Act like There Is a Tomorrow—Contact and Affinity with Younger People and Legacy Motivation as Predictors of Climate Protection among Older People

Abstract

The climate crisis poses a major threat for sustainability, with the young and future generations likely to be among the most affected groups in the climate crisis. Older generations will be less affected but have a greater impact both in terms of contribution and mitigation. We investigated potential intergenerational drivers of older Germans’ climate protection intentions and behavior in two pre-registered studies (N₁ = 411, 55- to 75-year olds; N₂ = 309, 55- to 86-year olds). On a correlational level, both studies revealed that contact between generations (particularly high-quality contact) indirectly explained the participants’ climate protection intentions/behavior. This effect was mediated by affinity with younger people (Study 1) and its subfacets of perspective taking and empathic concern (but not the subfacet of perceived oneness; Study 2). Study 1 further provided evidence that legacy motivation, i.e., the desire to leave behind a positive legacy, was positively related to participants’ climate protection intentions and behavior. Study 2’s attempt at testing the causal role of the subfacets of affinity was not successful, as the experimental manipulation of perspective taking toward younger people failed. However, the two studies provide correlational evidence that the closer older people feel to younger people and the future consequences of their behaviors, the more willing they are to protect the climate.

1. Introduction

In the Brundtland Report, sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [1], p. 16. One of the greatest threats to sustainability is the climate crisis. The present generations are compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs by emitting greenhouse gases to meet their own needs and by failing to take effective climate action. As the impacts of the climate crisis are prognosed to intensify over time, todays’ young and future generations are more likely to experience climate crisis-related consequences, such as extreme weather events, water scarcity, and hunger, than today’s older generations [2]. Yet, among the current generations, it is the older people that have the highest per capita carbon emissions; the per capita carbon emissions increase with age, with a slight decrease once people reach their sixties [3], and thus, the older people contribute most to emissions.

Older generations therefore bear a greater responsibility, but also have a greater potential to help mitigate the climate crisis, as changing their own behavior can have a large impact. Furthermore, people belonging to these older generations have the power to change things on a larger scale, as they hold most of the decisive positions in society, the economy, and politics, and, at least in the Global North, are more numerically represented and thus dominant in elections, e.g., [4,5]. With global greenhouse gas emissions continuing to increase [6] and given the climate impact and mitigation power of older generations, the present study investigated the motivators of older people’s urgently needed climate protection behaviors.

There are several barriers for older people to protect the climate. According to the Overlapping Generations Model of Growth and the Environment which considers the long-term consequences of economic decisions, short-lived individuals face a trade-off between allocating their resources in capital and consumption, resulting in a degradation of the environment bequeathed to future generations, or investing in boosting the quality of the environmental, thereby improving the environment bequeathed to future generations [7].

Investing in improving the quality of the environment by protecting the climate is often associated with higher costs (e.g., insulating one’s home) or even sacrifices (e.g., refraining from flying). As older people will be, on average, less affected by the climate crisis, it would not be themselves, but others, who will benefit most from their climate protection endeavors. This creates a so-called social distance between themselves and the people benefitting from their behaviors [8,9]. In addition, the benefits of possible climate protection efforts will only unfold in the future, resulting in an additional temporal distance component. The personal benefits of the climate protection behaviors are therefore discounted twice, since they will benefit others in the future. This process is called intergenerational discounting [9,10]. Climate protection behaviors therefore represent a special case of prosocial behavior, as they benefit others (e.g., young and future generations) and may be associated with personal costs or sacrifices [11,12]. In the present study, climate protection by older people is hence regarded as a prosocial behavior toward young and future generations, i.e., as intergenerational prosocial behavior.

2. Theory

The research has identified several ways in which prosocial behaviors between different groups, e.g., [13,14], and generations, e.g., [10,15], can be promoted. Intergroup contact is considered a powerful tool for overcoming social distances, improving intergroup attitudes and behaviors, and in turn promoting prosocial behaviors between groups [16]. Several variables act as mediators for the effect of intergroup contact, e.g., perspective taking, empathy [17], and perceived oneness [18].

One variable that has been shown to reduce the perceived temporal distance between individuals and the consequences of their behaviors, thereby promoting intergenerational beneficence, is legacy motivation, defined as the desire to leave behind a positive legacy [8].

2.1. Contact

Since Allport’s [19] and Williams’ [20] contact hypothesis, contact between groups has been considered a key mechanism for improving intergroup attitudes and behaviors (see [16], for a meta-analysis). According to the contact hypothesis, contact between groups can, under optimal conditions (e.g., equal status between the groups), reduce prejudice and thereby improve intergroup attitudes [19]. Most studies agree that it is the quality rather than the quantity of contacts that matters [13,21]. Yet, some studies found a positive, albeit smaller, effect for the quantity of the contact [22]. Pettigrew and Tropp [16] conducted a meta-analysis on the effect of intergroup contact on intergroup prejudice, combining 515 studies from a variety of societies, social groups, and situations. They found that intergroup contact between groups reduces intergroup prejudice with an average effect size of r = −0.22.

Intergroup contact not only reduces intergroup prejudice and improves intergroup attitudes, but it has also the potential to improve intergroup behaviors. In two studies, Johnston and Glasford [13] demonstrated that high-quality contact with one member of an outgroup can increase the intention to help the entire outgroup. Accordingly, Koschate et al. [23] found that contact promotes prosocial behavior toward both the individual and the outgroup as a whole. There are numerous studies on the different effects that intergroup contact has among minority and majority groups. A large-scale study by Hässler et al. [24] including almost 70 countries indicated that intergroup contact increases the willingness of both minorities and majorities to work in solidarity.

While the contact hypothesis was originally developed for and applied to interracial relations, it has also been successfully applied in the intergenerational context. Here, most studies have focused primarily on how intergenerational contact can reduce prejudice toward older people [18,25,26].

Older people were one of the target groups examined in Pettigrew and Tropp’s meta-analysis [16]. The results revealed that contact with older people reduced participants’ prejudice toward them with an average effect size of r = −0.18. Furthermore, studies have found that intergenerational contact, e.g., in the form of digital gameplay or school-based pen-pal-letter programs [27], improves children’s perceptions of and attitudes toward older people. Consistent with previous research [13], it was specifically the quality of the intergenerational contact that had a positive effect on attitudes [18] and behavioral intentions toward older people, e.g., to help and support them [26].

