Elaboration on Potential Outcomes Scale (EPO)

1. Abstract

The Elaboration on Potential Outcomes (EPO) Scale is a psychometric instrument developed by consumer psychologists Gergana Y. Nenkov, J. Jeffrey Inman, and John Hulland (2008) to measure individual differences in the chronic propensity to mentally simulate, imagine, and deliberate upon the downstream consequences of future decisions. Rooted in the convergence of cognitive mental simulation, prospective cognition, and self-regulatory theories, the EPO framework posits that consequential thinking is not a monolithic construct, but rather a multi-dimensional cognitive process characterized by distinct valenced and structural pathways. The standard full instrument captures three primary subdimensions: Elaboration on Potential Positive Outcomes (EPO+), Elaboration on Potential Negative Outcomes (EPO-), and General Elaboration Extent (or Depth), with an abbreviated 8-item dual-valence variant focusing specifically on EPO+ (4 items) and EPO- (4 items).

Administered via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), the instrument yields discrete subscale scores computed through arithmetic averaging. Psychometric evaluations across five empirical studies (sample sizes ranging from N = 167 to N = 324 across undergraduate students and adult general-population samples) demonstrate robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Internal consistency estimates across subscales routinely achieve Cronbach’s α coefficients between .78 and .89, with confirmatory factor analysis establishing superior model fit indices (χ²/df < 2.5, CFI > .94, RMSEA < .06) relative to competing unidimensional and bidimensional models. Discriminant validity tests verify that EPO+ and EPO- are empirically distinct from related constructs such as Regulatory Focus (Promotion vs. Prevention), the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC), Need for Cognition (NFC), and dispositional optimism/pessimism. The EPO scale serves as a critical diagnostic and experimental tool in behavioral economics, health communication, financial decision-making, and clinical preventative interventions.

2. Keywords

Elaboration on Potential Outcomes, EPO scale, prospective cognition, episodic future thinking, mental simulation, regulatory focus theory, outcome valence, temporal discounting, decision-making, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Elaboration on Potential Outcomes Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by the following behavioral and marketing scientists:

• Gergana Y. Nenkov, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA. Research specializations: consumer self-regulation, prosocial behavior, future-oriented decision making, and mental simulation.
• J. Jeffrey Inman, Ph.D. — Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing and Associate Dean for Research, Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Research specializations: shopper behavior, contextual decision-making, and consumer psychology.
• John Hulland, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Emily H. and Charles M. Tanner Jr. Chair of Large Enterprise Development, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Research specializations: structural equation modeling, psychometric measurement in behavioral sciences, and marketing strategy.

Direct academic correspondence regarding the original developmental validation of the EPO scale is directed to the seminal paper published in the Journal of Consumer Research (2008).

4. Purpose

Human decision-making is fundamentally prospective: before allocating financial capital, engaging in health-related behaviors, committing to interpersonal relationships, or making ordinary purchases, individuals must evaluate hypothetical futures. However, behavioral decision researchers historically treated prospective contemplation as either a general quantitative trait (such as Strathman et al.’s 1994 Consideration of Future Consequences Scale) or an affective disposition (such as optimism versus pessimism). Nenkov, Inman, and Hulland (2008) developed the Elaboration on Potential Outcomes (EPO) Scale to address severe theoretical and empirical limitations inherent in these legacy conceptualizations.

Theoretical Rationale and Deficits Addressed

Prior psychological constructs predominantly conflated the depth of cognitive processing regarding the future with the affective valence of that prospective thought. For instance, the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale measures whether an individual prioritizes immediate versus distant utility, but fails to distinguish whether distant processing involves imagining catastrophic failure modes or visualizing aspirational triumphs. Similarly, Higgins’s (1997) Regulatory Focus Theory differentiates between motivational orientations (promotion versus prevention focus), yet motivational orientation does not inherently assess cognitive elaboration: an individual may be prevention-oriented due to chronic anxiety without actively engaging in elaborate, systematic mental simulations of negative contingencies. The primary purpose of the EPO scale is to isolate, operationalize, and quantify the specific cognitive mechanism of mental simulation applied to valenced prospective trajectories.

