The authors examined the efficacy of a two-factor model of consideration of future consequences (CFC) in understanding environmentally sustainable behaviors. In Study 1, individual differences in CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future were examined as predictors of environmental concern (EC) and behavior motivation (EB), controlling for values and sociodemographic variables. Results showed that low scores on the CFC-Immediate predicted EC and EB, with nonsignificant effects for CFC-Future. A prospect-concept priming task was used in Study 2 to implicitly activate future thinking which resulted in increases in ECs and behaviors, and these links were partially mediated by CFC-Immediate but not CFC-Future. The findings show that the associations between future time perspective and sustainable behaviors are driven by reduced immediate concerns. Implications for the role of time perspective in understanding and affecting sustainability efforts are discussed.
AdamsJ. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future consequences, smoking status, and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31, 260-263. doi:10.1037/a0025790
2.
AddisD. R.WongA. T.SchacterD. L. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: Common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1363-1377. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016
3.
ArnockyS.DupuisD.StroinkM. L. (2012). Environmental concern and fertility intentions among Canadian university students. Population and Environment, 34(2), 279-292. doi:10.1007/s11111-011-0164-y
4.
ArnockyS.StroinkM.DeCiccoT. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 255-264. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.005
5.
ArnockyS.StroinkM. L. (2011). Variation in environmentalism among university students: Majoring in outdoor recreation, parks, and tourism predicts environmental concerns and behaviors. Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 137-151. doi:10.1080/00958964.2010.516776
6.
AtanceC. M.O’NeillD. K. (2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 533-539.
7.
CharltonS. R.GossettB. D.CharltonV. A. (2011). Beyond the shadow of a trait: Understanding discounting through item-level analysis of personality scales. Psychological Record, 61, 583-598.
8.
ChengY. Y.ShienP. P.ChiouW. B. (2012). Escaping the impulse to immediate gratification: The prospect concept promotes a future-oriented mindset, prompting an inclination towards delayed gratification. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 129-141. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02067.x
9.
CollinsC. M.ChambersS. M. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environment & Behavior, 37, 640-661. doi:10.1177/0013916504265440
10.
ConfalonieriU. B.MenneR.AkhtarK. L.EbiM.HauengueR.S.KovatsB.. . . WoodwardA. (2007). Human health. In ParryM.L.CanzianiO.F.PalutikofJ.P.van der LindenP.J.HansonC.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 391-431). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Corral-VerdugoV.Fraijo-SingB.PinheiroJ. Q. (2006). Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 40, 139-147.
12.
FörsterJ.FriedmanR. S.LibermanN. (2004). Temporal construal effects on concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177-189. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177
13.
HamiltonC. (2010). Requiem for a species: Why we resist the truth about climate change. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
14.
HardinG. (1978). Political requirements for preserving our common heritage. In BrokawH. P. (Ed.), Wildlife and America (pp. 310-317). Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
15.
HirshJ. B.DoldermanD. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583-1593. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.015
16.
JoiremanJ.BallietD.SprottD.SpangenbergE.SchultzJ. (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. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.011
17.
JoiremanJ.KeesJ.SprottD. (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. doi:0.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01161.x
18.
JoiremanJ.ShafferM.BallietD.StrathmanA. (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. doi:10.1177/0146167212449362
19.
JoiremanJ. (1999). Additional evidence for validity of the consideration of future consequences scale in an academic setting. Psychological Reports, 84, 1171-1172. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3c.1171
20.
JoiremanJ. (2005). Environmental problems as social dilemmas: The temporal dimension. In StrathmanA.JoiremanJ. A. (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 289-304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
JoiremanJ.LasaneT. P.BennettJ.RichardsD.SolaimaniS. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of pro-environmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133-155. doi:10.1348/014466601164731
22.
JoiremanJ.Van LangeP. A. M.Van VugtM. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment & Behavior, 36, 187-206. doi:10.1177/0013916503251476
23.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
24.
LindsayJ. J.StrathmanA. (1997). Predictors of recycling behavior: An application of a modified health belief model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1799-1823. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01626.x
25.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
26.
McMichaelA. J.Campbell-LendrumD.KovatsS.EdwardsSWilkinsonP.WilsonT.AndronovaN. (2004). Global climate change. In EzzatiM.LopezA.RodgersA.MurrayC. J. L. (Eds.), Comparative quantification of health risks, global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors (pp. 1543-1650). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
27.
MessickD. M.BrewerM. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 11-44.
28.
MilfontT. L. (2010). Global warming, climate change and human psychology. In Corral-VerdugoV.García-CadenaC. H.Frías-ArmentM. (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory, research and practice (pp. 19-42). New York, NY: Nova Science.
29.
MilfontT. L.DuckittJ. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 289-303. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001
30.
MilfontT. L.GouveiaV. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 72-82. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.001
31.
MilfontT. L.HarréN.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2012). The climate change dilemma: Examining the association between parental status and political party support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2386-2410. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00946.x
32.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G. (2011). Exploring the concept of environmental generativity. International Journal of Hispanic Psychology, 4, 21-30.
33.
MilfontT. L.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2010). Testing the moderating role of the components of norm activation on the relationship between values and environmental behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 124-131. doi:10.1177/0022022109350506
34.
MilfontT. L.WilsonJ.DinizP. K. C. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 325-334. doi:10.1080/00207594.2011.647029
35.
NowackK.MilfontT. L.van der MeerE. (in press). Future versus present: Time perspective and pupillary response in a relatedness judgment task investigating temporal event knowledge. International Journal of Psychophysiology. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.12.006
36.
PahlS.BauerJ. (2011). Overcoming the distance: Perspective taking with future humans improves environmental engagement. Environment & Behaviour. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013916511417618
37.
PetrocelliJ. V. (2003). Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 405-413. doi:10.1080/00224540309598453
38.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
39.
RabinovichA.MortonT.PostmesT. (2010). Time perspective and attitude-behaviour consistency in future-oriented behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 69-89. doi:10.1348/014466608X401875
40.
RappangeD. R.BrouwerW. B. F.Van ExelN. J. A. (2009). Back to the consideration of the future consequences scale: Time to reconsider?Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 562-584. doi:10.1080/00224540903232324
41.
SchultzW.ZeleznyL. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255-265. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0129
42.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic press.
43.
SteinbergL.AlbertD.CauffmanE.BanichM.GrahamS.WoolardJ. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764-1778. doi:10.1037/a0012955
44.
SteinbergL.GrahamS.O’BrienL.WoolardJ.CauffmanE.BanichM. (2009). Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting. Child Development, 80, 28-44.
45.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984-1001. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006008
46.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment & Behavior, 25, 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002
47.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL.GuagnanoG. (1995).Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x
48.
StrathmanA.GleicherF.BoningerD. S.EdwardsC. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742
49.
ToepoelV. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 951-956. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029
50.
WeigelR.WeigelJ. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment & Behavior, 10, 3-15. doi:10.1177/0013916578101001
51.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206. doi:10.1086/651257
52.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1271
