Next Article in Journal
Congestion Relief Services by Vehicle-to-Grid Enabled Electric Vehicles Considering Battery Degradation
Next Article in Special Issue
National Differences in Age and Future-Oriented Indicators Relate to Environmental Performance
Previous Article in Journal
From 3D Modeling to Landscape Mapping—A Workflow for the Visualization and Communication of the Asinara Island Park Plan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characteristics That Influence Individuals’ Intentions to Use and Bequeath Common Assets: Time-Perspective Scales and Demographic Attributes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/su152416732
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Why Do Longtermists Care about Protecting the Environment? An Investigation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Pro-Climate Policy Support

by
Kyle Fiore Law
1,
Stylianos Syropoulos
2,3,* and
Liane Young
2
1
Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA
2
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Boston College, Boston, MA 02467, USA
3
The Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, Boston College, Boston, MA 02467, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16732; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416732
Submission received: 9 October 2023 / Revised: 30 November 2023 / Accepted: 6 December 2023 / Published: 11 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change, Environmental Behavior, and Sustainable Development in Social and Cultural Psychology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Amid the pressing threat of climate collapse, longtermists emerge as a critical group poised to undertake collective action for the planet’s future. This pre-registered, highly powered study (N = 784 U.S. subjects recruited through Prolific) reinforces the association between longtermism and pro-climate attitudes, revealing that longtermists markedly support diverse pro-environmental policies, including those focusing on climate justice for minoritized groups in present-day and future generations. Notably, these associations are consistent after controlling for various demographic indicators, emphasizing their widespread relevance in the US context. Going beyond existing literature, this research delves into the underpinnings of longtermists’ pro-environmental proclivities. Critically, while longtermists exhibit heightened future-oriented concern for themselves and others, it is their capacity to imagine a brighter, more sustainable future and their broadened prosocial reach that elevates their environmental concern above and beyond the influence of demographic differences or other mediating factors. These insights present a promising foundation for cultivating broader pro-environmental engagement, highlighting the role of imagination and prosociality in shaping sustainable action.

1. Introduction

Our planet is currently teetering on the brink of a cataclysmic climate crisis. Swiss glaciers lost an excess of 10 percent of their volume over the past two summers [1] and the Arctic lost enough sea ice to cover the entire continental United States between March and September of 2023 [2]—a year which boasts the hottest summer on record [3]. These dire conditions are not isolated events. The IPCC’s recent AR6 Synthesis Report [4] details the pervasive and anthropogenic nature of these phenomena, offering a grim outlook for the future barring drastic individual and collective measures to avert the damage being done to our global ecosystem. Indeed, scholars across disciplines agree that while it is not too late to save our planet, time may be running out [3,5,6,7,8]. The urgency of these warnings underscores the critical necessity to take stock of the people who are not only aware of the severity of climate threats but also willing to take actions towards mitigating them for the sake of current and future generations.
One sizable subset of the population that shows promise towards this end comprises those who endorse the key tenants of the increasingly popular longtermism philosophy and social movement [6,7]. Longtermists, who tend to represent approximately 25% of individuals across large US samples [9,10,11], show a heightened tendency towards pro-environmental beliefs, actions and attitudes [12,13]. However, the distinct characteristics inherent in these individuals that drive their elevated sustainability preferences require further exploration. Nonetheless, insight from the literature on environmental psychology suggests numerous candidate mechanisms that may underpin the potential pro-environmental consequences of longtermism. Ultimately, developing a nuanced understanding of these underlying characteristics may prove crucial in informing targeted interventions and policies, fostering a more widespread and impactful commitment to climate action within the broader population.

1.1. Longtermism and Pronvironmental Engagement

Longtermism as a philosophical approach has its roots in the closely associated ethical philosophy and social movement known as effective altruism, which emphasizes the importance of using evidence-based methods to maximize global welfare through philanthropic activities [5,14,15]. Whereas effective altruism primarily places emphasis on mitigating pressing present-day challenges, such as global poverty, widespread hunger, and preventable disease, longtermism places emphasis on mitigating threats which have the potential to cause harm to future generations [6,7,16]. Specifically, longtermism is grounded in three foundational principles: (1) future people matter, (2) there could be a vast number of future people, and (3) the actions we take in the present day can positively influence the lives of future generations [5,6,7]. Longtermism encourages collective efforts to diminish existential risks, including those associated with climate change, as extensively argued in prevailing philosophical discourse. However, uncertainty lingers regarding the extent to which the majority concurs with the principles of longtermism. Pivotal findings from behavioral economics [17,18,19,20,21] and burgeoning investigations into moral future thinking [11] in the psychological literature illustrate a prevalent inclination to undervalue the welfare and moral rights of future generations. Mirroring this inclination, the social movement advocating for longtermism remains notably modest in scale [22]. However, emerging research employing the Longtermism Beliefs Scale (LBS) to measure alignment with the philosophy’s principles is beginning to reveal that approximately 25% of individuals consistently express strong ideological alignment with longtermist ideals across numerous, well-powered studies [9,10,11,12]. This research implies a discrepancy between explicit support for the longtermism movement and the wider acceptance of its principles within the general population.
Nonetheless, longtermism is not without criticisms, many of which may have considerable philosophical and pragmatic merit. Principal among criticisms of longtermism is that its adherents may prioritize future well-being at the expense of undervaluing challenges which are already putting strain on people who are presently living [23,24]. Indeed, some adherents of longtermism, recognizing the potential for humanity to endure for millennia, and consequently the possibility of a future population exceeding that of today’s, might prioritize addressing challenges that pose existential risks over those that mitigate present-day harm [16]. Yet, research on support for longtermist principles among the general populace shows that proponents of the philosophy’s fundamental tenets do not necessarily exhibit a bias towards future generations at the expense of those currently suffering. On the contrary, they often show increased moral consideration for those who are socially distant and marginalized in today’s society, more so than what is observed in non-longtermist controls [10]. However, it should be noted that it is currently unknown whether formal adherents of the longtermism movement share this view.
Another significant critique of longtermism lies in the unpredictability of future challenges and their potential solutions [4,25]. Consequently, allocating resources to address these uncertainties carries an inherent risk. This criticism is certainly not entirely unfounded. The longtermism movement places considerable emphasis on preventing risks associated with emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which come along with tremendous predictive volatility [26,27]. Notwithstanding, the challenges posed by climate change are not only a threat to the well-being of future generations; they are already adversely affecting the current population [4,28,29,30]. Moreover, climate-related risks are likely more foreseeable and manageable compared to the emerging risks of artificial intelligence, which are only beginning to reach a level that presents significant challenges to humanity. Additionally, solutions to climate change have been the subject of extensive research, further refining our approach to mitigating these risks in a tractable manner [31,32]. Thus, despite criticisms of longtermism as promoting neglect of present challenges and focusing its efforts on indeterminant challenges with tenuous solutions, of particular importance to the present investigation is that individuals who align strongly with longtermism show a robust pattern of heightened beliefs regarding the existence and importance of climate change, attitudes towards pro-environmental public policies, and pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., donations) [12,13]. Currently, the psychological mechanisms that could fuel the support for pro-climate attitudes and policies observed in longtermists remain elusive. However, existing psychological inquiry probing environmental attitudes and behaviors suggest several potential pathways through which longtermists may experience enhancements in these areas.

