Consideration of future consequences

Last updated

The consideration of future consequences (CFC) is a personality trait defined as the extent to which individuals consider the potential future outcomes of their current behaviour and the extent to which they are influenced by the imagined outcomes. [1] Individuals who score highly on a measure such as the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale typically focus on the future implications of their behaviour, whereas those low on CFC typically focus more on their immediate needs and concerns. [2] CFC has been linked with a wide range of theoretically-relevant outcomes. [3]

Contents

Relation to behaviour

Health

Positive and negative consequences Mr Pipo Contraries.svg
Positive and negative consequences

CFC has been shown to have implications for health-related behaviours, as those performed to protect health typically involve delayed benefits and immediate costs. [4] Individuals who ignore the future consequences of their behaviour will tend to focus more on short-term needs and the likelihood of these individuals performing a health-related behaviour depends on their evaluation of the inconvenience, loss of pleasure, or psychological costs of the immediate behaviour. [4] Individuals who think ahead to the future consequences of their present behaviours are more inclined to act in ways that are protective of their future health and well-being.

Varying levels of CFC have been found to be related to smoking and alcohol consumption, where individuals with higher CFC scores report lower frequencies of each behaviour. [1] [5] High CFC individuals have also been shown to be more cautious about their sexual activity, have fewer sexual partners, are more likely to use alternate methods of reducing exposure to HIV (e.g. inquiring about partner's sexual history, delaying or abstaining from sex), and are more likely to seek out HIV-testing. [6] People high in CFC have also been found to have more regular sleep schedules. [7] Conversely, low CFC has been shown to be associated with higher Body Mass Index. [8] [9]

Considering the future implications of one’s behavior is also important when making decisions regarding treatment options for health problems. For example, increasing evidence suggests that long-term estrogen therapy raises the risk of breast cancer, [10] drugs used to reduce stomach acid have been linked to numerous future health problems, [11] and long-term blood pressure medication use can cause a number of side effects. [12] The immediate benefits of certain treatments may be positive in the short-term, but the long-term risks associated with these treatments can lead to health issues in the future.

Academic achievement

Individuals high in CFC have been shown to have higher grade point averages in college. [7] [13] [14] CFC scale scores were found to be positively correlated with grade point average and also predicted success and goal attainment among students. [14] Furthermore, one study [15] investigated students' self-reported procrastination and self-regulation in relation to CFC and achievement goals. Results indicated that CFC was positively associated with self-regulation and negatively associated with procrastination, showing that students higher in CFC were less likely to procrastinate.

Aggression

Measures of aggression have been found to be associated with lower levels of CFC. [16] Joireman, Anderson, and Strathman demonstrated that relative to individuals scoring low on CFC, those scoring high were found to be less aggressive only when aggression was likely to carry future costs. [16] CFC also plays a role in aggressive driving. [17] Lower CFC scores have been shown to be associated with aggressive and risky driving behaviour, physically aggressive expression (e.g. shaking a fist at another driver), using one’s vehicle to express anger, and are shown to be negatively related to constructive expression (thinking the situation through before responding). Individuals with higher CFC report engaging in fewer aggressive and risky driving behaviours and are more likely to express driving-related anger in an appropriate manner.

Fiscal responsibility

Studies have examined whether CFC has implications in the way people handle their money, specifically financial behavior that maximizes long-term well being (fiscal responsibility). [18] Participants in these studies were measured on their tendencies to shop impulsively and whether they were more likely to choose between a lower amount of money in the short-term over a larger amount of money in the future, a concept referred to as temporal discounting. Results showed that individuals with low levels of CFC had greater impulsive buying tendencies and were more likely to engage in temporal discounting. Additionally, another study among college students found that more compulsive buyers who focused on maximizing immediate consequences were at a much greater risk of building up significant amounts of credit card debt. [19]

Environmentalism

CFC has been shown to be associated with pro-environmentalism. Research has found that pro-environmental intentions and behaviours are predicted by individual differences in CFC, [20] for example, CFC has been shown to influence recycling behaviour. [21] [22] Furthermore, in a study with a sample of commuters, preferences for using public transportation as opposed to driving a car were influenced by CFC levels, specifically when individuals believed that excessive car usage could damage air quality. [23]

