Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four-factor distinction
Introduction
In everyday life, people usually consider between the immediate and future outcomes of their current actions when making decisions. While some are concerned with future consequences, others focus on immediate ones. Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Edwards (1994) proposed a construct of “consideration of future consequences (CFC)” to describe such a stable individual difference. They defined the CFC as “the extent to which individuals consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviors and the extent to which they are influenced by these potential outcomes” (Strathman et al., 1994, p. 743). They further developed and validated a 12-item CFC scale to quantify individual differences on this construct. This scale has been widely used in many areas, such as health behaviors (e.g., Adams and Nettle, 2009, Joireman et al., 2001), academic behaviors (e.g., Joireman, 1999), and financial behaviors (e.g., Joireman et al., 2010, Joireman et al., 2005).
In their original framework, Strathman et al. (1994) regarded the CFC as a unidimensional construct. At one end were people who weighted more on future consequences, and at the other end were those who attached more importance to immediate consequences. Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the CFC scale supported a single factor solution. Accordingly, most of prior studies used an average or a sum of the five future items and the seven reversed-coded immediate items as a measure of the CFC tendency (e.g., Joireman, 1999).
However, several recent studies have raised doubts about the unidimensionality of this scale. Most of them supported a two-factor structure of the CFC scale with theoretical and empirical evidences (e.g., Adams, 2012, Joireman et al., 2008, Petrocelli, 2003).
Petrocelli (2003) conducted the first systematic examination of the latent structure of the CFC scale. Based on a principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation in a sample of 644 undergraduate students, he found two correlated factors: one, consisted of seven reverse-coded immediate items and a future item, was related to concerning immediate consequences, while the other, consisted of four future items, was related to concerning future consequences. A CFA supported the two-factor solution against the one-factor solution.
Joireman et al. (2008) suggested a slightly different two-factor model. They named one factor with five future items as CFC-Future (CFC-F), and the other factor with seven immediate items as CFC-Immediate (CFC-I). They compared the two-factor model and Strathman et al.'s (1994) one-factor model using CFA on an aggregated database of 986 respondents, and found the two-factor model had a significantly better fit to the data. This two-factor model has also been confirmed by other researchers (e.g., Adams, 2012, Toepoel, 2010). Toepoel (2010) validated the CFC with 11 waves' data (1996–2006) from a panel study in the Netherlands among a sample aged 16 and over. He used the same EFA procure as Petrocelli (2003) did, and found the two-factor solution underlying the CFC. Adams (2012) compared this two-factor model and Strathman et al.'s (1994) one-factor model in a U.K. sample of 800 participants using CFA, and found that the two-factor solution fitted the data better.
In addition, some researchers proposed other alternative models. Rappange, Brouwer, and van Exel (2009) compared Strathman et al.'s (1994) one-factor model and Petrocelli's (2003) two-factor solution with a sample of 2006 young adolescents in the Netherlands, but the results of neither model were acceptable. They then employed PCA with varimax rotation, and a multiple-factor solution emerged: one factor consisting of seven immediate items, and the other two factors consisting of the remaining future items. Hevey et al. (2010) speculated that the two-factor model might have been caused by the method effects of item wording. They compared two one-factor models (Petrocelli, 2003, Strathman et al., 1994), two two-factor models (Joireman et al., 2008, Petrocelli, 2003), and their own model (one-factor model with correlated errors) among 590 young adults, and found that their own model provided the best fit. Ryack (2012) extended the dimensionality examination of the CFC scale from college student samples to a sample of professional financial advisors, and found that a four-factor solution was supported.
So far, most studies on the latent structure of the scale have been conducted on Western samples, such as the US (e.g., Joireman et al., 2010), the U.K. (e.g., Adams, 2012), as well as the Netherlands (e.g., Rappange et al., 2009, Toepoel, 2010). Only two studies fit a specific model to data collected on Chinese samples (Liu et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2014), but neither made systematic comparisons between all possible models. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to find out which model would be supported by adapting the CFC to the Chinese cultural context and exploring the nature of the CFC construct among two large Chinese samples.
According to Hofstede's cultural dimensions, most Western countries hold a strong short-term orientation, evidenced by focusing on the present and the past, valuing immediate need gratification, and spending; by contrast, Eastern cultures (e.g., China, Korea, and Japan) have a long-term orientation, characterized as fostering values involving future-oriented rewards, persistence, and thrift (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Chinese people might exhibit similar characteristics as financial advisors in Ryack's (2012) study when weighting immediate and future consequences. Therefore, we speculated that the factor structure might display a similar four-factor solution with that in Ryack's (2012) study.
Temporal choices involve a balance between long-term larger rewards and short-term smaller rewards (Joireman et al., 2008). Temporal discounting refers to the tendency of animals and people to prefer the smaller sooner rewards over the larger later rewards (e.g., Green, Myerson, Holt, Slevin, & Estle, 2004). Several studies have examined the relationship between temporal discounting and the CFC or two CFC factors. Joireman et al. (2005) found that temporal discounting was negatively related to CFC scores. In addition, Joireman et al. (2008) found that temporal discounting was positively related to CFC-I, while negatively related to CFC-F. Charlton (2011) reported temporal discounting was negatively correlated with CFC total scores, and positively correlated with CFC-I scores, but was not related to CFC-F scores.
