1. Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: An Assessment and Review Tom R. EikebrokkEllen K. NyhusUniversity of Agder

2. 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. 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. 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. 5 Stability in Answers over Time 2006/20072005/2007 Item 1.41.43 Item 2.48.49 Item 3.50.52 Item 4.31.29 Item 5.32.30 Item 6.46.43 Item 7.39.33 Item 8.38.28 Item 9.36.34 Item 10.35.33 Item 11.41 Item 12.35.37 Composite CFC (12 items).65.63 N15911526 Pearson correlation coefficients All significant at.001 level

6. 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. 7 Results of CFA (Lisrel 8.72) MODEL 1MODEL 2MODEL 3 χ 2 ML =4451.14, df=54, p<0.01 χ 2 ML = 246.07, df=32, p<0.01 χ 2 ML = 155.34, df=20, p<0.01 All estimates significant CFI= 0.67 (≥0.95)CFI= 0.97 (≥0.95)CFI= 0.98 (≥0.95) RMSEA = 0.20 (≤0.06)RMSEA = 0.056 (≤0.06)RMSEA = 0.057 (≤0.06) SRMR = 0.14 (≤0.08)SRMR = 0.039 (≤0.08)SRMR = 0.026 (≤0.08) TLI/NNFI = 0.60 (≥0.95)TLI/NNFI = 0.95 (≥0.95) Modification Index (MI) Error cov. btw. 1,2; 7,8 MI: Error cov. btw. 1,2 Model fit criteria adopted from Hu & Bentler (1999)

8. 8 Reliability MODEL 1MODEL 2MODEL 3 Item reliability (IR): 1>0.7 (5>0.5) (≥0.7) IR: 4>0.7 (9>0.5) (≥0.7) IR: 2>0.7 (4>0.5) (≥0.7) Average variance extracted (AVE): 0.22 (≥0.5) AVE:0.44/0.35/0.46 (≥0.5) AVE: > 0.20 (≥0.5) Composite reliability (CR): 0.74 (≥0.6) CR: 0.75/0.51/0.77 (≥0.6) CR:0.80 (≥0.6)

9. 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