Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

When time is of the essence: Development and validation of brief

consideration of future (and immediate) consequences scales
Samuel Chng a, *, Han Shi Jocelyn Chew b, Jeff Joireman c
a
Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 8 Somapah Road, 487372, Singapore
b
Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Level 3, Clinical Research Centre, Block MD11, 10 Medical
Drive, 117597, Singapore
c
Department of Marketing and International Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4730, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Temporal dilemmas pose a conflict between the immediate and delayed consequences of one's actions. One trait
Time perspective related to decision-making in temporal dilemmas is the consideration of future consequences (CFC). Strathman
Consideration of future consequences et al. (1994) originally developed a (unidimensional) 12-item CFC scale (CFC-12), with five (seven) items tapping
Short scale
future (immediate) consequences. More recently, Joireman et al. (2012) created a balanced set of items (7 future,
7 immediate items), and argued that the CFC-14 scale contains CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate subscales. While
the CFC-12 and CFC-14 scales have seen widespread application, they may be too long for certain research
settings. Accordingly, the present work develops and validates brief 6-item (CFC-6) and very brief 4-item (CFC-4)
scales. Drawing on ten CFC-14 samples (N = 4789), evidence supports a two-factor structure and establishes the
internal reliability and predictive validity of the brief (3-item) and very brief (2-item) subscales in comparison to
the full-length scales: CFC-Future (3-item = 0.77, 2-item = 0.80) and CFC-Immediate (3-item = 0.83, 2-item =
0.83).

1. Introduction
Over the course of a day, people are faced with many decisions that
pit the immediate against the future consequences of their actions (e.g.,
studying requires a sacrifice in the here and now, but can lead to better
grades and job opportunities in the distant future). One trait frequently
linked with decision-making in such “temporal dilemmas” is the
“consideration of future consequences” (or CFC; Strathman, Gleicher,
Boninger, & Edwards, 1994), which has been shown to predict academic
performance (e.g., Acuff et al., 2017), health (e.g., Adams, 2012; Chew
& Chng, 2021), environmental (e.g., Enzler, 2015; Milfont, Bain, Gri­
goletti, Gouveia, & Kashima, 2014), financial (e.g., Joireman, Kees, &
Sprott, 2010), and work behavior (e.g., Graso & Probst, 2012), as well as
ethical decision-making (e.g., Hershfield, Cohen, & Thompson, 2012; for
a review, see Joireman & King, 2016).
Strathman et al. (1994) defined CFC as “the extent to which people
consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviors and
the extent to which they are influenced by these potential outcomes” (p.
743), and developed the 12-item CFC scale (i.e., CFC-12 scale). The CFC-
12 included five items dealing with the extent to which people think
about the future consequences of their actions, and seven items focusing
on the tendency to base decisions on the immediate consequences of
one's actions. Following confirmatory factor analyses, Strathman et al.
argued the scale was unidimensional. As such, they reverse-coded the
seven immediate items and combined them with the five future items to
derive an overall CFC score (CFC-Total scale), which demonstrated good
internal reliability (>0.80).
Subsequently, some research found that the CFC scale contained two
sub-factors usually referred to as the CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate
subscales (Joireman, Balliet, Sprott, Spangenberg, & Schultz, 2008).
More recently, Joireman, Shaffer, Balliet, and Strathman (2012) added
two additional items dealing with future consequences (i.e., the CFC-14
scale), resulting in a balanced set of items (7 future and 7 immediate
items) and improved internal reliability of the CFC-Future subscale, and
others have adapted this scale to specific contexts such as healthy eating
and exercise (e.g., Dassen, Houben, & Jansen, 2015; van Beek, Anto­
nides, & Handgraaf, 2013). Table 1 displays the items on the CFC-14
scale.
Although the CFC-12 and CFC-14 have been widely applied, there
continues to be debate about the factor structure of the scale (e.g.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Samuel_chng@sutd.edu.sg (S. Chng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111362
Received 20 July 2021; Received in revised form 1 October 2021; Accepted 23 October 2021
Available online 30 October 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Chng et al. Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362