1.2. Potential Mechanisms Bridging Longtermism and Pro-Environmentalism

1.2.1. Concern for Others’ and One’s Own Future: Legacy Concerns and Future Self-Continuity

To begin with, it is conceivable that longtermists display elevated pro-environmental thinking and behavior owing to their intensified concerns about their own futures and those of others. Indeed, climate change is poised to have a devastating impact on the well-being of both future and current generations [4], and, in principle, longtermists afford equal concern to individuals of the present and the future [6,7,12]. Empirically, those identified as longtermists based on their scores on the LBS exhibit heightened legacy motives [12]. Legacy motives capture concern about leaving a positive imprint on the world specifically for the sake of others who will exist in future generations [11,12]. Prior research has documented a robust pattern whereby people with greater legacy concerns possess stronger pro-environmental attitudes and engage in greater pro-environmental actions [33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Notably, legacy concern can be cultivated through various interventions, predicting increased donations to environmental charities, perceptions of responsibility to address issues of climate change, and actual reported pro-environmental engagement in-vivo, suggesting a causal link. Consequently, it might be plausible that the heightened concern longtermists have for the future of others underpins their observed commitment to mitigating climate threats capable of unleashing havoc on future generations.
In addition to showing greater concern for the futures of others, longtermists identified through empirical means display an increased concern for their own futures as well. This is evidenced by their enhanced sense of future self-continuity [9]. Future self-continuity reflects a capacity to not only vividly imagine one’s future self, but perceive it with substantial overlap with one’s current self-concept [40]. There are two possibilities for why future self-continuity may play a mediating role in the relationship between longtermism and pro-environmental attitudes. First, this propensity is linked with a host of protective actions to secure one’s own future, such as making prudent financial decisions [41] and adopting health-conscious [42] behaviors. Additionally, it forecasts various positive outcomes [43,44,45,46] for one’s future well-being. Thus, longtermists, who exhibit a more cohesive connection between their present and future selves, may consequently show enhanced concern for environmental threats, recognizing that the repercussions of today’s ecological decisions will directly impact their own future well-being.
Second, it is worth noting that future self-continuity might impact pro-environmental outcomes through shared mechanisms between envisioning one’s own future and those of others. While direct evidence linking future self-continuity to pro-environmental engagement is limited, recent studies suggest heightened future self-continuity may broaden one’s responsibility for others’ futures [10]. The connection between forms of self-oriented prospection, such as future self-continuity, and forms of other-oriented prospection, such as responsibility for future generations, may arise from a common underlying foundation. That is, both self- and other-oriented prospection require an ability to represent temporally distal entities in one’s imagination. Despite little research investigating a connection between self-oriented prospection and pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, connections between responsibility for protecting future generations and pro-environmentalism have been addressed in the published literature. These studies reveal that feeling more responsible for the well-being of future generations predicts diverse pro-environmental actions in large U.S. samples (see [47,48]). In sum, longtermists, with a deeper connection to their future selves, might show elevated support for pro-environmental initiatives owing to either heightened concerns for their own future well-being, that of others, or a combination of both.

1.2.2. Expansive Prosociality: Expansive Altruism and Impartial Beneficence

Aside from longtermists showing increased concern for their own and others’ futures, a second possibility is that longtermists’ expansive altruistic tendencies underlie their pro-environmental inclinations. Individuals within the general population typically engage in prosocial behavior more frequently with those who share social proximity and bear greater similarity to themselves [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Conversely, longtermists manifest propensities to perform altruistic actions toward others which surpass the conventional boundaries of social and temporal distance that usually limit altruism within the general population [10,11,12].
Building on this, for instance, longtermists consistently score higher than the general population on measures of impartial beneficence [57] and expansive altruism [58], which assess altruistic tendencies towards socially distant others in severe need. More specifically, expansive altruism, a facet of the effective altruism philosophy and social movement [5,14], represents a willingness to allocate resources to others without regard to whether or not they are distant or emotionally non-salient [58]. Impartial beneficence is conceptually very similar, representing the facet of utilitarianism which advocates impartial regard for the welfare of all [57]. Expansive altruism and impartial beneficence have not been explored in relation to outcomes assessing pro-environmentalism directly, but both variables, which correlate strongly and positively with each other, predict numerous prosocial tendencies directed towards others who are socially (e.g., outgroups, minoritized groups) and temporally (e.g., future generations) distant [11,12,57,58]. Because climate change exerts disproportionate negative impacts on minoritized groups throughout the world [28,48] and on future generations who have no agency over the state of the planet they will inherit [6,59], it is plausible that longtermists may factor this inequality into their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, in part due to their expansive altruistic tendencies. Nevertheless, this question remains open and unaddressed, primarily because of a lack of evidence linking expansive prosociality with pro-environmentalism.

1.2.3. Envisioning a Better and Greener Future: Utopian Thinking and Environmental Cognitive Alternatives

Finally, a third potential explanation for the heightened levels of pro-environmental concern observed in longtermists may relate to fundamental differences in their perceptions and envisioning of the future. Inherent to the longtermism philosophy is a sense of efficacy in being able to positively impact the state of the world beyond the present [6]. Accordingly, longtermists, compared to non-longtermists, have been shown to engage in greater utopian thinking about the future of society [10]. Utopian thinking, the tendency to envision an ideal society, predicts greater societal engagement [60], hope for society’s future, perceptions of efficacy to positively impact the future, and engagement in collective action for social justice [61]. No research has yet been conducted examining whether the tendency to imagine utopian future societies influences outcomes related to sustainability in particular. Yet, work connecting one’s perceived efficacy to engender a brighter future with sustainable attitudes and action [12,62,63] suggests that it could. Specifically, it may be the case that imagining an ideal future society can cultivate a sense of confidence that an idyllic future is more likely or attainable. Indeed, seminal research suggests that the act of merely imagining a future event can increase the perceived likelihood that it will occur [64,65,66].
Similarly, emerging research has explored the ability to cognitively formulate hypothetical alternatives to the existing environmental status quo. This research has uncovered that individuals who can imagine a more harmonious relationship between humans and the environment—compared to the current state of this relationship—tend to identify more strongly with pro-environmental activism and report a higher involvement in collective pro-environmental actions [67,68]. In summary, as longtermists often envision a utopian future society in which humans harmoniously coexist with the environment, they may actively strive for this ideal by embodying heightened pro-environmental attitudes and engaging in greater pro-environmental actions. However, this too at present remains critically unaddressed.

