Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?

Abstract

The consideration of future consequences (CFC) scale is designed to measure whether individuals consider the future implications of their current actions. The CFC Scale was administered in 11 waves to a heterogeneous panel, designed to be representative of the Dutch population aged 16 and over. To empirically validate the CFC Scale in a non-academic longitudinal setting, this paper examines internal consistency, stability, and underlying factors of the CFC construct. In addition, effects of personal characteristics, individual changes over time, and learning effects are taken into account. The CFC Scale is found to have an acceptable internal consistency. It is a changeable construct over the years, though it may remain stable over the course of a single year. Education has a significant effect on CFC. No evidence was found that re-interviewing affected responses to the CFC Scale.

Optimism and College Grades: Predicting GPA From Explanatory Style

“…Strathman et al (1994) reported internal consistencies ranging from .80 to .86. However, other researchers have reported reliabilities in the .72 to .77 range (Toepoel, 2010). Our Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .65.…”

Consideration of Immediate and Future Consequences in Accepting and Responding to Anthropogenic Climate Change

“…Developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards (1994), the CFCS has been traditionally assumed as a unidimensional scale assessing a factor that ranges from low CFC of immediate behavior to high CFC of immediate behavior (Arnocky, Milfont, & Nicol, 2014). However, multiple studies have found a bi-factorial structure of the CFCS, which seems to reveal a dimension tackling the consideration of short-term or immediate consequences of behavior, and another that addresses the consideration of long-term or distant consequences (Adams, 2012;Arnocky et al, 2014;Charlton, Gossett, & Charlton, 2011;Toepoel, 2010). If this bi-dimensional structure in the CFCS continues to be confirmed, the instrument would be helpful in investigating the conflict between short-term and long-term interests in environmental matters, adding a temporal dimension other than the future orientation into the investigation of CC determinants.…”

Adaptación Y Validación Inicial Al Castellano De La Escala De Consideración De Las Consecuencias Futuras

“…Como ya fue mencionado, Strathman et al (1994) y muchos otros investigadores que utilizaron la escala, han tratado el constructo de forma unidimensional (recodificando los ítems inmediatos y combinándolos con los futuros). Sin embargo, muchos estudios recientes cuestionan esta solución uni-factorial (Joireman et al, 2008;Petrocelli, 2003;Toepoel, 2010;Vásquez Echeverría, Esteves, Gomes, & Ortuño, 2015;ver, en cambio Hevey et al, 2010), sugiriendo una estructura de dos factores, donde el primero refleja la preferencia por las consecuencias inmediatas de las acciones (CFC-Inmediato) y el otro, las consecuencias más distantes (CFCFuturo). Esta división entre estos dos niveles de futuro, permite hacer un análisis más pormenorizado de los constructos estudiados y afinar la interpretación teórica de los datos (Joireman et al, 2012;Milfont & Schwarzenthal, 2014).…”

“…La escala CFC ya fue utilizada en varios países incluyendo Estados Unidos (Joireman et al, 2008), Países Bajos (Toepoel, 2010), Portugal (Vásquez Echeverría et al, 2015) Irlanda (McKay, Percy, & Cole, 2013), y el Reino Unido (Orbell & Hagger, 2006), pero no se encuentra en la literatura ningún trabajo que haya analizado la estructura factorial en una muestra de habla hispana. En este sentido, en Iberoamérica se disponen de pocos instrumentos para evaluar la temporalidad subjetiva, salvo algunas excepciones (e.g.…”