2.2. Affinity

Several studies have examined the ways in which intergroup contact reduces prejudice and improves intergroup attitudes and behaviors (see [17] for a meta-analysis). Some mediators can be grouped together based on their focus on bringing different groups closer together, e.g., perspective taking, empathy [17], and perceived oneness [18].

Perspective taking refers to imagining and understanding the thoughts and feelings of a person in need and represents the cognitive aspect of empathy [28,29]. There are numerous definitions for empathy. In this paper, we focus on empathic concern, which is defined as feeling for another person who is in need, and represents “an other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of a person in need” [29], p. 2. The Empathy–Altruism Model (see [29] for an overview) states that taking the perspective of a member of another social group increases empathic concern for that individual and their entire group, which in turn is thought to improve intergroup attitudes and increase intergroup prosocial behaviors. Accordingly, perspective taking was shown to increase empathic concern for the person whose perspective was taken, e.g., a young woman in need [30], and their social group, e.g., North-African immigrants [31], drug addicts [32], and people with AIDS [33], and thereby improve attitudes and prosocial behavior toward them.

Furthermore, both intergroup contact and perspective taking are assumed to increase the perception of oneness with the other person and their group. The variable of perceived oneness stems from the social identity theory, which states that individuals categorize others based on physical similarity, proximity, or shared fate [34]. Whether others are perceived as members of one’s own group (ingroup) or not (outgroup) has a significant influence on the person’s attitude and behavior toward other individuals. People that are perceived as ingroup members are met with more positive affect [35] and receive more helpful behaviors [36] than outgroup members.

Accordingly, the results from three experiments indicate that taking the perspective of a target person (e.g., an African American or an elderly person) improves both attitudes and behaviors toward that person by increasing the perceived overlap between one’s self and the target person [14]. Jang [37] found that induced perspective taking toward a single victim leads to a greater self–other overlap with similarly situated multiple beneficiaries, which in turn results in greater donations for them. In the intergenerational context, Cadieux [18] found that positive contact with an older adult explained younger adults’ attitudes toward older adults in general, which was mediated by the cognitive self–other overlap.

While most of the existing and presented research studies perceive the variables of perspective taking, empathic concern, and perceived oneness as related yet distinct concepts, Wade-Benzoni [15] combined the three variables into the concept of affinity. She defines affinity as the extent to which an individual feels empathetic toward and connected with others. Affinity is said to make the outcomes that occur to others feel more immediate and personal by blurring the distinction between one’s own interests and those of others, thereby promoting intergroup prosociality [15,38,39].

The role of affinity has mostly been tested in the intergenerational context. In an experimental study, Wade-Benzoni [15] demonstrated that participants who expressed a higher affinity for future generations allocated more resources to them in an intergenerational resource dilemma experiment, and thus showed more intergenerational beneficence. Accordingly, in a cross-national study, de Paula Sieverding et al. [40] identified intergenerational affinity, consisting of the subfacets of perspective taking toward, empathic concern for, and perceived oneness with younger people, as an important predictor of older adults’ political solidarity with younger people.

2.3. Legacy Motivation

In addition to a social distance component, intergenerational issues such as the climate crisis also entail a temporal distance component. In order to overcome this temporal distance, it is crucial to make long-term perspectives and motives salient. One way to achieve this is to appeal to and emphasize people’s legacy motivation. Legacy motivation refers to the desire to extend oneself into the future by leaving a positive legacy [8]. This desire becomes increasingly important with age [41]. It is hypothesized that reflecting on one’s own legacy and thus considering the future impact of one’s actions on other people in the future leads to a greater favoring of the well-being of these other people, thereby reducing intergenerational discounting.

Various empirical studies have supported these theoretical assumptions. Domain-general legacy motives have been shown to be related to pro-environmental behaviors [8], and tend to be higher among older adults [41]. Emphasizing individuals’ legacy motivation has been shown to promote prosocial choices directed at future others [42,43] and pro-environmental and climate-protection behaviors [8,9,41]. Legacy motivation, or the closely related construct of generativity, has also been shown to act as a mediator between intergenerational contact and the improvement of intergenerational attitudes [44].

3. Present Studies

Given the urgent need to protect the climate and the crucial role of older generations in achieving this goal, we conducted two studies to examine potential motivators of climate protection intentions and behaviors among older people. In the present research, we understand older people as people aged 55 years and over, and younger people as people aged 25 and under. This relative categorization is based on the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of a generation as “all the people of about the same age within a society or within a particular family […] a period of about 25 to 30 years”.

Based on the theoretical and empirical background presented, we focused primarily on variables that have the potential to decrease the social and temporal distance between older people and the recipients (younger people) and the consequences of their behavior. In the first study, we examined the relationships between the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact, the higher-order construct of affinity with younger people (hereafter called intergenerational affinity), legacy motivation, and climate protection intentions and behaviors. In the second study, we took a closer look at the subfacets of intergenerational affinity and their role in climate protection intentions and furthermore, experimentally manipulated perspective taking toward younger people.

Study 1

• Hypotheses

In line with previous research, we expected the quality and quantity of contact with younger people to predict participants’ intergenerational affinity (quality: Hypothesis H1.1; quantity: Hypothesis H1.2) and legacy motivation (quality: Hypothesis H1.3; quantity: Hypothesis H1.4). We further hypothesized that participants’ climate protection intentions and behavior would be directly explained by their intergenerational affinity (Hypothesis H1.5) and legacy motivation (H1.6). As a consequence, we expected the criterion to be indirectly explained by the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact, mediated by intergenerational affinity (quality: Hypothesis H1.7; quantity: Hypothesis H1.8) and legacy motivation (quality: Hypothesis H1.9; quantity: Hypothesis H1.10).

We expected the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact as well as intergenerational affinity and legacy motivation to be positively related. We controlled for participants’ social desirability and their social-altruistic and biospheric value orientations [45,46]. See Figure 1 for the postulated model.

4. Methods

The study was pre-registered (Pre-registration refers to publishing a research protocol (planned hypotheses, methods, analyses) prior to conducting the study in a public repository). (see https://aspredicted.org/2GR_DQ1 (accessed on 4 January 2024)) and designed and conducted in accordance with the APA guidelines for the ethical conduct of research. According to German law, survey studies do not require ethical approval if anonymity is guaranteed and no sensitive content is assessed. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

4.1. Data Collection and Participants

Data were collected online from 16 to 21 June 2023 through the online access panel provider Bilendi using the platform SoSciSurvey. Participants were financially compensated for their participation.

