Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Not all boomers: temporal orientation explains inter- and intra-cultural variability in the link between age and climate engagement

Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Some previous work suggests that older adults, relative to younger adults and teenagers, are less engaged with climate change; yet, this pattern is not consistently found across all countries or populations. Here, we consider whether temporal orientation might act as a boundary condition for age effects on climate change engagement. We assess whether cultural (study 1) and inter-individual (study 2) differences in temporal orientation moderate the tendency for older adults to be less engaged with climate change than younger adults. Study 1 (N = 44,387) reveals that among European countries, countries with a greater long-term orientation tend to show a weaker (i.e., less negative) relationship between age and the salience of climate change (i.e., cognitive engagement with the topic). Study 2 (N = 798) demonstrates that in the USA, the negative relationship between age and climate action intentions becomes smaller in magnitude (i.e., less negative) among those higher in consideration of future consequences, but increases in those higher in consideration of immediate consequences. These findings support the notion that it is a confluence of age and present orientation (and low future orientation) that that drives age-related declines in climate engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Here, we use the temporal orientation broadly to encompass a host of related constructs. Some constructs focus on the distinction between an individual’s concern with the immediate versus future consequences of their actions (Joireman et al. 2008), while other conceptualizations focus on the distinction between a society’s emphasis on honoring tradition and achieving success in the present versus emphasizing the persistence needed for long-term success (Hofstede 2011). For simplicity, we use the broader term temporal orientation to include the variety of ways in which an individual or society’s thought can be oriented toward the present or the future.

  2. We conducted supplemental analyses examining the following country-level moderators: (1) average education level, (2) GDP per capita, and (3) population density (with the latter two taken from 2016 World Bank data). None of these variables significantly moderated the age-climate salience relationship.

  3. Results are similar if these participants are included.

  4. Predictors in multilevel models (vs. OLS regression) tend to explain a lower proportion of the total variance because multilevel models have variance at multiple levels and thus more total variance (Snijders and Bosker 2011).

  5. Results were similar if excluded participants were included.

  6. Nationally, representative polling of US adults (rather than registered or likely voters) typically shows that more Americans identify as Democrat than as Republican (Pew Polling 2020). However, our numbers have somewhat more Democrats than the public, in part because those excluded for climate change denial were disproportionately Republican.

  7. Effect size was estimated using standard OLS regression.

  8. Results are similar, and somewhat larger in magnitude, if political orientation is not included. Supplemental analyses showed that the age-climate relationship was not moderated by (a) gender, (b) education, or (c) income.

References

  • Ahler DJ, Roush CE, Sood G (2019) The micro-task market for lemons: data quality on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1(7), 1–23

  • Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47(5):1287–1294 JSTOR. 10/bfcvt4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brügger A, Tobias R, Monge-Rodríguez FS (2021) Public perceptions of climate change in the Peruvian Andes. Sustainability 13(5):2677 10/gh65px

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman BJ, Giancola PR, Parrott DJ, Roth RM (2012) Failure to consider future consequences increases the effects of alcohol on aggression. J Exp Soc Psychol 48(2):591–595 10/cm6txh

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron CD, Payne BK (2011) Escaping affect: how motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. J Pers Soc Psychol 100(1):1 10/dw9vfb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron CD, Hutcherson CA, Ferguson AM, Scheffer JA, Hadjiandreou E, Inzlicht M (2019) Empathy is hard work: people choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. J Exp Psychol Gen 148(6):962 10/drz2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles ST (1999) Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am Psychol 54(3):165–181 10/b44n2r

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen LL, Fung HH, Charles ST (2003) Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motiv Emot 27(2):103–123. https://doi.org/10/ft582k

  • Charles ST, Mather M, Carstensen LL (2003) Aging and emotional memory: the forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. J Exp Psychol Gen 132(2):310–324 10/c39mbm

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom K, Kim HS, Sherman DK, Ishii K (2016) Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychol Sci 27(10):1331–1339 10/bspt

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom K, Kim HS, Sherman DK (2018) Social class, control, and action: socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. J Exp Soc Psychol 77:60–75 10/gdtvk5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016) Data file edition 2.1 [Data set]. In: Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway 10/ggnsh6

    Google Scholar 

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox M, Tost LP, Wade-Benzoni KA (2010) The legacy motive: a catalyst for sustainable decision making in organizations. Bus Ethics Q 20(2):153–185. https://doi.org/10/fz5nzv

  • Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Price, B., Adler, D., Bates, D., Baud-Bovy, G., Bolker, B., Ellison, S., Firth, D., & Friendly, M. (2018). Package ‘car’

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsche I, Häfner K (2012) The malicious effects of existential threat on motivation to protect the natural environment and the role of environmental identity as a moderator. Environ Behav 44(4):570–590 10/bh2wdx

