Moral Future-Thinking: Does the Moral Circle Stand the Test of Time?

Abstract

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 (N_Total = 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.

Keywords

morality moral expansiveness intergenerational concern future-thinking imagination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atance

C. M.

O’Neill

D. K.

(2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(12), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0

Booysen

Guvuriro

Campher

(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

Bruneau

Cikara

Saxe

(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

Caviola

Althaus

David

Schubert

Stefan

Lewis

Joshua

. (2022). What psychological traits predict interest in effective altruism? Effective Altruism Forum. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7f3sq7ZHcRsaBBeMD/what-psychological-traits-predict-interest-in-effective

Chituc

Crockett

M. J.

Scholl

B. 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.

Coleman

M. B.

DeSteno

(2024, May 21). Intertemporal Empathy Decline: Feeling Less Distress for Future Others’ Suffering. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001402

Crimston

Bain

P. G.

Hornsey

M. J.

Bastian

(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

Crimston

C. R.

Hornsey

M. J.

Bain

P. G.

Bastian

(2018). Moral expansiveness short form: Validity and reliability of the MESx. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0205373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205373

Everett

J. A. C.

Faber

N. S.

Savulescu

Crockett

M. 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.

Eyal

Liberman

Trope

(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.

Fowler

Law

K. F.

Gaesser

(2021). Against empathy bias: The moral value of equitable empathy. Psychological Science, 32(5), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620979965

12.

Gaesser

(2020). Episodic mindreading: Mentalizing guided by scene construction of imagined and remembered events. Cognition, 203, 104325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104325

13.

Gershon

Fridman

(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.

Gilead

Trope

Liberman

(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.

Hauser

O. P.

Rand

D. G.

Peysakhovich

Nowak

M. A.

(2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature, 511(7508), Article 7508. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13530

16.

Hill

P. F.

Spreng

R. N.

Diana

R. 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.

Hofstede

(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.

Hornsey

M. J.

Chapman

C. M.

Oelrichs

D. 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.

Jones

B. 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.

Kahane

Everett

J. A. C.

Earp

B. D.

Caviola

Faber

N. S.

Crockett

M. J.

Savulescu

(2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093

21.

Kogut

Slovic

Västfjäll

(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.

Law

K. F.

Campbell

Gaesser

(2022). Biased benevolence: The perceived morality of effective altruism across social distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672211002773. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002773

23.

Lecky. (1869). History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, vol. 1—Online Library of Liberty. New York and London D. Appleton and Company. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lecky-history-of-european-morals-from-augustus-to-charlemagne-vol-1

24.

MacAskill

(2022). What we owe the future. https://whatweowethefuture.com/

25.

Martínez

Winter

(2023). The intuitive appeal of legal protection for future generations (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4349899). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4349899

26.

McHugh

Griffin

S. M.

McGrath

M. J.

Rhee

J. J.

Maher

P. J.

McCashin

Roth

(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.

McManus

R. M.

Mason

J. E.

Young

(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.

McManus

R. M.

Young

Sweetman

(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.

Meyer

M. L.

Hershfield

H. E.

Waytz

A. G.

Mildner

J. N.

Tamir

D. 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.

Ord

(2020). The precipice: existential risk and the future of humanity. Hachette Books.

31.

Plunkett

Greene

J. 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.

Poulton

E. C.

(1968). The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 69(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025267

33.

Roose

(2023, May 30). A.I. poses ‘risk of extinction,’ industry leaders warn. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/technology/ai-threat-warning.html

34.

Rottman

Crimston

C. R.

Syropoulos

(2021). Tree-huggers versus human-lovers: Anthropomorphism and dehumanization predict valuing nature over outgroups. Cognitive Science, 45(4), e12967. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12967

35.

Sachdeva

Iliev

Ekhtiari

Dehghani

(2015). The role of self-sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127409

36.

Schacter

D. L.

Addis

D. R.

Hassabis

Martin

V. C.

Spreng

R. N.

Szpunar

K. 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.

Schubert

Caviola

(2024). Effective altruism and the human mind: The clash between impact and intuition. Oxford University Press.

38.

Singer

(1981). The expanding circle. Ethics and sociobiology. Erkenntnis, 20(3), 377–381.

39.

Singer

(2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism Is changing ideas about living ethically (1st edition). Yale University Press.

40.

Syropoulos

Watkins

Shariff

Hodges

Markowitz

(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.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Kraft-Todd

Young

(2023). The longtermism beliefs scale: Measuring lay beliefs for protecting humanity’s longterm future. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e34kv

42.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(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.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(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.

Syropoulos

Markowitz

E. 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.

Tamir

D. I.

Mitchell

J. 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.

Tuen

Y. J.

Bulley

Palombo

D. J.

O’Connor

B. 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-Benzoni

K. A.

(2006). Legacies, immortality, and the future: The psychology of intergenerational altruism. In Tenbrunsel

A. 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-Benzoni

K. 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-Benzoni

K. A.

Hernandez

Medvec

Messick

(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-Benzoni

K. A.

Tost

L. 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.

Watkins

H. M.

Goodwin

G. 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.

Waytz

Iyer

Young

Haidt

Graham

(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.

Zaval

Markowitz

E. M.

Weber

E. 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.

Zhang

Wei

Cao

(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.

0.00 MB

2.30 MB