The Egoism and Altruism of Intergenerational Behavior

30 Pages·2009·0.29 MB·English

Personality and Social Psychology
Review
http://psr.sagepub.com/

The Egoism and Altruism of Intergenerational Behavior
Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni and Leigh Plunkett Tost
Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2009 13: 165 originally published online 1 July 2009
DOI: 10.1177/1088868309339317

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/165
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://psr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/165.refs.html
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
The Egoism and Altruism
of Intergenerational Behavior
Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni
Leigh Plunkett Tost
Duke University
Some of the most important issues in society today affect implications. For example, personal decisions about
more than one generation of people. In this article, the savings and consumption affect environmental and
authors offer a conceptual overview and integration of financial outcomes not only for our own family mem-
the research on intergenerational dilemmas—decisions bers’ futures but also for the futures of others within
that entail a tradeoff between one’s own self-interest in the our communities. In short, political, economic, and
present and the interests of other people in the future. technological developments in the past century have
Intergenerational decisions are characterized by a com- changed the nature and scope of the issues that present-
bination of intertemporal (i.e., behaviors that affect the day societies face and have given present actors unprec-
future) and interpersonal (i.e., behaviors that affect edented power to shape the experience and options for
other people) components. Research on intergenera- future generations.
tional dilemmas identifies factors that emerge from these One of the most critical aspects of intergenerational
dimensions and how they interact with each other to considerations is that the interests of present and future
influence intergenerational beneficence. Critically, phe- generations are not always aligned. Maintaining sus-
nomena that result from the intersection of these two tainable levels of beneficial resources for future genera-
dimensions—such as immortality striving through leg- tions can require that the present generation forego
acy creation—are especially important in distinguishing desirable benefits. Similarly, protecting future genera-
intergenerational decisions from other related decision tions from costly burdens may entail that the present
contexts. generation incur some of the costs of managing those
burdens themselves. In the areas of philosophy and law,
Keywords: conflict; discounting; ethics; fairness; generations; recognition of this conflict between the interests of
intergenerational; justice; legacy; power; psycho- present and future actors has led scholars to theorize
logical distance; reciprocity; resource allocation; about the extent to which present actors are morally
social responsibility; time
obligated to protect the interests of future others (e.g.,
Barry, 1989; Richards, 1981; Weiss, 1989). At the same
time, economists have responded to intergenerational
Some of the most important issues that we face in soci-
ety today involve long time horizons and thus have
implications for future generations of people. Policy deci-
Authors’ Note: This article benefited from collaborations with Dan
sions concerning global climate change, social insurance Feiler, Adam Galinsky, Adam Grant, Morela Hernandez, Rick Larrick,
systems, and national debt have the potential to con- Vicki Medvec, Dave Messick, and Harris Sondak. The authors also
strain the options of future generations of citizens and thank Galen Bodenhausen, Rick Larrick, Allan Lind, John Payne, and
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts
policy makers for decades to come. Similarly, decision
of this article. Please address correspondence to Kimberly A. Wade-
makers in large corporations make decisions about the
Benzoni, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 134 Towerview
allocation and consumption of resources that affect the Drive, Durham, NC 27708-0120; e-mail: [email protected].
welfare of communities and other stakeholders not only
PSPR, Vol. 13 No. 3, August 2009 165-193
now but also well into the future. Even decisions at the
DOI: 10.1177/1088868309339317
individual level can have surprisingly far-reaching future © 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
165
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
166 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
conflict by considering what balance between the inter- and family contexts. Specifically, a generation is any
ests of present decision makers and future others pro- individual or group that occupies a role for a limited
duces optimal levels of efficiency (e.g., Kotlikoff, 1992; time period and then transitions out of that role as
Portney & Weyant, 1999). In contrast to these norma- another individual or group transitions in. For example,
tive approaches, we take a descriptive approach and past, present, and future sets of organizational actors
focus on the psychological factors that affect the actual can be thought of as different generations in organiza-
decision-making behavior of present actors. tions. More critical than a particular timeframe, the sim-
We define “intergenerational dilemmas” as decisions ultaneous presence of particular features of the social
in which the interests of present decision makers are in context creates the psychological dynamics of intergen-
conflict with the interests of future others. Psychological erational decisions. These features include power asym-
research on intergenerational dilemmas has been char- metry between present actors and future others, lack of
acterized by two primary boundary conditions. First, direct reciprocity across generations, conflict between
the present generation has complete unilateral decision- the interests of present actors and future others, time
making power over decisions with consequences for delay between decisions and consequences, and role
f ut ure generations (i.e., future generations have no transition across generations of actors (see Wade-
voice). Second, social actors are removed from the social Benzoni, 2002a, for a thorough discussion of how gen-
exc hange context over time, and thus they do not benefit erations are defined in this research; see Joshi, Dencker,
or suffer from the consequences of their prior deci- Franz, & Martocchio, 2009, for a discussion of defining
sions. A key implication of this second boundary condi- generations in organizational contexts).