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung HH, Carstensen LL (2004) Motivational changes in response to blocked goals and foreshortened time: testing alternatives to socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychol Aging 19(1):68–78 10/fqwfbg

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung HH, Isaacowitz DM, Lu AY, Wadlinger HA, Goren D, Wilson HR (2008) Age-related positivity enhancement is not universal: older Chinese look away from positive stimuli. Psychol Aging 23(2):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giner-Sorolla R (2018) Powering your interaction. https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/powering-your-interaction-2/. Accessed May 2021

  • Green L, Myerson J, Lichtman D, Rosen S, Fry A (1996) Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income. Psychol Aging 11(1):79–84 10/c39vdn

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104(2):231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herndon AW (2020) Bernie Sanders’s latest endorsement: Sunrise Movement. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/politics/bernie-sanders-sunrise-movement-endorsement.html. Accessed May 2021

  • Hershfield HE, Goldstein DG, Sharpe WF, Fox J, Yeykelis L, Carstensen LL, Bailenson JN (2011) Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. J Mark Res 48(SPL):S23–S37 10/fhp59x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Read Psychol Cult 2(1):8 10/cbjq

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (2013) The dimension scores in the Hofstede model of national culture can be downloaded here. Geert Hofstede https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/. Accessed May 2021

  • Hofstede G, Minkov M (2013) VSM 2013. Values Survey Module

  • Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Bain PG, Fielding KS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6(6):622 10/f8pf3p

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlstone MJ, Price A, Wang S, Leviston Z, Walker I (2020) Activating the legacy motive mitigates intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Glob Environ Chang 60:102008 10/ggpbqw

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency (2013) Energy policies beyond IEA countries: Estonia 2013. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190801-en

  • Jacquet J, Hagel K, Hauert C, Marotzke J, Röhl T, Milinski M (2013) Intra-and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nat Clim Chang 3(12):1025–1028 10/f5p2j8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jianguang Z (1993) Environmental hazards in the chinese public’s eyes. Risk Anal 13(5):509–513 10/fk3prp

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman J, King S (2016) Individual differences in the consideration of future and (more) immediate consequences: a review and directions for future research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10(5):313–326 10/ggd4kk

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman J, Liu RL (2014) Future-oriented women will pay to reduce global warming: mediation via political orientation, environmental values, and belief in global warming. J Environ Psychol 40:391–400 10/gf5jxc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman J, Balliet D, Sprott D, Spangenberg E, Schultz J (2008) Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: support for distinguishing between CFC-immediate and CFC-future sub-scales. Personal Individ Differ 45(1):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman J, Kees J, Sprott D (2010) Concern with immediate consequences magnifies the impact of compulsive buying tendencies on college students’ credit card debt. J Consum Aff 44(1):155–178 10/b8k48x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman J, Shaffer MJ, Balliet D, Strathman A (2012) Promotion orientation explains why future-oriented people exercise and eat healthy: evidence from the two-factor Consideration of Future consequences-14 scale. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38(10):1272–1287 10/f3955n

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CA, Davison A (2021) Disempowering emotions: the role of educational experiences in social responses to climate change. Geoforum 118:190–200 10/gjcmrd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantenbacher J, Miniard D, Geiger N, Yoder L, Attari SZ (2021) Perceptions of the best, most likely, and worst futures among Gen Z. Manuscript in preparation

  • Kasser T (2011) Cultural values and the well-being of future generations: a cross-national study. J Cross-Cult Psychol 42(2):206–215 10/cpjtpx

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2015) Package ‘lmerTest.’ R Package Version, 2(0)

  • Kwon Y, Scheibe S, Samanez-Larkin GR, Tsai JL, Carstensen LL (2009) Replicating the positivity effect in picture memory in Koreans: evidence for cross-cultural generalizability. Psychol Aging 24(3):748 10/cwdn7g

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson DF, Stevenson KT, Peterson MN, Carrier SJ, Strnad RL, Seekamp E (2019) Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nat Clim Chang 9(6):458–462 10/gf2j7t

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton MP, Kleban MH, Dean J (1993) Affect and age: cross-sectional comparisons of structure and prevalence. Psychol Aging 8(2):165 10/bq2s8f

  • Lee S, Liu M, Hu M (2017) Relationship between future time orientation and item nonresponse on subjective probability questions: a cross-cultural analysis. J Cross Cult Psychol 48(5):698–717. https://doi.org/10/ggnsbm

  • Leiner DJ (2019) Too fast, too straight, too weird: non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Surv Res Methods 13(3):229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löckenhoff CE, O’Donoghue T, Dunning D (2011) Age differences in temporal discounting: the role of dispositional affect and anticipated emotions. Psychol Aging 26(2):274–284 10/bcvfd9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maglio SJ, Trope Y (2019) Temporal orientation. Curr Opin Psychol 26:62–66 10/gd4qtm

