Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-12
Do Good Citizens Look to the Future? The Link Between National Identification and Future Time Perspective and Their Role in Explaining Citizens’ Reactions to Conflicts Between Short-Term and Long-Term National Interests
When people consider what is good for their country, they might face a conflict between the country’s short-term and long-term interests. We suggest that resolving this conflict depends on people’s form of national identification and future time perspective. Across four studies (N = 4,274), we showed that constructive patriotism, but not conventional patriotism or glorification, was positively associated with future time perspective. Moreover, we showed that this further translated into people’s responses to intertemporal conflicts. Specifically, constructive patriotism was indirectly linked to higher support for national policies with long-term advantages (despite short-term disadvantages) and lower support for national policies with long-term disadvantages (despite short-term advantages), and these links were mediated by future time perspective. Overall, our results demonstrate that distinct forms of national identification are differently linked to future time perspective. Likewise, this helps explain differences in how much people care about their country’s present and future.
AdornoT.Frenkel-BrenswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
2.
AndreL.van VianenA. E. M.PeetsmaT. T. D.OortF. J. (2018). Motivational power of future time perspective: Meta-analyses in education, work, and health. PLOS ONE, 13(1), Article e0190492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190492
3.
ArnockyS.MilfontT. L.NicolJ. R. (2014). Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 556–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512474
4.
BarnettM. D.ArchuletaW. P.CantuC. (2019). Politics, concern for future generations, and the environment: Generativity mediates political conservatism and environmental attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(10), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12624
BlankT.SchmidtP. (2003). National identity in a united Germany: Nationalism or patriotism? An empirical test with representative data. Political Psychology, 24(2), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00329
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111.
9.
BusemeyerM. R. (2023). Who cares for the future? Exploring public attitudes towards the needs of future generations in Germany. Journal of European Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2165697
10.
BusemeyerM. R.GarritzmannJ. L.NeimannsE. (2020). A loud, but noisy signal? Public opinion and the politics of education reform in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChristensenH. S.RapeliL. (2021). Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences. Policy Sciences, 54(1), 63–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09408-w
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
14.
DahlR. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press.
15.
DavidovE. (2009). Measurement equivalence of nationalism and constructive patriotism in the ISSP: 34 countries in a comparative perspective. Political Analysis, 17(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpn014
16.
de ZavalaA. G.CichockaA.BilewiczM. (2013). The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x
17.
de ZavalaA. G.CichockaA.EidelsonR.JayawickremeN. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
18.
FairbrotherM.ArrheniusG.BykvistK.CampbellT. (2021). Governing for future generations: How political trust shapes attitudes towards climate and debt policies. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, Article 656053. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpos.2021.656053
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20.
FieulaineN.ApostolidisT. (2015). Precariousness as a time horizon: How poverty and social insecurity shape individuals’ time perspectives. In StolarskiM.FieulaineN.Van BeekW. (Eds.), Time perspective theory: Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 213–228). Springer.
21.
FrederickS.LoewensteinG.O’DonoghueT. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
22.
GeigerN.McLaughlinB.VelezJ. (2021). Not all boomers: Temporal orientation explains inter-and intra-cultural variability in the link between age and climate engagement. Climatic Change, 166(1–2), Article 12.
23.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
24.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
25.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
26.
HuddyL.KhatibN. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.
27.
JacobsA. M. (2008). The politics of when: Redistribution, investment and policy making for the long term. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000112
JacobsA. M.MatthewsJ. S. (2012). Why do citizens discount the future? Public opinion and the timing of policy consequences. British Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 903–935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000117
30.
JacobsA. M.MatthewsJ. S. (2017). Policy attitudes in institutional context: Rules, uncertainty, and the mass politics of public investment. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12209
31.
JohnstonC. D.WronskiJ. (2015). Personality dispositions and political preferences across hard and easy issues. Political Psychology, 36(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12068
32.
JoiremanJ.LasaneT. P.BennettJ.RichardsD.SolaimaniS. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164731
33.
JoiremanJ.ShafferM. J.BallietD.StrathmanA. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362
34.
JoiremanJ.Van LangeP. A.Van VugtM. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391650325147
35.
JoiremanJ.Van LangeP. A.Van VugtM.WoodA.LeestT. V.LambertC. (2001). Structural solutions to social dilemmas: A field study on commuters’ willingness to fund improvements in public transit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02053.x
36.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
37.
JugertP.ŠerekJ.EcksteinK.NoackP. (2021). National and European identity formation: A longitudinal cross-national comparison study. Identity, 21(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2020.1856665
38.
KahnD. T.KlarY.RoccasS. (2017). For the sake of the eternal group: Perceiving the group as trans-generational and endurance of ingroup suffering. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684123
39.
KahneJ. E.SporteS. E. (2009). Civic learning opportunities and civic commitments. In MurrayP.MilnerH. (Eds.), Civic education and youth political participation (pp. 159–186). Brill.
40.
