How Will I Be Remembered? Conserving the Environment for the Sake of One’s Legacy

Abstract

Long time horizons and social distance are viewed as key psychological barriers to proenvironmental action, particularly regarding climate change. We suggest that these challenges can be turned into opportunities by making salient long-term goals and motives, thus shifting preferences between the present self and future others. We tested whether individuals’ motivation to leave a positive legacy can be leveraged to increase engagement with climate change and other environmental problems. In a pilot study, we found that individual differences in legacy motivation were positively associated with proenvironmental behaviors and intentions. In a subsequent experiment, we demonstrated that priming legacy motives increased donations to an environmental charity, proenvironmental intentions, and climate-change beliefs. Domain-general legacy motives represent a previously understudied and powerful mechanism for promoting proenvironmental behavior.

Keywords

decision making judgment environmental effects climate change open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(2007). Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2, 8–35.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980

Gifford

(2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290–302.

Hershfield

H. E.

Bang

H. M.

Weber

E. U.

(2014). National differences in environmental concern and performance are predicted by country age. Psychological Science, 25, 152–160.

Hunter

E. G.

Rowles

G. D.

(2005). Leaving a legacy: Toward a typology. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 327–347.

Markowitz

E. M.

Shariff

A. F.

(2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243–247.

Matsuba

M. K.

Pratt

M. W.

Norris

J. E.

Mohle

Alisat

McAdams

D. P.

(2012). Environmentalism as a context for expressing identity and generativity: Patterns among activists and uninvolved youth and midlife adults. Journal of Personality, 80, 1091–1115.

McAdams

D. P.

de St. Aubin

(1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1003

Milfont

T. L.

Harré

Sibley

C. G.

Duckitt

(2012). The climate-change dilemma: Examining the association between parental status and political party support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2386–2410. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00946.x

10.

Moser

S. C.

Dilling

(2011). Communicating climate change: Closing the science-action gap. In Dryzek

J. S.

Norgaard

R. B.

Schlosberg

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 161–174). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

11.

Newton

N. J.

Herr

J. M.

Pollack

J. I.

McAdams

D. P.

(2014). Selfless or selfish? Generativity and narcissism as components of legacy. Journal of Adult Development, 21, 59–68.

12.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2014). As new dangers loom, more think the U.S. does ‘too little’ to solve world problems. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/28/as-new-dangers-loom-more-think-the-u-s-does-too-little-to-solve-world-problems/

13.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

14.

Solomon

Qin

Manning

Chen

Marquis

Averyt

K. B.

. . . Miller

H. L.

(2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Spence

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957–972.

16.

Stocker

T. F.

(2013). The closing door of climate targets. Science, 339, 280–282.

17.

Van Winden

Van den Berg

Pol

(2007). European cities in the knowledge economy: Towards a typology. Urban Studies, 44, 525–549.

18.

Wade-Benzoni

K. A.

Sondak

Galinsky

A. D.

(2010). Leaving a legacy: Intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 7–34.

19.

Wade-Benzoni

K. A.

Tost

L. P.

Hernandez

Larrick

R. P.

(2012). It’s only a matter of time: Death, legacies, and intergenerational decisions. Psychological Science, 23, 704–709.

20.

Weber

E. U.

Johnson

E. J.

(2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85.

21.

Weber

E. U.

Stern

P. C.

(2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315–328.

22.

Zaval

Keenan

E. A.

Johnson

E. J.

Weber

E. U.

(2014). How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Climate Change, 4, 143–147.

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

0.13 MB

0.66 MB