The present study analyzes the relationship between Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) and environmentally friendly behavior in a large general population survey (n = 1,945). CFC captures the extent to which a person is driven by short-term rewards or orients himself or herself toward long-term goals. As there is considerable debate about whether the scale captures concern with future consequences only, or with both future and immediate consequences, preliminary factor analyses were conducted. These support differentiation into two subscales: one reflecting concern for immediate benefits (CFC-Immediate) and one conveying a concern for future outcomes (CFC-Future). The results with regard to behavior, however, do not differ systematically between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future. Overall, the results reveal that CFC is a significant predictor of pro-environmental behavior and that this relationship was (partially) mediated by environmental concern.
AdamsJ. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future consequences, smoking status, and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31, 260-263.
2.
ApplebyP. R.MarksG.AyalaA.MillerL. C.MurphyS.ManserghG. (2005). Consideration of future consequences and unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 119-133.
3.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
BeenstockJ.AdamsJ.WhiteM. (2011). The association between time perspective and alcohol consumption in university students: Cross-sectional study. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 438-443.
5.
Benet-MartinezV.JohnO. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.
6.
BestH.KneipT. (2011). The impact of attitudes and behavioral costs on environmental behavior: A natural experiment on household waste recycling. Social Science Research, 40, 917-930.
7.
BlackJ. S.SternP. C.ElworthJ. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3-21.
8.
Bruderer EnzlerH.DiekmannA.MeyerR. (2014). Subjective discount rates in the general population and their predictive power for energy saving behavior. Energy Policy, 65: 524-540.
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.
11.
CollinsC.ChambersS. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environment & Behavior, 37, 640-661.
12.
Corral-VerdugoV.BonnesM.Tapia-FonllemC.Fraijo-SingB.Frías-ArmentaM.CarrusG. (2009). Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The affinity towards diversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 34-43.
13.
CrockettR. A.WeinmanJ.HankinsM.MarteauT. (2009). Time orientation and health-related behaviour: Measurement in general population samples. Psychology & Health, 24, 333-350.
14.
CvetkovichG.WinterP. (2008, June). The experience of community residents in a fire-prone ecosystem: A case study on the San Bernardino National Forest (Research Paper PSW-RP-257). Albany, NY: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rp257/psw_rp257.pdf
15.
DalyM.DelaneyL.HarmonC. (2008). Psychological and biological foundations of time preference: Evidence from a day reconstruction study with biological tracking (IZA Discussion Paper). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
16.
DaughertyJ. R.BraseG. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 202-207.
17.
DawesR. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
18.
DehneM.SchuppJ. (2007). Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP) - Konzept, Umsetzung und empirische Eigenschaften [Personality traits in the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)—Concept, implementation and empirical properties] (Research Notes 2007/26). Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Retrieved from http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.76533.de/rn26.pdf
19.
DiekmannA.Bruderer EnzlerH. (2012). Dokumentation Projekt “Zeitpräferenzen und Energiesparen.” Eine Nachbefragung zum Schweizer Umweltsurvey 2007 [Documentation of the project “Time Preferences and Energy Saving.” A follow-up study to the Swiss Environmental Survey 2007]. Zürich, Switzerland: Professur für Soziologie, ETH Zürich.
20.
DiekmannA.MeyerR. (2008). Schweizer Umweltsurvey 2007. Dokumentation und Codebuch [Swiss Environmental Survey 2007. Documentation and codebook]. Zürich, Switzerland: Professur für Soziologie, ETH Zürich.
21.
DiekmannA.PreisendörferP. (1998). Environmental behavior: Discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79-102.
22.
DiekmannA.PreisendörferP. (2001). Umweltsoziologie. Eine Einführung [Environmental sociology. An introduction]. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany: Rowohlt.
23.
DiekmannA.PreisendörferP. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441-472.
24.
EbreoA.ViningJ. (2001). How similar are recycling and waste reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior. Environment & Behavior, 33, 424-448.
25.
