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.
AbrahamseW.StegL. (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
2.
AndreP.BonevaT.ChopraF.FalkA. (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
3.
BanyardV. L.MoynihanM. M.CrossmanM. T. (2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 446–457.
4.
BarnoskyA. D.MatzkeN.TomiyaS.WoganG. O. U.SwartzB.QuentalT. B.MarshallC.McGuireJ. L.LindseyE. L.MaguireK. C.MerseyB.FerrerE. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?Nature, 471, Article 7336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
5.
BerkowitzL. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 63–108.
6.
BukowskiA.RudnickiS. (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
ChoiH.-Y.KensingerE. A.RajaramS. (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
9.
CohenG. 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.
ColemanM.DeStenoD. (2024). Intertemporal empathy decline: Feeling less distress for future others’ suffering. Emotion, 24(8), 1975–1984. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001402
11.
Cordonier SeggerM.-C.SzabóM.HarringtonA. 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.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (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
FischerP.KruegerJ. I.GreitemeyerT.VogrincicC.KastenmüllerA.FreyD.HeeneM.WicherM.KainbacherM. (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.
FrederickS. (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
GeigerN.SwimJ. 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.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (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-RicoyI. (2020). Intergenerational justice and institutions for the long term. In GoetzK. H. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of time and politics (pp. 507–528). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190862084.013.24
HauserO. P.RandD. G.PeysakhovichA.NowakM. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature, 511, Article 7508. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13530
22.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (pp. xvii, 507). The Guilford Press.
HofstedeG. (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.
HoweL. C.CarrP. B.WaltonG. 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
JacobsA. M.MatthewsJ. 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.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. 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.
KayA. C.FriesenJ. (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.
KjeldahlE. M.HendricksV. F. (2018). The sense of social influence: Pluralistic ignorance in climate change. EMBO Reports, 19(11), e47185. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847185
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480.
35.
LataneB.DarleyJ. 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.
LawK. F.ColaizziG.SyropoulosS. (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.
LawK. F.SyropoulosS.ColemanM.GainsburgI.O’ConnorB. 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.
LawK. F.SyropoulosS.YoungL. (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
LevistonZ.UrenH. 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.
LillestonP. S.GoldmannL.VermaR. K.McCleary-SillsJ. (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
MartínezE.WinterC. (2021). Protecting future generations: A global survey of legal academics (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3931304). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3931304
44.
MartínezE.WinterC. (2023). The intuitive appeal of legal protection for future generations (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4349899). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4349899
45.
MillerD. 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.
MillerD. T.McFarlandC. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In SulsJ.WillsT. A. (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287–313). Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’GormanH. 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
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH.AronowP. 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.
RobinsonK. S. (2020). The ministry for the future (1st ed.). Orbit.
54.
Rossignac-MilonM.BolgerN.ZeeK. S.BoothbyE. J.HigginsE. 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.
SearleJ. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. Free Press.
56.
ShrumT. 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.
SnyderM.SwannW. 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.
SparkmanG.GeigerN.WeberE. 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.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.AmorminoP.YoungL. (2024). Mapping the personality of (exceptional) intergenerational concern. Personality and Individual Differences, 231, 112814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112814
60.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.Kraft-ToddG.MahA.MarkowitzE.YoungL. (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.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.Kraft-ToddG.YoungL. (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.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (2023). Longtermist education interventions increase concern for and action to protect future generations. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9t3gb
63.
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(8), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hzwrt
64.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (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.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.YoungL. (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.
SyropoulosS.MarkowitzE. (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.
SyropoulosS.MarkowitzE. M.DemarestB.ShrumT. (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
ThompsonD. 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
Wade-BenzoniK. 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-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
75.
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
ZellE.StrickhouserJ. E.SedikidesC.AlickeM. 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.