Measurement

Consideration of future consequences is measured by the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale developed by Strathman and colleagues, [1] and consists of 12 items. Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent each item characterizes them on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic). Example items are as follows: “I often consider how things might be in the future and try to influence those things with my day to day behaviour,” “I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself,” and “I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.” The scale has been translated into ten different languages: Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, and Turkish. [22]

In relation to other similar constructs, the CFC scale has demonstrated good convergent validity. Measures of internal locus of control, delay of gratification, and the future oriented items on the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory, [24] have all been found to be positively correlated with CFC.

The CFC scale has also shown good incremental validity. Strathman and colleagues [1] measured the amount of variance predicted by CFC over and above the effects of other similar variables. Results showed that CFC predicted health behaviours, such as smoking and environmental behaviours, over and above the variables of conscientiousness, hope, optimism, and time perspective.

Age differences

CFC is relatively stable on a one-year timeline, however it has been shown to be less stable over three years. [25] Research has suggested that individual levels of CFC may decline with age. [26] Such findings can be examined by looking at differences in average CFC scores across various age groups. Mean CFC scores obtained in previous studies have ranged from 4.84 among undergraduates, [20] 3.87 among commuters with an average age of 38 years, [27] and 3.20 among a sample of 50- to 69-year-olds. [26]

Health communication

Temporal framing

A message framing technique known as temporal framing has been used to examine the impact of CFC on persuasive messages regarding various behaviours. The temporal frame allows the expected outcomes of a behaviour (benefits and losses) to be presented as occurring in the short-term or in the long-term. This technique allows for researchers to implement two different frames: one with the negative consequences presented as short-term and the positive consequences presented as long-term. In the opposite time frame, the positive consequences are presented as short-term and the negative consequences as long-term.

Studies [2] [26] [28] have shown that high CFC individuals indicate greater intentions to engage in healthy behavior when the long-term consequences are positive and the short-term consequences are negative, whereas low CFC individuals indicate greater intentions when presented with the opposite frame. These findings have been shown with messages promoting colorectal cancer screening, [26] type 2 diabetes screening, [28] and sunscreen use. [2]

Gain and loss framing

Research has also used gain and loss-framed messages to investigate how to effectively prevent future health problems. Gain-framed messages emphasize what one has to gain by performing a behaviour and loss-framed messages emphasize what one has to lose by not performing a behaviour. O’Connor, Warttig, Conner, and Lawton [29] examined the effectiveness of a web-based intervention aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with hypertension. The researchers examined the role of CFC in influencing the success of this intervention. High and low CFC participants were presented with either a gain-framed message or a loss-framed message and then were provided with health information about hypertension to read afterwards. Results indicated a loss frame advantage for participants high in CFC and a gain frame advantage for those low in CFC. Furthermore, high CFC participants spent almost twice as long as low CFC participants in reading the health information that was provided.

Scale limitations and criticisms

Readability

The CFC scale has been tested for its level of readability, an assessment measured by the number of years of education needed to understand the text in the scale. One study [30] examined the readability and reliability of the CFC scale and another measure of time orientation, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Results showed that although the CFC scale showed greater reliability than the ZTPI, it had poorer readability, indicating that it may be more difficult to understand. For example, in one study participants found some items on the CFC scale difficult to understand and reported that having them explained and contextualized helped in understanding them better. [31]

Number of scale items

It has been suggested that the 12-item CFC scale is unstable and that it may be more appropriate to use an 8-item scale when measuring the CFC construct. One study, [32] which conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the original 12-item CFC scale, revealed that the scale generated two different factors. Little support was found for the stability of the second factor, which attained poor internal consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that an 8-item scale, representing Factor 1, fit considerably better than did any model that included Factor 2, thus suggesting that a shortened version of the scale should be implemented (for recent development of brief scales, see below).

CFC-14 Scale

In 2012, the CFC scale was expanded to 14 items with 7 items measuring consideration of future consequences and 7 items measuring consideration of immediate consequences. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor structure of the so-called "CFC-14" scale.