Research Applications

In academic research, the EPO scale is leveraged across several empirical paradigms:

• Message Framing and Persuasion: In experimental advertising and public communication research, the EPO scale acts as a key individual difference moderator. Individuals scoring high on EPO+ exhibit heightened psychological responsiveness, brand evaluation, and behavioral compliance when exposed to gain-framed messaging (e.g., benefits of retirement investing or physical exercise), whereas individuals scoring high on EPO- exhibit superior recall, risk perception, and behavioral adherence when exposed to loss-framed or cautionary messaging.
• Behavioral Economics and Intertemporal Choice: Economists and consumer psychologists employ the scale to investigate anomalies in intertemporal discounting. Research demonstrates that high EPO- individuals are significantly more loss-averse and show steeper discount rates for short-term indulgences when negative long-term risks are salient, while high EPO+ individuals are driven primarily by long-term compounding benefits.
• Health Decision-Making: Public health researchers utilize the scale to predict adherence to chronic disease regimens, cancer screening uptake, vaccination intentions, and substance abuse avoidance. EPO- specifically predicts precautionary and harm-reduction behaviors, providing an explanatory bridge between risk knowledge and behavioral execution.

Clinical and Applied Interventions

Beyond academic laboratory investigations, the EPO scale possesses actionable utility in applied counseling, financial therapy, and clinical self-regulation. In clinical and counseling settings, severe self-regulatory failures (such as pathological gambling, compulsive shopping, and impulsive aggression) frequently coincide with an asymmetry in outcome elaboration: affected individuals routinely display an acute deficit in EPO- (failing to mentally visualize downstream negative outcomes) or a hyperactive, myopic EPO+ (obsessively elaborating on immediate or unrealistic positive windfalls). Identifying an individual’s EPO profile enables clinicians to deliver customized cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT), such as targeted episodic future thinking training, that systematically fortify the underdeveloped elaboration channel.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the EPO scale is defined as an individual’s chronic, trait-like tendency to generate, elaborate upon, and evaluate mental representations of potential future outcomes prior to executing a choice. Unlike passive awareness of the future, elaboration represents an active, cognitive simulation process characterized by mental imagery, narrative construction, and counterfactual contingency planning. The full construct comprises three distinct but interrelated subdimensions: positive outcome elaboration (EPO+), negative outcome elaboration (EPO-), and elaboration extent (general depth).

Elaboration on Potential Positive Outcomes (EPO+)

EPO+ captures the propensity to mentally simulate, flesh out, and vividly visualize positive consequences, opportunities, and rewarding end-states linked to personal choices. When confronted with a behavioral alternative, high-EPO+ individuals naturally construct rich mental scenarios depicting success, personal satisfaction, financial growth, and interpersonal praise. For instance, when contemplating a rigorous professional training program, a high-EPO+ individual spontaneously visualizes career elevation, increased autonomy, intellectual accomplishment, and higher earnings.

Critically, EPO+ is not merely dispositional optimism. Optimism refers to a generalized generalized expectancy that positive events will occur (“things usually turn out well”). In contrast, EPO+ refers to a deliberate, procedural cognitive elaboration (“I mentally walk through the exact positive steps and rewarding consequences of this course of action”). This cognitive elaboration generates vivid positive imagery that amplifies approach motivation, self-efficacy, and aspirational goal pursuit.

Elaboration on Potential Negative Outcomes (EPO-)

EPO- reflects the propensity to mentally simulate, unpack, and vividly evaluate negative consequences, potential pitfalls, liabilities, and failure modes associated with prospective actions. Confronted with the same professional training program, a high-EPO- individual will instinctively simulate scenarios involving financial debt, severe time poverty, acute stress, family friction, or the risk of course failure.

EPO- must be distinguished from chronic neuroticism, trait anxiety, and dispositional pessimism. While neuroticism involves passive, distress-laden emotional rumination, EPO- represents an active, instrumental risk-assessment mechanism. High-EPO- individuals simulate negative contingencies to formulate contingency plans, avoid catastrophic traps, and install safety buffers. It provides the cognitive machinery for precautionary self-regulation and vigilant avoidance motivation.

Elaboration Extent / Depth

The third dimension, captured in the full 24-item EPO operationalization, assesses the structural depth, temporal horizon, and cognitive effort invested in future contemplation regardless of valence. This dimension measures whether an individual considers consequences that exist across varying chronological horizons (e.g., immediate, medium-term, multi-decade outcomes) and whether they systematically link intermediate stepping-stone outcomes to final end-states.

