UMass Amherst, UPenn research suggests invoking moral obligation may help
University of Massachusetts Amherst
AMHERST, Mass. – One of the more complex problems facing social psychologists today is whether any intervention can move people to change their behavior about climate change and protecting the environment for the sake of future generations.
Now researchers Hanne Melgård Watkins at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Geoffrey Goodwin at the University of Pennsylvania report after their recent experiments that an intergenerational reciprocity approach ¬- asking people to reflect on sacrifices made in the past by others for their benefit today – may generate gratitude and a sense of moral obligation to people in the future.
Details of their studies exploring this are online now in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin published by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
As Watkins says, “The question is how to motivate people to care for future generations. Other researchers have shown that reciprocity can be a powerful motivator. If someone does something for my benefit, that creates a sense of obligation to reciprocate, but if I can’t reciprocate directly for some reason, I might instead try to “pay it forward.” In our experiments, we tried to take that idea and scale it up to get people to feel a moral obligation to future generations by having them reflect on what people in previous generations had done for them.”
She adds that intergenerational reciprocity research has shown that this approach can work, at least with people playing games. “If the last participant in a game paid their winnings forward, people are more likely to do the same for those coming along after them.”
Overall, Watkins and Goodwin, who conducted this study while Watkins was at UPenn, state that “our studies revealed that such reflection – on sacrifices made by past generations – predicts and causes a heightened sense of moral obligation towards future generations, mediated by gratitude. However there are also some downsides, for example, feelings of unworthiness, and perceptions of obligation do not substantially affect pro-environmental attitudes or motivations.”
Further, “while reflecting on past generations’ sacrifice can generate a sense of intergenerational obligation, it is limited in the extent to which it can increase pro-environmental concern.” Watkins adds, “Feeling is one thing, actually doing is another.”
With climate change, the researchers note that they had chosen a rather broad topic “more distant and diffuse” than some others investigated in previous studies on intergenerational reciprocity. Thus their survey asked respondents to reflect on past sacrifices made by their families or others during the fairly clear sacrifices made such as in the Great Depression, World War II, or by parents who scrimped and saved to put children through college; “big sacrifices that cannot be directly reciprocated,” Watkins notes.
For this work, she and Goodwin conducted five experimental online studies where at least 200 participants and sometimes as many as 500, were asked to write reflections on either sacrifices made by past generations or, for the control condition, to write on fashion choices made by past generations. Subjects were Americans, half male, half female and though the sample was “not representative but a fairly well varied population,” Watkins points out. At least one of the five studies was a replication of the first survey.
They found that when people had reflected on past sacrifices they were more likely to report feeling a sense of moral obligation to future generations. “We then asked whether they’d be willing to pay a higher tax or make other actual sacrifices in their daily lives to help future generations deal with climate change,” Watkins notes. “In this we found no effect,” but there was a strong correlation between a sense of moral obligation to future generations and willingness to sacrifice. “This correlation may exist without any intervention,” she adds.
Finally, Watkins reports that in a mini-meta-analysis of their five experiments, they did observe a small but significant effect on willingness to make sacrifices for the environment after reflecting on others’ past sacrifices.
“It’s nice that this might make a difference, but it’s not clear whether it’s large enough to use, to implement as an intervention,” she points out. “We feel it is valuable to have explored the question, but if you want action on climate change you might be better served by trying something else. Maybe contact your local representative.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UMASS library is the tallest academic library in the world.
This makes the building, far and away, the tallest day-care center in Massachusetts.
All you need to Know.
We actually pay for this “research”. Time to sharpen pitchforks?
…and paid for this > “about climate change and protecting the environment”
notice how they have to combine the two now
So I should consider what those of the past had given up for our current times (their future)…
1776 about 6,000 – 20,000 soldiers died to secure future liberties and freedom from oppression from afar.
1865 620,000 Americans died to eliminate slavery and ensure freedom for ALL (men created equal)
1917 millions died during WWI to end fascist totalitarianism of Russia, Germany and Italy.
1945 millions died in WWII to end the totalitarianism of Germany and expansion of Japan to secure freedom for the world.
