Mapping and Increasing Americans’ Actual and Perceived Support for Initiatives Protecting Future Generations

Abstract

Across eight preregistered studies (N = 6,464), we apply an approach informed by social norm theory to investigate perceptions and realities of support for Initiatives for Future Generations (IFGs)—institutions and policies designed to ensure political representation for and protection of future generations. We find widespread bipartisan support for IFGs alongside pluralistic ignorance: Americans vastly underestimate their peers’ support. Correcting misperceptions enhances individual support, underscoring the role of social norms in shaping collective action. We also find modest—albeit mixed—evidence that interventions aimed at increasing intergenerational concern can boost support for IFGs without exacerbating pluralistic ignorance. These interventions may serve as a complement to norm-corrective approaches by engaging moral motivations alongside informational strategies. Beyond highlighting the value of correcting norm misperceptions in safeguarding future generations’ welfare, we explore motivational explanations for pluralistic ignorance and emphasize that policymakers hold the power to implement IFGs with confidence and the public is behind them.

Keywords

social norm theory pluralistic ignorance intergenerational ethics policy attitudes future generations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamse

Steg

(2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.029

Andre

Boneva

Chopra

Falk

(2024). Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nature Climate Change, 14(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Crossman

M. T.

(2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 446–457.

Barnosky

A. D.

Matzke

Tomiya

Wogan

G. O. U.

Swartz

Quental

T. B.

Marshall

McGuire

J. L.

Lindsey

E. L.

Maguire

K. C.

Mersey

Ferrer

E. A.

(2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, Article 7336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678

Berkowitz

(1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 63–108.

Bukowski

Rudnicki

(2019). Not only individualism: The effects of long-term orientation and other cultural variables on national innovation success. Cross-Cultural Research, 53(2), 119–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397118785546

Carman

Ballew

Torres

(2023). Climate change in the American Mind: Climate justice, spring 2023 report. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-climate-justice-spring-2023/

Choi

H.-Y.

Kensinger

E. A.

Rajaram

(2017). Mnemonic transmission, social contagion, and emergence of collective memory: Influence of emotional valence, group structure, and information distribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(9), 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000327

Cohen

G. L.

(2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808

10.

Coleman

DeSteno

(2024). Intertemporal empathy decline: Feeling less distress for future others’ suffering. Emotion, 24(8), 1975–1984. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001402

11.

Cordonier Segger

M.-C.

Szabó

Harrington

A. R.

(Eds.). (2021). Intergenerational justice in sustainable development treaty implementation: Advancing future generations rights through national institutions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108768511

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(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

13.

Federico

C. M.

(2025). Political attitudes and behavior. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Finkel

E. J.

Mendes

W. B.

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (6th ed.). Situational Press, pp. 1–103. https://openpublishing.princeton.edu/read/political-attitudes-and-behavior/section/e409e90f-37b9-4219-a5dd-d5f48b68b9b3

14.

Fischer

Krueger

J. I.

Greitemeyer

Vogrincic

Kastenmüller

Frey

Heene

Wicher

Kainbacher

(2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304

15.

Frederick

(2003). Measuring intergenerational time preference: Are future lives valued less? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022298223127

16.

Fritz

M. S.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

17.

Geiger

Swim

J. K.

(2016). Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002

18.

Goh

J. X.

Hall

J. A.

Rosenthal

(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

19.

González-Ricoy

(2020). Intergenerational justice and institutions for the long term. In Goetz

K. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of time and politics (pp. 507–528). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190862084.013.24

20.

Greaves

MacAskill

(2019). The case for strong longtermism. https://philpapers.org/rec/GRETCF-4

21.

Hauser

O. P.

Rand

D. G.

Peysakhovich

Nowak

M. A.

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

22.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (pp. xvii, 507). The Guilford Press.

23.

Heuvel

K. v.

(2023, April 25). Will AI lead to human extinction? https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ai-chatgpt-tech-disruption-humanity/

24.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

25.

Howe

L. C.

Carr

P. B.

Walton

G. M.

(2021). Normative appeals motivate people to contribute to collective action problems more when they invite people to work together toward a common goal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000278

26.

Hughes

B. L.

Zaki

(2015). The neuroscience of motivated cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 62–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.006

27.

Hunter

Hewson

(2020, April 22). There are 10 catastrophic threats facing humans right now, and coronavirus is only one of them. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/there-are-10-catastrophic-threats-facing-humans-right-now-and-coronavirus-is-only-one-of-them-136854

28.

Jacobs

A. M.

Matthews

J. 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

29.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

30.

Kay

A. C.

Friesen

(2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422059

31.

Kjeldahl

E. M.

Hendricks

V. F.

(2018). The sense of social influence: Pluralistic ignorance in climate change. EMBO Reports, 19(11), e47185. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847185

32.

Koehler

(2023, May 26). The public is more concerned about AI causing extinction than we thought. 80,000 Hours. https://80000hours.org/2023/05/the-public-is-more-concerned-about-ai-causing-extinction-than-we-thought/

33.

Krueger

J. I.

(2010). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701284645

34.

Kunda

(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.

35.

Latane

Darley

J. M.

(1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026570

36.

