Social Design Engineering Series

SDES-2020-9

Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations
Serve As Their Representatives?

Yoshinori Nakagawa
School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology

Tatsuyoshi Saijo
Research Institute for Humanity and Nature
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology

31st July, 2020

School of Economics and Management
Research Institute for Future Design
Kochi University of Technology
KUT-SDE working papers are preliminary research documents published by the School of Economics and Management jointly with the ResearchCenter for Social Design Engineering at Kochi University of Technology. To facilitate prompt distribution, they have not been formally reviewed
and edited. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment and may be revised. The views and interpretations expressedin these papers are those of the author(s). It is expected that most working papers will be published in some other form.

Can Individuals Caring Little about Future Generations
Serve As Their Representatives?

1

Abstract
How the future generation’s voice can be institutionally reflected in current decision making has,for decades, attracted much attention from researchers and practitioners. To seek forms of
institutionalization in which politicians elected through a conventional democratic process areallowed voluntarily to represent future generations’ voices (rather than arbitrarily attaching
power to representatives), this study established a model for the psychological process in which
individuals experience future generations’ perspective through deliberation, and this experiencein turn motivates individuals to serve as future generations’ voluntary representatives. A
questionnaire survey was conducted with participants in a deliberative experiment (the numberof observations was equal to 187), and factor analysis and structural equation modeling wereapplied. As a result, two psychological constructs “Disengagement from the present” and“Supportive attitude toward future generations” were identified, and psychometrically soundscales for these constructs were developed. Additionally, the structural equation model for these
constructs was found to have acceptable goodness of fit. The present study contributes todeepening the debate on how one can find adequate or suitable candidates to fulfill roles as
future generations’ spokespersons and guardians.

Keywords: institutionalization; future generation; structural equation modeling; future design.

21. Introduction
Human societies face various intergenerational issues threatening their sustainability. Inpart, previous studies have ascribed these problems to the “presentism” (e.g., Thompson, 2010)
inherent in our democratic society: We, in the present, are prone to over-discount future
generations’ benefits in establishing laws and policies. To compensate for this deficit of
democracy, a number of attempts have been made to consider how future generations’ voices
can be institutionally reflected in current decision making. According to Jensen’s (2015)
literature survey, Kavka and Warren (1983) first suggested that future generations ought to be
represented in parliaments. Later, Dobson (1996) independently proposed that some seats inlegislative assemblies be reserved for future generations’ representatives, elected byenvironmental groups and organizations. Ekeli (2005) extended this idea by proposing that all
citizens should have the right to choose such representatives. Jensen (2015) called them“genuine representation of future generations” in contrast to institutionalization aiming toconstrain or overlook conventional democratic processes. Included in this category is the
proposal by Weiss (1992) to appoint and publicly finance an office responsible for ensuring that
future generations are considered. More recently, Adachi (2018) classified forms of
institutionalization into eight categories (including those not genuinely representative of future
generations), for instance, constitutional provisions for protection of future generations’
well-being (Bunchanan & Wagner, 1977), transferring some of sovereign states’ authority toregional or global bodies (Low & Gleeson, 1998), and creating an independent governmental
agency to review all regulations expected to impact future generations significantly and tocoordinate among existing agencies (Mank, 1996).
3

Despite accumulation of these important academic contributions during the last three
decades, the issue of practical, real-life institutional representation of future generations’ voices
remains unresolved. One reason for this failure seems to be that while earlier studies haveconsidered forms in which power is attached to future generations’ representatives, few haveaddressed mechanisms by which each individual, including the present generation’s elected
representatives, is motivated to overcome his or her presentism through deliberations enabled bysuch institutionalization. This argument seems consistent with that of Dror (2002; 2014; 2017),
who stressed the necessity of fostering sustainability-oriented politicians. This inattention leads
inevitably to the irreconcilable dilemma that more influential, effective institutionalization isless likely to be sustainable in democratic constitutions. In fact, drawing on case studies of
institutions representing future generations in six countries and regions, Jones, O’Brien, andRyan (2018; p.158) concluded, “Institutions which are given too much power, too early in theirlifespan, tend to face rejection from politicians.”Thus, unlike earlier studies, this study seeks a form of institutionalization in which
politicians elected in a conventional democratic manner are allowed voluntarily to represent
future generations’ voices (future generations’ voluntary representatives). In doing so, thisstudy aims to establish a model describing the psychological process in which individuals
experience future generations’ perspective through deliberation, and this experience in turnmotivates those individuals to serve as future generations’ voluntary representatives. This
research objective includes development of scales for measuring psychological states during thedeliberation process. Thus, the present study is expected to obtain a scientific basis on which to
explore forms of institutionalizing future generations’ representation through which individuals
4can most effectively overcome presentism. Such exploration can be accomplished by
maximizing expected values, as measured by these scales.
This study was inspired by the finding of Hara et al. (2019) that future generations’voluntary representatives can emerge through deliberations in a real setting in a specificenvironment. They observed this in a series of workshops in the Yahaba (Iwate Prefecture,
Japan) municipal government (2015—2016), which organized the workshops to obtain input fordeveloping a comprehensive, long-term strategy looking toward 2060. Some local citizens(approximately twenty) were invited to these workshops and allocated to what they called“imaginary future generation” groups and asked to play the future generation’s role to create
visions from the standpoint of those living in 2060. The concept “imaginary future generation”
was developed by Saijo (2017; 2019) who proposed the framework of Future Design, a branchof future studies. Future Design assumes that individuals possess “futurability,” an intrinsic
instinct to care for future generations; Future Design seeks new social systems in which
futurability is activated (unlike the system in which democracy and the market benefit thepresent generation more). In this deliberative setting, these groups of citizens expressed distinct
policy opinions to realize a future world in which imaginary future citizens were immersed.
To summarize, the present study aims to establish a psychological model describing theprocess in which individuals get willing to serve as future generations’ voluntary representatives.
In spite of the common failure mentioned above to institutionally reflect future generations’voices in the current decision making, the present study implicitly assume the existence of sucha psychological process. This assumption seems to be partly supported by the psychologicalliterature demonstrating that perspective taking (i.e., a cognitive process in which individuals
5adopt others’ viewpoints in an attempt to understand their preferences, values, and needs [e.g.,Parker & Axtel, 2001]) induce prosocial behaviors. While studies in this line consider taking
perspectives of others in the same era, the present study explores the possibility that thistheoretical framework can be extended, this study succeeded in identifying a causal path by which individuals become willingto serve as future generations’ voluntary representatives. This is regardless of their level ofcaring about future generations insofar as they have a sufficient disposition for critical thinking,suggesting that a disposition for critical thinking might serve as a criterion for judging who canfulfill roles as future generations’ spokespersons and guardians.