Table 1 Table 2
CFC-14 scale. Sample demographics.
1. I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with Sample # N Gender Ethnicity Age
my day to day behavior. (F) (representative
% % Mean SD Range
2. Often I engage in a particular behavior in order to achieve outcomes that may not outcome)
female Caucasian
result for many years. (F)
3. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself. Sample 1 256 49% 75% 21.36 1.83 18–35
(I) (preference for
4. My behavior is only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) delayed gains)
outcomes of my actions. (I) Sample 2 (trait self- 701 56% 81% 46.30 15.00 19–83
5. My convenience is a big factor in the decisions I make or the actions I take. (I) control)
6. I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being in order to achieve Sample 3 (health 232 49% 81% 21.30 1.66 19–36
future outcomes. (F) eating)
7. I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes seriously even if Sample 4 (exercise) 119 40% 76% 21.47 1.72 18–29
the negative outcome will not occur for many years. (F) Sample 5 300 50% 91% 50.26 12.82 19–78
8. I think it is more important to perform a behavior with important distant (environmental
consequences than a behavior with less important immediate consequences. (F) values)
9. I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems because I think the Sample 6 (2008 U. 883 55% 80% 45.04 14.28 18–83
problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level. (I) S. presidential
10. I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be election)
dealt with at a later time. (I) Sample 7 (2012 U. 301 48% 85% 35.30 11.50 19–75
11. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future S. presidential
problems that may occur at a later date. (I) election)
12. Since my day to day work has specific outcomes, it is more important to me than Sample 8 (air 1705 49% – – – >20
behavior that has distant outcomes. (I) conditioning
13. When I make a decision, I think about how it might affect me in the future. (F) usage)a
14. My behavior is generally influenced by future consequences. (F) Sample 9 (heart 150 23% – 59.70 12.71 25–88
failure self-care)
Note. Strathman et al.'s (1994) original CFC scale = items 1–12. F = CFC-Future Sample 10 (heart 142 20% – 61.14 11.77 32–85
subscale item. I = CFC-Immediate subscale item. CFC-14 Scale Instructions (for failure self-care)
online administration): “For each of the statements shown, please indicate Total 4789 49% – 41.41 17.04 18–88
whether or not the statement is characteristic of you using the scale shown EFA sample 2394 50% – 41.16 16.71 18–88
below:” 1 = extremely uncharacteristic, 2 = uncharacteristic, 3 = somewhat CFA sample 2395 49% – 41.67 17.38 18–84
uncharacteristic, 4 = neither, 5 = somewhat characteristic, 6 = characteristic, 7
Note.
= extremely characteristic. a
Age was collected in age bands.