Brief and Very Brief CFC Scales

The CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate subscales both showed good internal reliability. [33] Most recently, working from the CFC-14, highly reliable short (6-item) and very short (4-item) scales were developed that retain the distinction between CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate subscales. [34]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality test</span> Method of assessing human personality constructs

A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Locus of control</span> Concept in psychology

Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" is conceptualized as internal or external.

In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Five personality traits</span> Personality model consisting of five broad dimensions

In trait theory, the Big Five personality traits are a group of five unique characteristics used to study personality:

Behavioural science is the branch of science concerned with human behaviour. While the term can technically be applied to the study of behaviour amongst all living organisms, it is nearly always used with reference to humans as the primary target of investigation. The behavioural sciences sit at the interstice between conventionally natural and social sciences, encompassing fields such as psychology, neuroscience and economics.

Type A and Type B personality hypothesis describes two contrasting personality types. In this hypothesis, personalities that are more competitive, highly organized, ambitious, impatient, highly aware of time management, or aggressive are labeled Type A, while more relaxed, "receptive", less "neurotic" and "frantic" personalities are labeled Type B.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people's innate growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. It pertains to the motivation behind people's choices in the absence of external influences and distractions. SDT focuses on the degree to which human behavior is self-motivated and self-determined.

Suicide risk assessment is a process of estimating the likelihood for a person to attempt or die by suicide. The goal of a thorough risk assessment is to learn about the circumstances of an individual person with regard to suicide, including warning signs, risk factors, and protective factors. Risk for suicide is re-evaluated throughout the course of care to assess the patient's response to personal situational changes and clinical interventions. Accurate and defensible risk assessment requires a clinician to integrate a clinical judgment with the latest evidence-based practice, although accurate prediction of low base rate events, such as suicide, is inherently difficult and prone to false positives.

Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with negative emotions. It is one of the Big Five traits. Individuals with high scores on neuroticism are more likely than average to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, pessimism, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. Such people are thought to respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations, such as minor frustrations, as appearing hopelessly difficult. Their behavioral responses may include procrastination, substance use, and other maladaptive behaviors, which may temporarily aid in relieving negative emotions and generating positive ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychopathy Checklist</span> Psychopathy scale

The Psychopathy Checklist or Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, now the Psychopathy Checklist—revised (PCL-R), is a psychological assessment tool that is commonly used to assess the presence and extent of psychopathy in individuals—most often those institutionalized in the criminal justice system—and to differentiate those high in this trait from those with antisocial personality disorder, a related diagnosable disorder. It is a 20-item inventory of perceived personality traits and recorded behaviors, intended to be completed on the basis of a semi-structured interview along with a review of "collateral information" such as official records. The psychopath tends to display a constellation or combination of high narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorder traits, which includes superficial charm, charisma/attractiveness, sexual seductiveness and promiscuity, affective instability, suicidality, lack of empathy, feelings of emptiness, self-harm, and splitting. In addition, sadistic and paranoid traits are usually also present.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Impulsivity</span> Tendency to act on a whim without considering consequences

In psychology, impulsivity is a tendency to act on a whim, displaying behavior characterized by little or no forethought, reflection, or consideration of the consequences. Impulsive actions are typically "poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky, or inappropriate to the situation that often result in undesirable consequences," which imperil long-term goals and strategies for success. Impulsivity can be classified as a multifactorial construct. A functional variety of impulsivity has also been suggested, which involves action without much forethought in appropriate situations that can and does result in desirable consequences. "When such actions have positive outcomes, they tend not to be seen as signs of impulsivity, but as indicators of boldness, quickness, spontaneity, courageousness, or unconventionality." Thus, the construct of impulsivity includes at least two independent components: first, acting without an appropriate amount of deliberation, which may or may not be functional; and second, choosing short-term gains over long-term ones.