2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The present study posits the following four hypotheses and aims to test them.
H1: There are two psychological constructs behind the procedure of experiencing future
generations’ perspective: one representing the psychological state achieved when
individuals succeed in taking the future generation’s perspective (construct X). The
other represents the psychological state when individuals feel willing to serve as
future generations’ voluntary representatives after experiencing theperspective-taking intervention (construct Y).
H2: Construct X causes construct Y.

6

H3: A disposition for critical thinking is an antecedent of construct X.
H4: Generativity (i.e., concern for establishing and guiding the next generation) serves
as an antecedent of construct Y

These hypotheses are detailed below. By extending the retrospective assessment studies
of Anderson, Teisl, and Noblet (2012) and Noblet, Anderson, and Teisl (2015), Nakagawa,
Kotani, Matsumoto et al. (2018) developed an intervention for motivating individuals to acquire
preferences for policy options benefiting future generations. Their intervention was a package oftwo closely related components: (i) an exercise evaluating a past generation’s decisions from thepresent generation’s perspective, and (ii) evaluation of current policy options from a future
generation’s perspective. Furthermore, Nakagawa et al. (2019) developed a new package byadding (iii) watching a picture-story show prior to (ii) helping participants develop their own
ideas on what taking a future generation’s perspective is like. This study deepens previous
studies by identifying psychological constructs underlying attitude changes induced byperspective taking, namely constructs X and Y, as referred to in hypothesis H1.
The study further hypothesizes causality between these two constructs (i.e., construct X
causes construct Y: H2). While few earlier studies have considered the psychological process oftaking the future generation’s perspective, hypothesis H2 is consistent with psychologicalliterature on perspective taking (i.e., a cognitive process in which individuals adopt others’
viewpoints in an attempt to understand their preferences, values, and needs [e.g., Parker & Axtel,
2001]), which has implicitly limited its scope to the perspective of others living in the same era.
7

In fact, earlier studies have consistently demonstrated that perspective-taking interventions
increase prosocial behaviors (Batson et al., 2002; Condon et al., 2013; Ahn, Le, & Bailenson,
2013; van Loon et al., 2018) or enhances empathy (i.e., an emotional response to another’s
hardship; Davis, 1980) (Shechtman & Tanus, 2006; Bunn & Terpstra, 2009; Soble, Spanierman,& Liao, 2011), which is known to induce prosocial behaviors (Zaki & Mitchell, 2013; Hein etal., 2010). Hypothesis H2 generalizes these studies.
Finally, we set two hypotheses on the dispositional antecedents of the two constructs
referred to in the description of H1. We hypothesized that a disposition for critical thinking is anantecedent of construct X (hereafter called H3). Critical thinking is a form of open-mindedconsideration that aims to gain insight into how to improve things, with a focus on judgment
and testing of acquired insight (Garrison, 1991; Nakagawa et al., 2015). Reasonably then, thosewith stronger disposition for critical thinking are more likely to adopt future generation’s new
perspective, insofar as they approve its usefulness after they review it critically andindependently. This speculation aligns with Brookfield (1987), Maynard (1996), and Nakagawa,
Kotani, Arai et al. (2018). We also hypothesized that generativity (i.e., concern for establishingand guiding the next generation [Erikson, 1950; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992]) serves as anantecedent of construct Y (hereafter called H4). Van Loon et al. (2018) argued that while
individuals are relatively stable in their levels of empathy, situations also powerfully affectlevels by triggering or inhibiting empathetic responses. Our hypothesis is that the former can be
explained by generativity, insofar as the empathetic target is the future generation.