Of the 426 participants who passed the screening question (“This is a test question. Please tick 1: ‘strongly disagree’”), 2 were excluded based on answer time (they finished the survey in less than three minutes when it took the other participants, on average, about eight minutes) and 11 based on missing values (at least 30% of the questions had missing values), resulting in a final sample size of N = 411. No participants were excluded based on mechanical answer tendencies. The answer time ranged from 3.20 to 19.53 min (M = 7.89, SD = 2.90). This sample was representative of the German population aged 55 years and older regarding age distribution, gender, and education [47]. A total of 187 of the participants identified with the male gender, 223 with the female gender, and 1 person identified as diverse. The ages ranged from 55 to 75 years (M = 65.07, SD = 5.66).

4.2. Measures

All measures can be found in Appendix A. Participants were always given the option “don’t know/not applicable” (which was then coded as a missing value), except for the sociodemographic questions assessing age, gender, and highest level of education. For the descriptive and bivariate correlational analyses, an average score was calculated for each participant for each variable. To test the postulated model, the variables were computed within the Measurement Model.

Prior to the questions related to young people, participants were given the information that in the present study, young people were understood as people up to the age of 25.

The quantity of intergenerational contact was assessed with one item (“How much contact do you have with young people (e.g., in the neighborhood, among friends and relatives, during leisure activities)?”) that was answered on a 5-point Likert rating scale (1 = none to 5 = a lot).

The quality of intergenerational contact was assessed with six items adapted from Islam and Hewstone [21] and Lolliot et al. [48]. Participants were asked to what extent they experienced contact with young people in certain ways. Answers were assessed using a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very).

Intergenerational affinity was assessed with ten items in line with de Paula Sieverding et al. [40] through its three subfacets of empathic concern, perspective taking, and perceived oneness.

Empathic concern was assessed with six items from Batson [49]. Participants were asked to describe how strongly they felt six emotions toward young people (e.g., sympathetic, compassionate). Answers were assessed on a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = not at all, 5 = a great deal).

Perspective taking was assessed with three items (e.g., “It is easy for me to put myself in the shoes of young people”) adapted from Batson and Ahmad [50] on a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

To assess perceived oneness, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they would use the term “we” to describe themselves and young people [51]. The answer was assessed on a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). Participants were also presented with the Inclusion of Others in Self Scale drawn from Aron et al. [52] depicting seven Venn diagrams. The graphs showed two increasingly overlapping circles labeled as “Myself” and “Young people” and participants were asked to select the graph that best described their relationship with young people. This item was then converted from a seven- to a five-point Likert scale to match the first perceived oneness item.

Legacy motivation was assessed with four items (e.g., “It is important to me to leave behind a good legacy for those who come after us”) following Wade-Benzoni et al. [53] and Zaval et al. [8]. The answers were assessed on a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = none at all to 5 = a great deal).

The climate protection intentions and behavior measure covered private-sphere, political, as well as activist behaviors and was assessed on a scale with 20 items partly drawn from Matthies et al. [54]. Participants were asked whether they intended to perform certain climate protection behaviors in the near future (e.g., to refrain from flying or to donate to an environmental charity) and whether they had already performed them. The answers were assessed on a five-point Likert response scale (1 = no, definitely not to 4 = yes, definitely and 5 = I have already done this/I am already doing this).

Social desirability was assessed with six items adapted from Kemper et al. [55]. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the statements applied to them (e.g., “In an argument, I always remain objective and stick to the facts”). The answers were assessed on a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = doesn’t apply at all to 5 = applies completely).

Social-altruistic value orientation and biospheric value orientation were assessed with three items each taken from Stern et al.’s [56] Brief Inventory of Values. Participants were asked to which extent they considered the values (e.g., “social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak”, “Environmental protection and nature conservation”) as guiding principles in their lives. Answers were assessed on a nine-point Likert rating scale (−1 = opposed to my values over 0 = not important to 7 = of supreme importance).

4.3. Planned Statistical Analyses

As the first step, we computed and inspected the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the central variables. We then computed a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to test the postulated model. Since the criterion (climate protection intentions and behavior) was not normally distributed, MLR (maximum likelihood with robust standard errors, with Huber–White correction of standard errors and a Yuan–Bentler equivalent test statistic) was used as a robust estimator. Given the use of a robust estimator, no bootstrapping technique was used. Missing values were excluded on a case-wise basis.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

The scale ranges, means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities of the central variables can be found in

Table 1. Scale ranges, means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities of the central variables.

	Scale Range	M	SD	ω
Contact Quantity	1 to 5	3.41	1.10	/
Contact Quality	1 to 5	3.59	0.82	0.89
Affinity	1 to 5	3.44	0.87	0.93
Legacy Motivation	1 to 5	3.63	1.11	0.93
Social Desirability	1 to 5	4.04	0.62	0.65
Social-Altruistic Values	−1 to 7	5.73	1.31	0.81
Biospheric Values	−1 to 7	5.23	1.64	0.88
Climate Protection	1 to 5	2.65	0.72	0.97

Note. McDonald’s Omega was used to assess the scale reliabilities.

.

The bivariate correlations can be found in

Table 2. Bivariate correlations of sociodemographic variables and the central variables.

	Age	Gender	Education	Contact Quality	Contact Quantity	Affinity	Legacy Motivation	Social Desirability	Social-Altruistic Values	Biospheric Values
Age	-
Gender	0.02	-
Education	0.08	−0.10 *	-
Contact Quality	0.13 *	0.16 **	0.00	-
Contact Quantity	−0.05	0.06	0.05	0.61 **	-
Affinity	0.02	0.18 **	−0.06	0.65 **	0.53 **	-
Legacy Motivation	0.05	0.16 **	0.04	0.38 **	0.32 **	0.54 **	-
Social Desirability	0.12 *	0.10 *	−0.09	0.32 **	0.17 **	0.35 **	0.28 **	-
Social-Altruistic Values	0.02	0.10 *	−0.08	0.37 **	0.23 **	0.41 **	0.41 **	0.34 **	-
Biospheric Values	0.02	0.14 **	−0.05	0.33 **	0.16 **	0.39 **	0.52 **	0.31 **	0.66 **	-
Climate Protection Intentions and Behavior	0.07	0.12 *	0.06	0.27 **	0.18 **	0.39 **	0.60 **	0.18 **	0.33 **	0.44 **

Note: Spearman’s Rho was used to assess the bivariate correlations. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

. The criterion, climate protection intentions and behavior, showed significant positive correlations with all potential predictor and control variables. Age was positively related to the quality of intergenerational contact and social desirability. The relationship between gender and the studied variables was consistent with previous research, with women reporting higher scores for social desirability, social-altruistic and biospheric values, and climate protection. Women also reported higher scores for the quality of intergenerational contact, intergenerational affinity, and legacy motivation. Education was not related to any of the variables in the studied sample.