tion is that there is no opportunity for future generations A central imperative in the study of intergenerational
to directly reciprocate the good or bad given to them by dilemmas has been to identify factors that influence
prior generations. The simultaneous presence of these intergenerational beneficence, or the extent to which
features differentiates the psychology of intergenera- members of present generations are willing to sacrifice
tional decisions from more typical intergroup situations their own self-interest for the benefit of future others in
in which other parties have their own voice and from the absence of economic or material incentives to pre-
traditional social dilemmas in which the decision maker sent actors for doing so. Another key imperative is to
remains part of the collective when the consequences of uncover unexpected ways in which the complex constel-
her or his decisions materialize. lation of features that characterize intergenerational
Classic social dilemmas focus on tradeoffs between contexts can combine to create phenomena distinctive
the individual and the collective (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, to intergenerational contexts. Intergenerational dilem-
1986; Dawes, 1980). In general, after the individuals mas are characterized by a combination of intertempo-
make their decisions, they remain part of the collective ral and interpersonal dimensions. In this article, we
and experience the group-level consequences that result explain that although some main effects from the litera-
from the combination of individual decisions. Social tures that examine these two domains separately (e.g.,
dilemmas can involve situations in which short- and the literature on the effect of time on personal choice
long-term interests are at odds. In social delayed traps, and the literature on the effects of social discounting in
behavior with immediate positive consequences for one- self–other tradeoffs) do indeed generalize to intergen-
self results in long-term negative consequences for one- erational contexts, the combination of these two dimen-
self and others (e.g., using water during a shortage); sions also produces unexpected effects that are unique
with social delayed fences, immediate effort is required to intergenerational dilemmas. Specifically, the combi-
to obtain a long-term collective goal (e.g., investing nation of interpersonal and intertemporal distance that
effort to develop a neighborhood park) (Messick & characterizes intergenerational decisions produces coun-
Brewer, 1983). In contrast to social dilemmas, in the terintuitive effects of outcome uncertainty and social
intergenerational contexts we consider here, the deci- power and provides an ideal opportunity for decision
sion makers exit the social exchange situation over time makers to leave a legacy, which in turn produces a vari-
and thus do not experience the long-term consequences ety of other distinctive phenomena that researchers are
of their own decisions. The removal of the decision- only beginning to explore in detail. Table 1 summarizes
making actors from the collective following their decision key distinctions among intertemporal, interpersonal, and
is a critical distinguishing feature between intergenera- intergenerational choice and addresses how they com-
tional and classic social dilemmas (including delayed pare to one another.
traps and fences). Across multiple research papers and experiments, res-
Research on intergenerational dilemmas adopts a earch on intergenerational dilemmas brings together
broader definition of generation than its conventional insights from diverse research areas including behavioral
application to a 20- to 30-year timeframe within society decision theory, organizational behavior, intertemporal
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
Wade-Benzoni, Tost / EGOISM & ALTRUISM 167
TABLE 1: Key Distinctions Among Intertemporal Choice, Self–Other Tradeoffs, and Intergenerational Dilemmas
Intertemporal Personal Choice Self–Other Tradeoffs Intergenerational Dilemmas
Type of distance in effect intertemporal distance interpersonal distance both intertemporal and
interpersonal distance
Type of discounting intertemporal social intergenerational discounting =
combination of intertemporal
and social discounting
Actors’ experience of decision maker experiences decision maker & others decision maker experiences
outcomes (i.e., who and immediate and delayed experience immediate immediate consequences to the
when) consequences to the self consequences self; others experience delayed
(i.e., future) consequences
Role of outcome uncertainty outcome uncertainty contributes to outcome uncertainty contributes to outcome uncertainty (with
preference for present fulfillment egocentric biases possibility of no future benefit)
contributes to a sense of power
and social responsibility
Role of reciprocity none possibility of direct reciprocation possibility of indirect
by others reciprocation (i.e.,
intergenerational reciprocity;
“pay it forward”)
Effect of affinity/group none enhances beneficence to others enhances beneficence to others
identification
Effect of social power of the none absolute power enhances absolute power inherent in
decision maker beneficence; otherwise, power intergenerational contexts
enhances self-interest contributes to a sense of social
responsibility and thus
enhances beneficence to future
others
Potential of legacy creation none none uniquely suited to creation of a
legacy, which in turn enhances
beneficence
choice, social justice, egocentrism, social exchange, ide- intergenerational research to other key psychological
ntification, generativity, terror management theory, and theories.
other areas of social psychology to shed light on the
psychological dynamics of intergenerational decisions.
We begin our exploration of this research by reviewing INTERPERSONAL AND INTERTEMPORAL
previous findings on intergenerational dilemmas that DISTANCE IN INTERGENERATIONAL CONTEXTS
generalize from other research streams, specifically
focusing on the effects of intertemporal distance on As previously explained, intergenerational decisions
intertemporal discounting, the role of egocentric fair- are characterized by the combination of intertemporal
ness judgments, and the effect of affinity and identifica- and interpersonal dimensions. That is, in intergenera-
tion on social discounting. We then move on to examine tional dilemmas, actions in the present affect outcomes
more closely some of the unique and counterintuitive in the future (intertemporal), and decisions and behav-
effects that emerge from the combination of the inter- iors of one person or group affect outcomes to another
personal and intertemporal dimensions of intergenera- person or group (interpersonal). These two dimensions
tional decisions. We first focus on the distinctive nature represent domains of psychological distance between
of reciprocity in intergenerational contexts and describe the decision maker and the outcome of the decision
how the behavior of previous generations affects present (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007). Psychological
decision makers. We next examine the unexpected role distance is the quality of being removed from one’s
of outcome uncertainty and social power in intergenera- direct experience of reality or of lacking a sense of psy-
tional contexts. We finally explore in detail the effects chological immediacy (e.g., Bjorkman, 1984; Henderson,
of the potential for legacy creation in intergenerational Trope, & Carnevale, 2006; Loewenstein, 1996; Trope
dilemmas. As we review this work, we also point to & Liberman, 2003; Wong & Bagozzi, 2005).
areas for further research, including considering the Research into the effects of the two types of distance
possible effects of relaxing the boundary conditions of that characterize intergenerational contexts has dem-
previous research, and we identify the contributions of onstrated that some of their independent effects can be
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
168 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
generalized to intergenerational contexts. In other words, Furthermore, intergenerational discounting is often
just as both forms of distance diminish beneficent beha- magnified because of the ways in which the conseque-
vior in other contexts (i.e., to the self in the future or to nces, either positive or negative, to future generations
others in the present), they diminish intergenerational often escalate over time and as resources are transferred
beneficence as well. In the following sections, we des- from one generation to the next. In the case of long-
cribe empirical findings relevant to these effects, and term financial investments, for example, future genera-
we begin by explaining the concept of intergenerational tions are expected to experience greater monetary benefits
discounting, which emerges from both social and inter- relative to those foregone by earlier generations. Simi-
temporal discounting. We then explain that intertempo- larly, future generations can experience more serious
ral distance produces intertemporal discounting and negative consequences as a result of the present genera-
consequently diminishes intergenerational beneficence. tion leaving burdens for them than would be experi-
We next explain how interpersonal distance produces enced by the present generation had they handled the
social discounting and egocentric perceptions of fair- burdens themselves (such as toxic waste that is buried
ness in intergenerational dilemmas. We also discuss how and consequently poisons drinking water decades later).
feelings of interpersonal affinity and identification affect This feature of increasing consequences adds complexity
perceptions of interpersonal distance. We then address to intergenerational decisions, intensifies the dilemma
recent findings with regard to the interaction between that people face when allocating resources between them-
affinity and intertemporal distance before moving on to selves and future others, and captures an important asp-
address the more counterintuitive effects that emerge ect of intertemporal phenomena.