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra N (2008) Completion time and response order effects in web surveys. Public Opin Q 72(5):914–934 10/bd247b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM (2010) The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul Environ 32(1):66–87 10/d47mh8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont TL, Wilson J, Diniz P (2012) Time perspective and environmental engagement: a meta-analysis. Int J Psychol 47(5):325–334 10/gckf4h

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miniard D, Kantenbacher J, Attari SZ (2020) Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117(13):7108–7114 10/ggw88v

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen RMA, Dijker AJM, de Vries NK (2007) Emotions and goals: assessing relations between values and emotions. Cognit Emot 21(4):902–911 10/dpwnxc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New America (2019) The emerging millennial wealth gap. New America. http://newamerica.org/millennials/reports/emerging-millennial-wealth-gap/. Accessed May 2021

  • Pew Polling (2020) Why public opinion polls don’t include the same number of Republicans and Democrats. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/25/why-public-opinion-polls-dont-include-the-same-number-of-republicans-and-democrats/. Accessed May 2021

  • Poortinga W, Spence A, Whitmarsh L, Capstick S, Pidgeon NF (2011) Uncertain climate: an investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Glob Environ Chang 21(3):1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Steg L, Böhm G, Fisher S (2019) Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis. Glob Environ Chang 55:25–35 10/ggfrfs

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

  • Reinhart R (2018) Global warming age gap: younger Americans most worried. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-younger-americans-worried.aspx. Accessed May 2021

  • 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 10/f8mngk

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby RA, Stasinopoulos DM (2005) Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 54(3):507–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00510.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum CA, Ferreter JM (2009) Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organ Res Methods 12(2):347–367 10/chm9xq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21(4):327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smale A (2016) Austrian far-right candidate Norbert Hofer narrowly loses presidential vote. The New York Times. Snijders and Bosker, London. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/world/europe/austria-presidential-election.html. Accessed May 2021

  • Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (2011) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd edition). SAGE

  • Soliman M, Alisat S, Bashir NY, Wilson AE (2018) Wrinkles in time and drops in the bucket: circumventing temporal and social barriers to pro-environmental behavior. SAGE Open 8(2):2158244018774826 10/gg5vr6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiller SA, Fitzsimons GJ, Lynch JG Jr, McClelland GH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression. J Mark Res 50(2):277–288. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swim JK, Whitmarsh L (2018) Climate change as a unique environmental problem. In: Environmental psychology: an introduction, pp 26–35 10/ghs8xk

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swim JK, Geiger N, Lengieza ML (2019) Climate change marches as motivators for bystander collective action. Front Commun 4:4 10/gfxfbw

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tikkanen, A. N. (2020). Who is going to save the climate? Framing responsibility for climate change in the U.S. media Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/317558/Tikkanen_Aino_thesis_2020.pdf?sequence=2

  • U.S. Census (2014) USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed May 2021

  • Van der Goot MJ, Bol N, Van Weert JC (2019) Translating socioemotional selectivity theory into persuasive communication: conceptualizing and operationalizing emotionally-meaningful versus knowledge-related appeals. Int J Commun 13:22

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Liere KD, Dunlap RE (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q 44(2):181–197 JSTOR. 10/cfgbfp

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilar R, Milfont TL, Sibley CG (2020) The role of social desirability responding in the longitudinal relations between intention and behaviour. J Environ Psychol 70:101457 10/gg9gwp

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni KA (2006) Legacies, immortality, and the future: the psychology of intergenerational altruism. In: Tenbrunsel AE (ed.) Ethics in Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 8), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(06)08012-1

  • Wiernik B, Ones D, Dilchert S (2013) Age and environmental sustainability: a meta-analysis. J Manag Psychol 28(7/8):826–856 10/bc4q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood S (2015) Package ‘mgcv.’ R Package Version, 1, 29

  • Zacher H, Rosing K, Frese M (2011) Age and leadership: the moderating role of legacy beliefs. Leadersh Q 22(1):43–50 10/dtt935

    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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614561266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R (2008) Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol Bull 134(4):504–535 10/c6hxh7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Lizbeth Benson for developing ideas around socioemotional selectivity theory.

Availability of data, material, and code

Data, material, and code is available at https://osf.io/r37k6/.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Media School, Indiana University, Franklin Hall, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Nathaniel Geiger & John Velez

  2. Department of Advertising, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Bryan McLaughlin

Authors
  1. Nathaniel Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Velez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NG, BM, and JV designed the research; BM collected data; NG and JV analyzed the data; NG, BM, and JV wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathaniel Geiger.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas Tech University. This article does not contain any studies with animals. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Consent to participate

All survey respondents provided implied consent.

Consent for publication

All authors gave consent for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 240 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geiger, N., McLaughlin, B. & Velez, J. Not all boomers: temporal orientation explains inter- and intra-cultural variability in the link between age and climate engagement. Climatic Change 166, 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03116-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03116-x

Keywords

search

Navigation