5.2. Structural Model

The results of the Structural Model predicting participants’ climate protection intentions and behavior can be found in Figure 2, and the entire Structural Equation Model including the Measurement Model can be found in Appendix B (Figure A1). The postulated model had an acceptable to good model fit with a robust CFI = 0.87, robust RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.07 [57] and explained 28% of the variance in the criterion of climate protection intentions and behavior. In line with predictions, intergenerational affinity was explained by the quality of intergenerational contact (β = 0.80, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H1.1. The quality of intergenerational contact also significantly predicted legacy motivation (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis H1.3. As expected, intergenerational affinity and legacy motivation were positively related (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). The quantity was significantly related to the quality of intergenerational contact (r = 0.71, p < 0.001). However, it was not predictive of either intergenerational affinity (β = −0.05, p = 0.49) (rejecting Hypothesis H1.2) or legacy motivation (β = 0.03, p = 0.73) (rejecting Hypothesis H1.4). The participants’ climate protection intentions and behavior were directly predicted by intergenerational affinity (β = 0.13, p = 0.04) and legacy motivation (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), supporting Hypotheses H1.5 and H1.6. Furthermore, the criterion was indirectly predicted by the quality of intergenerational contact, mediated through both intergenerational affinity (β = 0.10, p = 0.04) and legacy motivation (β = 0.17, p < 0.001), supporting Hypotheses H1.7 and H1.7. Hypotheses H1.8 and H1.9 had to be rejected since the quantity of intergenerational contact did not significantly predict the criterion. Of the three control variables, only the biospheric value orientation significantly explained climate protection with β = 0.30 (p = 0.01).

6. Discussion

The climate protection behaviors of older generations can be considered a form of intergenerational prosociality, as they primarily benefit young and future generations and may involve personal costs or sacrifices [11,12]. The present study examined motivators of climate protection intentions and behaviors among older people by drawing on variables that have successfully promoted intergroup and intergenerational prosociality in the past.

As hypothesized, we found the participants’ affinity with younger people to be predictive of the participants’ climate protection intentions and behaviors. This suggests that the closer the older people felt to younger people, entailing a greater perspective taking, empathic concern, and perceived oneness, the more willing they were to protect the climate. This finding is in line with previous studies that found intergenerational affinity to predict intergenerational beneficence [15] and political solidarity [40].

In line with predictions, the participants’ legacy motivation was a significant predictor of their climate protection intentions and behaviors. Since concerns about one’s legacy include wanting to leave behind an intact world for future generations [58], taking action to mitigate the climate crisis is a powerful method to contribute to one’s legacy. This result is consistent with previous evidence [8,9,41] showing that legacy motivation appeals to a longer-term and other-oriented perspective and thereby promotes prosocial behaviors toward future others and climate change protection behaviors.

The present study further investigated whether intergroup contact, which has been shown to be a powerful tool to increase intergroup prosociality, e.g., [13,23], could also promote the intergenerational prosocial behavior of climate protection. Indeed, the quality of contact with younger people was indirectly related to the participants’ climate protection intentions and behaviors, mediated by both intergenerational affinity and legacy motivation. Although no causal inferences can be drawn, these significant mediations suggest that positive intergenerational contact may bring generations closer together and appeal to older peoples’ motivation to leave behind a positive legacy, in turn, promoting intergenerational prosociality.

In contrast, the quantity of the intergenerational contact was not significantly related to intergenerational affinity or legacy motivation, or indirectly related to the criterion. This result is consistent with previous research findings on the ambiguous role of the quantity of contact in improving intergroup attitudes and the overshadowing role of the quality of contact [21].

While the present study focused on intergenerational drivers, we also controlled for known predictors of climate protection behaviors. As expected and in line with previous research, the participants’ biospheric value orientation was an important predictor of their climate protection intentions and behaviors [45]. However, the criterion was not related to the participants’ social-altruistic value orientation or their social desirability, with the former possibly being due to the high correlation with biospheric values.

Taken together, the findings indicate that, in addition to basic ecological values, intergenerational variables also play a role in predicting climate protection intentions and behavior in older people and that climate protection may in turn indeed represent a form of intergenerational prosociality. Given the correlational nature of this first study and to gain a deeper understanding of the variable of intergenerational affinity, we conducted a second study.

Study 2

• Hypotheses

The second study was designed to test the causality of the relationship between intergenerational affinity and climate protection intentions of older people, and to gain insights about the subfacets of intergenerational affinity, namely perspective taking, empathic concern, and perceived oneness, and their respective interrelations and relationship with climate protection intentions. See Figure 3 for the postulated model.

To that end, we experimentally manipulated perspective taking toward younger people in line with previous studies using a text-reading intervention [59]. The participants in Experimental Group 1 received a text describing the reality of a young person paired with the instruction to take the perspective of that person. The participants in Experimental Group 2 received the same text about that young person, but no perspective-taking instruction. The participants in the Control Group received a text describing the reality of an older person and no perspective-taking instruction.

We expected the perspective taking toward younger people to be highest among participants in Experimental Group 1, followed by participants from Experimental Group 2, and lowest among participants in the Control Group (Hypothesis H2.1). We expected both empathic concern (Hypothesis H2.2) and perceived oneness (Hypothesis H2.3) and the resulting climate protection intentions (Hypothesis H2.4) to be highest among participants in Experimental Group 1, followed by participants from Experimental Group 2, and lowest among participants in the Control Group. On a correlational level, we expected both the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact to explain the participants’ domain-general perspective taking toward younger people (quality: Hypothesis H2.5; quantity: Hypothesis H2.6). Furthermore, we expected perspective taking to explain both empathic concern for (H2.7) and perceived oneness (H2.8) with younger people, and empathic concern (H2.9) and perceived oneness (H2.10) to predict climate protection intentions. As for mediation effects, we hypothesized that the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact can indirectly explain climate protection intentions, mediated through perspective taking and subsequently empathic concern toward younger people (quality: H2.11; quantity: H2.12) as well as through perspective taking and subsequently perceived oneness with younger people (quality: H2.13; quantity: H2.14).