1.3. The Present Studies

In our current research, we methodically examine potential mechanisms linking longtermism beliefs to pro-environmental outcomes. Specifically, we explore whether longtermists’ (1) intensified concern for their own futures and those of others, (2) broadened altruistic inclinations towards distant others, and (3) enhanced capacity to conceptualize a more favorable future marked by a symbiotic relationship between humanity and the global ecosystem serve to elucidate the connection between ideological alignment with longtermism and pro-environmental policy support. Moreover, we investigate the relationships between longtermism beliefs, the three categories of mediators, and support for pro-climate policies. We assess this support in both a general sense and within the specific context of climate justice for marginalized groups and future generations, utilizing measures adapted from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC [28]). Our investigation illuminates the multifaceted interplay among longtermism alignment, various mediating factors and environmental advocacy. Moreover, these insights offer pragmatic implications, opening pathways towards the development of effective interventions to drive collective engagement in climate action. See Table 1 for an overview.
All data, questionnaires, and code for the investigation are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/a9fe5/?view_only=c1029b1a532a4e1ebd7d49ca3e5f8aee (Accessed on 5 December 2023). The pre-registration for this study is available on AsPredicted, https://aspredicted.org/6GC_V42 (Accessed on 5 December 2023).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 800 participants were recruited via Prolific [69], an online platform designed for academic research that provides access to a diverse pool of engaged participants who participate in research in exchange for remuneration. An additional seven participants completed the survey but did not submit the survey for payment and were thus retained in the starting sample. After excluding participants with duplicate IP addresses (N = 2) and those who missed our attention check (a multiple-choice question; N = 21), a total of 784 participants remained. In this sample, 389 participants were men, 376 women, and the rest identified as a nonbinary person or some other category. The majority of the sample was white (N = 612). The second largest race was Black (N = 81). The average age was roughly 40 years old (M = 39.72, SD = 13.32). The study duration was approximately 12 min, and participants received USD 2.00 for their participation.

2.2. Materials

Participants underwent the following measures to capture the primary predictor, longtermism beliefs, primary outcomes, assessment of pro-climate policy support, as well as four hypothesized mediators. The order was as follows: predictor (longtermism beliefs), mediators (all measures shown in a randomized order), and pro-climate policies (all measures shown in a randomized order).
Longtermism beliefs (a = 0.96) were captured with the LBS [12]. It includes seven items on a 0–100 slider scale. Importantly, each item is completed simultaneously for four different timeframes/timepoints (1000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 years in the future). Participants were classified as longtermists if they scored above 75 for the closest temporal timeframe (1000 years), and they had the same score or higher for future timeframes. This is in accordance with arguments stemming from longtermism, stating that all future generations, no matter when they will exist, should have the same rights as present generations. Thus, longtermists should also value the lives of future generations (i.e., having a score higher or equal to 75) and do so consistently across timeframes. In this sample, 183 (23.34%) were identified as longtermists, and 601 (76.66%) were not.
Legacy concerns (a = 0.87) were captured using three items [33] and measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Future Self-Continuity (FSC) was measured with a single item using the seven overlapping circles to display FSC with oneself 25 years in the future (e.g., [42]).
Expansive altruism (a = 0.80) was captured with the 6-item Expansive Altruism Scale [58] and measured on a 7-poin Likert scale. Impartial beneficence (a = 0.81) was captured with the 5-item Impartial Beneficence subscale of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale [57] on a 7-point Likert scale.
Utopian Thinking (a = 0. 84) was captured with 8 items [60] on a 7-point Likert scale. Environmental Cognitive Alternatives (a = 0.92) were captured with 10 items [67] on a 7-point Likert scale.
Our outcomes were either taken directly from work conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC [28]) or adapted from the same work. Importantly, a total of 20 items was utilized. Of these items, nine focused on general pro-climate policy support (a = 0.91; e.g., “How much do you support regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant?”), seven on climate justice for minoritized people (a = 0.93; e.g., “How much do you support creating more parks and green spaces in low-income communities and communities of color?”), and four were adapted to focus on climate justice for future generations (a = 0.86; e.g., “How much do you support creating more parks and green spaces in for future generations?”). Pro-climate policy items were taken from work by Howe and colleagues [70] and the climate justice items were taken or adapted from work by Carman and colleagues [28]. All of these items were shown on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly oppose to 6 = strongly support.

3. Results

3.1. Analytical Plan

We pre-registered to examine our research question in the following process. First, we confirmed whether longtermists score significantly higher on the six potential mediators and the three types of policies. Then, we included covariates to confirm the robustness of these results. Afterwards, if all mediators related to each type of pro-climate policy consistently (i.e., similar magnitude and same direction and significance), then we averaged the three pro-climate policies into one measure and conducted mediation tests. For the mediation tests, we first tested each mediator separately. Subsequently, we tested all significant mediators in a single model, including covariates in a third and final model.
Covariates were pre-registered a priori, as were the demographic variables of age, gender, political orientation (1 item, 1–7 scale, higher scores indicate conservatism), and subjective socioeconomic status (1 item, 1–10 scale, ladder indicating one’s subjective standing in society). Mediation tests were conducted with the PROCESS Macro [71] using Model 4, with 10,000 bootstrapped samples.

3.2. Differences between Longtermists and the General Population

As shown in Table 2, longtermists scored significantly higher on all measures compared to the general population. As shown in Table 3, these results were robust to the inclusion of demographic covariates. These findings suggest that longtermists showed greater concern for their own and other people’s futures, they tended to be more expansive in their prosociality, and they were capable of envisioning a better and greener future (see Figure 1 for a visual depiction of these differences).
Further, compared to non-longtermists, longtermists were also more supportive of policies addressing climate justice issues for minoritized and future people, as well as pro-climate policies in general (see Figure 2 for a visual depiction of these findings).

3.3. Indirect Effects

We first inspected whether all measures correlated with the three types of policies in a similar manner. Indeed, as seen in Table 4, this was the case. All proposed mediators except for FSC positively related to each of the three types of policies.
Considering these results and our pre-registered analytical plan, we averaged the three policy outcomes into a single, reliable measure (0.95). Since FSC did not relate to any of the three policies, we did not conduct analyses for this measure as a mediator. Our results indicate that utopian thinking, expansive altruism and environmental cognitive alternatives are robust to including other potential mechanisms and demographic covariates, as predictors of increased support for pro-environmental policies. Thus, even though longtermists appear to be more concerned about the future of others and their own future, it is their ability to envision a better and greener future and their expansiveness in their prosociality that appears to drive their support for pro-environmental policies. The final results are highlighted in Table 5 and Figure 3 for ease of interpretation. Importantly, the inclusion of the mediators rendered the total effect of longtermism on the outcome non-significant, suggesting that these mediators fully explained the effect of longtermism.

