2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four-factor distinction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(61 reference statements)
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding both the concept and operationalisation of CFC, different perspectives exist about the construct consisting of one, two, or multiple factors (Ryack, 2012;Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2012).…”
Section: Consideration Of Future Consequencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Regarding both the concept and operationalisation of CFC, different perspectives exist about the construct consisting of one, two, or multiple factors (Ryack, 2012;Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2012).…”
Section: Consideration Of Future Consequencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study used the original version of the CFC scale (Strathman et al, 1994). Future research should use, test, adapt, and improve different scales for assessing considerations of immediate/present and future consequences, particular for young respondents (Mello et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2012). Other personality traits can be considered in relation to consumers' time perspectives and health behaviours, such as personality traits (Carrillo, Prado-Gasco, Frizman, & Varela, 2012).…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given reported cultural, individual, and contextual variation in the adoption of imagery perspectives and future-self connectivity (e.g., Addis, Wong, & Schacter, 2008;Christian et al, 2013;Cohen, Hoshino-Browne, & Leung, 2007;Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li 2015), it will be essential for further research to investigate how these factors influence intertemporal choice. For example, do cultural differences (i.e., collectivist vs. individualistic) in the adoption of imagery perspectives impact rates of saving at a societal level?…”
Section: Saving For Your Future Self 16mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies, however, have found different factor solutions. A few studies supported the original unidimensional structure of the scale (Crockett, Weinman, Hankins, & Marteau, 2009;Hevey, Pertl, Thomas, Maher, Craig, & Ni Chuinneagain, 2010), whereas other studies supported a bifactor model (McKay, Cole, & Percy, 2015;McKay, Morgan, van Exel, & Worrell, 2015) or found factor structures with more than two factors (Ainin, Jaafar, & Dezdar, 2015;Ryack, 2012;Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2015). The majority of the evidence seems to suggest that a two-factor model fits the CFC scale best.…”
Section: Measurement Issues Of the Cfc Scalementioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of these factors reflects consideration of future consequences (labeled CFC-future, consisting of five items), whereas the other one reflects consideration of immediate consequences (labeled CFC-immediate, consisting of seven items, Joireman et al, 2008). Some studies have found different factor solutions (i.e., either one factor or more than two factors; Ainin, Jaafar, & Dezdar, 2015;Crockett et al, 2009;Hevey et al, 2010;McKay, Cole, & Percy, 2015;McKay, Morgan, van Exel, & Worrell, 2015;Ryack, 2012;Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2015). Generally, the CFC scale has good reliability, although this could be partly due to the fact that respondents who have difficulties with understanding the items tend to consistently use the midpoint of the scale (Crockett et al, 2009).…”
Section: Consideration Of Future Consequencesmentioning
confidence: 99%