Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC Scale)

Abstract

The Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC Scale) is an influential self-report psychometric instrument developed by Alan Strathman, Faith Gleicher, David S. Boninger, and C. Scott Edwards in 1994. The instrument was conceptualized to quantify stable individual differences in intertemporal decision-making—specifically, the extent to which individuals emphasize the immediate versus distant future consequences of their behavioral choices. Consisting of 12 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic), the CFC Scale captures the continuous dimension spanning present-oriented hedonism and pragmatic expediency to long-term cognitive foresight and delayed gratification. Although originally treated as a unidimensional continuum, substantial psychometric evaluation has established a bifurcated two-factor structural model comprising CFC-Immediate (CFC-I) and CFC-Future (CFC-F). Extensive empirical research indicates that higher CFC scores reliably predict adaptive self-regulatory outcomes across an array of domains, including preventative health behaviors, fiscal planning, environmental sustainability, academic perseverance, and ethical conduct. Conversely, lower CFC scores are robustly correlated with risk-taking behaviors, substance misuse, chronic procrastination, and impulsive consumption. The scale demonstrates robust psychometric integrity across diverse populations, featuring high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically between .80 and .86) and temporal stability over longitudinal intervals. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the CFC Scale, including its theoretical architecture, psychometric validity, reliability metrics, factor structural evolution, administration protocols, scoring formulas, and complete verbatim scale items.

Keywords

Consideration of Future Consequences, CFC Scale, intertemporal choice, temporal discounting, future orientation, self-regulation, delay of gratification, psychometrics, health psychology, behavioral economics, Strathman

Authors

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale was formulated and psychometrically validated in 1994 by a collaborative research team based at the University of Missouri-Columbia:

• Alan Strathman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, United States.
• Faith Gleicher, Ph.D. — Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, United States.
• David S. Boninger, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Glendale Community College / University of Missouri-Columbia.
• C. Scott Edwards, Ph.D. — Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, United States.

Purpose

Human decision-making routinely requires navigating trade-offs between instantaneous satisfaction and delayed, potentially uncertain future returns. The primary purpose of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale is to operationalize and measure this psychological tension: the degree to which individuals anticipate, value, and are systematically influenced by the distant outcomes of their immediate behavioral trajectories. Prior to the development of the CFC Scale, psychological science lacked an integrated, domain-general measurement tool capable of evaluating how individuals weigh short-term convenience and immediate gratification against long-term investments, health risks, and societal obligations.

From an applied perspective, the CFC Scale serves a critical role across several major disciplines:

• Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine: The scale is widely implemented to explain compliance with preventative health regimens, adherence to chronic medical interventions, participation in cancer or diabetes screenings, smoking cessation, and dietary discipline. Individuals low in CFC typically exhibit heightened vulnerability to behaviors offering immediate hedonic rewards coupled with delayed deleterious health impacts (e.g., sedentary lifestyle, substance abuse).
• Behavioral Economics & Consumer Finance: Researchers use the CFC Scale to predict fiscal responsibility, retirement savings patterns, revolving credit card debt, and compulsive purchasing. Individuals with elevated future orientation manifest superior financial self-efficacy and debt-mitigation strategies.
• Environmental Psychology & Sustainability: Climate change mitigation, energy conservation, and recycling inherently involve immediate individual sacrifices (e.g., convenience, personal funds) to foster collective, distal environmental preservation. The CFC Scale reliably distinguishes individuals who prioritize pro-environmental initiatives from those prioritizing immediate personal convenience.
• Criminology & Legal Psychology: In juvenile and adult forensic psychology, the CFC Scale operationalizes cognitive maturity and judgment culpability. Impaired consideration of future legal, social, and personal penalties explains significant variance in delinquency, impulsivity, and recidivism.
• Organizational Behavior & Academic Performance: In organizational and educational contexts, CFC predicts goal orientation, task completion rates, mitigation of academic procrastination, and strategic long-term organizational stewardship.

Psychological Construct

The construct of Consideration of Future Consequences represents a core, dispositional personality trait situated at the confluence of cognitive time perspective, self-regulation, and executive functioning. Fundamentally, CFC addresses the differential weight an individual assigns to the temporal delivery of behavioral consequences. Every behavior yields consequences distributed across time: some emerge instantaneously or within hours/days (immediate outcomes), whereas others require months, years, or decades to materialize (distant outcomes).

The psychological construct is historically framed along a single continuous bipolar dimension, but advanced psychometric modeling identifies two distinct, interdependent psychological dimensions:

1. Future Orientation (CFC-Future)

The CFC-Future dimension captures the active cognitive projection of the self into distal temporal horizons, accompanied by the motivational willingness to undergo immediate sacrifice for long-term dividends. Key components of this construct include:

• Anticipatory Foresight: Proactively mentally simulating future states and discerning how quotidian actions sculpt long-range scenarios.
• Willingness to Delay Gratification: Willingly relinquishing transient pleasure, comfort, or ease to safeguard enduring physical, financial, or ethical stability.
• Threat Sensitivity toward Distant Warnings: Treating long-term predictive warnings (e.g., health hazards, environmental degradation) with existential gravity, even when the manifestation of harm resides years away.

2. Immediate Orientation (CFC-Immediate)

The CFC-Immediate dimension reflects a psychological orientation dominated by present temporal concerns, situational convenience, and hedonic immediacy. Central facets include:

• Temporal Myopia: Behavioral regulation driven almost exclusively by outcomes scheduled to transpire within hours, days, or weeks.
• Pragmatic Convenience Bias: Prioritizing minimal personal friction, effortless convenience, and low immediate effort over long-range optimization.
• Optimistic Rationalization of Distant Risks: The cognitive presumption that future obstacles, health failures, or financial shortfalls can be postponed and addressed at a later date, rendering contemporary sacrifice redundant.

Importantly, while Strathman et al. (1994) originally synthesized these two facets into a single continuum—where low immediate orientation implicitly denotes high future orientation—subsequent psychometricians emphasize that individuals can concurrently possess dual motivations: a sharp awareness of long-term aspirations alongside an intense, competing vulnerability to immediate temptations.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the CFC Scale integrate principles from temporal discounting models in behavioral economics, social-cognitive theories of self-regulation, and time perspective models in personality psychology.

Intertemporal Choice and Temporal Discounting

In classical economic theory, temporal discounting describes the empirical phenomenon wherein future utility or reward value systematically decreases as a mathematical function of delay time. However, normative economic models assume hyper-rational, uniform discount rates across human agents. Strathman et al. (1994) departed from standard economic paradigms by hypothesizing that temporal discounting is fundamentally an individual difference variable rooted in human personality. Individuals with low CFC exhibit steep hyperbolic discounting functions, sharply devaluing future rewards and health benefits in favor of minor, instantaneous gains. Conversely, individuals scoring high on CFC exhibit shallow discount curves, maintaining robust cognitive representations of distant incentives.

Self-Regulatory Resource Theory and Delay of Gratification

The scale intersects with Walter Mischel’s landmark delay of gratification paradigms and modern self-regulatory models. According to Mischel’s Hot/Cool System perspective, immediate stimuli trigger the “hot,” emotional, impulsive amygdaloid system, demanding quick consummatory action. Distant goals depend on the “cool,” cognitive, prefrontal neural circuit capable of abstract representation. The CFC Scale operationalizes the sustained, chronic recruitment of this “cool” cognitive mechanism in everyday life, facilitating impulse inhibition and long-term goal pursuit.

Lewinian Life Space and Temporal Depth

Kurt Lewin’s field theory conceptualized the psychological “life space,” which encompasses an individual’s psychological past, present, and future existing simultaneously at any given life stage. Strathman and colleagues built upon Lewin’s notion of temporal depth, proposing that human agents differ dramatically in how expansive their psychological life space is along the temporal axis. For low-CFC individuals, the life space is temporally compressed to immediate proximal states; for high-CFC individuals, the life space possesses immense temporal depth, continuously informing current decision vectors.

Validity

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale has undergone exhaustive empirical validation across experimental, field, and cross-sectional designs worldwide.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their seminal validation studies, Strathman et al. (1994) established robust construct validity across multiple samples totaling over 1,500 participants:

• Time Orientation: The CFC Scale correlates positively with the Future Time Orientation subscale of the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory and the Future subscale of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; r ≈ .45 to .55).
• Self-Control: CFC demonstrates strong positive correlations with Tangney’s Brief Self-Control Scale (r ≈ .48 to .58), confirming that the capacity to regulate behavior is closely coupled with consideration of distant outcomes.
• Conscientiousness: In Five-Factor Model evaluations, CFC correlates substantially with Conscientiousness (r ≈ .38 to .46) and negatively with Neuroticism and Impulsivity facets.
• Need for Cognition: CFC correlates moderately with Cacioppo and Petty’s Need for Cognition Scale (r ≈ .25 to .35), demonstrating that thinking about future contingencies demands active cognitive deliberation.

Discriminant Validity

Strathman et al. (1994) established that CFC is empirically dissociable from general intelligence, locus of control, social desirability, and basic demographic parameters. Controlling for social desirability (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) does not attenuate the predictive power of CFC on behavioral criteria, demonstrating that CFC does not merely reflect socially approved self-descriptions.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Decades of field and laboratory research support the predictive utility of CFC:

• Health Behaviors: Sheina and Martin (2006) revealed that CFC moderates message framing effects during health interventions; high-CFC adults responded with elevated screening intentions to future-framed diabetes messages, whereas low-CFC adults were receptive exclusively to immediate-framed communications. CFC scores predict lower cigarette consumption, higher adherence to physical exercise regimens, and consistent medical check-ups.
• Financial Stewardship: Joireman, Sprott, and Spangenberg (2005) demonstrated that individuals high in CFC maintain significantly lower credit card debt, higher monthly savings rates, and superior long-term retirement investments. Howlett, Kees, and Kemp (2008) verified that CFC serves as an essential regulatory conduit translating financial literacy into actionable, diversified long-term portfolio management.
• Developmental & Forensic Outcomes: Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) utilized the CFC Scale to demonstrate the developmental trajectory of judgment maturity from adolescence into adulthood, showing that diminished future orientation directly accounts for heightened risk-taking and delinquency among youth.
• Environmental Stewardship: High CFC scores prospectively predict pro-environmental political activism, support for public transit funding, household energy conservation, and recycling participation.