from the combination of the two dimensions. The top Intergenerational discounting, therefore, emerges as a
portion of Figure 1 models the effects that generalize combined effect of social and intertemporal discounting
from research on other forms of distance in decision and often occurs in the context of the escalation of con-
making, whereas the bottom portion of Figure 1 models sequences over time. As a result, the self-interested eff-
the effects that emerge from the combination of the two ects of these two types of discounting are compounded
dimensions. in intergenerational dilemmas. It is difficult for people
to forego consumption of resources in the present and
save them for their own deferred benefit. It is also dif-
Intergenerational Discounting
ficult for people to give up beneficial resources so that
other people can have them. Thus, extrapolating from
Discounting refers to a devaluation of an outcome.
research that looks at self–other tradeoffs and intertem-
A discount function describes the relation between the
poral tradeoffs separately, we would expect these two
perceived value of a good and a given dimension of dis-
components together to result in a formidable force
counting. The value of a commodity to an individual
working in opposition to intergenerational beneficence.
may be discounted in several ways. For example, indi-
Indeed, in the following two sections, we present evi-
viduals tend to discount the value of outcomes that
dence indicating that these two forms of distance do
accrue to others rather than to themselves (Loewenstein,
enhance self-interested behavior and thus affect the like-
Thompson, & Bazerman, 1989). Similarly, research has
lihood of beneficence.
demonstrated that people discount outcomes to them-
selves when those outcomes are delayed (Loewenstein,
1992). Thus, both interpersonal distance and intertem-
The Temporal Dimension: Intertemporal Discounting
poral distance produce discounting, and both types of
discounting are relevant in intergenerational contexts. Time delay between decisions and consequences has
Specifically, intergenerational discounting occurs when been shown to have systematic effects on allocations of
individuals prefer smaller benefits for themselves now as resources. There is a well-established literature on inter-
opposed to larger benefits for others in the future (Wade- temporal choice showing that people discount the value
Benzoni, 1999, 2002a, 2008). The degree of intergen- of resources that will be consumed in the future; in
erational discounting reflects how much the interests of other words, individuals exhibit an inborn impatience
future generations are represented in current decisions. and preference for immediate over postponed consump-
The greater the discount rate, the less the interests of tion (see Loewenstein, 1992, for a review). This inter-
future others are valued relative to the interests of the temporal form of discounting occurs because, as time
present decision maker (Brennan, 1995; Padilla, 2002). delay increases, people have greater difficulty fully under-
As a consequence, greater levels of intergenerational standing and envisioning the consequences of decisions.
discounting produce lower levels of intergenerational Specifically, long time horizons limit cognition such that
beneficence. time loses its realism as time perspective lengthens (von
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
Wade-Benzoni, Tost / EGOISM & ALTRUISM 169
E
Intergenerational (+) Affinity ffe
Identification cts
th
(–) a
t g
e
Intertemporal n
e
Interpersonal Distance ra
Distance liz
e
(+) (+) from
re
s
Social Intertemporal ea
(+) Discounting Discounting rch
o
n
(+) o
(+) (+) th
e
Perception of r fo
Fairness of Intergenerational rm
Selfish (+) s
Discounting o
Allocation f d
is
(–) (–) tan
c
e

INTERGENERATIONAL
(+) BENEFICENCE E
ffe
c
Presence of ts
(+) (+) Additional tha
Constituencies t e
m
Norms of Legacy (+) e
Intergenerational Concerns rge
BeRneefcicipernocceit y(:vs. FeSeloincgiasl of from
Selfishness) Responsibility th
e
c
o
(+) (+) m
(+) b
in
a
Complete tion
Mortality Power o
Resource Salience Asymmetry f so
(+) Valence: Cues (+) cia
Burdens (vs. l a
Benefits) (+ Assuming nd
possibility of te
m
no future p
o
benefit) ra
BeBheanveiofirc oefn Pcere (vviso.u Ss eGlfeisnhenreastiso)n s: Outcome Uncertainty l dista
n
c
e

Figure 1 Model of key influences on intergenerational beneficence.