4. Discussion

Amidst imminent and worsening threats of climate collapse [1,2,3], longtermists [6,7,16] represent a subset of the population ready and willing to engage in collective action necessary to protect the future of our planet and species [10,11,12]. In a single, highly powered and pre-registered investigation, the present research builds upon previous findings connecting longtermism identification to pro-climate attitudes and action [10,11,12]. We demonstrate for the first time that longtermists consistently show elevated support for various environmental public policies essential for our shared future. Specifically, compared to non-longtermists, longtermists show greater support for policies addressing issues of climate justice for minoritized and future people, as well as pro-climate public policies in general. Importantly, these results are robust to demographic influences of age, gender, political orientation, and subjective socioeconomic status, suggesting stability and generalizability across subsets of the US population.

4.1. Exploring the Mechanisms of Pro-Environmentalism in Longtermism

What most pivotally sets apart the present investigation from extant work is the systematic investigation of why longtermists manifest a pronounced inclination towards pro-environmentalism. To accomplish this, we measured a host of relevant variables capturing hypothesized mechanisms. Compared to the general population, our findings confirm that longtermists display a heightened concern about their own and others’ futures, more expansive prosociality, and an enriched capacity to envision a better and greener future. These patterns persist across demographic variation, underscoring their stability and broad applicability. Moreover, except for Future Self-Continuity (FSC), all the anticipated mechanisms predict every policy support outcome in a bivariate context. However, only through utopian thinking, the ability to generate environmental cognitive alternatives, and expansive altruism does the link between longtermism identification and policy support remain consistent, unaffected by demographic variation and other mediating factors. Crucially, these findings suggest that despite longtermists’ heightened concern for their own and others’ futures, it is their heightened ability to imagine a better and greener future, as well as their expansive prosociality, that underpins their pro-environmental attitudes.
Longtermists’ support for climate justice policies benefiting both future generations and present-day minoritized groups resonates with the predictive superiority of expansive prosociality over future-oriented concern in driving the relationship between longtermism alignment and pro-environmentalism. Moreover, these findings align with emerging evidence suggesting longtermists, compared to non-longtermist controls, extend greater moral regard not only to future generations, but to present-day socially distant targets as well [10]. These patterns come more clearly into focus in light of another existing line of inquiry revealing substantial overlap in the processing mechanisms for temporal and social distance [72,73,74,75]. This work reveals that people tend to process information regarding individuals far removed from themselves in a similar manner to how they process timeframes far removed from the present.
Considering the current and earlier findings findings [10], rather than representing a preference to place the needs of future people above those of the presently living, longtermism alignment may instead embody a more generalized tendency or ability to transcend the parochial confines that typically constrain altruistic behavior and moral consideration to those who are the most proximal. If alignment with longtermism truly signifies a broadening of prosocial tendencies across all dimensions of psychological distance [73,76], be they temporal, spatial or social, this refutes a common criticism advanced against the longtermism philosophy as prioritizing the future at the expense of the present [77]. Additionally, this indicates that promoting longtermism alignment could be key to rallying support against the looming climate crisis, which threatens not just future generations but also the current population [1,48].
Aside from merely exhibiting expansive prosocial tendencies, the present findings reveal an intriguing connection between longtermists’ heightened capacity to envision a better and more environmentally healthy future and their strong support for environmental policy. These insights parallel earlier observations of longtermists reporting more vivid simulations of distal future scenarios and their own future selves, and further advance understanding regarding the architecture of prospection in longtermists. Notably, it is not the imaginative vividness, a crucial element of FSC, that drives pro-environmentalism in longtermists; instead, it is the emotional tone of the futures they envision that plays a pivotal role. In other words, longtermists are not simply mental time travelers (see [78,79]) with a keen ability to vividly represent the future, but optimistic mental time travelers, with an elevated capacity to imagine a future that is better than today. This enhanced capacity endows longtermists with the ability to cognitively generate alternatives to the environmental status quo, perhaps making solutions to environmental challenges seem more tractable and worth striving for.
Indeed, existing literature has connected utopian thinking to collective action [61] and societal engagement [60]. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first investigation to explicitly link utopian thinking to positive attitudes toward climate change policy. In fact, and in contrast to the evidence we present here, some speculative discourse in the political science literature has advanced the notion that utopian thinking might hinder effective climate action by setting unrealistic expectations [80]. Furthermore, prior research has established a relationship between the capacity to generate environmental cognitive alternatives and environmental activism [67,68]. The present findings corroborate these earlier ones, extending them to show that individual variation in longtermism beliefs is linked to notable enhancements in this capacity, which in turn have a positive association with pro-environmentalism. Besides confirming the importance of positive future thinking in environmental contexts, these results resonate with previous studies linking optimistic, and occasionally overconfident, perceptions about a preferred political candidate’s support to heightened voter dedication [81]. Taken together, these findings suggest that wishful thinking about a desired future outcome can indeed inspire action towards achieving it.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

The current study boasts several merits, including pre-registered hypotheses, a robust analysis plan, a highly powered sample, and results consistent across demographic variation. Moreover, the results offer both theoretical and practical insights that deepen the ongoing discourse on strategies to counteract the effects of climate change. Nevertheless, there are notable limitations and avenues which remain open and prime for further exploration.
For one, the present study is correlational in nature. Consequently, the potential causal nature of the relationships uncovered remain unaddressed. Future research following down this line of inquiry may seek to elucidate potential causal pathways between longtermism alignment and pro-environmental engagement by exploring these relationships in an experimental context. In addition, while the results appear robust to demographic variation within the United States, it is unclear whether they generalize across geographic boundaries and cultures. Emerging research shows that cultural factors such as environmental protection norms, civil liberty, and economic development exert a pronounced impact on individually held beliefs regarding climate change [82]. As such, it is possible that cultural variation in the patterns presented here may prevail in an international sample.
While our findings make apparent the features associated with longtermism, which robustly underlie pro-environmental attitudes, a critical next step is to leverage the present insights to inspire real-world environmental action. Specifically, we encourage and eagerly anticipate future research focused on crafting scalable interventions that target longtermism beliefs, visions of a brighter and more sustainable future, and broadened prosociality to foster climate action. Recent studies have shown that alignment with longtermism can be nurtured through educational interventions [13]. However, the impact of these interventions on real-world climate-related actions, such as voting preferences or actual engagement in environmental activism in vivo, remains unexplored.