McKay, Cole, & Percy, 2015; McKay, Morgan, van Exel, & Worrell,
2015). Moreover, the length of the scales may be a barrier to their
application in certain research settings, where time is limited. The
present work addresses these issues by first assessing the factor structure
of the CFC-14 scale, drawing on a pooled sample of ten studies (N =
4789). We subsequently develop two brief and reliable CFC scales,
namely the 6-item CFC-short-form (CFC-6) and 4-item CFC-very short-
form (CFC-4), each comprised of a CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate
subscale with a proportionate number of items. We then evaluate the
predictive validity of the three scales (i.e. CFC-14, CFC-6, CFC-4) and
their respective subscales across multiple domains (trait delayed grati­
fication and self-control, healthy eating behavior, exercise behavior,
environmental values, U.S. Presidential voting intentions, habitual use
of air-conditioning and heart failure self-care). Results indicate that the
CFC-6 and CFC-4 perform as well as the CFC-14 in predicting outcomes
in the specified contexts.
2. Materials and method
2.1. Sample description
Ten samples of data from the U.S. and Singapore were utilized for our
analyses (N = 4789). This data was collected as part of several broader
projects focused on health behaviors, environmental decision-making,
and political issues (some published, some unpublished). Samples 1, 3
and 4 were college student samples, samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were
recruited via Qualtrics panels and Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and
samples 9 and 10 were hospital patient samples. Gender, ethnicity (%
Caucasian), and age for the ten samples are summarized in Table 2.
Overall, the merged sample was reasonably well balanced on gender
with a mean age of 41.4 (SD = 17.0), ranging from 18 to 88 years old.
Participants in all studies completed the CFC-14, responding to the items
on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me to 7 =
extremely characteristic of me). The merged sample was randomly split
into two analytic samples, including one for Exploratory Factor Analysis
(n = 2394) and one for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n = 2395),
respectively.
2.2. Dependent variables
In addition to completing the CFC-14, participants in the ten samples
completed a variety of other measures. To test the validity of the brief
(vs. longer) scales, we selected a representative outcome variable from
each sample to use as a criterion variable. Our aim was to examine how
the brief and longer scales predicted outcomes across a range of settings,
including basic traits (i.e., preference for delayed gains, trait self-
control), health behaviors (i.e., healthy eating, exercise, and self-care),
environmental behavior (i.e., biospheric values and use of air-
conditioning), and political contexts (i.e., voting intentions in two U.S.
Presidential elections).
In sample 1, participants completed a 21-item decision task to assess
preference for smaller immediate (e.g., $32 today) vs. larger delayed
outcomes (e.g., $55 in 20 days). We averaged the 21 choices (1 =
smaller immediate, 2 = larger delayed) to derive an index reflecting
preference for delayed gains (α = 0.91, M = 1.44, SD = 0.25). In sample
2, participants completed the brief (13-item) measure of trait self-
control (e.g., I am good at resisting temptation; 1 = extremely charac­
teristic to 7 = extremely uncharacteristic; α = 0.82, M = 4.69, SD = 1.00;
Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Sample 3 participants rated how
healthy they intended to make their future breakfasts, lunches, and
dinners on a 10-point scale (1 = not health to 10 = very healthy; α =
0.81, M = 8.38, SD = 1.24). Sample 4 respondents indicated the number
of exercise sessions they planned for the next week (M = 4.07, SD =
1.88). In Sample 5, participants completed a scale (de Groot & Steg,
2008) assessing the importance of four environmental (biospheric)
values (e.g., preventing pollution; protecting natural resources; 1 = not
important to 7 = very important; α = 0.93, M = 4.80, SD = 1.03). In
Samples 6 and 7, participants provided their rating of the two main U.S.
Presidential candidates in the 2008 (1 = strongly prefer Obama to 7 =