3. Materials and Method8Study data were collected in the deliberative experiment conducted by Nakagawa et al.
(2019) even though the present study and Nakagawa et al. (2019) had distinct research
objectives. In the experiment, 187 participants were presented with a list of four policy options
on the financial sustainable issue created by Nakagawa, Kotani, Arai et al. (2018). Groups offour people deliberated on their most preferable options from the future generations’ perspectiveof 30 years from now (i.e., 2019). Participants expressed their individual preferences only after
resuming their present-generation identity. While Nakagawa et al. (2019) aimed to assess theirintervention’s (i.e., watching a picture-story show to share an individual’s experience during
perspective taking) influence on participants’ success in taking the future generation’s
perspective in deliberations and their choices of policy options, this study aimed to understandthe psychological process behind the intervention.
In this study, Figure 1 duplicates Nakagawa et al.’s (2019) experimental procedure.
After all seven steps were completed, respondents filled in a questionnaire that included itemson (i) age, (ii) gender, (iii) marital status, (iv) employment status, (v) educational background,(vi) critical thinking disposition, (vii) generativity, and (viii) original items on feelings during
and after group discussion in taking the future generation’s perspective.
With regard to (vi), our study adopts Hirayama and Kusumi’s (2004) scale consisting ofthirteen items for its logical thinking subscale and ten items for its inquisitiveness subscale.
Each item was rated on a five-point scale, with theoretical ranges of 13–65 and 10–50,
respectively. Originally, the items were in Japanese, but this study’s authors translated them into
English for a demonstrative purpose (see Table 1).
(Table 1 inserted about here.)9

To measure (vii) generativity, the present study adopted the Generative Behavior
Checklist (McAdams & Aubin 1992) with 40 items and 10 filler items and a theoretical range
from 0 to 40.
The 24 items in (viii) are listed in Table 2. In the questionnaire, these items were
presented to participants with the prefatory remark “Please answer to what extent the following
items describe your experience of participating in the deliberation.” The items were rated from 1= Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, and they were created based on results of in-depth
interview surveys with two females who participated in a Japanese municipal government’sseries of workshops with an imaginary future generation (see Hara et al. [2019] for workshops’
details). In the interviews, participants expressed their feelings either (I) by reflecting onthemselves during group discussion of taking the future generation’s perspective or (II) by
reflecting on themselves after resuming their present-generation identity. Item numbers 1 to 10,
12, and 15 to 17 corresponded to category I, and the rest (nos. 11, 13, 14, 18 to 24)
corresponded to category II. Several items in category I related to feelings while groups
struggled to acquire the future generation’s perspective (thus corresponding to construct X, H3),and several items in category II related to the current generation’s motivation to support the
future generation (thus corresponding to construct Y, H4).
(Table 2 inserted about here.)
Factor analysis was applied to the twenty four items in (viii) to identify constructs
underlying the psychological procedure of becoming sympathetic to the future generation bytaking their perspective. This explorative analysis was followed by confirmatory factor analysis,
in which causal relationships among identified constructs were assumed, and a structural
10

equation model was developed. Antecedent variables measured in (vi) and (vii) were also
included in the model. Factor analysis is a statistical method to understand the mechanism
behind the correlations among observable variables (e.g., the scores of the 24 items) byassuming a lower number of implicit variables called factors that linearly affect the observablevariables (e.g., the two constructs to be identified in the present study). A major output of factor
analysis is the knowledge on which observable variables are associated with which factors. Thisknowledge enables one to attach meanings to the identified factors. Structural equation
modeling is a combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. This technique
not only identifies factors behind the correlated observable variables but also quantifies theassociations among such factors. A major output of the structural equation modeling is theknowledge on whether each of the associations among the factors are statistically significant or
not. The procedure for factor analysis and structural equation modeling is further detailed in the
Results section.

4. Results
4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis Result
Data were collected from 187 research participants, whose characteristics are
summarized in Table 3. The average scores for the twenty four items were calculated, with all
ranging from 0.5 to 4.5, suggesting that no ceiling/floor effects had emerged. Thus, factor
analysis was applied to all these items using R-3.3.2 software and its package “nFactors.” As
expected in hypothesis H1, when determining the number of factors, the technique of optimal
11