Fear appeal is a term used in psychology, sociology and marketing. It generally describes a strategy for motivating people to take a particular action, endorse a particular policy, or buy a particular product, by arousing fear. A well-known example in television advertising was a commercial employing the musical jingle: "Never pick up a stranger, pick up Prestone anti-freeze." This was accompanied by images of shadowy strangers (hitchhikers) who would presumably do one harm if picked up. The commercial's main appeal was not to the positive features of Prestone anti-freeze, but to the fear of what a "strange" brand might do.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark triad</span> Offensive personality types

The dark triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive, but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

Sensation seeking is a personality trait defined by the search for experiences and feelings, that are "varied, novel, rich and intense", and by the readiness to "take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experiences." Risk is not an essential part of the trait, as many activities associated with it are not risky. However, risk may be ignored, tolerated, or minimized and may even be considered to add to the excitement of the activity. The concept was developed by Marvin Zuckerman of the University of Delaware. In order to assess this trait he created a personality test called the Sensation Seeking Scale. This test assesses individual differences in terms of sensory stimulation preferences. So there are people who prefer a strong stimulation and display a behavior that manifests a greater desire for sensations and there are those who prefer a low sensory stimulation. The scale is a questionnaire designed to measure how much stimulation a person requires and the extent to which they enjoy the excitement. Zuckerman hypothesized that people who are high sensation seekers require a lot of stimulation to reach their Optimal Level of Arousal. When the stimulation or sensory input is not met, the person finds the experience unpleasant.

Attention seeking behavior is to act in a way that is likely to elicit attention. Attention seeking behavior is defined in the DSM-5 as "engaging in behavior designed to attract notice and to make oneself the focus of others' attention and admiration". This definition does not ascribe a motivation to the behavior and assumes a human actor, although the term "attention seeking" sometimes also assumes a motive of seeking validation. People are thought to engage in both positive and negative attention seeking behavior independent of the actual benefit or harm to health. In line with much research and a dynamic self-regulatory processing model of narcissism, motivations for attention seeking are considered to be driven by self-consciousness and thus an externalization of personality rather than internal and self-motivated behavior. Attention seeking is often caused by threats to one's self-concept and the need for social acceptance. This type of influence on behavior can result in a potential loss of a person's sense of agency, personality disorder and the behavior associated with these conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nature connectedness</span>

Nature connectedness is the extent to which individuals include nature as part of their identity. It includes an understanding of nature and everything it is made up of, even the parts that are not pleasing. Characteristics of nature connectedness are similar to those of a personality trait: nature connectedness is stable over time and across various situations.

Mate preferences in humans refers to why one human chooses or chooses not to mate with another human and their reasoning why. Men and women have been observed having different criteria as what makes a good or ideal mate. A potential mate's socioeconomic status has also been seen important, especially in developing areas where social status is more emphasized.

Social determinism is the theory that social interactions alone determine individual behavior.

Present bias is the tendency to settle for a smaller present reward rather than wait for a larger future reward, in a trade-off situation. It describes the trend of overvaluing immediate rewards, while putting less worth in long-term consequences. The present bias can be used as a measure for self-control, which is a trait related to the prediction of secure life outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Machiavellianism (psychology)</span> Psychological trait

