PsycTESTS Dataset 2012
DOI: 10.1037/t36853-000
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consideration of Future Consequences--14 Scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, with regard to self-guides , as noted earlier, Ouellette and her colleagues (2005) found that those scoring high in CFC were more motivated to exercise after contemplating their ideal future self, whereas those low in CFC were more motivated to exercise after contemplating prototypes of other exercisers (which presumably highlighted normative concerns of what one “should do”). With regard to end goals , research has shown that those scoring high on the CFC-Future subscale are more likely than those scoring low on the CFC-Future subscale to forgo smaller, certain rewards in favor of larger but less certain rewards (Joireman & Balliet, 2012), consistent with the idea that CFC-Future is associated with a tendency to focus on “pursuing (uncertain) gains.” Similarly, research has shown that those scoring high on the CFC-Immediate subscale are more likely to opt for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards (Joireman et al, 2008), consistent with the idea that CFC-Immediate is associated with a tendency to focus on “preventing (immediate) losses.” Finally, with regard to cognitive style s, research has shown that those scoring high in CFC are more optimistic than those scoring low in CFC (O’Brien-McElwee & Brittain, 2009; Strathman et al, 1994), suggesting connections with an “eager” style. On the other hand, high scores on the CFC-Immediate subscale are associated with higher trait hostility (Joireman, Anderson, & Strathman, 2003, data reanalyzed at the subscale level), suggesting connections with a more “vigilant” style.…”
Section: Linking Individual Differences In Cfc With Regulatory Focusmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…For example, with regard to self-guides , as noted earlier, Ouellette and her colleagues (2005) found that those scoring high in CFC were more motivated to exercise after contemplating their ideal future self, whereas those low in CFC were more motivated to exercise after contemplating prototypes of other exercisers (which presumably highlighted normative concerns of what one “should do”). With regard to end goals , research has shown that those scoring high on the CFC-Future subscale are more likely than those scoring low on the CFC-Future subscale to forgo smaller, certain rewards in favor of larger but less certain rewards (Joireman & Balliet, 2012), consistent with the idea that CFC-Future is associated with a tendency to focus on “pursuing (uncertain) gains.” Similarly, research has shown that those scoring high on the CFC-Immediate subscale are more likely to opt for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards (Joireman et al, 2008), consistent with the idea that CFC-Immediate is associated with a tendency to focus on “preventing (immediate) losses.” Finally, with regard to cognitive style s, research has shown that those scoring high in CFC are more optimistic than those scoring low in CFC (O’Brien-McElwee & Brittain, 2009; Strathman et al, 1994), suggesting connections with an “eager” style. On the other hand, high scores on the CFC-Immediate subscale are associated with higher trait hostility (Joireman, Anderson, & Strathman, 2003, data reanalyzed at the subscale level), suggesting connections with a more “vigilant” style.…”
Section: Linking Individual Differences In Cfc With Regulatory Focusmentioning
confidence: 64%