coordinates (e.g., Ruscio & Roche, 2012) and Horn’s (1965) parallel analysis equally supported
the two-factor structure. (In other words, when we assumed that there were two implicit
variables behind the twenty four items, the observed correlation matrix of these items werereproduced the best.) Thus, factor analysis results assuming this structure were conducted, with
ProMax rotation adopted. See Appendix for the details of the procedure. After deleting eightitems among the twenty four, the factor analysis was conducted on the remaining sixteen items(see Table 4). It was interpreted that the second factor (nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, & 17)
represented “Disengagement from the present,” while the first factor (nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,& 24) represented “Supportive attitude toward future generations.”
Table 5 summarizes correlation coefficients of the two factors with external variables.
Specifically, as expected in hypothesis H3, the first factor “Disengagement from the present”
correlated significantly with the logical thinking and inquisitiveness subscales of the criticalthinking disposition: r = 0.15 (p < 0.05) and r = 0.26 (p < 0.01). Also, in accordance withhypothesis H4, the second factor “Supportive attitude toward future generations” correlated
significantly with generativity: r = 0.17 (p < 0.05). These results suggest that the two developed
scales had sufficient levels of criterion-related validity. The two factors’ Cronbach’s alphacoefficients were 0.81 and 0.82, respectively, suggesting that they also had sufficient levels ofinternal consistency.
Notably, the inquisitives subscale correlated not only with “Disengagement from thepresent” but also with “Supportive attitude toward future generations” (r = 0.37; p < 0.01). This
unexpected result suggests that participants high in this score directed their inquisitiveness not
only to the act of perspective taking but also to future generations per se.
12

(Tables 3, 4, and 5 inserted about here.)

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling was applied to the data, inwhich the two factors’ causality was assumed according to hypothesis H2 (i.e., “Disengagementfrom the present” as the cause and “Supportive attitude toward future generations” as theconsequence). R-3.3.2 software and its package “sem” were used. The result, summarized in
Figure 1, suggested that the standardized path coefficient on the association between these twoconstructs was 0.70 (p < 0.01) and that the hypothesis was verified. The established model had
an acceptable level of goodness of fit, although not very high (GFI 1 = 0.90, AGIF 2 = 0.87,
RMSEA 3 = 0.055). Note that these indexes represent the extent to which the observed
correlation matrix (or the covariance matrix) among the observable variables are reproduced by
the developed model. All paths in Figure 1 were found significant at the 5% level.
Figure 2 shows another structural equation modeling analysis, in which threeantecedents of the two factors (i.e., the two subscales of critical thinking disposition andgenerativity) were included as observable variables. Following the finding in subsection 3.1, theinquisitiveness was assumed to influence both “Disengagement from the present” and“Supportive attitude towards future generations”. Again, consistent with hypotheses H3 and H4,
relationships among the two constructs (“Disengagement from the present” and “Supportive
1

Goodness-of-fit statistic.

2

Adjusted goodness-of-fit statistic.

3

Root mean square error of approximation.

13

attitude toward future generations”) and their antecedents were significant. Additionally, thismodel’s goodness of fit was acceptable (GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.048). All paths
in Figure 2 were found significant at the 5% level.
(Figures 1 and 2 inserted about here.)

5. Discussion
This study aimed to identify psychological constructs underlying the process of
becoming a future generation’s voluntary representative and to develop psychometrically soundscales to measure those constructs, thereby developing a structural equation model of theprocess. There were three major findings.
First, consistent with hypothesis H1, a psychological construct labeled “Disengagementfrom the present” was identified as relating to the psychological state that emerges when
individuals take the future generation’s perspective. Psychological studies usually consider
perspective taking that targets others in the same era, so they are allowed to assume that the“accuracy” of doing so can be defined and measured (e.g., Gehlbach, 2004; Schiffman et al.,2004). However, studies of perspective taking targeting future generations (such as this one)cannot naïvely adopt the concept of accuracy because the target has not yet matured or does not
yet exist (e.g., Solow, 1991; Thompson, 2010). This seems a hurdle that hampers research on
future generations on the basis of a rigid scientific foundation. This study succeeded inovercoming the hurdle by proposing a promising alternative to the conventional concept of
accuracy because the new concept satisfies the two conditions that accuracy also satisfies: (i) it
14

is measurable in a psychometrically sound manner, and (ii) it can predict prosocial attitudes
toward the target (i.e., in this case, future generations). Fundamentally, no matter what future
generation you imagine subjectively, you must disengage from yourself-in-the-present torepresent a future generation.
Second, in addition to the construct “Disengagement from the present,” this study
identified the construct“Supportive attitude toward future generations.” While these constructs
are equally related to the act of taking the future generation’s perspective, correlational analysis
revealed that the constructs are discrete. In fact, the logical thinking subscale of the criticalthinking disposition was significantly associated with only “Disengagement from the present,”
while the generative behavior checklist was significantly associated with only “Supportive
attitude toward future generations.” These correlational analysis results were consistent withhypotheses H3 and H4, respectively. Perhaps the former is associated with individuals’
cognitive competence for becoming accustomed to a new way of thinking, and the latter isassociated with the same individuals’ emotional aspects. This argument seems to be isomorphic
to the psychological argument (e.g., Longmire & Harrison, 2018; Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, &White, 2008; Galinsky, Gilin, & Maddux, 2011; Gilin et al., 2013) on distinguishing between
perspective taking and empathy toward others, the two considered overlapping but still distinct.
Third, in spite of these constructs’ conceptual distinction, strong correlation between
them (and possibly strong causation) was identified, consistent with hypothesis H2. This finding
suggests that once individuals disengage from the present and take the future generation’s
perspective, they are more likely to be empathetic to future generations. While this associationis consistent with psychological literature linking the perspective taking and empathy cited15