2
S. Chng et al. Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362

strongly prefer McCain; M = 3.80, SD = 2.40) and 2012 elections (1 =
strongly prefer Obama to 7 = strongly prefer Romney; M = 2.53, SD =
2.01). In Sample 8, participants reported their habitual use of air-
conditioning (e.g., using the air-conditioning is something I do
without thinking; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; α = 0.94,
M = 3.57, SD = 1.54). In samples 9 and 10, participants provided their
ratings on ten items reflecting the level of heart failure self-care (e.g.
daily weighing) measured on a four-point scale (1 = never/rarely; 4 =
daily/always) and computed as a composite score scaled to a score of
0–100 (αsample 9 = 0.63, Msample 9 = 51.2, SDsample 9 = 17.96 αsample 10 =
0.73, Msample 10 = 53.0, SDsample 10 = 17.26) (Chew, Sim, Choi, & Chair,
2021).
3. Results
3.1. Analytic overview
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the CFC-14
scale to identify the number of underlying factors, and highest loading
items suitable for abbreviated 6-item and 4-item scales. Subsequently,
on the second subsample, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on the CFC-14, CFC-6, and CFC-4 scales to assess the fit of one-
factor and a two-factor models.
3.2. Exploratory factor analysis
Utilizing the first subsample of 2394 participants, an initial EFA on
the CFC-14 scale, using the principal component method, suggested the
presence of two underlying principal components. This determination is
based on the presence of only two eigenvalues >1 (see Table 3), a visual
inspection of the scree plot (shown in Fig. 1), and as indicated by the
parallel analysis (Horn, 1965; see Fig. 1). The pattern of component
coefficients (following an Oblimin rotation), shown in Table 3, corre­
sponded clearly to the two commonly identified CFC subscales (CFC-
Immediate and CFC-Future).
Next, based on the items with the highest loadings, we identified a
reasonable six-item short scale (consisting of 3-item short subscales). On
this short scale, the CFC-Future items were items 14, 13, and 1, while the
CFC-Immediate items were items 3, 11, and 4. We subsequently sub­
mitted these six items to an exploratory factor analysis to determine the
number of underlying factors. Consistent with our EFA of the full scale,
the EFA on the six-item scale also suggested the presence of two prin­
cipal components based on the eigenvalues (>1; Table 3), scree plot
(Fig. 1) and parallel analysis (Fig. 1).
Finally, using a similar logic, we identified a reasonable four-item
scale (consisting of 2-item very short subscales). The very short scale
included items 13 and 14 (CFC-Future) and items 3 and 4 (CFC-Imme­
diate). An exploratory factor analysis on these four items yielded two
principal components, based on the eigenvalues (>1; Table 3), scree plot
(Fig. 1) and parallel analysis (Fig. 1).
3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis
Drawing on our second subsample (n = 2395), we next conducted
confirmatory factor analyses on the original CFC-14 scale as well as the
shorter CFC-6, and CFC-4 scales identified in the EFAs described earlier.
Fit statistics for the one-factor and two factor models are summarized in
Table 4. Hierarchical chi-square difference tests indicated that the two-
factor model fit significantly better than the one-factor model for each
version of the scale (CFC-14, CFC-6, and CFC-4).
3.4. Reliabilities
Based on the EFAs and CFAs, results suggest the presence of two
factors on each of the three versions of the scale (CFC-14, CFC-6, and
CFC-4). Next, we computed internal reliabilities for the three scales,
which are shown in Table 5. Examining the internal reliability of the
CFC-total scale in the CFC-14, CFC-6 and CFC-4, we observed that the
internal reliability of the CFC-6 and CFC-4 were lower than the CFC-14
(for the “total” scale). However, the internal reliability of the immediate
and future subscales in the CFC-14, CFC-6 and CFC-4 scales were com­
parable and were all above 0.70, demonstrating good internal
reliability.
3.5. Regressions
To assess the relative predictive validity of the CFC-14, CFC-6, and
CFC-4 scales, we conducted a series of four regression analyses to
compare the strength of relationship between the scales and the
respective outcome variables. Table 6 summarizes the results of these
analyses for the ten samples. As can be seen, across all ten samples, the
brief scales did as well as the long scale in predicting the outcome of
interest, with minor changes in the standardized regression coefficients
and significance levels, and no change in the overall conclusion reached.
An identical pattern emerged when examining the CFC-Future and CFC-
Immediate subscales, with no meaningful changes to the coefficients,

Table 3
Rotated loadings (pattern matrix) from EFA, including subscale internal reliabilities.
CFC-14 Future CFC-6 Future CFC-4 Future

Immediate Immediate Immediate

Immediate items
CFC-3r 0.789 0.040 0.877 0.920
CFC-11r 0.775 0.115 0.673
CFC-4r 0.762 − 0.003 0.850 0.937
CFC-10r 0.655 0.111
CFC-12r 0.636 − 0.045
CFC-9r 0.623 0.077
CFC-5r 0.594 − 0.155
Future items
CFC-14 − 0.018 0.716 0.809 0.917
CFC-13 0.027 0.716 0.829 0.904
CFC-1 0.006 0.674 0.537
CFC-7 0.042 0.636
CFC-2 0.029 0.631
CFC-6 0.022 0.598
CFC-8 − 0.058 0.588
Eigenvalue 4.22 2.29 2.34 1.24 2.02 1.37
% of variance 30.13% 16.35% 39.02% 20.67% 50.45% 34.22%
Internal reliabilities 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.76 0.84 0.79

Note. CFC-3r to CFC5r and CFC9r to CFC12r are recoded ‘immediate’ items.