Bohm-Bawerk, 1889). In addition, outcome alternatives As previously described, a key feature of intergenera-
to a decision become less salient and harder to discrimi- tional dilemmas is that the outcomes of intergenerational
nate the farther in the future they are expected to occur decisions are removed from the decision maker through
(Pigou, 1920). Beyond cognitive limitations, however, the temporal delay that exists between decisions made
motivational effects, such as the immediate pain of in the present and the effect of those decisions on future
deferral, also make it difficult for people to delay bene- generations. Research has shown that the finding from
fits for the future. research on intrapersonal intertemporal choice that
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
170 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
greater time delays produce greater degrees of intertem- good is discounted when it accrues to others rather
poral discounting also generalizes to intergenerational than to the self (Loewenstein et al., 1989; Rachlin &
contexts. For example, Wade-Benzoni (2008) conducted Raineri, 1992). With social discounting, the identity of
a study in which participants were given $7 and asked the person experiencing the consumption of the resource
to decide how much of the money to keep for them- can alter the subjective value of the benefit. For exam-
selves and how much to allocate to an individual who ple, an individual may be willing to work for 1 hour to
would participate in the study after them. Half of the acquire $10 for himself or herself but would only be
participants were told that the person to whom they willing to work for a few minutes to acquire the same
were allocating would be participating later in the same amount of money for another person. Research into
day, whereas the other half were told that the person to social discounting has demonstrated that the greater the
whom they were allocating would participate in the interpersonal distance between oneself and others, the
research in 6 months. Analyses revealed a significant greater the degree of social discounting (Jones &
main effect of time delay, such that participants allo- Rachlin, 2006). In some intergenerational decisions, the
cated more money to the other individual in the short particular future others who experience the future
time delay condition than in the long time delay condi- repercussions may be impossible to identify (e.g., a
tion. This difference in allocation provides evidence of future class of MBA students who have not yet even
intergenerational discounting and supports the notion decided to apply for business school) or may be yet to
that increasing time delays decreases intergenerational be born (e.g., future generations of citizens who will
beneficence. Thus, consistent with research on intertem- deal with the repercussions of global climate change
poral personal choice, research on intergenerational over the next several centuries), and thus interpersonal
dilemmas suggests that a greater time delay between distance can be quite high.
decisions made in the present and the consequences of
those decisions to future generations increases intergen-
Egocentric Perceptions of Fairness
erational discounting and diminishes intergenerational
beneficence (Wade-Benzoni, 1999, 2008). Previous research on social dilemmas has documented
the existence of position effects (Budescu, Suleiman, &
Rapoport, 1995), which occur when a decision maker’s
The Interpersonal Dimension:
position in the order of requests in a common pool
Social Discounting and Egocentrism
dilemma has a direct effect on the amount of resources
requested. Specifically, previous research has found that
The traditional literature on intertemporal choice
occupying an earlier position leads individuals to
referenced earlier focuses on situations in which actors
increase the amount of resources they request (Budescu
make decisions in the present that affect themselves in
et al., 1995). Generalizing from this research to inter-
the future. Intergenerational tradeoffs, however, involve
generational contexts suggests that present decision
decisions made in the present that affect others in the
makers may search for reasons to feel entitled to a large
future (Schelling, 1995; Wade-Benzoni, 1999, 2002a).
share of available benefits relative to what might be left
As previously mentioned, the interpersonal dimension
for future others. Indeed, research on intergenerational
of intergenerational dilemmas produces both social dis-
dilemmas has found that the position of an individual in
counting and egocentric interpretations of fairness in
the generational sequence has a powerful effect on that
intergenerational contexts. Although both social dis-
individual’s perceptions of fairness in intergenerational
counting and egocentric interpretations of fairness can
allocations.
diminish intergenerational beneficence, we argue that
An extensive body of research has shown that when
affinity and identification with future others can dimin-
people are personally involved in a situation, judgments
ish interpersonal distance, decrease social discounting,
of fairness are likely to be biased in a self-serving man-
limit egocentric biases, and enhance intergenerational
ner, even though such subjective perceptions can appear
beneficence.
objective and unbiased to moral reasoners them-
selves—an effect labeled “egocentric interpretations of
Social Discounting
fairness” (e.g., Diekmann, Samuels, Ross, & Bazerman,
Although people may care about the outcomes of 1997; Epley & Caruso, 2004; Messick & Sentis, 1979,
others, individuals’ decision-making behavior is typi- 1983; Ross & Sicoly, 1979; Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel,
cally driven by self-interest and tends to favor the self in & Bazerman, 1996; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid,
tradeoffs between one’s own and others’ well-being 1978). Individuals are motivated by self-interest to
(Loewenstein, 1996). This dynamic reflects the phe- obtain benefits for and avoid burdens to themselves.