above (and thus not surprising), a different explanation might also be possible. This study
differs from conventional perspective-taking literature in that its object (i.e., a future generation)
depends totally on this act’s subject (i.e., the present generation) but not vice versa. Therefore,
once individuals take the future generation’s perspective, they are positioned to wish the present
generation had acted for the future generation’s benefit. Even after the perspective-taking
intervention is complete and they resume their present-generation identity, they retain thememory of sending wishes from the self-as-future-generation to the self-as-present-generation.
This may well cause inconsistency within the self and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).
One promising strategy to avoid such dissonance is to modify their attitudes toward future
generations in a prosocial manner. This explains how individuals are motivated to serve
voluntarily as the future generation’s representatives after the perspective-taking intervention.
The explanation seems consistent with those of social psychologists who have tested various
ways of using cognitive dissonance theory as a tool of social influence, to modify individuals’
behaviors, for example, energy conservation (Winette & Nietzel, 1975), water use during a
drought (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992), safer sex among college students(Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994), and recycling (Fried & Aronson, 1995), assummarized by Bator and Cialdini (2006).
These findings have two important practical implications for institutionalizing
representation of future generations’ voices. First, institutions representing future generations
are likely to encounter rejection from politicians if the institutions receive too much power(Jones, O’Brien, and Ryan, 2018). Such failure seems likely because institutionalization does
not include the mechanism by which politicians who oppose such institutionalization change
16their attitudes toward future generations. The study’s findings suggest that institutional design
embedding perspective-taking intervention into parliaments’ deliberative processes might
resolve the problem. Furthermore, to expect that individuals not caring very much for future
generations can also accept such institutionalization is not too optimistic; they can become
future generations’ voluntary representatives because the study has verified that whether anindividual can take a future generation’s perspective does not depend on empathy toward thefuture generation (as measured by generativity), but on cognitive competence (as measured by
critical thinking).
Thus, the study suggests a new answer to the question of “How one can find adequate orsuitable candidates that can fill the role as spokespersons and guardians of posterity in thelegislative assembly?” (Ekeli, 2005; p. 436). By demonstrating that environmentalists represent
only one strand among many different ways of problem formulation, Beckerman and Pasek(2001) argue against the naïve idea that environmentalists (e.g., environmental organizations
and sustainability lobbies) should be such candidates. Ekeli (2005) continues this line ofdiscussion by opposing the same idea: “One should not give one particular group or movement
the privileged status of representative for future generations.” Ironically, it seems that the same
criticism can be applied to Ekeli’s idea (2005) that the right to represent future generations“should be open to anyone who cares for the well-being of posterity” (ibid., p. 437) because it is
not open enough to include those who care less about future generations. The study
demonstrates that anyone elected by the conventional democratic process must be allowed to doso, insofar as s/he is willing to represent future generations. Those with higher levels ofcognitive competence are likely to be such voluntary representatives.
17

Second, the present study successfully developed a scale to measure the extent to which
individuals succeeded in disengaging from the present-generation self. Insofar as its strong
relationship with a supportive attitude toward future generations is guaranteed, all we have to do
is design institutions so that this scale’s expected score is maximized, while the present
generation’s representatives can accept it. This method of designing institutions should be much
more efficient than testing alternatives and modifying them only after they are found ineffective
in influencing political decisions.
This study has an important limitation based on data collected in a laboratory experimentrather than in a real setting, even though the experiment involved a real issue. Importantly,
future studies should implement the perspective-taking intervention in a real-world setting andconfirm that the psychological model developed here can indeed be generalized to such asetting.

Appendix. The Procedure of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The following four steps were followed in the explanatory factor analysis in subsection
section 4.1.
Step 1: The result (not shown here to avoid redundancy) suggested that four of the twenty four
items (nos. 1, 5, 10, and 16) had factor loadings lower than 0.35 for both factors.
Step 2: Thus, in the second-round analysis, these four items were deleted, and factor analysis
was applied to the remaining twenty items, with two-factor structure again assumed. Two
items comprising the second factor (nos. 6 and 7) had relatively low factor loadings, less18

than 0.40 (0.37 and 0.36, respectively). Furthermore, item no. 14 had high factor loadings
for both factors (0.52 and 0.52).
Step 3: Thus, in the third-round analysis, these three items were deleted, and factor analysis wasapplied to the remaining 17 items, assuming the two-factor structure. One item comprising
the second factor (no. 11) had a relatively low factor loading, less than 0.40 (i.e., 0.38).
Step 4: After deleting this item, the final-round factor analysis was conducted on theremaining16 items (see Table 4). It was interpreted that the second factor (nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9,
12, 13, 15, & 17) represented “Disengagement from the present,” while the first factor (nos.
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24) represented “Supportive attitude toward future generations.”