We again controlled for the participants’ social desirability tendencies and their social-altruistic and biospheric value orientations.

7. Methods

Similar to Study 1, Study 2 was designed and conducted in accordance with the APA guidelines for the ethical conduct of research and did not require ethical approval. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was pre-registered (see https://aspredicted.org/X8P_2QJ (accessed on 4 January 2024)).

7.1. Data Collection and Participants

Data were collected online from 19 to 26 October 2023 through the online access panel provider Bilendi using the platform SoSciSurvey. Participants were financially compensated for their participation.

Of the 320 participants who passed the screening question (“This is a test question. Please tick 1: ‘strongly disagree’”) and the attention check question (“What was found in the lake?” Answer options: A bicycle; Blue-green algae; Evidence of contamination), 2 were excluded based on answer time (they finished the survey in less than three minutes when it took the other participants, average, about eight minutes) and 9 based on missing values (30% or more of the questions had missing values). No participants were excluded based on mechanical answer tendencies. The final sample consisted of N = 309. The answer time ranged from 3.20 to 19.53 min (M = 7.77, SD = 2.75). The final sample was representative of the German population aged 55 years and older regarding age distribution, gender, and education (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020). A total of 140 of the participants identified with the male gender, 168 with the female gender, and 1 identified as diverse. The ages ranged from 55 to 86 years (M = 65.57, SD = 6.57).

7.2. Procedure

After providing their sociodemographic information and reporting the quantity and quality of their intergenerational contact, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three perspective-taking conditions. After reading the respective text, they all completed an attention check to ensure that they cautiously read the text. Participants then completed the questions for the perceived oneness, perspective-taking, and empathic concern measures, followed by the questions for the climate protection intention measure. They finished the survey by completing the questions for the social-altruistic and biospheric value orientations and social desirability scales.

7.3. Measures

Prior to the questions related to young people, participants were given the information that in the present study, young people were understood as people up to the age of 25. The quantity of intergenerational contact, perceived oneness, perspective taking, and empathic concern for young people, social-altruistic and biospheric value orientations, and social desirability were assessed with the same scales that were used in Study 1. The quality of intergenerational contact was measured with one item: “How would you rate your contact with young people?” adapted from Bousfield and Hutchison [26]. The answers were assessed on a five-point-Likert rating scale (1 = very negative to 5 = very positive). Climate protection intentions were assessed with the same 20 items used in Study 1. The question, however, read: “The following question refer to different climate protection behaviors and whether you plan to implement them in the near future. If a question does not apply to you because, for example, you do not have a car to replace, please tick “not applicable”. Unlike in Study 1, the answer options were limited to future oriented intentions and did not include past behavior. The answers were assessed on a five-point-Likert response scale (1 = no, definitely not to 5 = yes, definitely). All measures can be found in Appendix A.

7.4. Manipulation of Perspective Taking

In line with previous studies, we manipulated perspective taking toward one person as a means to trigger perspective taking [31,32], empathic concern (e.g., [60,61]), and perceived oneness with that person’s social group [14,31]. Following Batson et al. [61], we focused the ‘imagine-other’ perspective, since this kind of perspective taking has shown to evoke empathy, which in turn, induces altruistic motivations, as opposed to the ‘imagine-self’ perspective, which has been shown to evoke both empathy and personal distress, resulting in egoistic motivations.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Participants in all three conditions received a text describing the reality of a person, and the instruction to carefully read the text.

The two experimental conditions were presented the following text:

“Maya is 17 years old and lives with her mother and 14-year-old brother in a small town in northwestern Germany. She is in grade 11 at the local high school and still has a little more than a year and a half of school ahead of her before she will graduate in the summer of 2025. She is not yet sure what she wants to do afterwards. One option she can imagine is training to be a paramedic, as she likes being with people, is interested in medicine, and wants to work hands-on. Now that her high school graduation is approaching, she has to do more for school than she used to. But she still has time to go to handball in the evening or do something with her friends. Actually, they were supposed to meet at the lake tonight, which she had been looking forward to all week, especially since it’s so hot again this summer. Yesterday, however, there was a report that blue-green algae had been found in the lake—alternatively, there was only one lake further away. But most of her friends can’t afford the Germany ticket, they therefore cancelled the lake trip. At the moment she is dealing with a conflict with her best friend who recently started her first relationship and is much less interested in Maya since then. At the same time, Maya has some issues that are bothering her: Her father is desperate to get her a boring internship with a family friend, she’s newly in love, and she always has to do more chores than her brother. And on top of that, she’s thinking a lot about what she’s going to do after school, and it would be cool to be able to talk about it with her best friend”.

The two experimental conditions differed in the instructions. In Experimental Group 1, participants received the following instruction: “While reading the text, try to imagine how the person described perceives their situation and how they feel. The goal is not to concern yourself with all the information, but to put yourself in the situation of the person described as best you can”.

In Experimental Group 2, participants received no instruction other than to read the text carefully. They were then presented with the same text describing Maya’s reality as Experimental Group 1. In agreement with Ortiz-Riomalo et al. [59], we expected the mere presentation of the text describing the reality of a young person to increase perspective taking and in turn perceived oneness and empathic concern. Unlike them, however, we did not consider this condition to be a control condition but rather a weaker intervention condition.

In the Control Group, we presented the participants with a text describing the reality of a person falling into our “older people” category (aged 58) and no further instruction other than to read the text carefully. We thereby opted for a different approach than previous studies, e.g., [32,61], who presented the participants in the control condition with the same text as the treatment group and the instruction to remain objective and focus on the facts while reading the text. We chose this approach because we assumed that the mere presentation of the text, which describes the reality of a young person’s life, would increase perspective taking and also increase ecological validity. The full text can be found in Appendix A.