nomenon of social discounting, in which the value of a They are also concerned with issues of justice, and they
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
Wade-Benzoni, Tost / EGOISM & ALTRUISM 171
like to believe that they have contributed their fair share advisors’ judgments closely followed those of the suc-
to others and the common good. Self-serving interpreta- ceeding generation and were significantly different from
tions of fairness provide a convenient reconciliation of those of the preceding generation, thus indicating that the
these two apparently conflicting goals: Individuals can source of egocentrism was in the preceding generation.
have what they want (e.g., a larger share of a limited Given that intergenerational contexts are character-
desirable resource) and believe their actions are fair ized by interpersonal distance between the decision maker
(Bazerman, Buisseret, & Wade-Benzoni, 1998; and the future others who will experience the conse-
Bazerman, Wade-Benzoni, & Tenbrunsel, 1998). quences of the decision, and further that present decision
Research has confirmed the role of egocentric biases makers exhibit egocentric biases in their perceptions of
in a variety of resource allocation contexts including the fairness of intergenerational resource allocations, the
negotiations (e.g., Babcock, Loewenstein, Issacharoff, likelihood of individuals engaging in intergenerational
& Camerer, 1995; Bazerman & Neale, 1982; Neale & beneficence appears to be limited. Res earch on the role of
Bazerman, 1983) and social dilemmas (Wade-Benzoni et affinity in intergenerational allocations provides evidence,
al., 1996). The bias manifests itself as a strong tendency however, that the potential for intergenerational benefi-
for people to justify allocating more of a limited resource cence may not be as limited as it may seem at first glance.
to themselves relative to others on the basis of fairness. In the following section, we suggest that enhancing
Furthermore, this effect has been found to generalize affinity and identification across generations can offer a
across different cultures (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002), means through which social discounting and egocentrism
highlighting the pervasiveness of the phenomenon. may be reduced.
Research on intergenerational dilemmas similarly shows
that self-serving biases in fairness judgments play a
Affinity and Intergenerational Identification
strong and important role in the intergenerational
domain as well. Affinity refers to a combination of empathy, perspec-
In most societies, there is a presumption of a moral tive taking, and perceived oneness and is a function of
obligation toward future generations. People generally the extent to which an individual feels empathetic toward
value the outcomes to future generations (Kempton, and connected with future others (Batson, 1991; Cialdini,
Boster, & Hartley, 1995) and tend to agree that fairness Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Wade-Benzoni,
in the distribution of resources across generations should 2008). When affinity is high, people have a sense of
be upheld to some degree if societies are to persist and vicariously experiencing the outcomes of others and
flourish over time. Egocentric fairness judgments, a phe- thus are better able to take their perspective. This feel-
nomenon that emerges from the interpersonal dimen- ing is highly related to the concept of closeness in inter-
sion of intergenerational contexts, however, can be a personal relationships (Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron,
psychological barrier to implementing well-intended fair- Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson,
ness to future generations. 1991). Aron and Aron (1986) argue that closeness may
In a series of experiments, Wade-Benzoni, Hernandez, lead individuals to perceive the other as included in the
Medvec, and Messick (2008) found that fairness judg- self. Aron et al. (1991) argue that, to the extent that
ments in intergenerational resource allocations differ another individual is perceived as being part of oneself,
according to position in the intergenerational sequence. allocations that benefit the other are perceived as bene-
That is, individuals’ judgments about what is fair for fiting the self. Thus, affinity has a direct effect on per-
one generation to leave for the next depends on whether ceptions of interpersonal distance and therefore has a
the decision maker is in the generation who is leaving main effect on social discounting: As affinity increases,
the resources (generation x) or the one for whom the social discounting decreases.
resources are being left (generation x + 1). Specifically, Research has provided some support for this effect in
people believe it is fair for the preceding generation to intergenerational contexts. For example, in one study,
leave fewer benefits for the succeeding generation when Wade-Benzoni (2008) measured participants’ feelings of
they are members of the preceding generation as com- affinity with future others in a vignette based on the
pared to when they are in the succeeding generation. real-life crisis in the ocean’s fisheries and found a posi-
Fairness judgments made by the preceding and succeed- tive relationship between affinity for future fishers and
ing generations were also compared to those made by a intergenerational beneficence in decisions concerning
third party outside of the intergenerational sequence present fish consumption. Affinity with future genera-
with no vested interest in the outcome of the allocation. tions appears to cause the outcomes to future genera-
This baseline fairness evaluation by the neutral party tions to feel more immediate and personal (Wade-Benzoni,
served as an “objective standard” to help determine which 1999, 2003, 2008). When affinity with future genera-
role was the source of egocentrism. The independent tions is high, future others may come to be understood
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
172 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
and experienced as part of oneself, which consequently including aspects of group social identity, the decision
aligns self-interest with the interests of the future others, maker’s motivation for self-enhancement, the decision
reduces psychological distance, and promotes intergen- maker’s holistic needs, the specificity with which future
erational beneficence. Furthermore, because interperso- others are identified, decision framing, and relations
nal distance is necessary for the emergence of egocentric with previous generations (see Wade-Benzoni, 2003,
biases, it is likely that increased affinity would similarly for a detailed review).