Law

K. F.

Colaizzi

Syropoulos

(2025). Climate change is an intergenerational challenge that requires intergenerationally focused behavioral solutions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 61, 101467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101467

37.

Law

K. F.

Syropoulos

Coleman

Gainsburg

O’Connor

B. B.

(2024). Moral future-thinking: Does the moral circle stand the test of time? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241284324

38.

Law

K. F.

Syropoulos

Young

(2023). Why do longtermists care about protecting the environment? An investigation on the underlying mechanisms of pro-climate policy support. Sustainability, 15(24), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416732

39.

Lawrence

(2021). Justifying institutions for future generations based on the mitigation of bias and intergenerational justice. University of Tasmania. https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/chapter/Justifying_Institutions_for_Future_Generations_Based_on_the_Mitigation_of_Bias_and_Intergenerational_Justice/23065328/1

40.

Leviston

Uren

H. V.

(2020). Overestimating one’s “green” behavior: Better-than-average bias may function to reduce perceived personal threat from climate change. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12365

41.

Lilleston

P. S.

Goldmann

Verma

R. K.

McCleary-Sills

(2017). Understanding social norms and violence in childhood: Theoretical underpinnings and strategies for intervention. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(suppl. 1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1271954

42.

MacAskill

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

43.

Martínez

Winter

(2021). Protecting future generations: A global survey of legal academics (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3931304). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3931304

44.

Martínez

Winter

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

45.

Miller

D. T.

(2023). A century of pluralistic ignorance: What we have learned about its origins, forms, and consequences. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1, 1260896. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2023.1260896

46.

Miller

D. T.

McFarland

(1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In Suls

Wills

T. A.

(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287–313). Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Moynihan

(2020). Existential risk and human extinction: An intellectual history. Futures, 116, 102495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102495

48.

O’Gorman

H. J.

(1986). The discovery of pluralistic ignorance: An ironic lesson. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198610)22:4<333::AID-JHBS2300220405>3.0.CO;2-X

49.

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

50.

Paluck

E. L.

Green

D. P.

(2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

51.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2021). Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

52.

Paluck

E. L.

Shepherd

Aronow

P. M.

(2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113

53.

Robinson

K. S.

(2020). The ministry for the future (1st ed.). Orbit.

54.

Rossignac-Milon

Bolger

Zee

K. S.

Boothby

E. J.

Higgins

E. T.

(2021). Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 882–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000266

55.

Searle

J. R.

(1995). The construction of social reality. Free Press.

56.

Shrum

T. R.

(2021). The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: An experiment in intergenerational framing. Climatic Change, 165(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03002-6

57.

Snyder

Swann

W. B.

(1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90021-5

58.

Sparkman

Geiger

Weber

E. U.

(2022). Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y

59.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Amormino

Young

(2024). Mapping the personality of (exceptional) intergenerational concern. Personality and Individual Differences, 231, 112814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112814

60.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Kraft-Todd

Mah

Markowitz

Young

(2025). Responsibility to future generations: A strategy for combatting climate change across political divides. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), e12775. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12775

61.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Kraft-Todd

Young

(2025). Impartial intergenerational beneficence: The psychology of feeling (equal) intergenerational concern for all future generations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241307800

62.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2023). Longtermist education interventions increase concern for and action to protect future generations. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9t3gb

63.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2024a). Caring for present and future generations alike: Longtermism and moral regard across temporal and social distance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(8), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hzwrt

64.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2024b). Longtermist education interventions increase concern for and action to protect future fenerations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(4), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241228465

65.

Syropoulos

Law

K. F.

Young

(2024c). 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

66.

Syropoulos

Markowitz

(2024). Responsibility towards future generations is a strong predictor of proenvironmental engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102218

67.

Syropoulos

Markowitz

E. M.

Demarest

Shrum

(2023). A letter to future generations: Examining the effectiveness of an intergenerational framing intervention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 90, 102074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102074

68.

This is what political division looks like in the U.S. right now. (2023, December 19). PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/this-is-what-political-division-looks-like-in-the-u-s-right-now

69.

Thompson

D. F.

(2010). Representing future generations: Political presentism and democratic trusteeship. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903326232

70.

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

71.

Vlasceanu

Doell

K. C.

Bak-Coleman

J. B.

Todorova

Berkebile-Weinberg

M. M.

Grayson

S. J.

Patel

Goldwert

Pei

Chakroff

Pronizius

van den Broek

K. L.

Vlasceanu

Constantino

Morais

M. J.

Schumann

Rathje

Fang

Aglioti

S. M.

Alfano

. . .Van Bavel

J. J.

(2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10(6), eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778

72.

von Knebel

(2023). Cross-country comparative analysis and case study of institutions for future generations. Futures, 151, 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103181

73.

Wade-Benzoni

K. A.

(1999). Thinking about the future: An intergenerational perspective on the conflict and compatibility between economic and environmental interests. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8), 1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921954912

74.

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

75.

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

76.

Xiao

Wong

Cheng

Yip

P. S. F.

(2021). Understanding the better than average effect on altruism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562846. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562846

77.

Zell

Strickhouser

J. E.

Sedikides

Alicke

M. D.

(2020). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 118–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218

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

0.56 MB