7.5. Planned Statistical Analyses

To gain an overview of the data, we first examined the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the central variables. We then tested whether the experimental manipulation of the participants’ perspective taking toward younger people using the text-reading intervention was successful via ANCOVA. The participants were randomly assigned to Experimental Group 1: text about young person and perspective taking instruction; Experimental Group 2: only given text about young person; and Control Group: text about older person. The experimental group was entered as an independent variable, the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact were entered as covariates, and perspective taking toward younger people represented the dependent variable and manipulation check. We further computed three separate ANCOVAS on empathic concern for and perceived oneness with younger people and climate protection intentions as dependent variables.

In addition to testing the effect of the perspective-taking intervention, we tested the postulated model shown in Figure 3 via the Structural Equation Model.

8. Results

8.1. Descriptive Statistics

The scale ranges, means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities for the central variables can be found in

Table 3. Scale ranges, means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities for the central variables.

	Scale Range	M	SD	ω
Contact Quantity	1 to 5	3.15	1.11	/
Contact Quality	1 to 5	4.05	0.91	/
Perspective Taking	1 to 5	3.70	0.87	0.84
Perceived Oneness	1 to 5	3.13	0.95	0.76 +
Empathic Concern	1 to 5	3.60	0.79	0.92
Climate Protection Intention	1 to 5	2.81	0.81	0.87
Social Desirability	1 to 5	2.77	0.43	0.60
Social-Altruistic Values	−1 to 7	6.02	0.95	0.78
Biospheric Values	−1 to 7	5.55	1.19	0.85

Note: McDonald’s Omega was used to assess scale reliabilities except for perceived oneness, for which, the Cronbach’s Alpha (⁺) was computed.

. The bivariate correlations of the central variables and sociodemographic variables can be found in

Table 4. Bivariate correlations of sociodemographic variables and the central variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Experimental Condition (1)	-
Age (2)	0.08	-
Gender (3)	0.05	−0.03	-
Education (4)	−0.04	0.00	−0.02	-
Contact Quality (5)	−0.04	0.06	0.15 **	0.03	-
Contact Quantity (6)	0.06	−0.07	0.12 *	0.11	0.46 **	-
Affinity (7)	0.00	0.02	0.21 **	0.04	0.61 **	0.50 **	-
Perspective Taking (8)	−0.03	−0.08	0.21 **	0.00	0.51 **	0.43 **	0.84 **	-
Empathic Concern (9)	0.00	0.07	0.18 **	0.06	0.59 **	0.38 **	0.92 **	0.65 **	-
Perceived Oneness (10)	0.02	0.01	0.13 *	0.00	0.44 **	0.53 **	0.75 **	0.54 **	0.58 **	-
Social Desirability (11)	−0.03	−0.02	−0.16 **	−0.03	0.07	0.06	0.14 *	0.10	0.13 *	0.12 *	-
Social-Altruistic Values (12)	0.03	0.14 *	0.09	−0.05	0.31 **	0.09	0.41 **	0.30 **	0.46 **	0.22 **	0.14 *	-
Biospheric Values (13)	0.10	0.08	0.16 **	0.00	0.14 *	−0.01	0.30 **	0.25 **	0.31 **	0.19 **	0.04	0.65 **	-
Climate Protection I. (14)	0.15 **	0.09	0.12 *	0.11	0.15 *	0.16 **	0.32 **	0.18 **	0.32 **	0.23 **	0.04	0.32 **	0.47 **

Note: Spearman’s Rho was used to assess bivariate correlations. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

. The criterion, climate protection intentions, was positively related to all potential predictors and the social-altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Furthermore, it was associated with gender, with women expressing higher intentions to protect the climate. No associations were found with age, education, or social desirability. To enable a comparison with results of Study 1, the overall construct of affinity was included in the correlation table in addition to its three subfacets.

8.2. Evaluation of the Intervention

We computed four ANCOVAs to test whether the experimental manipulation of the participants’ perspective taking toward young people (H2.1) and the subsequent variables empathic concern (H2.2), perceived oneness (H2.3), and climate protection intentions (H2.4) were successful. The descriptive statistics of these four variables for each experimental condition (unadjusted and adjusted for the covariates) can be found in Appendix C in

Table A7. Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted descriptive statistics for perspective taking toward younger people.

Experimental Condition	Quality of Intergenerational Contact			Quantity of Intergenerational Contact			Perspective Taking (Unadjusted)			Perspective Taking (Adjusted)
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
EG 1	102	4.04	1.00	106	3.07	1.17	106	3.73	0.91	100	3.79	0.88
EG 2	96	4.11	0.89	98	3.21	1.04	99	3.70	0.88	95	3.77	0.82
CG	100	4.00	0.86	103	3.18	1.09	103	3.68	0.84	100	3.75	0.84

,

Table A9. Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted descriptive statistics for empathic concern for younger people.

Experimental Condition	Empathic Concern			Empathic Concern
	(Unadjusted)			(Adjusted)
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
EG 1	107	3.55	0.83	101	3.59	0.80
EG 2	98	3.71	0.74	94	3.76	0.70
CG	103	3.55	0.80	100	3.56	0.81

,

Table A11. Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted descriptive statistics for perceived oneness with younger people.

Experimental Condition	Perceived Oneness			Perceived Oneness
	(Unadjusted)			(Adjusted)
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
EG 1	105	3.08	0.94	101	3.12	0.93
EG 2	99	3.22	0.91	95	3.28	0.86
CG	103	3.10	1.01	100	3.17	0.95

and

Table A13. Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted descriptive statistics for climate protection intentions.

Experimental Condition	Climate Protection Intention			Climate Protection Intention
	(Unadjusted)			(Adjusted)
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
EG 1	107	2.64	0.76	101	2.67	0.74
EG 2	99	2.88	0.74	95	2.90	0.75
CG	103	2.93	0.88	100	2.94	0.86

, with Table A7 furthermore depicting the descriptive statistics for the two covariates quality and quantity of intergenerational contact. The results for the four separate ANCOVAs can be found in Appendix C,

Table A8. Analysis of covariance for perspective taking toward younger people in experimental condition with quality and quantity of intergenerational contact as covariates.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p	η2
Quality of Intergenerational Contact	30.19	1	30.19	60.49	<0.001	0.17
Quantity of Intergenerational Contact	7.45	1	7.45	14.92	<0.001	0.049
Experimental Condition	0.39	2	0.20	0.39	0.68	0.00
Error	144.74	290	0.50

Note: R² = 0.32 (Adj. R² = 0.31).

