Experimental study evaluates climate change cooperation in university students, revealing low contributions to future generations, highlighting ideological influences.
Threats such as climate change require people to make decisions that benefit future generations. Building on previous research, we evaluate intergenerational decisions in an experimental climate game in a sample of university students from [details omitted for double-blind reviewing]. A total of 184 participants were exposed to one of four treatments and then played in groups or "generations" a round of the Multi-Level Conflict in Climate Change Mitigation developed by Böhm, Gürerk & Lauer (2020) with some variations. In addition, they completed some questionnaires. The results suggest that the treatments did not work as expected, i.e. there was no increase in long-term contributions for exposure to the experimental treatments compared to the control, nor among the treatments. On average, 25% of participants contributed 15 points to the long-term pool, which is the intergenerational optimum to benefit the next generation. This indicates a low percentage of cooperation with the future in general. Those who contributed most to the long-term pool were ideologically self-positioned on the left and had a higher perception of the social risk of climate change. Although the results did not provide evidence to support the hypothesis, this study sheds light on the pros and cons of the proposed methodology and makes visible an issue that has not been extensively studied in the Latin American context, namely concern for the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortiz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: