![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/sad-woman-750x375.jpg)
Growing up in a disadvantaged environment not only hinders cognitive development but also weakens a person’s default willingness to trust others later in life. A recent study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin reveals that while higher intelligence generally makes people more trusting, early childhood adversity cuts this social benefit in half. These findings suggest that childhood hardships create long-lasting barriers to social mobility by preventing individuals from reaping the typical rewards of their cognitive skills.
Trusting strangers is a fundamental requirement for a functioning society. Generalized trust is the basic belief that other people are generally reliable and will not exploit you. Economists and psychologists view this kind of trust as a foundation for 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 consistently links higher cognitive ability to higher levels of generalized trust. Researchers generally define cognitive ability as a person’s capacity for memory, reasoning, and problem-solving. People with stronger cognitive skills are often better at recognizing that cooperation pays off in the long run. They are also thought to be better at evaluating someone’s trustworthiness and suppressing emotional, gut-level feelings of suspicion.
At the same time, childhood environments play a massive role in shaping social attitudes. Growing up in a stable, resource-rich household encourages long-term planning and cooperation. Conversely, childhood stress and scarcity act as warning signals about a harsh world. In unstable environments, short-term survival strategies and heightened vigilance are more practical than trusting strangers.
Chris Dawson, a researcher at the University of Bath’s School of Management, wanted to understand how these two factors interact. Most previous studies assumed that intelligence and childhood background influenced trust independently of one another. Dawson suspected that the environment a child grows up in might change how their brainpower is eventually used. Specifically, he wanted to see if intelligence provides the exact same social advantages for everyone, regardless of their background.
Sociologists and psychologists have debated exactly how personal 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 their brainpower to overcome their surroundings and figure out how to thrive.
Another theory proposes the exact opposite. The resource multiplication theory suggests that early advantages compound over time. A rich, supportive environment acts like a multiplier for intelligence, giving smart children endless opportunities to practice cooperation and see it rewarded.
To test which reality plays out in the real world, Dawson analyzed data from a massive, nationally representative survey in the United Kingdom. The sample included 24,140 adults with an average age of about 47. The survey gathered extensive information about household finances, personal attitudes, and cognitive performance. This rich dataset allowed the researcher to look for patterns linking early-life conditions to adult beliefs.
To measure generalized trust, the survey asked participants a standard question about human nature. Respondents had to choose whether most people can be trusted, whether it depends, or whether you cannot be too careful these days. While simple, this single question is a widely accepted tool that reliably captures a person’s long-term social outlook.
The survey also tested participants on five specific cognitive tasks. These included a delayed word recall test, a subtraction challenge, and an exercise where participants had one minute to name as many animals as possible. Other tests asked participants to fill in missing numbers in a sequence and solve practical math problems. Dawson combined the scores from these five tasks into a single measure of general cognitive ability, adjusting the final numbers to account for natural changes in brain function that happen as people age.
To measure childhood disadvantage, Dawson looked at four specific hardships participants might have experienced by age 14. These included living outside a two-parent household, having parents with no educational qualifications, and having parents who were unemployed. The final dimension was having parents who worked in routine, low-status jobs. Participants who experienced two or more of these conditions were classified as having a disadvantaged childhood.
The data revealed several distinct patterns. First, individuals who grew up with childhood disadvantage scored lower on adult cognitive tests. They were also much more likely to say that you cannot be too careful when dealing with other people. Both of these patterns held up even when the researcher controlled for current age, sex, 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 greater likelihood of trusting others. For these individuals, intelligence seemed to unlock the social benefits of cooperation.
However, for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, this relationship was substantially weaker. An increase in cognitive ability still boosted trust, but the effect was only about half as strong as it was for the advantaged group. The protective and cooperative benefits of intelligence were essentially suppressed.
This pattern supports the resource multiplication theory, often referred to as the Matthew Effect. This concept describes how early advantages multiply over time, allowing privileged individuals to gain disproportionate rewards from their skills. In a stable environment with low crime and reliable institutions, a smart person easily learns that trust is rewarded.
For a child in a harsh environment, those same cognitive resources might be redirected toward survival. Disadvantaged settings often feature unreliable institutions and fewer opportunities to see cooperation pay off. Dawson explained this dynamic in a press release accompanying the study.
“We often assume that intelligence leads to positive social outcomes in the same way for everyone but these findings challenge that idea,” Dawson said. “People who grow up in difficult environments not only develop lower cognitive skills, but also those skills appear less likely to translate into trust and the wider benefits that come with it.”
“This matters, because trust helps people build relationships, succeed in organisations, and participate in society,” Dawson said. “If early disadvantage suppresses those benefits, it may reinforce inequality across generations.”
The physical and emotional toll of a difficult childhood might also play a direct role. Chronic stress and anxiety are common results of early adversity. “In those environments, intelligence may simply have fewer opportunities to translate into trust,” Dawson said. “Early adversity may also leave lasting effects of stress and anxiety that limit how cognitive abilities are expressed in social life.”
To see if these patterns held up on a global scale, Dawson also looked at international data. Using the Global Preferences Survey, he compared trust and math skills across different countries. In high-income nations, cognitive ability was strongly tied to higher trust. In low-to-middle-income countries, the relationship was substantially weaker.
Like all observational studies, this research has some limitations. The primary issue is that the survey measured cognitive ability in adulthood, long after childhood environments had already shaped the participants. Because adult intelligence is a mix of genetic potential and environmental influence, it is difficult to completely separate the two. A disadvantaged environment might prevent a person from reaching their genetic potential, or it might simply suppress the social expression of the intelligence they do develop.
Future research will need to untangle these specific biological and environmental threads. Scientists could use genetically informed study designs to see how human biology and neighborhood conditions interact. Researchers also want to know if childhood environments alter the benefits of other positive traits. For example, patience and a willingness to take healthy risks might also be stunted by early adversity.
Ultimately, the study highlights a hidden mechanism of social inequality. Society often views education and intelligence as the ultimate tools for upward mobility. However, this research 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 security just as much as academic success.
“If we want to improve life chances, we need to think beyond academic skills,” Dawson said. “Stable, secure and supportive childhood environments may be just as important in helping people realise their potential.”
The study, “What Childhood Leaves Behind: Cognitive Ability and Trust in Adulthood,” was authored by Chris Dawson.