References
Adachi, Y. (2019). How is it possible for democracies to effectively tackle long-term problems?
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 21(1), 116—129.
Ahn, S. J., Le, A. M. T., & Bailenson, J. N. (2013). The effect of embodied experiences on
self-other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychology, 16, 7–38.
Anderson, M.W., Teisl, M., Noblet C. (2012). Giving voice to the future in sustainability:
Retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement. Ecological
Economics, 84, 1—6.

19

Batson, C.D., Chang. J., Orr. R., Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, Attitudes, and Action: Can
Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Motivate One to Help the Group? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666.
Beckerman, W. and J. Pasek, Justice, Posterity, and the Environment (Oxford University Press.)
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinking: Challenging adults to explore alternative
ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Buchanan, J. M. and Wagner, R. E., 1977, Democracy in Deficit: the Political Legacy of Lord
Keynes (New York, NY: Academic Press).
Bunn W, Terpstra J. (2009). Cultivating empathy for the mentally ill using simulated auditory
hallucinations. Academic Psychiatry, 33(6), 457–460.
Condon P, Desbordes G, Miller WB, DeSteno D. (2013). Meditation increases compassionate
responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2125–2127.
Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10.
Dobson, A. (1996). Representative democracy and the environment, in William, M. andMacdowcroft, J. (eds), Democracy and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dror, Y., 2002, Capacity to Govern: A Report to the Club of Rome (London, UK: Routledge).
Dror, Y., 2014, Avant-Garde Politicians: leaders for a New Epoch (Washington, DC:
Westphalia Press).

20

Dror, Y., 2017, For Rulers: priming Political Leaders for Saving Humanity from Itself(Washington, DC: Westphalia Press).
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Galinsky, A. D., Gilin, D., & Maddux, W. W. (2011). Using both your head and your heart: The
role of perspective taking and empathy in resolving social conflict. In J. P. Forgas, A. W.
Kruglanski, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The psychology of social conflict and aggression (pp.
103–118). London, UK: Psychology Press.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside thehead of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy innegotiations. Psychological Science, 19, 378–384.
Gehlbach, H. (2004). A new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach toconceptualizing an aptitude. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 207—233.
Gilin, D., Maddux, W. W., Carpenter, J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). When to use your head andwhen to use your heart: The differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy incompetitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 3–16.
Hara,K., Yoshioka, R., Kuroda, M., Saijo, T. (2019). Reconciling intergenerational conflicts
with imaginary future generations: evidence from a participatory deliberation practice in a
municipality in Japan. Sustainability Science. (In press.)
Jensen, K.K. (2015). Future generations in democracy: Representation or consideration?
Jurisprudence: An International Journal of Legal and Political Thought, 6(3), 535—548.

21

Jones, N., O’Brien, M., & Ryan, T. (2018). Representation of future generations in United
Kingdom policy-making. Futures, 102, 153—163.
Kavka, G., Warren, V. (1983). Political representation of future generations, in Elliott, R. andGare, A. (eds), Envionmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings, Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Longmire, N. H., and D. A. Harrison. 2018. Seeing their side versus feeling their pain:
Differential consequences of perspective-taking and empathy at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology 103(8): 894–915.
Low, N. and Gleeson, B., 1998, Justice, Society and Nature (London, UK: Routledge).
Mank, B., 1996, Protecting the environment for future generations: A proposal for a republican
superagency. NYU Environmental Law Journal, 5(2), p. 444.
Maynard, C.A. (1996) Relationship of critical thinking ability to professional nursing
competence. Journal of Nursing Education 35(1), 12–18.
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment throughself-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015.
Nakagawa, Y., Arai, R., Kotani, K., Nagano, M. Saijo, T. (2019). Visual narrative for taking
future generation’s perspective. Unpublished manuscript. (Under review in Sustainability
Science.)22

Nakagawa, Y., Kotani, K., Arai, R., Nagano, M., Saijo, T. (2018). Intergenerational
Retrospective Viewpoint and Financial Sustainability. Unpublished manuscript. (InRevision; Ref = FUTURES_2018_296_R2)
Nakagawa, Y., Kotani, K., Matsumoto, M., Saijo,T. (2018). Intergenerational retrospective
viewpoints and individual policy preferences for future: A deliberative experiment for forest
management. Futures, 105, 40—53.
Noblet, C.L., Anderson, M., Teisl, M.F. (2015). Thinking past and thinking future: an empiricaltest of the effects of retrospective assessment on future preferences. Ecological Economics,
114, 180–187.
Parker, S.K., Axtell, C.M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of
employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1085—1100.
Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory
factor analysis using comparison data of a known factorial structure. Psychological
Assessment, 24(2), 282-292.
Saijo, T. (2017). Future design. Economic Review 68(1), 33–45 (In Japanese).
Saijo, T. (2019). Future design. In: Moulin H (ed) Future of Economic Design. Springer, Berlin.
Schiffman, J., Lam, C., Jiwatram, T., Ekstrom, M., Sorensen, H., Mednick, S. (2004).
Perspective-taking deficits in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a prospective
investigation. Psychological Medicine, 34, 1581—1586.