1953 Korea 128,000 US gave their lives to lock down the spread of communism
1975 Viet Nam an additional 211,000 died for the same reason
1968 thousands died to secure the Israeli state
1990 – 1991 over 400,000 gave their lives to free Kuait from the Tyranny of Iraq and to secure the oil
Wars have been fought to:
Ensure autonomy for countries
Prevent rule from afar
Secure freedom from oppression
Eliminate fascism and totalitarianism
Institute self rule
Ensure capitalism over communism
Maintain fair access to global commodities
Millions of people have given their lives to bring about these necessities, we owe it to them to ensure that it continues
Bryan, please! The war going on in 1917 was among the European colonial powers with Russia, UK, France and Italy on one side and Austria/Hungary and Germany on the other. Fascism came later, to Italy, who then Joined Germany and Japan in WWII.
1917 millions died during WWI to end fascist totalitarianism of Russia, Germany and Italy.
‘Fascist totalitarianism’ in 1914-18? Just what was ‘fascist’ or ‘totalitarian’ about Italy in 1917? (BTW, Italy fought on the same side as the UK, France and Russia.) Same question with regard to Russia. Who were the people who died “to end fascist totalitarianism of Russia.” (BTW, the only people fighting against the Russians were the Germans and the Austrians.) Yes, millions died fighting against Germany. But I doubt that many of them thought they were fighting to “end fascist totalitarianism”. Theyjust wanted to make sure that Germany did not win the war.
Bryan:
I agree wholeheartedly with the theme of your piece, nitpickers aside. I have been warning my children for some time that the next war will be fought over totalianaists trying to gain control and using “Green BELIEFS” as their tool to manipulate large portions of the public. Should my generation fail to bring to it’s knees the Church of Climate Change the next generation will be doomed to another round of mass human misery, followed by a war to try and free themselves from Geen tyranny.
Here you go, all is explained:
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/
Synopsis: The self-styled “Elites” no longer signal their status with luxury goods; they mark themselves as “upper class” by their boutique beliefs. Intersectionality, veganism, open borders, socialism for thee but not for me, and of course, angst about “climate change” while amassing frequent flier miles.
Yawn . . .
They should be ridiculed or utterly ignored. The CAGW “science” died some time ago, the zombie corpse left is a “luxury belief” in spades!
In related research it was discovered that people from Chicago who went to Miami Beach, during intense cold snowstorms in January, felt tremendous guilt and remorse, however, they negated the idea of not doing it again.
Disclaimer: this was mental research by myself, but I’m sure it is accurate, or at least as accurate as the Psychic Research mentioned above.
There is an easy measure of success for “the message.” When the mounds of refuse along city streets, country roads, and highways no longer reappear.
Look at her, comfortable in her office while the Mass winter is cold, she uses fossil fuels every day, drives to class, turns on the lights, nice imported foods, what a hypocrite, thanks to fossil fuels she has the luxury of debating in her mind what might make others give up the luxuries she has.
Yes. That’s what previous generations did for us. They built an advanced industrial civilisation based on fossil fuels. We owe it to future generation to make sure it continues and not sacrifice it on the green altar of global warming.
I left progeny. That’s what (and probably all) I can do for future generations.
No we owe it to everybody to have an external examination of the man made climate change claims in a proper court and have the climate scientists prove it against a defence team of best in class signal analysts, historians, data acquisition engineers and computer modellers. This must be shown to have been adequately funded for at least three months and also that all evidence is freely available to both sides for examination.
Any not released for commercial reasons should be considered ineligible as purely commercial data not part of the case.
All the trial must be freely reported with no constraints allowed. The sound case will acquire enough converts to swing it soundly one way or another and will give some grounds for action against any illegal actions on the part of disbelievers.
“Look at her…”
The smug is strong with this one
so is the ug[ly].
And she’s practically wearing a progressive-greenie Halloween costume. I swear, you can tell these conformity types by their friggin’ uniforms.
There is a term for this – NPC (non-player character): A person (especially on the Left) so stripped of individuality, personality, and thought so as to be indistinguishable from an algorithm in a video game.
One reason there is no new pipeline leading eastward from Alberta is the adamant opposition of Quebec.
Some of Canada’s rail workers are striking. That means Quebec farmers can’t get the propane they need to dry their crops. Quebec is squealing like a stuck pig.
There is much opposition in British Columbia (BC) to a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast. When Alberta threatened to cut off BC’s gas, BC also squealed like a stuck pig.