,

Table A10. Analysis of covariance for empathic concern for younger people in experimental condition with quality and quantity of intergenerational contact as covariates.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p	η2
Quality of Intergenerational Contact	42.94	1	42.94	114.72	<0.001	0.28
Quantity of Intergenerational Contact	1.45	1	1.45	3.87	0.05	0.01
Experimental Condition	1.07	2	0.54	1.43	0.24	0.01
Error	108.55	290	0.374

Note: R² = 0.39 (Adj. R² = 0.38).

,

Table A12. Analysis of covariance for perceived oneness with younger people in experimental condition with quality and quantity of intergenerational contact as covariates.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p	η2
Quality of Intergenerational Contact	15.86	1	15.86	26.88	<0.001	0.09
Quantity of Intergenerational Contact	23.34	1	23.34	39.57	<0.001	0.12
Experimental Condition	0.65	2	0.33	0.55	0.58	0.00
Error	171.65	291	0.59

Note: R² = 0.30 (Adj. R² = 0.29).

and

Table A14. Analysis of covariance for climate protection intention in experimental condition with quality and quantity of intergenerational contact as covariates.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p	η2
Quality of Intergenerational Contact	3.15	1	3.15	5.20	0.23	0.02
Quantity of Intergenerational Contact	0.14	1	0.14	0.23	0.64	0.00
Experimental Condition	4.26	2	2.13	3.52	0.03	0.02
Error	176.05	291	0.61

Note: R² = 0.05 (Adj. R² = 0.04).

. The results indicate that the experimental condition did not significantly affect the participants’ perspective taking toward, empathic concern for, or perceived oneness with younger people. Hypotheses H2.1 to H2.3 were therefore rejected, and we concluded that the intervention was not successful. Yet, the results of the fourth ANCOVA (Table A12) revealed that the experimental condition had a significant effect on the participants’ climate protection intentions, with there being a significant mean difference of M_diff = 0.28 (p = 0.04) between Experimental Group 1 (M = 2.64, SD = 0.76) and the Control Group (M = 2.93, SD = 0.88). With this effect that was the opposite to the expected one, Hypothesis H2.4 was also rejected.

8.3. Structural Model

The results of the Structural Model in predicting the participants’ climate protection intentions can be found in Figure 4; the entire Structural Equation Model including the Measurement Model can be found in Appendix C (Figure A2). The postulated model had an acceptable to good model fit with a robust CFI = 0.90, robust RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.08 [57], and explained 36% of the variance in the criterion of climate protection intentions. Supporting hypotheses H2.5 and H2.6, perspective taking toward younger people was positively explained by the quality (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) and the quantity of intergenerational contact (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). The quality and quantity of contact were both positively related (r = 0.50, p < 0.001). In line with predictions, perspective taking toward younger people explained the empathic concern for (β = 0.81, p < 0.001) and perceived oneness (β = 0.77, p < 0.001) with them, supporting Hypotheses H2.7 and H2.8. Empathic concern and perceived oneness were positively related (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). As predicted, empathic concern for younger people explained the participants’ intentions to protect the climate (β = 31, p = 0.03), supporting Hypothesis H2.9. However, we had to reject Hypothesis H2.10 as perceived oneness with younger people was not predictive of the criterion (β = 0.16, p = 0.25).

As for the mediation effects, both quality (β = 0.13, p = 0.04) and quantity (β = 0.07, p = 0.04) indirectly predicted participants’ climate protection intentions, mediated through first, perspective taking and subsequently, empathic concern for younger people, supporting Hypotheses H2.11 and H.12. Hypotheses H2.13 and H.14 had to be rejected as the indirect effects of quality (β = 0.06, p = 0.26) and quantity (β = 0.03, p = 0.28) on the criterion mediated by perspective taking and perceived oneness were not significant. Of the three control variables, only the biospheric value orientation significantly explained climate protection intentions (β = 0.66, p < 0.001).

9. Discussion

The aim of Study 2 was to test the relationships between the intergenerational affinity subfacets and potential causal effects of perspective taking toward younger people on older people’s climate protection intentions through an intervention.

The results of the ANCOVAs show that perspective taking toward young people did not differ across the three different experimental conditions when the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact were controlled for. Accordingly, the experimental condition did not have an effect on the subsequent variables of perceived oneness with and empathic concern for younger people either.

This result suggests that our manipulation was not effective. There are several possible reasons for this result. First, unlike in other studies, e.g., [30,32], the participants in our control condition did not receive the same text describing the reality of the same person with the instruction to remain objective and detached. Instead, they were given a text describing the reality of a person who did not belong to the social group with which perspective taking was to be increased in the other groups. It is possible that the instruction to remain objective and detached may reduce the existing perspective taking tendencies with the target group among participants in the control condition. This leads us to the second possible reason why the manipulation may have failed. The average perspective taking toward younger people was quite high in all three conditions, possibly because younger people represent a less specific and less marginalized group than the groups that many previous studies have focused on and successfully manipulated perspective taking, such as toward drug addicts. There was therefore less room for “improvement” through the intervention. Also, in contrast to most studies in which perspective taking was manipulated [32,59], the person described in our two experimental conditions was not a person in need. The perception of need is considered an important prerequisite for perspective taking. We explicitly chose not to incorporate younger people’s needs in relation to the climate crisis, as we assumed that mentioning the adverse climate crisis consequences would be dominant in predicting climate protection intentions, which would have made it very difficult for us to detect a potential effect of perspective taking toward younger people.

However, the perspective taking condition significantly predicted the participants’ climate protection intentions in the direction opposite to the prediction: the participants in the Control Group reported significantly higher climate protection intentions than the participants in the two other conditions. Since the groups did not differ significantly with regard to other relevant predictors of climate protection intentions (e.g., biospheric value orientation and quantity and quality of intergenerational contact) and given the relatively small sample size, we assume that this finding might be an incidental finding.

Our failure to manipulate perspective taking toward younger people does however not mean that perspective taking may not have an influence on empathic concern for and perceived oneness with younger people, and in turn, climate protection intentions among older people. Firstly, the results of the SEM suggest that the participants’ domain-general perspective taking toward younger people was positively related to their perceived oneness with and empathic concern for younger people. This is consistent with previous research on the interrelation of these variables. The decomposition of affinity was therefore successful, which was also supported by the acceptable to good model fit.