mitigate the effects of egocentrism in perceptions of the Here, we suggest two potential avenues for enhancing
fairness of intergenerational allocations. Further research intergenerational identification (and, consequently, inter-
should examine this implication. generational affinity and beneficence): emphasizing the
For those interested in enhancing intergenerational role of past generations in producing present group iden-
beneficence, this finding raises an important question: tity and focusing on long-term group goals. First, theo-
How can affinity with future others be enhanced? rists have argued that understandings of the past can have
E nh ancing intergenerational affinity may appear to be a powerful effect on feelings about the future (Sherif,
challenging, given that a key boundary condition of 1966). In intergenerational contexts, feeling identified
previous research on intergenerational dilemmas has with past generations may be more readily facilitated
been that present decision makers and future others than directly enhancing identification with future others
do not interact. Research has shown, however, that because past generations are more readily identified and
decision makers need not interact with future others specified. In addition, the role that members of past gen-
to feel affinity for them; rather, they need only identify erations have played in creating the present group context
themselves as part of a common group with future oth- makes the connection between past and present more eas-
ers (Wade-Benzoni, 2008). In other words, to the extent ily clarified than the connection between the present and
that decision makers view their ingroup as a social the future. Critically, however, to the extent that a deci-
entity that extends across generations, as ingroup iden- sion maker identifies with past generations, that individ-
tification increases, intergenerational beneficence will ual has already come to view different generations as
be enhanced. This finding is compatible with research members of one common group. In addition, highlighting
in the areas of social identity and self-categorization, the role of past actors in affecting the present context can
which has demonstrated that group members need have the effect of encouraging present decision makers to
not interact or even feel strong interpersonal ties to view the ingroup as a group that has continuity over time
perceive themselves as members of a group (Brewer, through sequences of generations. These perceptions of
2000; Tajfel, 1982). It is also consistent with Gaertner common group identity across generations are likely to
and Dovidio's extensive work on the Common Ingroup increase identification with, and thus affinity for, future
Identity Model, which proposes that if members of dif- generations. At the same time, highlighting the effect of
ferent groups are led to conceive of themselves as mem- past organizational actors can also serve as a reminder to
bers of a common ingroup rather than as members of present decision makers that they themselves may be
separate groups, members' attitudes toward former out- remembered by future others, just as past actors are pres-
group members will become more positive as a result of ently remembered. We therefore suggest that enhancing
the motivational and cognitive forces that emerge from identification with past generations can help to overcome
ingroup formation (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005, and an obstacle to identification with future generations. As a
Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009, for reviews). result, the affinity that a decision maker feels with future
We therefore suggest that the enhancement of inter- generations may be increased by enhancing identification
generational identification may be an important avenue with past generations.
for the enhancement of intergenerational affinity and Second, research on group entitativity, or the extent to
ultimately beneficence. Intergenerational identification which a group is perceived by its members and others as
refers to the perception or feeling of a common group a single coherent entity or unit, has demonstrated that
identity with other (past and/or future) generations of groups that share common goals are perceived to be
actors (Wade-Benzoni, 2003). As such, the concept of more entitative (Lickel et al., 2000). If this finding gener-
identification is highly related to the concept of affinity alizes to intergenerational contexts, then we would expect
in that the more an individual feels a sense of common that establishing long-term group goals that can only be
group identity with other generations, the more likely ultimately realized by future generations of group mem-
that individual is to feel connected with future others, to bers would encourage present decision makers to feel a
engage in perspective taking concerning the interests of sense of entitativity across generations becau se multiple
future others, and to have empathy for future others. generations would be required to work toward and
A considerable range of factors that affect the extent of achieve common goals. Given that previous research has
intergenerational identification has been identified, also established that entitative groups have a high social
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011
Wade-Benzoni, Tost / EGOISM & ALTRUISM 173
identity value (Lickel et al., 2000), it is likely that a sense In summary, previous research has supported a model
of entitativity across generations would further enhance (see the top half of Figure 1) in which intertemporal
intergenerational identification, affinity, and beneficence. distance increases intertemporal discounting, which in
Further research should explore these possibilities. turn increases intergenerational discounting and dimin-
ishes intergenerational beneficence. Research has also
indicated that interpersonal distance increases social
Interaction Between the Intertemporal
discounting, which also increases intergenerational dis-
and Interpersonal Dimensions
counting and diminishes intergenerational beneficence.