You are absolutely right. The run-of-the-mill greenie doesn’t get it. It could be hypocrisy. It could be stupidity. Are hypocrites even smart enough to realize that they are hypocrites?
Seems like a perfect opportunity for Quebec to fly their Green flag and demonstrate their steadfast belief in the “keep it in the ground” mantra. No propane, no heating oil and no gasoline for the winter should leave a mark.
I suspect the Quebec farmers are not the primary source of opposition to the pipeline. Farmers tend to be pretty pragmatic. If they are not, they tend to be bankrupt and no longer farmers.
Most hypocrites are probably smart enough to realize it.
Will they do anything to stop? No, it’s who they are.
The question here should be:
What will it take to stop the hypocrites who are ruining the world.
To be fair, in BC the majority of people support the pipeline, but the (greeny) government does not. And there is a vocal contingent of retired teachers plus professional protesters who show up everywhere protesting anything that may cause a paycheque.
In an informal survey of acquaintances all of whom supported the pipeline, they also supported Alberta turning off the gas taps to Vancouver in the hopes that the resultant pain and panic would shut the protesters up.
The BC New Democratic Party (NDP) doesn’t have enough seats to form a majority. They rely on the Green party. That means they must oppose the pipeline in spite of the fact that the majority of the population supports it.
The federal Liberals promised to bring in electoral reform. They should not do so. Any kind of proportional vote would result in fewer chances that any party would form a majority and increase the reliance on small parties with nutso policies that most pf the population doesn’t support. Israel is the poster child of why proportional representation doesn’t work. link
If you get the chance, vote against proportional representation.
The grey hair shows I did sacrifice for the kids but what good did it do me? Now I’m surrounded by Gretaheads and infantilism! Don’t ask me who’s going to do the heavy lifting to parent them all and turn them into adults.
“They found that when people had reflected on past sacrifices they were more likely to report feeling a sense of moral obligation to future generations.” OK then. I am reflecting on what it took to mine the coal, to drill for oil and gas, to build the railroads and pipelines and highways and factories and refineries, and to design and produce all the equipment to convert fuel into useful results like mobility, comfort, and production. I feel a moral obligation to reject the absurdity of naming carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I feel compelled to pay it forward by encouraging young people to watch the planet turn greener and to watch the weather, especially thunderstorms, to lose the fear of greenhouse gases. The atmosphere openly demonstrates how heat cannot, in fact, be accumulated at the surface to dangerous effect on the planet. There. Let’s see what happens.
“We then asked whether they’d be willing to pay a higher tax or make other actual sacrifices in their daily lives to help future generations deal with climate change,” Watkins notes. “In this we found no effect,”
Yes, because it pegs the BS meter on at least two levels – the fact there doesn’t seem to be all that much harmful climate change going on, and the intrinsic knowledge that paying now for the benefit of future generations is a con.
“Central Heating Plant (CHP)
Plant Manager: Steve Lemay
Provides steam heat and electrical power to campus by means of a combine cycle plant. The Central Heating Plant has three boilers, capable of firing natural gas and ultra-low number two fuel oil at 125,000 pounds per hour each and one heat recovery steam generator for an additional 100,000 pounds per hour. Total annual steam generated approaches 1.2 billion pounds. Electrical power is supplied by two generators that can produce a total of 14 megawatts. One generator is driven by a combustion turbine; the other is driven by a steam turbine.”
No additional commentary necessary.
Ultra low number 2 fuel oil is diesel, or furnace oil, or home heating oil, and I wonder what waste stream the heat recovery steam generator is mining. I assume it is the jet exhaust. The combustion turbine produces 10 mW and the steam turbine 4 mW. I assume the combustion turbine is a jet engine while the steam turbine is probably a back pressure unit acting as a pressure reduction device rather than using a pressure controlled valve.
Rather than getting awards they should have built a good multistage scrubber for their old coal fired plant and used the scrubber water for heat recovery, more efficiency and less capital cost.
The pulp mill I worked at built a multistage scrubber in the mid 80s for their recovery boiler 400000 lb/hr steam production and recovered 100000 lb/hr equivalent in hot water from the flue gas.
The first essential step in the research is missing: Is there any need to alter climate change behaviour?
“In this we found no effect” is the line that jumped out at me.
