Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC Scale)

Abstract

The Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC) Scale is a 12-item self-report instrument developed to quantify individual differences in the propensity to consider and be influenced by the potential distant outcomes of current behaviors. This scale is crucial for understanding how individuals weigh immediate gratification against long-term benefits or costs, a concept known as the intertemporal nature of choice. High scores on the CFC scale indicate a strong orientation toward the future, which is often predictive of positive health behaviors, responsible financial planning, and effective self-regulation.

Keywords

Future Orientation, Intertemporal Choice, Time Preference, Health Behaviors, Decision Making, Personality, Self-Regulation, Temporal Discounting, Long-term Consequences.

Authors

Alan Strathman, Fred Gleicher, David S. Boninger, and C. Scott Edwards.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CFC Scale is to assess the degree to which individuals prioritize and are motivated by either immediate (short-term) or distant (long-term) consequences when evaluating potential courses of action. The scale is designed to quantify this dimension of individual difference, which has proven highly valuable in predicting complex behaviors such as preventative healthcare engagement, saving habits, and adherence to lifestyle changes.

Construct

The CFC Scale operationalizes the psychological construct of Consideration of Future Consequences, which is defined as the extent to which people consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviors and are influenced by those potential outcomes. This construct is closely related to concepts of self-regulation and temporal perspective, distinguishing individuals who are highly motivated by future rewards or punishments from those who focus primarily on immediate gratification.

The scale acts as a measure of future orientation, suggesting that behavior is often driven by the perceived salience of consequences across time. This dimension is viewed as a relatively stable personality trait, though it is recognized that situational factors can temporarily alter the weight given to future consequences.

Validity

The initial validation of the CFC Scale was detailed in the seminal 1994 article by Strathman et al. Evidence for construct validity stems from the scale’s ability to significantly predict various consequential behaviors. Specifically, high CFC scores correlate positively with positive outcomes, such as engaging in preventative health behaviors (e.g., regular exercise, healthy eating) and responsible financial decision-making.

The scale demonstrates expected relationships with other measures of temporal orientation and personality, confirming its theoretical grounding. For detailed psychometric information, researchers are directed to the original publication: 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(4), 742-752.

Reliability

Reliability of the CFC Scale is typically high, demonstrating strong internal consistency across the 12 items. While the specific Cronbach’s alpha values vary across samples, the original study and subsequent replications generally report acceptable to good reliability coefficients, supporting the use of the scale as a stable measure of the underlying construct. The scale’s test-retest reliability has also been established, indicating stability over time.

Factor Analysis

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale was initially conceived and scored as a unidimensional construct, reflecting a single underlying trait of future orientation. However, subsequent factor analytic studies have frequently suggested a two-factor structure. These factors are typically labeled:

• CFC-Immediate: Reflecting a focus on immediate concerns and outcomes (e.g., items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, which are reverse-scored in the unidimensional approach).
• CFC-Future: Reflecting a focus on distant outcomes and future planning (e.g., items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8).

Although the two-factor model provides a more nuanced understanding of temporal focus, the original 12-item scale is often still summed into a single score for simplicity and consistency with early research.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychological test

Format: 12 items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: Primarily English; translated versions exist across various languages (e.g., German, Dutch, Spanish) used in cross-cultural research.

Population Group: General population; extensively used in both student and adult samples.

Age Group: Adolescents through adults (typically 16+).

Population Details: Originally validated on undergraduate students, but its use has expanded across diverse demographic groups in studies concerning health, finance, and environmental psychology.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the extent to which each statement is characteristic of them, ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic). Scoring requires the reversal of seven items (3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12) before summation to ensure a higher overall score indicates a greater consideration of future consequences.

Keywords

Future Orientation, Temporal Discounting, Intertemporal Choice, Self-Control, Personality Trait, Behavioral Economics, Health Psychology.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not publicly provided in the source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not publicly provided in the source material.

Correspondence Address: Not publicly provided in the source material; generally affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the time of publication (1994).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1994

Permissions & Fee: The CFC Scale is widely considered to be in the public domain and is freely available for non-commercial research and educational use. No specific fee is typically required, but researchers must cite the original 1994 source.

Reference’s

• 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(4), 742-752. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
• Cauffman, E. & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgement in adolescence: why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741-760. doi: 10.1002/bsl.416
• Joireman, J., Sprott, D. E. & Spangenberg, E. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1159-1168. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.002
• Sheina, O. & Martin, H. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychology, 25(4), 537-548. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.537
• Howlett, E., Kees, J. & Kemp, E. (2008). The role of self-regulation, future orientation, and financial knowledge in long-term financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(2), 223-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00106.x
• Toepoel, V. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct? [Article]. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 951-956. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029

Items of the Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC Scale)

For each of the statements below, please indicate whether or not the statement is characteristic of you. If the statement is extremely uncharacteristic of you (not at all like you) please fill-in a “1”; if the statement is extremely characteristic of you (very much like you) please fill-in a “5”. Use the numbers in the middle if you fall between the endpoints. Please keep the following scale in mind as you rate each of the statements below.

• 1=extremely uncharacteristic
• 2=somewhat uncharacteristic
• 3=uncertain
• 4=somewhat characteristic
• 5=extremely characteristic

1. I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with my day to day
2. Often I engage in a particular behavior in order to achieve outcomes that may not result for many years.
3. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself.
4. My behavior is only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions.
5. My convenience is a big factor in the decisions I make or the actions I
6. I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being in order to achieve future
7. I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes seriously even if the negative outcome will not occur for many
8. I think it is more important to perform a behavior with important distant consequences than a behavior with less-important immediate
9. I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems because I think the problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level.
10. I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later
11. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later
12. Since my day to day work has specific outcomes, it is more important to me than behavior that has distant

Scoring — Generally, the CFC Scale is scored so that higher numbers indicate a greater consideration of future consequences. To do this, items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 should be reverse-scored. This can be done by creating a new variable which is “6-response” for each of the reverse-scored items. These seven new variables should then be summed along with the five items which need not be reversed (items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8).