5. Conclusions

As our planet and species steer towards environmental disaster, the urgency to pinpoint pathways to collective climate action has never been greater. But collective action starts at the individual level. Consequently, uncovering the psychological mechanisms that motivate individuals to embrace and advocate for sustainable collective measures is crucial, both scientifically and ethically, for the welfare of today’s society and generations to come. We reveal that longtermists show support for pro-environmental public policies that benefit current and future generations alike, not necessarily because of their heightened concern for their own or others’ future welfare, but because of their expansive prosocial tendencies and optimistic envisioning of the days ahead. While we have shed light on certain psychological mechanisms that underlie pro-environmental attitudes and actions within a U.S. sample, it is important to recognize that climate change is a worldwide issue. Therefore, future research should investigate whether there is a convergence of mechanisms that support pro-climate attitudes across diverse cultures, societies, and nations. Nonetheless, the present findings pave the way for ongoing inquiry to harness these psychological mechanisms for the sake of promoting a more promising and sustainable tomorrow.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su152416732/s1, Table S1: Demographic composition of longtermists and non-longtermists.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.F.L. and S.S.; Methodology, K.F.L. and S.S.; Software, S.S.; Validation, S.S.; Formal analysis, S.S.; Investigation, K.F.L. and S.S.; Resources, L.Y.; Data curation, S.S.; Writing—original draft, K.F.L. and S.S.; Writing—review & editing, K.F.L., S.S. and L.Y.; Visualization, K.F.L. and S.S.; Supervision, K.F.L. and S.S.; Project administration, K.F.L. and S.S.; Funding acquisition, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (Grant # 62221; “The impact of social norms on virtue”).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Boston College, protocol code 12.064.01 (Social Judgment and Decision-Making), 3 October 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data have been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework website, https://osf.io/a9fe5/?view_only=c1029b1a532a4e1ebd7d49ca3e5f8aee (Accessed on 5 December 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Horton, H. Swiss Glaciers Lose 10% of Their Volume in Two Years. Guardian. 2023. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/28/swiss-glaciers-lose-tenth-volume-in-two-years-climate-crisis (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  2. Younger, S. Arctic Sea Ice 6th Lowest on Record; Antarctic Sees Record Low Growth. Global Climate Change: Virtual Signs of the Planet. 2023. Available online: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3284/arctic-sea-ice-6th-lowest-on-record-antarctic-sees-record-low-growth/ (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  3. Paddison, L. The World Has just Experienced the Hottest Summer on Record—By a Significant Margin. Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/world/hottest-summer-record-climate-intl/index.html (accessed on 7 September 2023).
  4. IPCC. AR6 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers; The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  5. MacAskill, W. Understanding Effective Altruism and Its Challenges. In The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy; Boonin, D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 441–453. ISBN 978-3-319-93907-0. [Google Scholar]
  6. MacAskill, W. What We Owe the Future; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ord, T. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity a Book by Toby Ord; Hachette Books: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-316-48492-3. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, J.; Poushter, J.; Fagan, M.; Huang, C. In Response to Climate Change, Citizens in Advanced Economies Are Willing to Alter How They Live and Work. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to-climate-change-citizens-in-advanced-economies-are-willing-to-alter-how-they-live-and-work/ (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  9. Syropoulos, S.; Law, K.F.; Coleman, M.; Young, L. A Future Beyond Ourselves: Can Self-Oriented Prospection Bridge Responsibility for Future Generations? 2023. Available online: https://moralitylab.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/192/2023/10/Syropoulos_Law_Coleman_Young_2023.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  10. Syropoulos, S.; Law, K.F.; Young, L. Caring for Present and Future Generations Alike: Longtermism and Moral Regard Across Temporal and Social Distance. 2023. Available online: https://moralitylab.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/192/2023/10/Syropoulos_Law_Young_2023.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  11. Law, K.F.; Syropoulos, S.; Coleman, M.; Gainsburg, I.; O’Connor, B.B. Moral Future-Thinking: Does the Moral Circle Stand the Test of Time? PsyArXiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Syropoulos, S.; Law, K.F.; Kraft-Todd, G.; Young, L. The Longtermism Beliefs Scale: Measuring Lay Beliefs for Protecting Humanity’s Longterm Future 2023. Available online: https://moralitylab.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/192/2023/10/Syropoulos_Law_Kraft-Todd_Young_20223.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  13. Syropoulos, S.; Law, K.F.; Young, L. The Case for Longtermism: Concern for the Far Future as a Catalyst for pro-Climate Action. PsyArXiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Singer, P. The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically, 1st ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-0-300-18027-5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Singer, P. Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-0-19-021920-8. [Google Scholar]
  16. Greaves, H.; MacAskill, W. The Case for Strong Longtermism. Available online: https://philpapers.org/rec/GRETCF-4 (accessed on 2 September 2023).
  17. Wade-Benzoni, K.A. A Golden Rule Over Time: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Allocation Decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 45, 1011–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wade-Benzoni, K.A. Thinking About the Future: An Intergenerational Perspective on the Conflict and Compatibility Between Economic and Environmental Interests. Am. Behav. Sci. 1999, 42, 1393–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wade-Benzoni, K.A. Legacies, Immortality, and the Future: The Psychology of Intergenerational Altruism. In Ethics in Groups; Tenbrunsel, A.E., Ed.; Research on Managing Groups and Teams; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006; Volume 8, pp. 247–270. ISBN 978-1-84950-405-8. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wade-Benzoni, K.A. Maple Trees and Weeping Willows: The Role of Time, Uncertainty, and Affinity in Intergenerational Decisions. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 2008, 1, 220–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wade-Benzoni, K.A.; Tost, L.P. The Egoism and Altruism of Intergenerational Behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 13, 165–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cody Fenwick Longtermism: A Call to Protect Future Generations. Available online: https://80000hours.org/articles/future-generations/ (accessed on 8 September 2023).