Translation: Show me a genuine, demonstrable crisis, and I might be willing to “sacrifice.” Lacking anything remotely resembling anything but ordinary weather, go away with your doomster religion and leave me alone. Not engaged.
Correct. They are asking the wrong questions.
How about if True Believers reflected on how fortunate we are today in large part due to fossil fuels, greatly increasing our standard of living as well as longevity. Then maybe they would feel ashamed of trying to take that away from future generations. Hmmmm….
If my sacrifices now were to actually benefit future generations, while not depriving us now of our freedoms, I would freely choose to comply. But if the beneficiaries are the current crop of power hungry politicians and globalistas to the detriment of future generations, the only sane and sensible answer is, “Over my dead body.”
Isn’t that essentially what government deficit spending is?
No, that’s enslaving one’s progeny, but close.
“Over my dead body.”
Be careful what you wish for. These crazies would take that as an invitation.
Unfortunately, the behavior modifications that the Green New Deal and extremist environmental groups are demanding will make things worse for future generations, not better.
when the science doesn’t hold up….you have to trick them into it
Selective-child. Clinical cannibalism. Diversity. Political congruence. Social justice. Green blight. Their compass is broken.
I’d be all for conscience driven campaigns against pollution of all sorts. Plenty to do; why don’t they do it?
Nah, it’s ALWAYS someone else’s money or time they wish to steal for their own selfish needs.
Busy making the community more aware. Well somebody has to shoulder the burden silly.
You see that big pile of paper in the intray? That’s another grant application and the awareness never ends.
They have a decade, perhaps two, until [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] global warming, to lose their Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion, and work to reestablish trust.
Yes Hanne, I do think about my parents and grand parents, how they build a world for me utilizing fossil fuels to advance the industrial revolution and contribute substantial amounts of plant food in the form of CO₂, giving me a long, rich and happy life. I would have loved my children and grand children to follow the same beautiful approach, but sadly The Club Of Rome initiated a reversal towards de-industrialization and extremely unproductive and expensive totalitarian schemes, which they called Sustainable Future excused on Climate Change. – Yes, I was hoping to carry the past into the future, but Climate Change policy is bound to make life for future generations very difficult.
Brazenly researching best ways to change people”s behaviour, to “motivate” them, etc. amounts to cynical endeavour to learn how best to brainwash people. And the frightening thing about is that it works. Single-minded propaganda, if enough money is spent on it, really does influence people markedly. That is why George Orwell’s books were, and are, so frightening.
Sounds like their major is actually “Advertising” or “Marketing,” not “social psychology.” With a serious dose of “activism.”
Nothing inherently wrong with this.
The important point is what people do to make things better for following generations. I suggest listening to Bjorn Lomborg as a starting point.
There’s a contradiction in sentence one: If people change their behavior in the desired direction, they will harm the environment and hurt future generations …
I don’t think the profs can handle the dichotomy.
Will there be generational remorse for forcing Post Normal Science (PNS) on the world and offload of real science to Asian students and institutions? The Climate Crusades has a cost on societies projecting the campaign.
I can’t think of any “past sacrifices” that were made specifically for future generations. The heroism in WWII wasn’t primarily for the future; it was to defeat a clear and present danger that potential for a terrible future. People try to maximize their present situation first and then consider impact on the future. You buy groceries with your paycheck first and then save some cash for your kid’s inheritance. This research looks like some wishful thinking went into the experimental design.
The problem with this sort of research is that they assume that they know the best way to help future generations. Personally, I disagree with them.
I believe that giving future generations a robust economy with great infrastructure and the best technology is the best way we can help them. A great economy will alow future generations to pivot however it needs to at the time. The climate change approach limits future generations to ‘avoid catastrophic global warming’; a future we don’t even know will happen. What if their biggest threat is something completely unrelated. We will have ruined any chance they have of surviving that threat.
I go further. They’re clueless morons.
The deer figurine on Watkins’s desk, is it Bambi or Rudolf?
Regards,
Bob
It is most likely a moose, reminding Hanne of her Norwegian joke/tradition: “Moose Cap Friday”, which you can read about:
http://www.espen.com/julie/archives/2009/10/moose_cap_frida.html
Bambi Meets the Godzilla of Climate Change.
Is there a moral duty to stop these self-assured lunatics from trying to bring down western civilization?
Can THIS behavior be changed? We are talking about close-minded zealots, remember.