3
S. Chng et al. Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362

CFC-14
CFC-6
CFC-4
Fig. 1. EFA scree plots from principal component analysis and parallel analysis
for the CFC-14 (top), CFC-6 (middle), and CFC-4 (bottom).
significance levels, or conclusions.
4. Discussion
Many decisions pose a conflict between short-term and long-term
consequences. One individual difference variable shown to predict
such choices is the consideration of future consequences, often assessed
using the CFC-14 scale (Joireman et al., 2012). While a large literature
supports the validity of this scale, it is also arguably longer than re­
searchers might like or be able to administer in some settings. In an
effort to facilitate more widespread use of the CFC scales, we developed
short and very short versions of the scale. Utilizing ten samples from the
U.S. and Singapore, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses sup­
ported the presence of two factors (CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate) and
identified short and very short scales that had both acceptable re­
liabilities and the ability to predict a range of outcomes on par with the
full (CFC-14) scale. In so doing, the present paper contributes to work on
CFC.
In addition to linking CFC with various outcomes (e.g., health,
financial, environmental), researchers interested in CFC have focused
much attention on its measurement. Consistent with a growing number
of studies (e.g., Adams, 2012; Joireman et al., 2008; Joireman et al.,
2012; McKay, Morgan, et al., 2015), the present analyses suggest the
presence of two (rather than one) factors. While this was expected, and
while it is not the main purpose of the present paper, it is worth reit­
erating why the distinction between future and immediate consequences
is important. If researchers recode the immediate items and combine
them with the future items, the result is a global CFC scale, where the
interpretation is not always clear. If it is primarily the future items that
are driving an association, the interpretation based on a global (com­
bined) scale is not misleading. However, if an association is primarily
driven by the recoded immediate items, a researcher might conclude
that “people low in future-oriented concerns engage in X” (e.g., alcohol
use) whereas the data suggest “people high in immediate-oriented
concerns engage in X.” An inspection of the regression analyses in
Table 6 reveals that the primary predictor (CFC-Future or CFC-
Immediate) varies based on the outcome. In addition, it is worth
noting that the correlation between the two subscales was relatively
small (r = − 0.32 in each case), further supporting the distinction. Again,
while this is not the primary purpose of the present study, it is a useful
contribution to the discussion over the factor structure of the scale.
The more important contribution of the present work is the devel­
opment of short (6-item) and very short (4-item) forms of the CFC scale,
with acceptable reliabilities and good predictive ability on par with the
full scale. Notably, our findings overlap with recent work by Vilar et al.
(2020), who also proposed “ultra-short” CFC scales based on college
student data largely from Brazil, with a smaller sample from New Zea­
land. Through their analyses, Vilar proposed a 3-item CFC-Future scale
(items 1, 13, 14; identical to ours), and a 3-item CFC-Immediate scale
(items 3, 10, and 11; with two of the same three items in our scale, which
was composed of items 3, 4, and 11). By comparison, the reliabilities in
the current study (CFC-Future = 0.76, CFC-Immediate = 0.84) tended to
be higher than those reported by Vilar et al. (CFC-Future = 0.72, CFC-
Immediate = 0.68). Complementing and extending Vilar et al., we also
developed very short versions of the subscales (2 items each), which
continued to show good reliability and predictive validity.
It is unclear why our three-item CFC-Immediate scale was slightly
different than the one proposed by Vilar et al. (2020). One possibility is
that Vilar et al.'s data focused mainly on college students from Brazil,
whereas the present data were based on samples with a broader age
range from the U.S. and Singapore. Thus, age and language translation
may have played a role in the different results (e.g., item 10, on Vilar
et al.'s short scale, may have been easier to translate than item 4, on our
short scale). Future research could test both Vilar et al.'s scale and the
present scale to determine which fits best in a given context.
Future research could also examine the predictive validity of the full
and short scales in different domains. While we aimed to test this across
a range of contexts (self-control traits, health, environment, political
preferences), future work is warranted to confirm or qualify the present
results. If additional studies can support the validity of the short scales,
this could further advance work on CFC and decision-making in tem­
poral dilemmas.