  23. Crary, A. The Toxic Ideology of Longtermism. Radic. Philos. 2023, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fisher, R. What Is Longtermism and Why Do Its Critics Think It Is Dangerous? New Scientist. 2023. Available online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834382-400-what-is-longtermism-and-why-do-its-critics-think-it-is-dangerous/ (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  25. Emba, C. Opinion|Why ‘Longtermism’ Isn’t Ethically Sound. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/05/longtermism-philanthropy-altruism-risks/ (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  26. Luccioni, A.; Bengio, Y. On the Morality of Artificial Intelligence [Commentary]. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2020, 39, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bostrom, N. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards. J. Evol. Technol. 2002, 9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Carman, J.; Ballew, M.; Lu, D.; Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Rosenthal, S.; Kotchner, J.; Goddard, E.; Low, J.; Marlon, J.; et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: Climate Justice, Spring 2023 Report; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2023. Available online: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-climate-justice-spring-2023/ (accessed on 8 October 2023).
  29. Bailey, A.J.; Wills, C.M.; Mitchem, J. Attitudes towards Climate Change and Scientific Stories. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2022, 12, 714–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. IPCC. Climate Change Widespread, Rapid, and Intensifying—IPCC; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  31. Climate Watch Data|Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions|Climate Watch. Available online: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2021&source=GCP&start_year=1960 (accessed on 16 October 2023).
  32. Ranney, M.A.; Clark, D. Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2016, 8, 49–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zaval, L.; Markowitz, E.M.; Weber, E.U. How Will I Be Remembered? Conserving the Environment for the Sake of One’s Legacy. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 26, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grolleau, G.; Mzoughi, N.; Napoléone, C.; Pellegrin, C. Does Activating Legacy Concerns Make Farmers More Likely to Support Conservation Programmes? J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2021, 10, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bang, H.M.; Zhou Koval, C.; Wade-Benzoni, K.A. It’s the Thought That Counts over Time: The Interplay of Intent, Outcome, Stewardship, and Legacy Motivations in In-tergenerational Reciprocity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 73, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hurlstone, M.J.; Price, A.; Wang, S.; Leviston, Z.; Walker, I. Activating the Legacy Motive Mitigates Intergenerational Discounting in the Climate Game. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 60, 102008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E.M. Mechanisms of Intergenerational Environmental Stewardship Activated by COVID-19: Gratitude, Fairness, and Legacy Motives. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E.M.; Demarest, B.; Shrum, T. A Letter to Future Generations: Examining the Effectiveness of an Intergenerational Framing Intervention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 90, 102074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wickersham, R.H.; Zaval, L.; Pachana, N.A.; Smyer, M.A. The Impact of Place and Legacy Framing on Climate Action: A Lifespan Approach. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hershfield, H.E. Future Self-Continuity: How Conceptions of the Future Self Transform Intertemporal Choice. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1235, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hershfield, H.; Garton, M.T.; Ballard, K.; Samanez-Larkin, G.R.; Knutson, B. Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow: Individual Differences in Future Self-Continuity Account for Saving. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2009, 4, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rutchick, A.M.; Slepian, M.L.; Reyes, M.O.; Pleskus, L.N.; Hershfield, H.E. Future Self-Continuity Is Associated with Improved Health and Increases Exercise Behavior. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2018, 24, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Faralla, V.; Innocenti, A.; Baraldi, S.; Lusuardi, L.; Masini, M.; Santalucia, V.; Scaruffi, D.; Sirizzotti, M. The Effect of Future Self-Continuity on Delaying Immediate Gratification. A Virtual Reality Experiment. In Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 26 April 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  44. Blouin-Hudon, E.-M.C.; Pychyl, T.A. A Mental Imagery Intervention to Increase Future Self-Continuity and Reduce Procrastination. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 66, 326–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sokol, Y.; Serper, M. Development and Validation of a Future Self-Continuity Questionnaire: A Preliminary Report. J. Pers. Assess. 2020, 102, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hershfield, H.; Bartels, D.M. The Future Self. In The Psychology of Thinking about the Future; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-4625-3441-8. [Google Scholar]
  47. Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E.M. Perceived Responsibility to Address Climate Change Consistently Relates to Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes, Be-haviors and Policy Support: Evidence across 23 Countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 83, 101868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Keij, D.; van Meurs, B.R. Responsibility for Future Climate Justice: The Direct Responsibility to Mitigate Structural Injustice for Future Generations. J. Appl. Philos. 2023, 40, 642–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bloom, P. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion; ECCO: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2016; ISBN 9780062339331. [Google Scholar]
  50. Law, K.F.; Campbell, D.; Gaesser, B. Biased Benevolence: The Perceived Morality of Effective Altruism across Social Distance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2022, 48, 426–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McManus, R.M.; Kleiman-Weiner, M.; Young, L. What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 31, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Everett, J.A.C.; Faber, N.S.; Savulescu, J.; Crockett, M.J. The Costs of Being Consequentialist: Social Inference from Instrumental Harm and Impartial Beneficence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 79, 200–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Everett, J.A.C.; Kahane, G. Switching Tracks? Towards a Multidimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2020, 24, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hughes, J.S. In a Moral Dilemma, Choose the One You Love: Impartial Actors Are Seen as Less Moral than Partial Ones. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 56, 561–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Berman, J.Z.; Barasch, A.; Levine, E.E.; Small, D.A. Impediments to Effective Altruism: The Role of Subjective Preferences in Charitable Giving. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 29, 834–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Graham, J.; Waytz, A.; Meindl, P.; Iyer, R.; Young, L. Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in the Moral Circle: Competing Constraints on Moral Learning. Cognition 2017, 167, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kahane, G.; Everett, J.A.C.; Earp, B.D.; Caviola, L.; Faber, N.S.; Crockett, M.J.; Savulescu, J. Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A Two-Dimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 125, 131–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Schubert, S.; Caviola, L. Effective Altruism and the Human Mind: The Clash Between Impact and Intuition; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  59. Robinson, M. We Need Leaders to Act in Service of Future Generations—OECD. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/we-need-leaders-to-act-in-service-of-future-generations.htm (accessed on 3 October 2023).