Reliability

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale exhibits consistently strong reliability across varied empirical contexts:

Internal Consistency

In the original scale development studies conducted across four university samples, Strathman et al. (1994) documented Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .80 and .86, indicating strong, homogeneous inter-item correlation. Subsequent large-scale replications in general adult community samples, adolescent cohorts, and cross-national populations have consistently observed coefficient alphas conforming to standard psychometric benchmarks:

• College student populations: α = .81 to .85
• General community adult samples: α = .80 to .84
• Adolescent populations (e.g., Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000): α = .78 to .82
• When analyzed as two separate subscales (Joireman et al., 2008), the CFC-Immediate subscale typically yields α ≈ .80 to .84, while the CFC-Future subscale demonstrates α ≈ .72 to .78.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations confirm that CFC acts as a stable dispositional personality construct. Strathman et al. (1994) administered the instrument across a 2-week retest interval and reported a test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .76 (p < .001). Toepoel (2010) evaluated longitudinal temporal stability across extended intervals, revealing high stability coefficients across multi-month gaps, while also demonstrating that major macroeconomic shifts or salient environmental cues can induce modest, systemic adaptations in CFC scores.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the CFC Scale has been the focus of extensive psychometric debate and refined structural equation modeling (SEM).

The Original Unidimensional Model

In the scale’s development, Strathman et al. (1994) conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing principal components extraction. The analysis suggested a dominant first factor accounting for significant variance, with scree plot inspections revealing a clear drop-off after the primary component. Factor loadings for the 12 items on the first unrotated factor ranged from .39 to .67. On the basis of these preliminary indices, the authors proposed a unidimensional construct wherein low immediate concern inherently reflects elevated future orientation.

The Two-Factor Structural Revolution

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) uncovered significant methodological and theoretical limitations in the unidimensional structure. Methodologists pointed out that the 12 items cluster systematically by item valence: 5 items are positively phrased toward distant outcomes (Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8), whereas 7 items are negatively phrased and capture immediate expediency (Items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12).

Joireman, Balliet, Sprott, Spangenberg, and colleagues conducted rigorous CFA comparisons contrasting the unidimensional model against a two-factor correlated model:

• Unidimensional Model Fit: Often demonstrates borderline or subpar model fit indices: χ²/df > 3.5, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) < .88, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) > .075.
• Correlated Two-Factor Model Fit: Demonstrates superior fit across independent investigations: χ²/df < 2.2, CFI > .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .93, RMSEA ≈ .045 to .055, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .050.

In this two-factor model, CFC-Immediate (comprising items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12) and CFC-Future (comprising items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8) form two distinct, moderately negative latent factors (typical latent correlation r ≈ -.35 to -.50). This indicates that prioritizing immediate rewards is not merely the conceptual inverse of anticipating distant rewards; individuals can concurrently exhibit high prospective future awareness while wrestling with high immediate reactivity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The formal specifications and structural parameters of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Designation: Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC Scale).
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric inventory / dispositional rating scale.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based survey, or computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI).
• Administration Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Item Inventory: 12 self-evaluative declarative statements.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Extremely uncharacteristic (not at all like you)
  • 2 = Somewhat uncharacteristic
  • 3 = Uncertain
  • 4 = Somewhat characteristic
  • 5 = Extremely characteristic (very much like you)
• Scoring Protocols:
  • Unidimensional Total Score: Reverse-score the 7 immediate-oriented items (Items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12) using the algebraic transformation: New_Score = 6 - Original_Score. Then sum the 7 reversed values with the 5 unreversed future-oriented items (Items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8). Total composite scores range from 12 to 60, where higher scores reflect greater consideration of future consequences. Alternatively, calculate the composite mean across all 12 items (range 1.00 to 5.00).
  • Two-Factor Scoring Protocol: Compute two separate subscale means:
    • CFC-Future (CFC-F): Mean of items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 (range 1.00 to 5.00).
    • CFC-Immediate (CFC-I): Mean of items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12, kept in their unreversed form (range 1.00 to 5.00).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale was published in 1994 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Alan Strathman, Faith Gleicher, David S. Boninger, and C. Scott Edwards. The scale was established as an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, non-commercial research and scientific evaluation. No formal fee, purchase order, or written licensing contract is required to administer the scale for non-profit scholarly investigations. Researchers utilizing the instrument are expected to cite the foundational 1994 publication in their research outputs. Commercial applications, monetization in clinical diagnostic platforms, or corporate deployment require permission from the authors or the copyright holder, the American Psychological Association (APA).

References

The scientific citations below document the theoretical formulation, psychometric validation, and empirical application of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale:

• Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.416
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00106.x
• Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishability and a dual-motive model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1264–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013587
• 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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.537
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
• Toepoel, V. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct? Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 951–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029

Items of the Scale