KatraG. (2009). Rozwój myślenia osób dorastających a wybrane przejawy aktywności prospektywnej [Cognitive development in adolescence and selected manifestations of prospective action]. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 14(3), 65–76.
41.
KeesJ. (2010). Temporal framing in health advertising: The role of risk and future orientation. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2010.10505273
42.
KnudsenM. S.ChristensenH. S. (2021). Future orientation and political participation: The moderating role of political trust. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, Article 791467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.791467
43.
KooijD. T. A. M.KanferR.BettsM.RudolphC. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000306
44.
KostermanR.FeshbachS. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791647
45.
LammersJ.BaldwinM. (2018). Past-focused temporal communication overcomes conservatives’ resistance to liberal political ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000121
46.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harpers.
47.
MacKenzieM. K. (2016). Institutional design and sources of short-termism. In González-RicoyI.GosseriesA. (Eds.), Institutions for future generations (pp. 24–46). Oxford University Press.
48.
McGrathJ. E.KellyJ. R. (1992). Temporal context and temporal patterning: Toward a time-centered perspective for social psychology. Time & Society, 1(3), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X92001003005
49.
MilfontT. L.WilsonJ.DinizP. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.647029
50.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
51.
OrbellS.HaggerM. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychology, 25(4), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.537
52.
OsborneD.MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2017). Authoritarianism and national identity: Examining the longitudinal effects of SDO and RWA on nationalism and patriotism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1086–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217704196
53.
PérezE. O.TavitsM. (2017). Language shapes people’s time perspective and support for future-oriented policies. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12290
54.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
55.
RabinovichA.MortonT. A. (2012). Ghosts of the past and dreams of the future: The impact of temporal focus on responses to contextual ingroup devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427307
56.
RapeliL.BäckM.JäskeM.KoskimaaV. (2021). When do you want it? Determinants of future-oriented political thinking. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, Article 692913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.692913
57.
ReicherS.HopkinsN. (2001). Self and nation. Sage.
58.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Jr.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
RinscheidA.PiantaS.WeberE. U. (2020). Fast track or Slo-Mo? Public support and temporal preferences for phasing out fossil fuel cars in the United States. Climate Policy, 20(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1677550
61.
RoccasS.KlarY.LiviatanI. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698
62.
RuparM.Jamróz-DolińskaK.KołeczekM.SekerdejM. (2021). Is patriotism helpful to fight the crisis? The role of constructive patriotism, conventional patriotism, and glorification amid the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(6), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2777
63.
RuparM.SekerdejM.Jamróz-DolińskaK. (2021). The role of national identification in explaining political and social civic engagement. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(8), 1515–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220967975
64.
RuparM.SekerdejM.Jamróz-DolińskaK.HubenáB. (2023). Constructive patriotism predicts voting intentions: Evidence from the state, parliamentary, EU parliamentary, and presidential elections across different EU countries [Unpublished manuscript]. Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University.
65.
SaniF.BoweM.HerreraM.MannaC.CossaT.MiaoX.ZhouY. (2007). Perceived collective continuity: Seeing groups as entities that move through time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1118–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.430
66.
SchafferL. M.OehlB.BernauerT. (2022). Are policy-makers responsive to public demand in climate politics?Journal of Public Policy, 42(1), 136–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X21000088
67.
SchatzR. T. (2020). A review and integration of research on blind and constructive patriotism. In SardočM. (Ed.), Handbook of patriotism (pp. 613–631). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54484-7_30
68.
SchatzR. T.StaubE.LavineH. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00140
69.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
70.
SchwarzerG. (2007). meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News, 7(3), 40–45.
71.
SekerdejM.RoccasS. (2016). Love versus loving criticism: Disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12142
72.
SekerdejM.RuparM.Jamróz-DolińskaK.KołeczekM. (2023). Greater expectations or less sugar-coating? Perceptual underpinnings of constructive patriotism. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12634
73.
ShippA. J.EdwardsJ. R.LambertL. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001
74.
SircovaA.Van De VijverF. J.OsinE.MilfontT. L.FieulaineN.Kislali-ErginbilgicA.ZimbardoP. G. (2015). Time perspective profiles of cultures. In Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 169–187). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_11
75.
StrathmanA.GleicherF.BoningerD. S.EdwardsC. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
76.
Theiss-MorseE. (1993). Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participation. Political Behavior, 15(4), 355–380.
77.
XuX.ArpanL. M.ChenC. (2015). The moderating role of individual differences in responses to benefit and temporal framing of messages promoting residential energy saving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.004
78.
ZhaoX.NanX.IlesI. A.YangB. (2015). Temporal framing and consideration of future consequences: Effects on smokers’ and at-risk nonsmokers’ responses to cigarette health warnings. Health Communication, 30(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.974122
79.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
80.
ZmigrodL.EisenbergI. W.BissettP. G.RobbinsT. W.PoldrackR. A. (2021). The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: A data-driven approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1822), 20200424. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0424
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