23

Shechtman Z, Tanus H. (2006). Counseling Groups for Arab Adolescents in an Intergroup
Conflict in Israel: Report of an Outcome Study. Peace and Conflict, 12(2), 119–137.
Soble JR, Spanierman LB, Liao HY. Effects of a brief video intervention on White university
students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 151–157.
Solow, R. M. (1991). Sustainability: an economist's perspective. J. Seward Johnson Lecture,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Thompson, D.F. (2010). Representing future generations: Political presentism and democratic
trusteeship. Critical Review of International and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 17—37.
van Loon, A., Bailenson, J., Zaki, J., Bostick, J., Willer, R. (2018). Virtual reality
perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PloS One 13(8),e0202442.
Weiss, E. B., 1992, In fairness to future generations and sustainable development. American
University International Law, 8(1), 19–26.

24

Figure 1: Experimental Procedure (Nakagawa et al., 2019)(1) Reading an article from anewspaper published 30 years ago(2) Group discussion about possible
request to the society 30 years ago

1st choice(3) Individually choosing the mostfavorable option from a standpoint of
the people living 30 years from today(4) Watching the picture-story show

2nd choice(5) Individually choosing the mostfavorable option from a standpoint of
the people living 30 years from today(6) Group discussion about the mostfavorable option from a standpoint of
the people living 30 years from today

3rd choice(7) Individually choosing the mostfavorable option from a standpoint of
the people living today25

Figure 2: Structural Equation Modeling Result (The standardized solutions are shown.
Variable d1 is an independent latent variable. Variables e2 to e24 are error variables.)R2 = .49

Disengagementfrom the present

.45

.70

.69

.49

.63

.59

Supportive
attitude toward FG

.70

.37

.62

.54

.64

.68

.74

.69

.74

d1

.43

.52

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q7

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q19

Q16

Q17

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

e2

e3

e4

e5

e7

e9

e10

e11

e19

e16

e17

e20

e21

e22

e23

e24

R2 of the 16 endogenous variables were as follows:
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q19 Q16 Q17 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
0.20 0.48 0.49 0.24 0.39 0.35 0.14 0.38 0.30 0.41 0.46 0.54 0.48 0.54 0.19 0.27

26

Figure 3: Structural Equation Modeling Result (The standardized solutions are shown.
Variables d1 to d5 are independent latent variables. Variables e2 to e24 are error variables.)

.34

d2
.41

.34

d1

InquisitivenessLogical thinking

Generativity
.19

.10

.10

.35

R2 = .56

R2 = .11

Disengagementfrom the present

d4

.45

.69

.69

d3

.49

.68

.60

Supportive
attitude toward FG

.63

.37

.61

.55

.62

.68

.74

.69

.75

d5

.42

.53

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q7

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q19

Q16

Q17

Q20

Q21

Q22

Q23

Q24

e2

e3

e4

e7

e9

e12

e13

e15

e17

e18

e19

e20

e21

e22

e23

e24

R2 of the 16 endogenous variables were as follows:
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q19 Q16 Q17 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
0.20 0.48 0.48 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.38 0.30 0.39 0.47 0.54 0.47 0.56 0.18 0.29

27

Table 1: Critical Thinking Disposition Items (Hirayama & Kusumi, 2004)
A. Logical thinking subscale
A1 I am good at thinking about complex problems in an orderly fashion
A2 I am good at collecting my thoughts
A3 I am confident in thinking about things precisely
A4 I am good at making persuasive arguments
A5 I am confused when thinking about complex problems
A6 I am the one to make decisions because my peers believe I can make fair judgments
A7 I can concentrate on grappling with problems
A8 I can continue working on a difficult problem which is not straight forward
A9 I can think about things coherently
A10 My shortcoming is that I am easily distracted*
A11 When I think about a solution, I cannot afford to think about other alternatives*
A12 I can inquire into things carefully
A13 I am constructive in proposing alternatives
B. Inquisitiveness subscale
B1 I want to interact with people with various ways of thinking and learn a lot from themB2 I want to keep learning new things throughout my life
B3 I like to challenge new things
B4 I want to learn about various cultures
B5 I believe it is meaningful to learn foreginers' ways of thinking
B6 I am interested in people who have different ways of thinking
B7 I want to gain deeper knowledge regarding any issues
B8 I want to learn things as much as possible even if the usefulness is unclear
B9 I enjor discussing with people with different opinions
B10 I tend to ask questions when I have something unclear to me
Note. *: Reversed item. Items were rated from 1 = "Strongly disagree" to 5 = "Strongly agree".

28

Table 2: The List of 24 Items

No

Item

M

SD

Q1

I felt it was a highly intellectual task to disengage from the present-generation self and to
take the future generation’s perspective.

4.0

0.8

Q2

I actually felt what it was like to be a future person.

3.7

0.9

Q3

I concentrated on discussions, putting aside my daily complaints and worries.

3.5

1.0

Q4

I felt gradually as if I were living in a future world that I was articulating.