EnderP. B. (2011). Stata binary_mediation command to estimate indirect effects with a binary dependent variable and/or mediator variable. Retrieved from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysis
26.
GardnerJ.SternP. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
GerlitzJ.-Y.SchuppJ. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Dokumentation der Instrumententwicklung BFI-S auf Basis des SOEP-Pretests 2005 (Research Notes 2005/4). Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Retrieved from www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/43490/rn4.pdf
28.
GuagnanoG. A.SternP. C.DietzT. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior, 27, 699-718.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
31.
HendrickxL.PoortingaW.van der KooijR. (2001). Temporal factors in resource dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 108, 137-154.
32.
HeveyD.PertlM.ThomasK.MaherL.CraigA.ChuinneagainS. N. (2010). Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 654-657.
33.
HoornaertJ. (1973). Time perspective theoretical and methodological considerations. Psychologica Belgica, 13, 265-294.
34.
JakobM. (2006). Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments: The case of the Swiss residential sector. Energy Policy, 34, 172-187.
35.
JakobM. (2007). The drivers of and the barriers to energy efficiency in renovation decisions of single-family home-owners (CEPE Working Paper No. 56). Zurich, Switzerland: ETH Zurich.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
JoiremanJ.BallietD.SprottD.SpangenbergE.SchultzJ. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub-scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 15-21.
39.
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.
40.
JoiremanJ.LasaneT. P.BennettJ.RichardsD.SolaimaniS. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133-155.
41.
JoiremanJ.PoseyD. C.TrueloveH. B.ParksC. D. (2009). The environmentalist who cried drought: Reactions to repeated warnings about depleting resources under conditions of uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 181-192.
42.
JoiremanJ.ShafferM. J.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.
43.
JoiremanJ.SprottD. E.SpangenbergE. R. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1159-1168.
44.
JoiremanJ.StrathmanA.BallietD. (2006). Considering future consequences: An integrative model. In SannaL. J.ChangE. C. (Eds.), Judgment over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 82-99). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45.
JoiremanJ.Van LangeP.Van VugtM. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment & Behavior, 36, 187-296.
46.
KaiserH. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
KeoughK. A.ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 149-164.
KortenkampK. V.MooreC. F. (2006). Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 603-615.
51.
LasaneT. P.O’DonnellD. A. (2005). Time orientation measurement: A conceptual approach. In StrathmanA.JoiremanJ. (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research, and application (pp. 11-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
LindsayJ.StrathmanA. (1997). Predictors of recycling behavior: An application of a modified health belief model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1799-1823.
53.
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.
54.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
55.
MartinR.DelaneyL.HarmonC. (2010). Micro-level determinants of lecture attendance and additional study-hours (IZA Discussion Paper). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
56.
MilfontT. L.WilsonJ.DinizP. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 325-334.
57.
PetrocelliJ. V. (2003). Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Evidence for a short version. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 405-413.
58.
PlaisantO.CourtoisR.RéveillèreC.MendelsohnG. A.JohnO. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R [Factor structure and internal reliability of the French Big Five Inventory (BFI-Fr). Convergent and discriminant validation with the NEO-PI-R]. Annales Médico-psychologiques, 168(2), 97-106.
59.
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.
60.
RappangeD. R.BrouwerW. B. F.Van ExelN. J. A. (2009). Back to the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Time to reconsider?Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 562-584.
61.
SeidlR. (2009). Eine Multi-Agentensimulation der Wahrnehmung wasserbezogener Klimarisiken [A multi-agent simulation of the perception of water-related climate change risks]. Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.
62.
StrathmanA.GleicherF.BoningerD. S.EdwardsC. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighting immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
63.
Swiss Federal Office of Energy. (2009). Haushaltslampen: Effizienzvorschriften 2009 bis 2012 [Household lamps: Energy-efficiency regulation 2009-2012]. Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office of Energy.
64.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2006). Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. AAPOR.
65.
ToepoelV. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct?Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 951-956.
66.
ZhaoX. S.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. M. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
67.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.
