Impartial Intergenerational Beneficence: The Psychology of Feeling (Equal) Intergenerational Concern for All Future Generations

Abstract

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.

Keywords

intergenerational concern prosociality individual differences future thinking legacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agneman

Henriks

Bäck

Renström

(2024). Intergenerational altruism and climate policy preferences. PNAS Nexus, 3(4), pgae105. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae105

Barnett

M. D.

Archuleta

W. P.

Cantu

(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

Birnbaum

M. 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

Bloom

(2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion: Paul Bloom: 9780062339331: Amazon.com: Books. https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

Bo O’Connor

Fowler

(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

Carlson

R. W.

Crockett

(2024). The pitfalls of pay-to-play morality. OSF. https://osf.io/ycdfz

Caviola

Schubert

Greene

J. D.

(2021). The psychology of (in)effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25, 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015

Cheung

G. W.

Cooper-Thomas

H. D.

Lau

R. S.

Wang

L. 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

Cikara

Bruneau

E. G.

Saxe

R. 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.

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

11.

Ersner-Hershfield

Garton

M. T.

Ballard

Samanez-Larkin

G. R.

Knutson

(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

12.

Fenwick

(2023). Longtermism: A call to protect future generations. 80,000 Hours. https://80000hours.org/articles/future-generations/

13.

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

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.

Jacquet

Hagel

Hauert

Marotzke

Röhl

Milinski

(2013). Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nature Climate Change, 3(12), 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2024

17.

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

18.

Kline

R. B

. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.

19.

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/a0039708

20.

Lalot

Ahvenharju

Minkkinen

(2021). Aware of the future? Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 2(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000014

21.

Lange

Dewitte

(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.

Law

K. F.

Campbell

Gaesser

(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

23.

MacAskill

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

24.

Magatti

Giaccardi

Martinelli

(2019). Social generativity: A relational paradigm for social change. In Dörre

Rosa

Becker

Bose

Seyd

(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.

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

26.

Morselli

Passini

(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

27.

Ord

(2021). The precipice: Existential risk and the future of humanity a book by Toby Ord. Hachette Books. https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-precipice-existential-risk-and-the-future-of-humanity-toby-ord/14906429

28.

Pizarro

Uhlmann

Salovey

(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

29.

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

30.

Schacter

D. L.

Addis

D. 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.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Perugini

(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.

Schubert

Caviola

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

33.

Sherif

Harvey

O. J.

White

B. J.

Hood

W. R.

(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Wesleyan University Press.

34.

Singer

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

35.

Strathman

Gleicher

Boninger

D. S.

Edwards

C. 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.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Amormino

Young

(2023). The psychology of intergenerational concern: Mapping the personality profiles of longtermists. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8ucfe

37.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2024). 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.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2025). Longtermist education interventions increase concern for and action to protect future generations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(4), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228465

39.

Syropoulos

Watkins

H. M.

Goodwin

G. P.

Markowitz

E. 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.

Szpunar

P. M.

Szpunar

K. 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.

Tamir

D. I.

Mitchell

J. 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.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

43.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

44.

United Nations. (2021). Our common agenda [Report of the secretary-general]. https://www.un.org/en/common-agenda

45.

Wade-Benzoni

K. 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-Benzoni

K. 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-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

48.

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

49.

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

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

0.21 MB