4
S. Chng et al. Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362

Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Model fit CFC-14 Two factors CFC-6 Two factors CFC-4 Two factors

One factor One factor One factor

Chi-square 6263.92 1628.36 2353.29 63.48 1393.20 6.06

df 77 76 9 8 2 1
p <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 0.014
RMR 0.331 0.120 0.506 0.074 0.523 0.015
GFI 0.610 0.902 0.732 0.991 0.814 0.999
AGFI 0.468 0.864 0.375 0.977 0.074 0.987
CFI 0.551 0.887 0.548 0.989 0.559 0.998
RMSEA 0.184 0.093 0.332 0.054 0.542 0.015
r (CFC-F w/ CFC-I) − 0.32 − 0.32 − 0.32

Note. Chi-square difference tests (one vs. two factors): CFC-14 (χ2(1) = 4635.56, p < .001); CFC-6 (χ2(1) = 2289.91, p < .001); CFC-4 (χ2(1) = 1387.14, p < .001).

Table 5
Internal reliabilities by individual sample and for merged sample.
CFC-total scales CFC subscales

CFC-14 CFC-6 CFC-4 CFC-14 CFC-6 CFC-4

Immediate Future Immediate Future Immediate Future

Sample 1 0.86 0.83 0.76 0.85 0.77 0.86 0.73 0.83 0.72
Sample 2 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.80 0.85 0.83
Sample 3 0.84 0.76 0.68 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.77 0.76 0.70
Sample 4 0.85 0.79 0.70 0.84 0.80 0.85 0.69 0.79 0.68
Sample 5 0.80 0.69 0.64 0.78 0.76 0.71 0.63 0.82 0.71
Sample 6 0.85 0.88 0.82 0.87 0.81 0.84 0.71 0.84 0.73
Sample 7 0.92 0.75 0.68 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.83 0.90 0.85
Sample 8 0.75 0.64 0.53 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.76 0.81 0.82
Sample 9 0.82 0.68 0.57 0.78 0.88 0.66 0.84 0.66 0.85
Sample 10 0.86 0.78 0.72 0.80 0.87 0.70 0.87 0.71 0.98
Total (merged sample) 0.85 0.76 0.68 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.77 0.83 0.80

Note. Reliabilities <0.70 shown in gray.

Table 6
Regressions comparing long, short, very short scales (for both CFC-total and CFC-subscale analyses).
n CFC-14 CFC-6 CFC-4

Total Future Immediate Total Future Immediate Total Future Immediate

Sample 1 (preference for delayed gains) 256 0.17** − 0.04 − 0.23** 0.15* − 0.06 − 0.21** 0.14* − 0.05 − 0.19**
Sample 2 (trait self-control) 701 0.46*** 0.16*** − 0.38*** 0.44*** 0.16*** − 0.36*** 0.42*** 0.17*** − 0.34***
Sample 3 (health eating) 232 0.01 0.14* 0.01 0.12 0.18** 0.02 0.10 0.15* 0.01
Sample 4 (exercise) 119 0.24** 0.24* − 0.06 0.25** 0.27** − 0.05 0.29*** 0.33*** − 0.05
Sample 5 (environmental values) 300 0.50*** 0.52*** − 0.14** 0.45*** 0.41*** − 0.18*** 0.32*** 0.18*** − 0.24***
Sample 6 (2008 U.S. presidential election) 883 − 0.05 − 0.21** − 0.14* − 0.04 − 0.21** − 0.15* − 0.03 − 0.22** − 0.16*
Sample 7 (2012 U.S. presidential election) 301 − 0.03 − 0.08* − 0.03 0.00 − 0.07* − 0.06 0.00 − 0.04 − 0.03
Sample 8 (air conditioning usage) 1705 − 0.19*** − 0.07** 0.21*** − 0.18*** − 0.04 0.19*** − 0.18*** − 0.07** 0.18***
Sample 9 (heart failure self-care) 150 0.28*** 0.22** − 0.15 0.22** 0.16 − 0.13 0.15 0.11 − 0.08
Sample 10 (heart failure self-care) 142 0.16 0.16 − 0.03 0.16 0.15 − 0.05 0.16 0.15 − 0.05

