Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: An Assessment and Review

1. Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: An Assessment and Review Tom R. Eikebrokk Ellen K. Nyhus University of Agder University of Agder

2. Motivation The Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) Scale: • Widely used for measuring future time perspective in social psychology. • Only validated with (small) student samples: • Strathman et al (1994): Validated the 12-item CFC-scale using 3 small student samples • Petrocelli (2003): Tested the factor structure using a larger student sample and confirmatory factor analyses. Found 2 factors and recommended a 8-item CFC-scale • Joireman et al. (2008): Tested the factor structure using different student samples and recommend a two-factor measurement scale separating items describing near or distant future • Research on other scales in psychology (e.g. Self esteem and Worry) show that reverse wording can create method effects and suggest additional factors in EFA and CFA (e.g. Marsh, 1996; Brown, 2003). • Few users of the CFC scale examine the factor structure, and interpretation of results are difficult. Theory wrong or measurement error? • Our purpose: Test temporal stability, factor structure and method effects using a large representative sample.

3. The Scale • The CFC-scale consists of 12 statements (7 reversed scored), to which respondents express their opinion by using a 5-point scale (Dutch version and a 7-point scale in our survey) Sample questions: 1. I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with my day to day behaviour. 3. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself. Composite CFC-score usually computed by using average response to the 12 questions.

4. The Data • Dutch DNB Household Survey 2005,2006 and 2007 (Tilburg University) • Panel of 2000 households representative of the Dutch population with respect to socio-economic variables • Data collected through the Internet panel of CentERdata (http://www.uvt.nl/centerdata/dhs/documentation/) • Questionnaires that may be answered in 30 minutes or less are transmitted to the households on a weekly basis • The DNB-HS includes detailed information about respondents’ wages, family situation, education and tenure, as well as items designed to tap various psychological concepts – among them the CFC

5. Stability in Answers over Time Pearson correlation coefficients All significant at .001 level

6. Hypothesized factor structure of the CFC-scale MODEL 1: Original 12 item Scale (Strathman et al., 94) MODEL 2: EFA: Three factor 10 item Scale MODEL 3: Method Effects: One factor 10 item scale

7. Results of CFA (Lisrel 8.72) Model fit criteria adopted from Hu & Bentler (1999)

8. Reliability

9. Results and Discussion • The 12 items CFC-scale does not fit to a sample of representative data • EFA suggests several factors most likely due to method effects • The reduced 10 indicator one-factor CFC model fits the data best • when method effects of reversely worded items are controlled for • Further use of the CFC-scale should be aware of possible method effects • which otherwise could suggest other factors (e.g. Petrocelli, 2003, Joireman et al., 2008) • other studies should investigate improvements in item reliabilities • The CFC-scale has reasonable temporal stability supporting CFC as a stable individual trait • Future research should test the factor structure using other realistic samples