  60. Fernando, J.W.; Burden, N.; Ferguson, A.; O’Brien, L.V.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Functions of Utopia: How Utopian Thinking Motivates Societal Engagement. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 44, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Badaan, V.; Jost, J.T.; Fernando, J.; Kashima, Y. Imagining Better Societies: A Social Psychological Framework for the Study of Utopian Thinking and Collective Action. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2020, 14, e12525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bradley, G.L.; Babutsidze, Z.; Chai, A.; Reser, J.P. The Role of Climate Change Risk Perception, Response Efficacy, and Psychological Adaptation in pro-Environmental Behavior: A Two Nation Study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hornsey, M.J.; Chapman, C.M.; Oelrichs, D.M. Ripple Effects: Can Information about the Collective Impact of Individual Actions Boost Perceived Efficacy about Cli-mate Change? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 97, 104217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Greenwald, A.G.; Carnot, C.G.; Beach, R.; Young, B. Increasing Voting Behavior by Asking People If They Expect to Vote. J. Appl. Psychol. 1987, 72, 315–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carroll, J.S. The Effect of Imagining an Event on Expectations for the Event: An Interpretation in Terms of the Availability Heuristic. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1978, 14, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gaesser, B. Constructing Memory, Imagination, and Empathy: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2013, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wright, J.D.; Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M.L.; Neufeld, S.D. Imagining a Sustainable World: Measuring Cognitive Alternatives to the Environmental Status Quo. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wright, J.D.; Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M.L. Access to Environmental Cognitive Alternatives Predicts Pro-Environmental Activist Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2022, 54, 712–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Prolific Quickly Find Research Participants You Can Trust. Available online: https://www.prolific.com/ (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  70. Howe, P.D.; Mildenberger, M.; Marlon, J.R.; Leiserowitz, A. Geographic Variation in Opinions on Climate Change at State and Local Scales in the USA. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. xvii, 507. ISBN 978-1-60918-230-4. [Google Scholar]
  72. Tuen, Y.J.; Bulley, A.; Palombo, D.J.; O’Connor, B.B. Social Value at a Distance: Higher Identification with All of Humanity Is Associated with Reduced Social Discounting. Cognition 2023, 230, 105283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gilead, M.; Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Above and beyond the Concrete: The Diverse Representational Substrates of the Predictive Brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 2020, 43, e121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Soutschek, A.; Ruff, C.C.; Strombach, T.; Kalenscher, T.; Tobler, P.N. Brain Stimulation Reveals Crucial Role of Overcoming Self-Centeredness in Self-Control. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1600992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hill, P.F.; Yi, R.; Spreng, R.N.; Diana, R.A. Neural Congruence between Intertemporal and Interpersonal Self-Control: Evidence from Delay and Social Discounting. NeuroImage 2017, 162, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jones, B.A. A Review of Social Discounting: The Impact of Social Distance on Altruism. Psychol. Rec. 2022, 72, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Samuel, S. Effective Altruism’s Most Controversial Idea. Available online: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-future (accessed on 4 October 2023).
  78. Addis, D.R. Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2020, 11, 233–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kwan, D.; Craver, C.F.; Green, L.; Myerson, J.; Boyer, P.; Rosenbaum, R.S. Future Decision-Making without Episodic Mental Time Travel. Hippocampus 2012, 22, 1215–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pepper, D. Utopianism and Environmentalism. Environ. Polit. 2005, 14, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Niemi, L.; Woodring, M.; Young, L.; Cordes, S. Partisan Mathematical Processing of Political Polling Statistics: It’s the Expectations That Count. Cognition 2019, 186, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Levi, S. Country-Level Conditions Like Prosperity, Democracy, and Regulatory Culture Predict Individual Climate Change Belief. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 16732 g001
Figure 1. A visual depiction of the differences between longtermists and non-longtermists on the following outcomes: concern for other people’s and one’s own future (a,b), expansive prosociality (c,d), and ability to envision a better and greener future (e,f). Colored dots correspond to individual data points and are jittered for readability, with violin plots overlaid to show the relative distribution of scores across longtermists and non-longtermists. Error bars depict 95% C.I. around the mean. Notched box plots are included, with notches depicting a confidence interval around the median.
Figure 1. A visual depiction of the differences between longtermists and non-longtermists on the following outcomes: concern for other people’s and one’s own future (a,b), expansive prosociality (c,d), and ability to envision a better and greener future (e,f). Colored dots correspond to individual data points and are jittered for readability, with violin plots overlaid to show the relative distribution of scores across longtermists and non-longtermists. Error bars depict 95% C.I. around the mean. Notched box plots are included, with notches depicting a confidence interval around the median.
Sustainability 15 16732 g001
Sustainability 15 16732 g002
Figure 2. A visual depiction of the differences in support for policies addressing climate justice issues for minoritized (a) and future (b) people, as well as pro-climate policies in general (c) between longtermists and non-longtermists. Figure 2 can be interpreted in the same manner as Figure 1.
Figure 2. A visual depiction of the differences in support for policies addressing climate justice issues for minoritized (a) and future (b) people, as well as pro-climate policies in general (c) between longtermists and non-longtermists. Figure 2 can be interpreted in the same manner as Figure 1.
Sustainability 15 16732 g002
Sustainability 15 16732 g003
Figure 3. Pre-registered mediation model (for results, see Model 3 from Table 4). Dashed, grayed arrows depict non-significant associations.
Figure 3. Pre-registered mediation model (for results, see Model 3 from Table 4). Dashed, grayed arrows depict non-significant associations.
Sustainability 15 16732 g003
Table 1. Table displaying potential mediators by category, along with a description and example item for each. Additionally, we provide reasoning for each variable’s potential mediating role between longtermism alignment and pro-environmentalism.
Table 1. Table displaying potential mediators by category, along with a description and example item for each. Additionally, we provide reasoning for each variable’s potential mediating role between longtermism alignment and pro-environmentalism.
CategoryHypothesized MediatorDescriptionExample ItemRationale for Mediation
Concern for Others’ and One’s Own FutureLegacy Concerns (Zaval et al., 2015 [33])Other-oriented concern about leaving a positive imprint on the world for the sake of future generations.“It is important for me to leave a positive mark on society”.
  • Longtermism beliefs predict Legacy Concerns.
  • Legacy Concerns predict Pro-environmental Engagement.
Future Self-Continuity
