Pepper & Nettle (P&N) propose that present-oriented behaviors associated with deprivation may often be “contextually appropriate” responses to structural and ecological factors. We appreciate P&N's emphasis on context as a key determinant of group differences in temporal decision making but argue that a more socially contextualized perspective on deprivation is needed. In particular, theoretical models of deprivation should consider two factors that can promote more future-oriented thinking among members of economically disadvantaged relative to advantaged groups: (a) salient group-based inequities that inform differential assessments of risks among lower- and higher-socioeconomic-status (SES) groups; and (b) the presence of cooperative norms that promote trust between members of disadvantaged and advantaged groups.

Specifically, we note that in contexts in which SES disadvantaged groups incur greater risks, where these risks are understood, and where there are long-term costs to inaction, we find evidence of more future-oriented behavior and less temporal discounting among low- relative to high-SES groups. We illustrate this with findings from psychological research on climate change – a quintessential intertemporal decision-making context that implicates social inequities (e.g., differential impacts on the wealthy and poor) and extrinsic mortality risk.

Climate change offers a unique context to understand how group-based inequities can shape temporal decision making, with the potential to inform our understanding of how different segments of the public understand extrinsic risks more generally, such as those associated with violence and infectious disease. Economic projections suggest that unmitigated climate change will disproportionately affect the world's poor (Burke et al. Reference Burke, Hsiang and Miguel2015). Moreover, awareness of inequities between groups can exacerbate hostility within and between nations and undermine the ability of communities to adapt to climate impacts (Agyeman et al. Reference Agyeman, Bullard and Evans2003).

Public opinion research suggests that low-SES groups are more concerned about climate change than higher-SES groups (Akerlof et al. Reference Akerlof, Delamater, Boules, Upperman and Mitchell2016; Bohr Reference Bohr2014; Macias Reference Macias2016; McCright & Dunlap Reference McCright and Dunlap2011; Semenza et al. Reference Semenza, Hall, Wilson, Bontempo, Sailor and George2008; Stokes et al. Reference Stokes, Wike and Carle2015; Xiao & McCright Reference Xiao and McCright2012; for a review, see Pearson et al. Reference Pearson, Ballew, Schuldt and Von Storch2017) and show more support for mitigation policies, even when those policies incur short-term costs (e.g., new or increased taxes; Leiserowitz & Akerlof Reference Leiserowitz and Akerlof2010). For instance, Stokes et al. (Reference Stokes, Wike and Carle2015) report that Americans who make less than $50,000 per year were more likely to believe that climate change is a very serious problem and were more concerned that it would harm them personally than those making more than $50,000 per year (for similar cross-national evidence of greater concern in poorer versus wealthier nations, see Sandvik Reference Sandvik2008).

Similar effects have been observed in members of other disadvantaged groups. For instance, blacks and Latinos in the United States express higher levels of environmental concern than whites and show higher levels of support for national and international climate and energy policies than whites, including proportionally higher support for regulating carbon emissions, increasing taxes to improve household-energy efficiency, and increasing taxes on gasoline (Leiserowitz & Akerlof Reference Leiserowitz and Akerlof2010; see also Dietz et al. Reference Dietz, Dan and Shwom2007; Leiserowitz Reference Leiserowitz2006; Macias Reference Macias2016; Pearson et al. Reference Pearson, Ballew, Schuldt and Von Storch2017).

P&N argue that it is not necessarily such factors as income or education that lead to differences in temporal discounting but “the experience of various hardships, or deprivations, that are often associated with being of lower SES” (sect. 2, para. 1). We agree and suggest that when linked to group disparities (i.e., collective disadvantage), awareness of relative deprivation may prompt more future-oriented thinking among members of disadvantaged groups to reduce perceived inequities. Feelings of inequity—which coincide with lower SES—can enhance attention to immediate rewards that are perceived to redress inequity over time (Callan et al. Reference Callan, Ellard, Shead and Hodgins2008). Moreover, when feelings of inequity are reduced, lower-SES individuals typically show higher levels of prosociality in public goods games (a future-oriented strategy) than those of higher SES (Callan et al. Reference Callan, Kim, Gheorghiu and Matthews2016).

In contrast, members of advantaged groups may show evidence of temporal discounting to maintain their relative advantages. For instance, individuals from higher-SES groups who are more likely to perceive existing hierarchies as just and fair (e.g., conservative white males; McCright & Dunlap Reference McCright and Dunlap2011) are also less supportive of environmental regulations, which may be perceived as threatening established social, economic, and political systems (Feygina et al. Reference Feygina, Jost and Goldsmith2010; see also Hennes et al. Reference Hennes, Ruisch, Feygina, Monteiro and Jost2016).

A greater appreciation of the social context in which decision making occurs can also inform our understanding of social motivations that may underlie temporal discounting. In particular, temporal discounting, in some cases, may be motivated by distrust of higher-SES groups rather than by the direct effects of deprivation. Indeed, within the United States, class conflict now ranks ahead of other leading sources of perceived conflict (e.g., between immigrants and native-born citizens), with more than two-thirds of Americans endorsing the view that there are “strong” or “very strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor (Morin Reference Morin2012). Studies suggest that economic inequality can undermine trust and cooperation by attenuating optimism and reducing a sense of shared fate across economic strata (Uslaner & Brown Reference Uslaner and Brown2005). Group disadvantage can also evoke feelings of collective anger, which can motivate people from disadvantaged groups to take collective action on behalf of their groups (van Zomeren et al. Reference van Zomeren, Postmes and Spears2008). The social context of deprivation may, thus, motivate efforts to enhance one's relative group position in the near term to reduce social inequities in the long term.

Research on public goods games suggests that the presence of strong democratic norms, such as voting procedures that promote trust between group members, can inspire long-term cooperation across groups (Hauser et al. Reference Hauser, Rand, Peysakhovich and Nowak2014). Real-world data are consistent with the notion that sustained future-oriented decision making is highly contingent on group norms. For example, countries with stronger democratic institutions also have more sustainable-energy policies (see Hauser et al. Reference Hauser, Rand, Peysakhovich and Nowak2014). In short, we argue that deprivation does not uniformly lead to higher temporal discounting among those with lower SES and, more importantly, that taking note of the social context in which decision making occurs is key to developing a context-sensitive theory of deprivation.