The Independence and Interplay of Dimensions

Crucially, psychometric validation confirms that EPO+ and EPO- are orthogonal or only weakly correlated constructs rather than opposing poles of a single continuum. An individual may manifest one of four distinct cognitive typologies:

1. Comprehensive Elaborators (High EPO+, High EPO-): Individuals who systematically simulate both prospective windfalls and catastrophic hazards. They exhibit balanced, highly calibrated decision-making, showing strong goal commitment coupled with sophisticated contingency planning.
2. Optimistic Simulators (High EPO+, Low EPO-): Individuals who vividly imagine success while systematically neglecting downstream vulnerabilities. This profile exhibits high entrepreneurial drive and willingness to take risks, but is vulnerable to overconfidence, debt accumulation, and planning fallacies.
3. Defensive Simulators (Low EPO+, High EPO-): Individuals dominated by risk-avoidant, precautionary simulations. While highly resilient against catastrophic errors, financial scams, and health risks, they frequently suffer from decision paralysis, missed opportunities, and excessive risk aversion.
4. Impulsive Non-Elaborators (Low EPO+, Low EPO-): Individuals who engage in minimal prospective simulation, living almost entirely in the present moment. They represent the highest-risk cohort for impulse-control disorders, financial precarity, and immediate gratification traps.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the Elaboration on Potential Outcomes Scale synthesizes foundational theories from cognitive psychology, prospective memory, neurobiology, and self-regulation.

1. Mental Simulation Theory and Prospective Cognition

The foundational bedrock of the EPO scale is rooted in Taylor, Pham, Rivkin, and Armor’s (1998) Mental Simulation Theory and modern neurocognitive theories of episodic future thinking (EFT) (Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2007). Mental simulation involves the imitative cognitive representation of hypothetical events. Cognitive science demonstrates that the brain evaluates prospective actions by repurposing episodic memory networks to construct prospective simulations. Nenkov et al. (2008) operationalized this cognitive process as an individual difference variable, asserting that individuals systematically vary in the habitual fidelity, frequency, and affective directionality with which their prospective simulation networks are engaged during deliberation.

2. Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997)

The structural separation between EPO+ and EPO- draws directly from Higgins’s Regulatory Focus Theory, which posits that human self-regulation is governed by two fundamentally independent motivational systems: the Promotion Focus system (centered on advancement, growth, ideals, and accomplishments) and the Prevention Focus system (centered on security, protection, duties, and safety). Nenkov et al. recognized that while promotion and prevention dictate motivational orientation, they do not quantify the cognitive granularity of elaboration. Thus, EPO+ functions as the cognitive elaboration vehicle for promotion strivings, whereas EPO- operates as the cognitive elaboration vehicle for prevention strivings. By measuring cognitive elaboration directly, the EPO scale explains substantial incremental variance beyond standard regulatory focus measures.

3. Prospect Theory and Asymmetric Valence Processing

Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) established that losses loom larger than gains, introducing the concept of valence asymmetry in utility calculation. However, behavioral decision theory historically treated this loss aversion parameter as an invariant function of human cognition. The EPO framework provides a cognitive mechanism explaining individual heterogeneity in loss aversion: individuals with chronically elevated EPO- exhibit pronounced cognitive loss aversion because negative contingencies are elaborately visualized and affectively weighted, whereas individuals with elevated EPO+ exhibit attenuated loss aversion due to the cognitive dominance of anticipated gains.

4. Dual-Process Theories of Cognition

The EPO framework intersects with Dual-Process Theory (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). While System 1 operates through fast, autonomous, heuristic associations, System 2 facilitates hypothetical thinking, mental simulation, and cognitive decoupling. Elaboration on potential outcomes is an explicit System 2 process requiring working memory and executive control. The EPO scale quantifies the chronic dispositional likelihood that an individual will deploy System 2 cognitive resources specifically toward prospective simulation rather than relying on intuitive, instantaneous affective reactions.

7. Validity

The empirical validation of the EPO scale was conducted across five rigorous studies reported by Nenkov, Inman, and Hulland (2008), utilizing multi-trait multi-method paradigms, structural equation modeling, and experimental designs.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through extensive confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse cohorts, including undergraduate university samples (N = 247, N = 324) and adult consumer panels (N = 167, N = 212). The hypothesized multi-dimensional structure demonstrated robust construct reliability, with average variance extracted (AVE) exceeding the recommended .50 threshold for all factors (AVE for EPO+ = .58; AVE for EPO- = .56; AVE for General Extent = .52). Standardized factor loadings across all retained scale items consistently exceeded .65 (p < .001), indicating strong construct saturation.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through statistically significant, theoretically coherent associations with established psychometric scales:

• Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC): EPO dimensions correlated positively with the CFC scale (Strathman et al., 1994) (r = .34 to .48, p < .001), confirming that the EPO instrument successfully taps into future-oriented cognitive processing.
• Regulatory Focus: EPO+ exhibited moderate, positive correlations with chronic promotion focus (r = .41, p < .001), while EPO- exhibited moderate, positive correlations with chronic prevention focus (r = .39, p < .001).
• Need for Cognition (NFC): NFC (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) demonstrated positive correlations with General Elaboration Extent (r = .38, p < .001) and moderate associations with EPO+ (r = .24, p < .01) and EPO- (r = .21, p < .01), illustrating that outcome elaboration involves effortful cognitive processing.
• Behavioral Inhibition / Activation Systems (BIS/BAS): EPO+ correlated selectively with BAS Reward Responsiveness (r = .35, p < .001), whereas EPO- correlated selectively with BIS sensitivity (r = .42, p < .001).

Discriminant Validity

To demonstrate discriminant validity, Nenkov et al. (2008) applied the rigorous Fornell-Larcker criterion. The square root of the AVE for each EPO subscale was demonstrably greater than the inter-factor correlations between the subscales (inter-factor correlation between EPO+ and EPO- ranged between r = .05 [non-significant] and r = .14 across studies). Furthermore, nested χ² difference tests confirmed that constraining the correlation between EPO+ and EPO- to unity (1.0) resulted in a catastrophic deterioration of model fit (Δχ²(1) > 180.0, p < .0001).

Discriminant validity against dispositional optimism and pessimism (measured via the Life Orientation Test-Revised; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) was established: controlling for optimism and pessimism did not attenuate the predictive power of EPO+ and EPO- on behavioral tasks, proving that cognitive simulation is distinct from general valence expectancies.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive validity of the scale was validated across multiple experimental studies examining behavioral outcomes:

• Persuasive Message Framing (Study 3): In a controlled experiment manipulating gain- versus loss-framed appeals for health and financial behaviors, participants high in EPO+ formed significantly more favorable attitudes and behavioral intentions toward gain-framed appeals (β = .34, p < .01), but were indifferent to loss frames. Conversely, participants high in EPO- showed heightened compliance and risk appraisal under loss-framed appeals (β = .38, p < .001).
• Financial Prudence and Debt (Study 4): High scores on EPO- directly predicted lower revolving credit card debt, higher savings rates, and greater purchase avoidance when presented with attractive impulse-purchase temptations (β = -.29, p < .01).
• Self-Regulatory Persistence (Study 5): In an academic planning task, high EPO+ predicted the adoption of challenging, aspirational goals, while high EPO- predicted the establishment of specific pre-commitment devices and contingency schedules.

8. Reliability

The Elaboration on Potential Outcomes Scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse participant populations.

Internal Consistency

In the initial scale construction and purification phases (Nenkov et al., 2008), internal consistency was thoroughly examined across five independent samples:

• EPO+ Subscale: Across all validation studies, the Cronbach’s α coefficients for the 4-item positive elaboration subscale ranged from .83 to .89. Composite reliability (CR) values calculated via structural equation modeling ranged from .84 to .88, well above the standard .70 psychometric threshold.
• EPO- Subscale: The 4-item negative elaboration subscale yielded Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from .78 to .85, with composite reliabilities ranging between .80 and .86.
• General Extent Dimension (Full Form): The general elaboration extent subscale achieved Cronbach’s α values ranging between .81 and .87.
• Abbreviated 6-Item and 8-Item Forms: The streamlined versions utilized in rapid consumer surveys maintain excellent reliability, with average α coefficients remaining ≥ .80 for both positive and negative sub-dimensions.

Test-Retest Stability

To establish that the EPO scale captures stable, trait-like cognitive dispositions rather than transient mood states, test-retest reliability was evaluated with an independent adult sample (N = 84) re-administered the survey after a four-week interval. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) demonstrated high stability:

• EPO+ test-retest stability: r = .76 (p < .001)
• EPO- test-retest stability: r = .79 (p < .001)
• General Extent test-retest stability: r = .74 (p < .001)

These temporal metrics confirm that individual differences in prospective elaboration tendencies represent durable cognitive habits that persist over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the EPO construct was rigorously evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item purification (Study 1, N = 247), a candidate pool of 42 prospective cognitive items was subjected to principal axis factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation, recognizing that cognitive dimensions might share minor common variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .91, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant (χ²(861) = 4,128.4, p < .001), indicating outstanding matrix factorability. Examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues (using the Kaiser criterion of eigenvalues > 1.0) supported a clear, parsimonious three-factor solution explaining 58.4% of total variance.