(Hershfield et al., 2009 [41])		Self-oriented overlap between one’s current and future self-concept.“Indicate the degree to which you feel connected to your future self 25 years from now”.Via Self-Oriented Future Concern:
  • Longtermism is linked to Future Self-Continuity.
  • Climate change poses risks to one’s future well-being.
  • Future Self-Continuity drives actions to safeguard one’s future well-being.
Via Other-Oriented Future Concern:
  • Longtermism is linked to Future Self-Continuity.
  • Future Self-Continuity drives feelings of responsibility for future generations.
  • Feelings of Responsibility for Future Generations informs Pro-environmentalism.
Expansive ProsocialityExpansive Altruism
(Caviola et al., 2022 [58])		A facet of effective altruism representing a willingness to allocate resources to others without regard to whether or not they are distant or emotionally non-salient.“I am willing to make significant sacrifices for people in need that I don’t know and will never meet”.
  • Longtermists exhibit elevated Expansive Altruism levels.
  • Climate change affects minoritized groups and future generations more severely.
  • Expansive Altruism enhances prosocial intentions toward these affected groups.
Impartial Beneficence
(Kahane et al., 2018 [57])		A facet of utilitarianism which advocates impartial regard for the welfare of all.“It is morally wrong to keep money that one doesn’t really need if one can donate it to causes that provide effective help to those who will benefit a great deal”.
  • Longtermists exhibit elevated Impartial Beneficence levels.
  • Climate change affects minoritized groups and future generations more severely.
  • Impartial Beneficence enhances prosocial intentions toward these affected groups.
Envisioning a Better, Greener FutureUtopian Thinking
(Fernando et al., 2018 [60])		The tendency to envision an ideal society.“I spend a lot of time thinking about an ideal society”.
  • Utopian Thinking is linked to Future Oriented Efficacy.
  • Future Oriented Efficacy drives Pro-environmentalism.
Environmental Cognitive Alternatives
(Wright et al., 2020 [67])		The capability to conceptualize alternatives to the current environmental status quo and imagine a more harmonious coexistence between humans and the environment.“A harmonious relationship between humans and the natural world is easy for me to imagine”.
  • Longtermists, with elevated Future Oriented Efficacy, likely exhibit increased ability to generate Environmental Cognitive Alternatives.
  • Ability to generate Environmental Cognitive Alternatives drives Pro-environmentalism.
Table 2. Differences between longtermists and the general population, sorted by magnitude of effect size.
Table 2. Differences between longtermists and the general population, sorted by magnitude of effect size.
Longtermists (N = 183)General Population
(N = 601)
OutcomeMeanSDMeanSDt-TestpCohen’s d
Expansive Altruism5.201.024.611.09t(782) = 6.57<0.0010.56
Policy Support: Climate Justice for Future People5.210.814.721.03t(376.73) = 6.84<0.0010.53
Legacy Concerns5.471.274.811.34t(782) = 5.87<0.0010.51
Policy Support: Climate Justice for Minoritized People5.150.884.651.11t(373.38) = 6.28<0.0010.50
Utopian Thinking5.191.084.671.08t(782) = 5.74<0.0010.48
Impartial Beneficence3.961.323.411.27t(782) = 5.07<0.0010.42
Future Self-Continuity4.981.694.321.66t(782) = 4.65<0.0010.39
Pro-Climate Policy Support5.090.924.741.07t(343.86) = 4.37<0.0010.35
Environmental Cognitive Alternatives4.621.314.201.25t(782) = 3.99<0.0010.33
Note. For analyses where df include a decimal point, assumptions of equality of variances were not met, and a Satterthwaite estimation method was used.
Table 3. Linear regression models controlling for the aforementioned demographic covariates.
Table 3. Linear regression models controlling for the aforementioned demographic covariates.
OutcomebLower 95% C.I.Upper 95% C.I.βpModel Adj. R2
Policy Support: Climate Justice for Minoritized People0.490.340.640.19<0.0010.36
Policy Support: Climate Justice for Future People0.510.370.650.21<0.0010.32
Pro-Climate Policy Support0.360.220.500.15<0.0010.38
Environmental Cognitive Alternatives0.490.280.700.16<0.0010.05
Utopian Thinking0.530.360.710.20<0.0010.12
Impartial Beneficence0.550.340.770.18<0.0010.04
Expansive Altruism0.580.410.760.22<0.0010.09
Future Self-Continuity0.710.440.980.18<0.0010.09
Legacy concerns0.680.460.900.21<0.0010.07
Table 4. Bivariate correlations between the proposed mediators (1–6) and the three outcomes (7–9).
Table 4. Bivariate correlations between the proposed mediators (1–6) and the three outcomes (7–9).
Measure123456789
1. Legacy--
2. FSC0.13 **--
3. Expansive Altruism0.44 **0.14 **--
4. Impartial Beneficence0.33 **0.10 *0.60 **--
5. Utopian Thinking0.29 **0.13 **0.45 **0.28 **--
6. ECAS0.31 **0.18 **0.48 **0.37 **0.45 **--
7. Pro-Climate Policies0.13 **0.060.46 **0.30 **0.45 **0.36 **--
8. CJ Policies for FP0.23 **0.060.50 **0.32 **0.48 **0.39 **0.84 **--
9. CJ Policies for MP0.17 **0.050.53 **0.36 **0.47 **0.37 **0.86 **0.87 **--
10. Longtermism Beliefs0.30 **0.16 **0.41 **0.29 **0.32 **0.25 **0.34 **0.42 **0.41 **
Note. * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001. FSC = Future Self Continuity. ECAS = Environmental Cognitive Alternatives. FP = Future People. MP = Minoritized People.
Table 5. Pre-registered mediation models for each mediator separately (Model 1), as parallel mediators (Model 2), and with the inclusion of covariates (Model 3).
Table 5. Pre-registered mediation models for each mediator separately (Model 1), as parallel mediators (Model 2), and with the inclusion of covariates (Model 3).
Model 1: Single MediatorModel 2: All Mediators
R2 = 0.37		Model 3: All Mediators and Covariates
R2 = 0.57
X→MM→YIndirect Effect X→MM→YIndirect
Effect		X→MM→YIndirect Effect
Mediatorb
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		R2b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]		b
[95% C.I.]
ECAS0.42
[0.22, 0.63]		0.29
[0.24, 0.34]		0.12
[0.06, 0.19]		0.170.42
[0.22, 0.63]		0.08
[0.03, 0.13]		0.03
[0.01, 0.07]		0.49
[0.28, 0.70]		0.09
[0.05, 0.13]		0.04
[0.02, 0.08]
UT0.52
[0.34, 0.70]		0.42
[0.36, 0.48]		0.22
[0.14, 0.30]		0.250.52
[0.34, 0.70]		0.26
[0.20, 0.32]		0.14
[0.08, 0.20]		0.53
[0.36, 0.70]		0.14
[0.09, 0.19]		0.08
[0.04, 0.12]
IB0.55
[0.33, 0.76]		0.24
[0.19, 0.29]		0.13
[0.08, 0.20]		0.130.55
[0.33, 0.76]		0.03
[−0.03, 0.08]		0.01
[−0.02, 0.05]		0.55
[0.34, 0.76]		0.02
[−0.02, 0.07]		0.01
[−0.01, 0.04]
EA0.60
[0.42, 0.77]		0.45
[0.40, 0.51]		0.27
[0.19, 0.36]		0.280.60
[0.42, 0.77]		0.32
[0.25, 0.39]		0.19
[0.12, 0.27]		0.58
[0.41, 0.76]		0.24
[0.18, 0.30]		0.14
[0.09, 0.20]
LC0.66
[0.44, 0.88]		0.11
[0.06, 0.16]		0.07
[0.03, 0.12]		0.060.65
[0.44, 0.88]		−0.08
[−0.13, −0.03]		−0.05
[−0.09, −0.02]		0.68
[0.46, 0.90]		−0.02
[−0.06, 0.01]		−0.01
[−0.05, 0.01]
Note. X = Longtermist Identification, M = Mediator, Y = Average of three policy measures. ECAS = Environmental Cognitive Alternatives, UT = Utopian Thinking, IB = Impartial Beneficence, EA = Expansive Altruism, LC = Legacy Concerns. Even though longtermists were higher in SES, but notably did not differ in age or political ideology, when controlling for these variables, all direct and indirect effects remained consistent in terms of direction and significance (see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Law, K.F.; Syropoulos, S.; Young, L. Why Do Longtermists Care about Protecting the Environment? An Investigation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Pro-Climate Policy Support. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416732

AMA Style

Law KF, Syropoulos S, Young L. Why Do Longtermists Care about Protecting the Environment? An Investigation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Pro-Climate Policy Support. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Law, Kyle Fiore, Stylianos Syropoulos, and Liane Young. 2023. "Why Do Longtermists Care about Protecting the Environment? An Investigation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Pro-Climate Policy Support" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416732

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop