Cited by 1,782Psychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPersonality Traits and Psychology

The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior.

Strathman, Alan, Gleicher, Faith, Boninger, David S., Edwards, C. Scott·1994·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

We propose a new construct called consideration of future consequences (CFC), which is hypothesized to be a stable individual difference in the extent to which people consider distant versus immediate consequences of potential behaviors. Following a description of the construct itself, a measure of this individual difference is developed and validated. Data collected from 7 samples of college students indicates that the measure has acceptable reliability and validity. In addition, evidence of the role of CFC in regulating affective responses to negative events is reviewed. The utility of the CFC construct is demonstrated in 2 studies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale is a 12-item scale developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Scott Edwards (1994) to measure the extent to which individuals consider distant outcomes when choosing their present behavior.

    “The Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale is a 12-item scale that was developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Scott Edwards (1994) to measure the extent to which individuals consider distant outcomes when choosing their present behavior.”

    From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Scott Edwards (1994)

  • Reliability was assessed using the Consideration for Future Consequences scale (Strathman et al., 1994).

    “To assess reliability, we used the Consideration for Future Consequences scale (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994).”

    From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1994-04
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
742-752
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2005320215
Cited by
1,782
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 115 · 2016: 100 · 2015: 98 · 2014: 82 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 69
FWCI
12.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
consideration of future consequences, time preference, individual differences, emotion regulation, construct validation, scale development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review