Skip to main content

The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing

Climatic Change volume 165, Article number: 18 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Globally, investment in climate change mitigation has lagged far behind the optimal level as estimated by a large body of science. This lag may be caused, in part, by the psychological distance between decision-makers today and those who will likely experience the worst impacts of climate change in the future. This psychological distance reduces the salience of those impacts in today’s decisions. In a randomized control experiment using a letter-to-the-future treatment and a climate change essay treatment, I find that compared to a control group, both writing tasks that focus attention on the future risks of climate change increase the willingness to donate to climate change mitigation efforts. I also find evidence that for parents and grandparents, writing a letter to one’s child or grandchild increases the salience of existing concerns about how climate change may impact one’s children. These findings contribute to the understanding of how to bridge the psychological distance between choices and consequences for climate change mitigation and have implications for a wide range of decisions from personal health choices to retirement savings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. The temporal component of this experiment is explored in a separate paper.

  2. Video from TEDEd: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/climate-change-earth-s-giant-game-of-tetris-joss-fong

References

  • Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A (2013) Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Chang 23(1):81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnocky S, Milfont TL, Nicol JR (2014) Time perspective and sustainable behavior: evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environ Behav 46(5):556–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes Truelove H, Carrico AR, Weber EU, Toner Raimi K, Vandenbergh MP (2014) Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob Environ Chang 29:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2012) Salience theory of choice under risk. Q J Econ 127:1243–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J Polit Econ 121(5):803–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton TA, Pidgeon N (2015) Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Chang 5(12):1031–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester MD, Talaifar S, Gosling SD (2018) An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspect Psychol Sci 13(2):149–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busse MR, Pope DG, Pope J.C., Silva-risso J (2015) The psychological effect of weather on car purchases. Q J Econ 130(1):371–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K (2009) Salience and taxation: theory and evidence. Am Econ Rev 99(4):1145–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong D, Druckman JN (2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. Am Polit Sci Rev 101(4):636–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu H, Yang JZ (2018) Taking climate change here and now – mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Glob Environ Chang 53:174–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu H, Yang JZ (2019) Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change. Sci Commun 41(6):761–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford S, Jewell RM, Waggoner PD (2015) Are samples drawn from mechanical turk valid for research on political ideology? Res Polit 2 (4):2053168015622072

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppock A (2019) Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: a replication approach. Polit Sci Res Methods 7(3):613–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen JP, Werner MD (2014) Putting framing in perspective: a review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Acad Manag Ann 8(1):181–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner SD, Mcdaniels J (2013) The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change in the U.S. since 1990. Clim Chang 118:537–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav 23(3):225–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman JN, McGrath MC (2019) The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat Clim Chang 9(2):111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont DP (2003) Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Work Pap Cent Soc Econ Res Glob Environ 49 (1):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan PJ, Mullin M (2012) Turning personal experience into political Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J Polit 74(3):796–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein A (2009) E-ZTax: Tax salience and tax rates. Q J Econ 124:969–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford R, Comeau LA (2011) Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Glob Environ Chang 21(4):1301–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton L, Stampone MD (2013) Blowin’ in the wind: short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate change. Weather Clim Soc 5:112–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res 39(6):701–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings JS, Shapiro JM (2013) Fungaibility and consumer choice: evidence from commodity price shocks. Q J Econ 128:1449–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D (2003) Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. J Account Econ 36(1-3):337–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla P, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews J, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis M, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) Global warming of 1.5∘ C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5∘ C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,

  • Joireman J, Barnes H, Duell B (2010) Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. J Environ Psychol 30 (4):358–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Hine DW, Marks AD (2017) The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Anal 37 (2):331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koszegi B, Szeidl A (2013) A model of focusing in economic choice. Q J Econ 128:53–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Johnson EJ, Zaval L (2011) Local warming: daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychol Sci 22:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman N, Trope Y, Stephan E (2007) Psychological distance. In: Kruglanski A, Higgins E (eds) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, vol 2 edition. Guilford Press, New York, pp 353–383

  • Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon N (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Chang 77:73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Yi H, Newell BR (2015) Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. J Environ Psychol 44:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil B, Pauker S, Sox Jr H, Tversky A (1982) On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 306(21):1259–1262

  • Milfont TL (2010) Global warming climate change and human psychology. In: Corral-Verdugo V, García-Cadena CH, Frías-Arment M (eds) Psychological approaches to sustainability: current trends in theory, research and practice. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 19–42

  • Milfont TL, Harré N, Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2012) The climate-change dilemma: examining the association between parental status and political party support. J Appl Soc Psychol 42(10):2386–2410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont TL, Poortinga W, Sibley CG (2020) Does having children increase environmental concern? Testing parenthood effects with longitudinal data from the New Zealand Attitudes and values study. PLoS ONE 15(3):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(1):31–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC, Dilling L (2011) Communication climate change: closing the science-action gap. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D (eds) The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, pp 161–174

  • Newell BR, Mcdonald RI, Brewer M, Hayes BK (2014) The psychology of environmental decisions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:443–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51(2):12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl S, Bauer J (2013) Overcoming the distance: perspective taking with future humans improves environmental engagement. Environ Behav 45:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decis Making 5(5):411–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickard LN, Yang ZJ, Schuldt JP (2016) Here and now, there and then: how “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Glob Environ Chang 38:97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X (2014) The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action. Clim Chang 125(2):163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutjens BT, van Harreveld F, van der Pligt J (2010) Yes We Can: belief in progress as compensatory control. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 1(3):246–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Rickard LN, Yang ZJ (2018) Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J Environ Psychol 55:147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire C, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization: a volume in honor of Jacob Marschak. North-Holland Pub. Co, Amsterdam, pp 161–176

  • Simon H (1990) Reason in human affairs. Stanford University Press, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32(6):957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiller SA, Fitzsimons GJ, Lynch JG, Mcclelland GH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression. J Mark. Res 50(2):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan JC (2015) probemod: statistical tools for probing moderation effects. R package version 0.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=probemod

  • Taylor SE, Thompson SC (1982) Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychol Rev 89(2):155–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas GO, Fisher R, Whitmarsh L, Milfont TL, Poortinga W (2018) The impact of parenthood on environmental attitudes and behaviour: a longitudinal investigation of the legacy hypothesis. Popul Environ 39(3):261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117(2):440–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):251–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni KA (2019) Legacy motivations & the psychology of intergenerational decisions. Curr Opin Psychol 26:19–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni KA, Sondak H, Galinsky AD (2010) Leaving a legacy: intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens. Bus Ethics Q 20 (1):7–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim Chang 77:103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(3):332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson E (2006) The creation an appeal to save life on Earth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaval L, Keenan EA, Johnson EJ, Weber EU (2014) How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nat Clim Chang 4(2):143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaval L, Markowitz EM, Weber EU (2015) How will I be remembered? conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychol Sci 26 (2):231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the feedback and guidance from Todd Rogers, David Laibson, Joseph Aldy, Robert Stavins, Brigitte Madrian, Max Bazerman, Elke Weber, Lisa Zaval, Ezra Markowitz, Alison Wood Brooks, and Andrew Myers and the participants of the Harvard Environmental Economics Lunch Seminar.

Funding

This research was supported by grants from The Pershing Square Venture Fund for Research on the Foundations of Human Behavior and the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA

    Trisha R. Shrum

Authors
  1. Trisha R. Shrum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trisha R. Shrum.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The author is a co-founder and advisor of DearTomorrow, a non-profit project that utilizes some of the methods in this study to engage the public in climate change discussions. She has engaged with this organization in a fully unpaid, volunteer capacity.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 131 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03002-6

Keywords

  • Climate change mitigation
  • Salience
  • Intergenerational framing
  • Randomized control experiment
  • Psychological distance
  • Framing theory