In the abovementioned three studies, an average discounting rate (DR) was used. However, reward size affects DR, which is also referred to as magnitude effect (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1992). The larger the reward size, the lower the DR. This phenomenon is very common in many temporal discounting circumstances (Green, Fristoe, & Myerson, 1994). It is still unknown whether the CFC factors differed in the prediction of temporal discounting when people face varied sizes of rewards. Therefore, the second aim was to find whether the CFC factors played different roles in the prediction of inter-temporal choice, and examine whether they moderated the magnitude effect. Given the fact that little empirical data is available for ascertaining the mechanism underlying the magnitude effect (Loewenstein and Prelec, 1992, Loewenstein and Thaler, 1989), we were not going to formulate specific hypotheses about how the CFC factors would moderate the effect of amount on DR.
In Study 1, we compared the fits of several factor models of the scale by means of confirmatory factor analysis with a Chinese sample. In Study 2, we repeated the similar procedure with another Chinese sample, and related the CFC scores to inter-temporal choices.
Section snippets
Participants
Undergraduate and postgraduate students who attended a statistics course in a university in Nanjing, China were recruited to participate in an online study. The final sample consisted of 229 males (46.4%) and 265 females (53.6%). Their ages ranged from 16 to 35 years (M = 22. 26, SD = 2. 55). They received course credits as reimbursement.
The CFC scale
The scale was used to assess participants' concern with future consequences. It was developed by Strathman et al. (1994), and has been widely used (e.g., Joireman
Study 2
Confirmatory factor analysis of the CFC scale and linking to inter-temporal choice.
Summary
Our study explored the latent structure of the CFC with two samples in an Eastern culture, and its link to temporal choice situations. The data supported the scale to have four underlying factors, and these four factors were differently predictive of temporal discounting. Our findings provided additional evidence for the distinction between the four CFC factors, and therefore contributed to the research on individual differences in their inter-temporal choices as well as their CFC.
Factor structure of the CFC scale
The
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 71201079), Youth Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Education of the PRC (no. 11YJC190014), Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences from the Education Department, Jiangsu Province (no. 2011SJD190004), and China Scholarship Council (no. 201306195015, no. 201506195028).
References (35)
- et al.
Consideration of future consequences scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Personality and Individual Differences
(2010) - et al.
Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub-scales
Personality and Individual Differences
(2008) - et al.
Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences
Personality and Individual Differences
(2005) Evidence that time perspective factors depend on the group: Factor analyses of the CFC and ZTPI scales with professional financial advisors
Personality and Individual Differences
(2012)Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?
Personality and Individual Differences
(2010)- et al.
Consideration for future consequences as an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior: The moderating effects of perceived dynamic work environment
The Leadership Quarterly
(2014) Consideration of immediate and future consequences, smoking status, and body mass index
Health Psychology
(2012)- et al.
Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: An empirical study
British Journal of Health Psychology
(2009) - et al.
Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences
Environment and Behavior
(2013) - et al.
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2003)
Beyond the shadow of a trait: Understanding discounting through item-level analysis of personality scales
The Psychological Record
Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Discounting of delayed food rewards in pigeons and rats: Is there a magnitude effect?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organisations across nations
Long- versus short-term orientation: New perspectives
Asia Pacific Business Review
Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification
Psychological Methods
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives
Structural Equation Modeling
Cited by (9)
The relationships between core values, food-specific future time perspective and sustainable food consumption
2021, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionCitation Excerpt :Thus, the CFC approach seems to be highly relevant for explaining environmental and sustainable behaviour (Arnocky et al., 2014) and understanding social dilemmas and conflicts between individual and collective interests (Joireman et al., 2001, Milfont and Gouveia, 2006). Regarding the construct and operationalization of CFC, different perspectives exist regarding whether the construct consists of one, two, or multiple factors of CFCs (e.g., Zhang et al., 2015). This study accepts the two-factor structure of an individual time perspective (Arnocky et al., 2014; Joireman et al., 2008, 2012).
Individual differences in functional food consumption: The role of time perspective and the Big Five personality traits
2021, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :A recent meta-analysis (Murphy & Dockray, 2018) has called attention to an ongoing debate regarding the underlying factor structure of CFC. Although most studies to date have treated the CFC scale as unidimensional (Mohammed & Marhefka, 2019), increasing evidence suggests two factors (e.g., Joireman, Balliet, Sprott, Spangenberg, & Schultz, 2008; Joireman, Shaffer, Balliet, & Strathman, 2012) or even four factors (e.g., Ryack, 2012; Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2015). One rationale for a two-factor structure is that “individuals may consider the future consequences of their actions, the immediate consequences of their actions, or both” (p. 1273).
On the associations between delay discounting and temporal thinking
2019, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Future research should investigate the relative utility of employing general versus specific measures of temporal thinking and delay discounting to predict and understand specific behaviors of interest. Future studies could also examine whether delay discounting correlates differentially with more specific CFC dimensions (Zhang, Kong, Zhang, & Li, 2015). In conclusion, our study contributes to a growing literature examining the associations between delay discounting and temporal thinking.
Evidence for the reliability and factor solution of the CFCS-14 in Spanish: A multi-method validation in Spain and Uruguay
2018, Personality and Individual DifferencesTime perspectives and convenience food consumption among teenagers in Vietnam: The dual role of hedonic and healthy eating values
2017, Food Research InternationalCitation Excerpt :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-Gasko, Fiszman, & Varela, 2012).
Urban residents' perceptions and attitudes towards the impacts of mega-event: A case study of the first China International Import Expo
2021, Dili Xuebao/Acta Geographica Sinica
- 1
Contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.