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis named the construct after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S. & Edwards, C. S. (1994) The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
  2. 1 2 3 Orbell, S., & Kyriakaki, M (2008). Temporal framing and persuasion to adopt preventive health behavior: Moderating effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on sunscreen use. Health Psychology, 27, 770-779.
  3. ↑ Joireman, Jeff; King, Skyler (2016). "Individual differences in the consideration of future and (more) immediate consequences: A review and directions for future research". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 10 (5): 313–326. doi:10.1111/spc3.12252.
  4. 1 2 Chapman, G. B. (2005). Short-term cost for long-term benefit: Time preference and cancer control. Health Psychology, 24, 41-48.
  5. ↑ Beenstock, J., Adams, J., White, M. (2011) The association between time perspective and alcohol consumption in university students: Cross-sectional study. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 438-443.
  6. ↑ Dorr, N., Krueckeburg, S., Strathman, A. & Wood, A. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of voluntary HIV antibody testing in college students. AIDS Education and Prevention, 11, 14-27.
  7. 1 2 Peters, B.R., Joireman, J., & Ridgeway, R.L. (2005). Individual differences in the consideration of future consequences scale correlate with sleep habits, sleep quality, and GPA in university students. Psychological Reports, 96, 817-824.
  8. ↑ Adams, J., & Nettle, D. (2009). Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: An empirical study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 83–105.
  9. ↑ Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. Health Psychology, 28, 83-90.
  10. ↑ Curley, Ann J. (3 April 2012). "More evidence long-term estrogen therapy raises breast cancer risk". thechart.blogs.cnn.com. CNN. Archived from the original on April 6, 2012. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
  11. ↑ "www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/do-ppis-have-long-term-side-effects.shtml". Archived from the original on 2012-04-15.
  12. ↑ Cloe, Adam (20 October 2015). "Long-Term Effects of Blood Pressure Medicine on Men". www.livestrong.com. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
  13. ↑ Petrocelli, J. (1997). The role of temporal focus on risk behaviors in college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Westminster College, New Wilmington PA.
  14. 1 2 Joireman, J. (1999). Additional evidence for validity of the consideration of future consequences scale in an academic setting. Psychological Reports, 84, 1171–1172.
  15. ↑ Strand, K. H. (2011). Behavioral effects of consideration of future consequences and time perspective on self-regulation and procrastination in mastery and performance-oriented college students. Information & Learning, 72, 1542.
  16. 1 2 Joireman, J., Anderson, J., Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox: Understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1287–1302.
  17. ↑ Moore, M. & Dahlen, E. R. (2008). Forgiveness and consideration of future consequences in aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40, 1661–1666.
  18. ↑ Joireman, J., Sprott, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1159–1168.
  19. ↑ Joireman, J., Kees, J., Sprott, D. (2010). Concern with immediate consequences magnifies the impact of compulsive buying tendencies on college students' credit card debt. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44, 155-178.
  20. 1 2 Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A. M., Van Vugt, M., Wood, A., Vander Leest, T., & Lambert, C. (2001). Structural solutions to social dilemmas: A field study on commuters’ willingness to fund improvements in public transit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 504–526.
  21. ↑ Lindsay, J. J., & Strathman, A. (1997). Predictors of recycling behavior: An application of a modified health belief model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1799–1823.
  22. 1 2 Strathman, Alan (2010). "Alan Strathman". web.missouri.edu. Archived from the original on 24 August 2010.
  23. ↑ Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment & Behavior, 35, 1-20.
  24. ↑ Zimbardo, P. G. (1990). The Stanford Time Perspective Inventory Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
  25. ↑ Toepoel, Vera (2010). "Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?". Personality and Individual Differences. 48 (8): 951–956. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029.
  26. 1 2 3 4 Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, T. (2004) Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: Consideration of future consequences. Health Psychology, 23, 388-396.
  27. ↑ Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennett, J., Richards, D., & Solaimani, S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133–155.
  28. 1 2 Orbell, S., & Hagger, M. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychology, 25, 537-548.
  29. ↑ O'Connor, D. B., Warttig, S., Conner, M., & Lawton, R. (2009) Raising awareness of hypertension risk through a web-based framing intervention: Does consideration of future consequences make a difference? Health & Medicine, 14, 213-219.
  30. ↑ Crockett, R. A., Weinman, J., Hankins, M., & Marteau, T. (2009). Time orientation and health-related behaviour: Measurement in general population samples. Psychology and Health, 24, 333-350.
  31. ↑ Mckay, M. T., Ballantyne, N., Goudie, A. J., Sumnall, H. R., Cole, J. C. (2012). “Here for a good time, not a long time”: Decision-making, future consequences and alcohol use among Northern Irish adolescents. Journal of Substance Use, 17, 1-18.
  32. ↑ Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 405-413.
  33. ↑ Joireman, J., Shaffer, M., Balliet, D., Strathman, A. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two-factor consideration of future consequences 14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272–1287.
  34. ↑ Chng, Samuel; Chew, Jocelyn; Joireman, Jeff (February 2022). "When time is of the essence: Development and validation of brief consideration of future (and immediate) consequences scales". Personality and Individual Differences. 186: 111362. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111362. S2CID   240333472.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.