Humanity’s long-term welfare may lie in the hands of those who are presently living, raising the question of whether people today hold the generations of tomorrow in their moral circles. Five studies (NTotal = 1652; Prolific) reveal present-oriented bias in the moral standing of future generations, with greater perceived moral obligation, moral concern, and prosocial intentions for proximal relative to distal future targets. Yet, present-oriented bias appears stronger for socially close compared with socially distant targets and for human targets relative to non-human animals and entities in nature. Individual differences, including longtermism beliefs and subjective imaginative vividness, predict greater concern for and obligation to the future. Likewise, concern and obligation predict greater future-oriented generosity. Our studies are among the first to explore moral considerations for targets across deep temporal expanses, reconcile conflicting evidence in the extant literature on moral judgment and future-thinking, and offer practical implications for bettering the shared societal future.
BooysenF.GuvuriroS.CampherC. (2021). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism and preferences for altruism: A social discounting study. Personality and Individual Differences, 178, 110856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110856
3.
BruneauE.CikaraM.SaxeR. (2017). Parochial empathy predicts reduced altruism and the endorsement of passive harm. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693064
ChitucV.CrockettM. J.SchollB. J. (2024). How to show that a cruel prank is worse than a war crime: Shifting scales and missing benchmarks in the study of moral judgment.
6.
ColemanM. B.DeStenoD. (2024, May21). Intertemporal Empathy Decline: Feeling Less Distress for Future Others’ Suffering. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001402
7.
CrimstonC.BainP. G.HornseyM. J.BastianB. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000086
8.
CrimstonC. R.HornseyM. J.BainP. G.BastianB. (2018). Moral expansiveness short form: Validity and reliability of the MESx. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0205373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205373
9.
EverettJ. A. C.FaberN. S.SavulescuJ.CrockettM. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
10.
EyalT.LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012
11.
FowlerZ.LawK. F.GaesserB. (2021). Against empathy bias: The moral value of equitable empathy. Psychological Science, 32(5), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620979965
GershonR.FridmanA. (2022). Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(49), e2215633119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215633119
14.
GileadM.TropeY.LibermanN. (2020). Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002000
15.
HauserO. P.RandD. G.PeysakhovichA.NowakM. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature, 511(7508), Article 7508. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13530
16.
HillP. F.YiR.SprengR. N.DianaR. A. (2017). Neural congruence between intertemporal and interpersonal self-control: Evidence from delay and social discounting. NeuroImage, 162, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.071
17.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
18.
HornseyM. J.ChapmanC. M.OelrichsD. M. (2021). Ripple effects: Can information about the collective impact of individual actions boost perceived efficacy about climate change?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104217
19.
JonesB. A. (2022). A review of social discounting: The impact of social distance on altruism. The Psychological Record, 72(3), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00488-5
20.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093
21.
KogutT.SlovicP.VästfjällD. (2015). Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1042–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039708ƒ
22.
LawK. F.CampbellD.GaesserB. (2022). Biased benevolence: The perceived morality of effective altruism across social distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672211002773. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002773
MartínezE.WinterC. (2023). The intuitive appeal of legal protection for future generations (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4349899). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4349899
26.
McHughC.GriffinS. M.McGrathM. J.RheeJ. J.MaherP. J.McCashinD.RothJ. (2023). Moral identity predicts adherence to COVID-19 mitigation procedures depending on political ideology: A comparison between the USA and New Zealand. Political Psychology, 44(2), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12838
27.
McManusR. M.MasonJ. E.YoungL. (2021). Re-examining the role of family relationships in structuring perceived helping obligations, and their impact on moral evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104182
28.
McManusR. M.YoungL.SweetmanJ. (2023). Psychology is a property of persons, not averages or distributions: Confronting the group-to-person generalizability problem in experimental psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 25152459231186615. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231186615
29.
MeyerM. L.HershfieldH. E.WaytzA. G.MildnerJ. N.TamirD. I. (2019). Creative expertise is associated with transcending the here and now. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000148
30.
OrdT. (2020). The precipice: existential risk and the future of humanity. Hachette Books.
31.
PlunkettD.GreeneJ. D. (2019). Overlooked evidence and a misunderstanding of what trolley dilemmas do best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018). Psychological Science, 30(9), 1389–1391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619827914
32.
PoultonE. C. (1968). The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 69(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025267
SchacterD. L.AddisD. R.HassabisD.MartinV. C.SprengR. N.SzpunarK. K. (2012). The future of memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4), 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001
37.
SchubertS.CaviolaL. (2024). Effective altruism and the human mind: The clash between impact and intuition. Oxford University Press.
38.
SingerP. (1981). The expanding circle. Ethics and sociobiology. Erkenntnis, 20(3), 377–381.
39.
SingerP. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism Is changing ideas about living ethically (1st edition). Yale University Press.
40.
SyropoulosS.WatkinsH.ShariffA.HodgesS.MarkowitzE. (2021). The role of gratitude in motivating intergenerational environmental stewardship. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101517
41.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.Kraft-ToddG.YoungL. (2023). The longtermism beliefs scale: Measuring lay beliefs for protecting humanity’s longterm future. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e34kv
42.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (2024a). Longtermist Education Interventions Increase Concern for and Action to Protect Future Generations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 19485506241228465. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228465
43.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (2024b). The case for longtermism: Concern for the far future as a catalyst for pro-climate action. Npj Climate Action, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00110-8
44.
SyropoulosS.MarkowitzE. M. (2022). Perceived responsibility to address climate change consistently relates to increased pro-environmental attitudes, behaviors and policy support: Evidence across 23 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101868
45.
TamirD. I.MitchellJ. P. (2011). The default network distinguishes construals of proximal versus distal events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 2945–2955. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00009
46.
TuenY. J.BulleyA.PalomboD. J.O’ConnorB. B. (2023). Social value at a distance: Higher identification with all of humanity is associated with reduced social discounting. Cognition, 230, 105283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105283
47.
Wade-BenzoniK. A. (2006). Legacies, immortality, and the future: The psychology of intergenerational altruism. In TenbrunselA. E. (Ed.), Ethics in Groups (Vol. 8, pp. 247–270). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(06)08012-1
48.
Wade-BenzoniK. A. (2017). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069327
49.
Wade-BenzoniK. A.HernandezM.MedvecV.MessickD. (2008). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.004
50.
Wade-BenzoniK. A.TostL. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309339317
51.
WatkinsH. M.GoodwinG. P. (2020). Reflecting on sacrifices made by past generations increases a sense of obligation towards future generations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 995–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219883610
52.
WaytzA.IyerR.YoungL.HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0
53.
ZavalL.MarkowitzE. M.WeberE. U. (2015). How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychological Science, 26(2), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614561266
54.
ZhangQ.WeiW.LiN.CaoW. (2022). The effects of psychological distance on spontaneous justice inferences: A construal level theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1011497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1011497
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.
