Abstract
Three techniques for assessing extension of one's personal future (line-marking, open-ended report, life-events) were compared in a sample of 74 respondents. Two points of data collection were employed to examine short-term stability. At both administrations, correlations among indices suggested that techniques were only moderately comparable. Short-term stabilities were variable; correlations ranged from .42 to .79. Across subgroups of the sample, the direct, open-ended report of extension showed the greatest stability, while life-event extension showed the least. Apparently, extension of thinking about the future should be assessed by more than one technique to investigate potential relationships with other variables or changes over time in perspective about the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
