impact. Chronic stress and anxiety are common consequences of early adversity. “In these environments, the opportunity for intelligence to translate into trust may simply decrease,” Dawson said. “Early adversity can also leave lasting effects of stress and anxiety that limit the expression of cognitive abilities in social life.”
To see if these patterns hold true on a global scale, Dawson also looked at international data. He used the Global Preferences Survey to compare confidence and math skills in different countries. In high-income countries, cognitive ability was strongly associated with higher trust. This relationship was significantly weaker in low- and middle-income countries.
As with all observational studies, this study has some limitations. The main problem is that this study measured cognitive abilities in adulthood, long after the participants’ childhood environments had already shaped them. Adult intelligence is a mix of genetic potential and environmental influences, making it difficult to completely separate the two. An unfavorable environment may prevent a person from realizing his or her genetic potential, or may simply suppress the social expression of the intelligence that the person develops.
Future research will need to disentangle these specific biological and environmental threads. Scientists could use genetically informed research designs to see how human biology and neighborhood context interact. Researchers also want to know whether early childhood environment changes the benefits of other positive traits. For example, perseverance and the willingness to take healthy risks can also be inhibited by early adversity.
Ultimately, this study highlighted hidden mechanisms of social inequality. Society often views education and intelligence as the ultimate tools for upward mobility. However, this study shows that a harsh childhood can prevent a person from using those tools effectively. Policies aimed at reducing inequality may need to focus on emotional safety as much as academic success.
“If you want to improve your chances in life, you need to think beyond academic ability,” Dawson says. “Stable, safe and supportive childhood environments can be just as important in helping people realize their potential.”
The study, “What Childhood Leaves Me: Cognitive Abilities and Trust in Adulthood,” was authored by Chris Dawson.