3.0

0.9

Q5

I recognized which group members were or were not acting as future people.

2.9

0.9

Q6

While experiencing the future-generation role, I learned that issues serious for the present
generation are sometimes irrelevant for the future generation.

3.8

0.8

Q7

I felt as if I, as the person living in 2019,* were another person.

2.4

0.9

Q8

I felt as if the year 2019* were in the past.

3.1

1.0

Q9

I felt that the future world, from the future generation’s perspective, differs essentially fromthat of the present generation’s perspective.

3.3

0.9

Q10 I think that a future world imagined from a future generation’s perspective would not receive
a fair evaluation from the present generation.

3.0

0.9

Q11 After experiencing a future-generation role, I might find that my wavelength differs fromthat of the present generation who have not had such an experience.

3.1

1.0

Q12 While playing the future-generation role, I found that a long-term project, which the present
generation would think stupendous, seemed very realistic to me.

3.7

0.8

Q13 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel that I have grown.

2.6

1.0

Q14 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel my mind has broadened.

3.7

0.8

Q15 To others, I expressed ideas that I would have hesitated to express in the normal
environment.

3.4

0.9

Q16 I heard positively others’ opinions that I would have denied in the normal environment.

3.8

0.9

Q17 I was so brave as to express more daring opinions than I usually do.

3.5

0.9

Q18 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel I am competent, from a newperspective, to evaluate what the government is doing in 2019.*

3.5

0.8

Q19 After experiencing the future-generation role, I think I will utilize this perspective in my daily
life.

3.8

0.8

Q20 After experiencing the future-generation role and coming back to the present, I would like tocontribute to realizing the vision I created as the future generation.

3.9

0.7

Q21 After experiencing the future-generation role, I have stronger motivation to do things in a
way that will make the future generation grateful to me.

3.6

1.0

Q22 I hope present-generation people will experience the role of the future generation as I did.

3.9

0.8

Q23 After experiencing the future-generation role, I am more sympathetic to the future
generation than before.

3.1

1.0

Q24 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel more strongly than before that the future
generation should be cherished as the present generation is.

3.9

0.8

Notes. *: The year 2019 should be replaced with the year in which this questionnaire is implemented.

29

Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample

Age
≦29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
≧60
GenderMale
FemaleMarital Status
Yes
No
Employment Status
Permanent Job
Other
Education
Univ. Graduate or above
Other
Critical Thinkig Disposition
Logical Thinking Subscale
Curiosity Subscale
Generativity

n

%

17
19
49
64
31
6

9.1
10.2
26.3
34.4
16.7
3.2

46
140

24.7
75.3

128
58

68.8
31.2

105
81

56.5
43.5

82
104

44.1
55.9

30

M

SD

Cronbach's
alpha

40.7
39.8
26.1

7.4
6.0
12.0

0.88
0.91
0.87

Table 4: Factor Analysis Result

Factor 1

Factor 2

Q2 I actually felt what it was like to be a future person.

0.23

0.67

Q3 I concentrated on discussions, putting aside my daily complaints and worries.

0.08

0.52

Q4 I felt gradually as if I were living in a future world that I was articulating.

0.34

0.60

Q8 I felt as if the year 2019 were in the past.

0.16

0.43

Q9 I felt that the future world, from the future generation’s perspective, differs essentially fromthat of the present generation’s perspective.

0.02

0.42

Q12 While playing the future-generation role, I found that a long-term project, which the present
generation would think stupendous, seemed very realistic to me.

0.25

0.48

Q13 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel that I have grown.

0.27

0.55

Q15 To others, I expressed ideas that I would have hesitated to express in the normal
i so brave as to express more daring opinions than I usually do.
Q17 I was

0.28

0.55

0.25

0.53

Q18 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel I am competent, from a newperspective, to evaluate what the government is doing in 2019.

0.54

0.31

Q19 After experiencing the future-generation role, I think I will utilize this perspective in my dailylifexperiencing the future-generation role and coming back to the present, I would like to
Q20 After

0.59

0.30

0.76

0.15

Q21 After experiencing the future-generation role, I have stronger motivation to do things in a
way that will make the future generation grateful to me.

0.42

0.13

Q22 I hope present-generation people will experience the role of the future generation as I did.

0.63

0.35

Q23 After experiencing the future-generation role, I am more sympathetic to the future
generation than before.

0.68

0.22

Q24 After experiencing the future-generation role, I feel more strongly than before that the future
generation should be cherished as the present generation is.

0.54

0.10

3.03

2.94

Proportion of Variance

0.19

0.18

Cumulative Variance

0.19

0.37

No

Item

contribute to realizing the vision I created as the future generation.

SS Loadings

31

Table 5: Criterion-Related Validity of the Developed Scales

Disengagement
form the Present

Suportive Attitude
toward FG1

0.15 *
0.26 **
0.00

0.09
0.37 **
0.17 *

Critical Thinking Disposition
Logical Thinking Subscale
Inquisitiveness Subscale
Generativity

Notes. 1: FG = Future generations. *: p < 0.05. **: p < 0.01.

32