Across a series of eight high-powered studies (N = 6,866), we develop a method for assessing impartial intergenerational beneficence, defined as intergenerational concern for all possible future generations. Across our studies, roughly 20% of participants displayed impartial intergenerational beneficence. Participants with impartial intergenerational beneficence expressed greater perceptions that future threats can be resolved, support for policies seeking to protect future generations of people, and a profound sense of responsibility for the long-term survival and prosperity of humanity. Similarly, associations with various future-oriented attitudes, patterns of prosociality, and longtermism-related behaviors and intentions were noted. This research thus introduces a method to capture impartiality in expressed intergenerational concern and finds that people who display impartial intergenerational concern endorse prosocial principles, such as altruism and utilitarianism, while also being more concerned about their own future, the future of others, and how they will be remembered by others.
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
3.
BirnbaumM. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.243
Bo O’ConnorB.FowlerZ. (2023). How imagination and memory shape the moral mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 27(2), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221114215
6.
CarlsonR. W.CrockettM. (2024). The pitfalls of pay-to-play morality. OSF. https://osf.io/ycdfz
CheungG. W.Cooper-ThomasH. D.LauR. S.WangL. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
9.
CikaraM.BruneauE. G.SaxeR. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713
10.
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
11.
Ersner-HershfieldH.GartonM. T.BallardK.Samanez-LarkinG. R.KnutsonB. (2009). Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow: Individual differences in future self-continuity account for saving. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003855
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
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.
JacquetJ.HagelK.HauertC.MarotzkeJ.RöhlT.MilinskiM. (2013). Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nature Climate Change, 3(12), 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2024
17.
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
18.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
19.
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/a0039708
LangeF.DewitteS. (2022). The Work for Environmental Protection Task: A consequential web-based procedure for studying pro-environmental behavior. Behavior Research Methods, 54(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01617-2
22.
LawK. F.CampbellD.GaesserB. (2022). Biased benevolence: The perceived morality of effective altruism across social distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48, 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002773
MagattiM.GiaccardiC.MartinelliM. (2019). Social generativity: A relational paradigm for social change. In DörreK.RosaH.BeckerK.BoseS.SeydB. (Eds.), Große Transformation? Zur Zukunft moderner Gesellschaften: Sonderband des Berliner Journals für Soziologie (pp. 469–486). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25947-1_26
25.
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
26.
MorselliD.PassiniS. (2015). Measuring prosocial attitudes for future generations: The social generativity scale. Journal of Adult Development, 22(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9210-9
PizarroD.UhlmannE.SaloveyP. (2003). Asymmetry in judgments of moral blame and praise: The role of perceived meta-desires. Psychological Science, 14(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03433
SchacterD. L.AddisD. R. (2020). Memory and imagination: Perspectives on constructive episodic simulation. In The Cambridge handbook of the imagination (pp. 111–131). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580298.008
31.
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
32.
SchubertS.CaviolaL. (2024). Effective altruism and the human mind: The clash between impact and intuition. Oxford University Press.
33.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Wesleyan University Press.
34.
SingerP. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically (1st ed.). Yale University Press.
35.
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
36.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.AmorminoP.YoungL. (2023). The psychology of intergenerational concern: Mapping the personality profiles of longtermists. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8ucfe
37.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (2024a). Caring for present and future generations alike: Longtermism and moral regard across temporal and social distance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27, 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241242115
38.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (2024b). Longtermist education interventions increase concern for and action to protect future generations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228465
39.
SyropoulosS.WatkinsH. M.GoodwinG. P.MarkowitzE. M. (2023). Disentangling the contributions of impact-oriented versus reputation-focused legacy motives on intergenerational concern and action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 90, 102092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102092
40.
SzpunarP. M.SzpunarK. K. (2016). Collective future thought: Concept, function, and implications for collective memory studies. Memory Studies, 9(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698015615660
41.
TamirD. I.MitchellJ. P. (2011). The default network distinguishes construal of proximal versus distal events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 2945–2955. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00009
42.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
43.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Wade-BenzoniK. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069327
46.
Wade-BenzoniK. A. (2008). Maple trees and weeping willows: The role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(3), 220–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00014.x
47.
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
48.
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
49.
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
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.