Note.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we developed two brief and reliable CFC scales, the
CFC-6 and CFC-4, that perform as well as the CFC-14 in predicting
outcomes across multiple domains. Our findings also support a two-
factor structure of CFC, and hence, both brief scales comprised of a
CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate subscale with a proportionate number
of items. Our CFC-6 and CFC-4 scales will provide researchers with
shorter alternatives when research in settings where time is limited or a
more efficient tool is necessary.
collection, data analyses and interpretation and manuscript drafting. All
authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Samuel Chng: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – orig­
inal draft, Writing – review & editing. Han Shi Jocelyn Chew:
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. Jeff Joireman: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Author contributions Acknowledgements

All authors contributed to the study concept, study design, data We thank the participants for their participation in this study. The

5
S. Chng et al.
views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the
above funders.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Acuff, S. F., Soltis, K. E., Dennhardt, A. A., Borsari, B., Martens, M. P., & Murphy, J. G.
(2017). Future so bright? Delay discounting and consideration of future
consequences predict academic performance among college drinkers. Experimental
and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 25, 412.
Adams, J. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future consequences, smoking status,
and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31(2), 260–263.
van Beek, J., Antonides, G., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2013). Eat now, exercise later: The
relation between consideration of immediate and future consequences and healthy
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 785–791.
Chew, H. S. J., & Chng, S. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic response behaviors: A Singapore
experience of the “circuit breaker”. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11, 808–813.
Chew, H. S. J., Sim, K. L. D., Choi, K. C., & Chair, S. Y. (2021). Effectiveness of a nurse-led
temporal self-regulation theory-based program on heart failure self-care: A
randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 115 (In press).
Dassen, F. C., Houben, K., & Jansen, A. (2015). Time orientation and eating behavior:
Unhealthy eaters consider immediate consequences, while healthy eaters focus on
future health. Appetite, 91, 13–19.
Enzler, H. B. (2015). Consideration of future consequences as a predictor of
environmentally responsible behavior: Evidence from a general population study.
Environment and Behavior, 47, 618–643.
Graso, M., & Probst, T. M. (2012). The effect of consideration of future consequences on
quality and quantity aspects of job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
42, 1335–1352.
de Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to
environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and
biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330–354.
Personality and Individual Differences 186 (2022) 111362
Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizons and tempting
situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making
and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 298–310.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration
of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing
between CFC-immediate and CFC-future subs-scales. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 15–21.
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.
Joireman, J., & King, S. (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, 313–326.
Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., 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, 1272–1287.
McKay, M. T., Cole, J. C., & Percy, A. (2015). Further evidence for a bifactor solution for
the consideration of future consequences scale: Measurement and conceptual
implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 219–222.
McKay, M. T., Morgan, G. B., van Exel, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Back to “the future”:
Evidence of a bifactor solution for scores on the consideration of future consequences
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 395–402.
Milfont, T. L., Bain, P. G., Grigoletti, L. V. S., Gouveia, V. V., & Kashima, Y. (2014).
Examining how projections about the future of society are related to present-day
climate change action. Psico, 45, 359–368.
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.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271–324.
Vilar, R., Milfont, T. L., de Carvalho Rodrigues Araujo, R., de Holanda Coelho, G. L.,
Soares, A. K. S., & Gouvei, V. V. (2020). Consideration of future consequences (CFC):
Validation and proposition of an ultra-short scale. Current Psychology. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-020-00840-y