Secondly, perspective taking predicted participants’ climate protection intentions mediated by empathic concern for younger people. This finding is in line with previous studies showing that perspective taking toward a member of a group promotes prosocial behavior toward the whole group by increasing empathic concern for them, e.g., [32]. However, no mediating effect was found for perceived oneness. This result suggests that, when studied simultaneously, it is empathic concern for younger people that is relevant for climate protection and not the perceived oneness with them. One potential explanation might be that perspective taking and empathy focus on the other group and their experiences, while perceived oneness focuses more on the interconnectedness the individual feels with the other group [31].

Thirdly, and consistent with Study 1, both the quality and quantity of intergenerational contact were relevant indirect predictors of climate protection intentions, mediated by the affinity variables of perspective taking and empathic concern. This again suggests that contact between different groups has the potential to bring them closer together and thereby increase intergroup prosociality.

10. General Discussion

10.1. Prediction of Climate Protection Intentions and Behavior

The climate crisis is one of the dominant crises of our time and the future, with generational affiliation influencing affectedness, contribution, and mitigation power. In two studies (Study 1: N = 411 Germans aged 55 to 75; Study 2: N = 309 Germans aged 55 to 86), the present paper investigated the climate protection intentions and behaviors in older people. On a correlational level, both studies agree that older people’s climate protection intentions and behaviors can be directly explained by intergenerational affinity. Study 2 shed further light on the subfacets of affinity, revealing that, as predicted, older people’s perspective taking toward younger people was related to empathic concern for them, which in turn, was related to their climate protection intentions. Yet, as the manipulation of perspective taking toward younger people was not successful in Study 2, causal conclusions could not be drawn. In both studies, the affinity variables mediated the effect of the quality of intergenerational contact on climate protection. In Study 2, the quantity of intergenerational contact also indirectly explained the criterion. In line with previous studies, Study 1 provided evidence that legacy motivation plays a role in explaining older people’s climate protection intentions and behavior, e.g., [9], and represents an additional mediator of the effect of the quality of intergenerational contact.

10.2. Limitations

The two studies presented come with several limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the results. While the two studies combined had a sample size of 720, a larger sample size in each study would have yielded more robust findings.

Although digital literacy is increasing among older adults [62], the present studies relied solely on online questionnaires for data collection, which could limit the generalizability of the results despite the samples being representative.

In both studies, the postulated models explained only a relatively small portion of the variance, especially when not considering the control variable biospheric value orientation. We did not integrate other known predictors of climate protection behaviors, such as personal norms, habits, or perceived behavior control (see [63], for a meta-analysis). Including these would certainly have allowed for a better explanation of the criteria. However, our main goal was to study the potential effects of intergenerational variables, not to exhaustively predict climate protection intentions and behaviors.

An important limitation of the second study is the failed manipulation of perspective taking toward younger people. As discussed in the Discussion section of Study 2, this failed manipulation could be due to the design of the control condition or the choice of the group that was targeted to increase for the perspective taking. As a result of the failed manipulation, all the findings are only of a correlational nature and no causal inferences can be drawn.

A final limitation is that we did not explicitly assess whether the older people examined exhibited climate protection behaviors for the benefit of younger people. Interpreting the climate protection of the participants as an act of prosociality toward young people should therefore be performed with caution. However, pro-environmental and climate protection behaviors are repeatedly considered as a form of prosocial behavior [64], and young and future generations are among the groups that will benefit most from climate protection. Furthermore, since our studies provide evidence that the intergenerational variables of quality of contact, intergenerational affinity, and legacy motivation explain climate protection beyond the influence of biospheric value orientation, we assume that intergenerational considerations play a role in climate protection, at least in part and for some older people.

10.3. Implications for Future Research and Practice

The present study is among the first to examine whether intergenerational contact, a proven predictor of intergroup prosociality, might promote older people’s climate protection intentions and behaviors. Future studies should test the causality of this relationship by manipulating the quality of contact between generations.

As the present study did not succeed in manipulating perspective taking toward younger people, future studies could use other intervention designs to assess the potential of influencing perspective taking toward younger people to affect climate change behaviors among older people. A stronger intervention in the experimental group, or providing the control group with the same text regarding the younger person in the control group with the instruction to remain detached and objective, as was performed in other studies (e.g., [32]), might have successfully manipulate perspective taking toward younger people. Another possibility, given the relatively high overall perspective taking toward younger people, would be to choose younger people who are affected by climate crisis consequences, or even future generations, as target groups.

Future studies could test the claim that climate protection behaviors represent a form of intergenerational prosociality by explicitly examining the relative importance of intergenerational predictors in comparison to other variables known to promote climate protection behaviors.

Although the present research only provides initial and correlational insights into intergenerational motivators of older people’s climate protection behaviors, it has several potential practical implications. The bottom line of both studies is that the closer older people feel to younger people, the more willing they are to protect the climate. Facilitating contact between different generations, e.g., via intergenerational tutoring programs such as computer courses for the elderly, might be a promising starting point to bridge the gap between generations and thereby promote intergenerational affinity and legacy motivation. Greater representation and visibility of younger generations, their realities and experiences in the media, e.g., in television programs aimed at older groups, might create indirect intergenerational experiences. This might facilitate an intergenerational understanding and perspective taking and lead to people taking the other generation into account in their actions.

Another potential approach to promote intergenerational prosociality and climate protection behaviors might be to make people aware of the long-term impact they and their actions have on both people and the world that they will leave behind, thus appealing to their legacy motivation.

11. Conclusions

The climate crisis affects young and future generations disproportionally and thereby poses a major threat to sustainability. Yet, while the intergenerational dynamics of the climate crisis are being widely discussed, more research is needed on the contribution that intergenerational variables could make in predicting and thus promoting the urgently needed climate protection behaviors of older generations. The present research considers older people’s climate protection behaviors as an act of intergenerational prosociality toward young and future generations and therefore drew on variables that, in the past, have successfully predicted prosociality between groups as potential predictors. The first study produced correlational evidence on the promoting roles of intergeneration contact and affinity and the motivation to leave behind a positive legacy in older people’s climate protection intentions and behaviors. Although the experimental manipulation of the affinity subfacet of perspective taking toward younger people failed, the second study produced additional evidence on the positive role of intergenerational contact for older people’s climate protection intentions and provided deeper insights into the subfacets of intergenerational affinity. Both studies suggest that bridging the gap between older and younger generations might be a promising starting point for promoting climate protection behaviors.