Theoretical framework Our research is intended to study the impact of binding communication, procedure crossing persuasion and commitment, on Future Time Perspective (FTP) and individuals’ decision making in the field of environmental protection. Since proenvironmental behaviors often involve, by their nature, an investment directed towards the future (Joireman, 2005), we hypothesized that time perspective, traditionally regarded as a personality trait, could be modified in a situation of social influence. The goal is to make people more sensitive to long-term consequences of their behaviors since this sensitivity leads to an increased setting up of pro-environmental behaviors (Joireman, Strahtman & Balliett, 2006). - Procedure Subjects were asked to read a document about environmental issues. Once they had accepted to read it, they completed the first part of our FTP measurement tool (T1, 4 items of the Consideration of Future Consequences scale (CFC, Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger & Scott Edwards, 1994) and 5 items of the Future dimension of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI, Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999)). We then delivered the subjects a persuasive message about consequences of pro-environmental behaviors and their benefits for future generations. Three experimental conditions were used (N=57): - Direct presentation of the message, without preparatory action (condition1 « classic communication », N=20). - Presentation of the message after a committing procedure involving the accomplishment of a preparatory action. The action consisted in producing arguments stressing the importance of environment preservation in order to protect future generations. 2 strengths of commitment were used, either: No-choice (condition2 « weak commitment », N=19) or Free will (condition3 « strong commitment », N=18). A group of subject was not presented with the message (control condition, N=20). At the end of their reading, subjects were asked their opinion on the text and had to fill the second part of the FTP measurement tool (T2, 7 items of ZTPI and 3 items of CFC scale). We finally asked them if they would accept to hold a stand for the ADEME. Subjects were female students at the Université de Provence. The document used was the so-called new awareness document about environmental issues developed by the ADEME. Dependent variables: 1) Mean differences between T1 and T2 2) Commitment to hold the stand ADEME - Results 1) T2 average scores were higher than the T1 average scores (3.51 vs. 3.65, t(56) = -2.37, p <.05) in the three experimental conditions difference but not in the control condition. However, there is no significant difference according to the experimental conditions. Differences in the CFC items (3.46 vs. 3.83, t(56) = -3.83, p <.001) account for most of the average score differences. This can be explained by the construct measured by the CFC, more congruent with arguments presented in the message. 2) More subjects accepted to hold the stand ADEME in the experimental conditions than in control (Experimental, 17 subjects out of 57 (29.82 %); Control, 1 subject out of 20 (5 %)). Again there are no significant differences according to the experimental conditions. If we consider our results, the message had an effect both on our FTP and decision making measures but which is not modulated by the strength of commitment. We will discuss theoretical implications of these results (time perspective status and commitment procedures) and practical implications in the field of awareness to environmental issues.