Items were evaluated against strict retention criteria: minimal primary factor loading of .60 and cross-loadings < .25. This process eliminated ambiguous items, yielding pure, high-loading indicators for Positive Outcomes, Negative Outcomes, and General Extent.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent studies subjected the measurement models to CFA using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS / LISREL. Nenkov et al. tested competing nested structural models to determine optimal construct dimensionality:

• Model 1: Single-Factor Model (Unidimensional): All prospective items loaded onto a single latent factor of general future elaboration. This model yielded unacceptable fit: χ²(152) = 1,024.6, p < .001; CFI = .62; TLI = .58; RMSEA = .142; SRMR = .128.
• Model 2: Two-Factor Model (Valenced vs. Extent): Valenced items combined into one factor, extent items into a second. Fit remained poor: χ²(151) = 712.3, p < .001; CFI = .76; TLI = .73; RMSEA = .114; SRMR = .098.
• Model 3: Hypothesized Three-Factor Correlated Model: Positive Outcomes, Negative Outcomes, and Elaboration Extent specified as distinct correlated latent factors. This model exhibited outstanding fit to the empirical data: χ²(149) = 284.2, p < .001; χ²/df = 1.91; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .051 (90% CI [.042, .060]); SRMR = .046.

Table: CFA Factor Loadings for the 8-Item Abbreviated Valence Subscales

Note: *** p < .001. Loadings derived from adult sample confirmatory factor model (Nenkov et al., 2008).

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group CFA demonstrated metric and scalar measurement invariance across student versus non-student adult samples, as well as across biological sex. Constraining factor loadings (Δχ² / Δdf nonsignificant) and item intercepts did not degrade model fit (ΔCFI < .01), establishing that the EPO scale functions equivalently across heterogeneous demographic categories.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the Elaboration on Potential Outcomes instrument is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; domain-general cognitive process measure.
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil or computerized/online survey interface (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap).
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older with general reading comprehension.
• Item Formats Available:
  • Full 24-Item Form: Comprehensive diagnostic instrument measuring positive elaboration, negative elaboration, and general elaboration depth/extent.
  • 8-Item Dual-Valence Short Form: Streamlined, highly efficient measure comprising 4 items for EPO+ and 4 items for EPO- (recommended for experimental research and multi-measure survey batteries).
  • 6-Item Abbreviated Form: 2 items per dimension (positive, negative, extent).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale formatted with the following anchors:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Each subscale is scored independently; items should never be summed or averaged into a single aggregate composite score because positive and negative elaboration are orthogonal dimensions.
  • EPO+ Score: Sum the responses to the positive elaboration items and divide by the number of items (mean score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores denote a stronger chronic propensity to mentally visualize and deliberate upon positive outcomes.
  • EPO- Score: Sum the responses to the negative elaboration items and divide by the number of items (mean score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores denote a stronger chronic propensity to mentally simulate and scrutinize negative consequences and risks.
  • General Extent Score (if using full instrument): Compute the arithmetic mean across the extent items.
  • Typology Categorization (Optional): Researchers can conduct median splits or quartile categorizations on EPO+ and EPO- to establish 2×2 cognitive simulation profiles (Comprehensive, Optimistic, Defensive, Non-Elaborative).
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes for the 8-item short form; 6 to 8 minutes for the full 24-item scale.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2008.
• Original Copyright Holders: The Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. and Oxford University Press. Published in: Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: The conceptualization and measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 877–894.
• Accessibility and Research Licensing: The EPO scale is widely considered an open academic psychometric instrument for non-commercial research and educational investigations. Academic researchers, graduate students, and non-profit behavioral scientists may utilize the instrument in experimental and correlational studies without paying license fees, provided that formal academic citation and bibliographic credit are given to the original authors (Nenkov et al., 2008).
• Commercial and Clinical Use: Commercial entities, corporate consultants, marketing agencies, or proprietary assessment platforms seeking to incorporate the EPO scale or its derivatives into commercial testing platforms, software applications, or revenue-generating products should request permissions via Oxford University Press or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

12. References

The academic literature establishing the theoretical foundation, psychometric evaluation, and empirical application of the EPO scale includes:

• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
• Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
• Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: The conceptualization and measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1086/521900
• Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2213
• Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
• 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
• Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.429

13. Items of the Scale