Before moving on to address the more counterintui- Interpersonal distance between present decision makers
tive effects that emerge from the combination of the and future others also contributes to egocentric inter-
two dimensions, we first briefly review a series of stud- pretations of fairness, in which present decision makers
ies that examined both time and affinity in intergenera- perceive that it is fair for them to keep a larger share of
tional resource allocations and revealed an interaction benefits for themselves relative to future actors than an
between the two variables (Wade-Benzoni, 2008). In independent observer would advocate. Existing theory
one study, affinity with future generations and percep- and previous empirical work, however, also suggest that
tions of temporal distance between decisions and con- increasing affinity and identification across generations
sequences to future generations were both measured in may diminish both the effects of social discounting and
a survey concerning participants’ willingness to pay a the effects of egocentrism, thus enhancing intergenera-
gas oline tax in a decision positioned as an intergenera- tional beneficence. These findings are consistent with the
tional tradeoff. Regression analyses revealed an inter- findings in the literatures on intrapersonal intertempo-
action between the two measured variables. Analysis ral choice and on self–other tradeoffs. As we explain
of the interaction revealed that there was a greater below, however, the combination of intertemporal and
effect of affinity on intergenerational beneficence when interpersonal dimensions that characterizes intergenera-
temporal distance was low rather than high and that tional decisions also produces a number of unique eff-
there was a greater effect of temporal distance on ects, some of which have the potential to actually reverse
intergenerational beneficence when affinity was low the negative effects of interpersonal and intertemporal
rather than high. That is, when affinity with future distance on intergenerational beneficence. We now turn
generations was low, time delay between decisions and to a discussion of these dynamics.
consequences had a greater effect on intergenerational
decisions relative to when affinity was high. When
time delay was low, affinity between present decision RECIPROCITY, UNCERTAINTY, AND LEGACY
makers and future others had a greater effect relative CREATION IN INTERGENERATIONAL CONTEXTS
to when time delay was high. These findings indicate
that affinity has a greater impact on intergenerational The generalizations from the intertemporal and inter-
beneficence when time delay is relatively short, while personal choice literatures present a fairly straightfor-
time has a greater impact when affinity is relatively ward image of intergenerational dilemmas as situations
low. In another study, time and affinity were both in which the independent effects of interpersonal and
manipulated in a 2 (short vs. long time delay) × 2 intertemporal distance combine in an additive fashion
(high vs. low affinity) experimental design involving to minimize the likelihood of intergenerational benefi-
a money allocation task. Analyses revealed an interac- cence. Substantial research on intergenerational dilem-
tion between time and affinity, such that the condition mas indicates, however, that these effects are sometimes
that combined high affinity with short time delay was more complicated than this generalized story suggests.
significantly different (exhibiting greater intergenera- Specifically, there are circumstances in which the roles
tional beneficence) from the other three conditions. of intertemporal and interpersonal distance are less
Thus, it may be the case that higher affinity increases important than the norms established by previous gen-
the perceived value of beneficent behavior to the deci- erations, and there are also circumstances in which the
sion maker, whereas shorter time delays increase the comb ination of intertemporal and interpersonal dis-
perceived likelihood of having an effect. As such, tance actually enhances, rather than diminishes, the
individuals may feel more confident about the posi- likelihood of intergenerational beneficence (see the bot-
tive effect of forgoing personal self-interest to benefit tom half of Figure 1). In the following sections, we
others when both the perceived value of that behavior explain these counterintuitive findings by reviewing
is high (high affinity) and the perceived likelihood of research on intergenerational reciprocity, the links
effect is high (low time delay). Further research should between uncertai nty and social power, and the role of
examine the nature of this interaction in more detail. legacy creation in intergenerational dilemmas.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on May 10, 2011