Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14)

1. Abstract

The Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14) is an established psychometric instrument designed to measure individual differences in the extent to which people anticipate and are influenced by the distant versus proximal outcomes of their behaviors. Developed by Jeff Joireman, Monte J. Shaffer, Daniel Balliet, and Alan Strathman (2012), the CFC-14 represents a psychometrically refined expansion of Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, and Edwards’ (1994) foundational 12-item unidimensional scale. While the original scale conceptualized consideration of future consequences (CFC) along a single bipolar continuum ranging from short-term to long-term orientation, subsequent empirical and theoretical advances demonstrated that the construct is more accurately characterized by two distinct, semi-independent dimensions: Consideration of Future Consequences-Future (CFC-Future) and Consideration of Future Consequences-Immediate (CFC-Immediate). The CFC-14 comprises 14 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of you) to 7 (extremely characteristic of you). Psychometric investigations consistently demonstrate that the two-factor model provides superior fit relative to unidimensional formulations across diverse populations. Internal consistency coefficients are strong, typically ranging from α = .80 to .84 for both subscales, with robust test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals. Construct, convergent, and criterion validities have been extensively corroborated across diverse behavioral domains, including preventive health behaviors, physical activity, dietary choices, academic achievement, financial planning, environmental sustainability, and self-regulatory control. Structural equation modeling confirms that the two subscales differentially predict behavioral patterns through distinct motivational mechanisms, such as regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention orientations). This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and conceptual examination of the CFC-14, detailing its theoretical foundations, structural validity, psychometric properties, scoring paradigms, and administrative guidelines.

2. Keywords

Consideration of Future Consequences, CFC-14, temporal discounting, time perspective, self-regulation, delay of gratification, CFC-Future, CFC-Immediate, psychometrics, regulatory focus, health behavior

3. Authors

The Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14) was developed and validated through the collaborative work of prominent researchers in social psychology, consumer behavior, and psychometrics:

• Jeff Joireman, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and International Business, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Dr. Joireman has contributed extensively to research on temporal dilemmas, social dilemmas, consumer decision-making, and environmental stewardship.
• Monte J. Shaffer, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Marketing, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Dr. Shaffer specializes in structural equation modeling, quantitative psychometrics, and consumer analytics.
• Daniel Balliet, Ph.D. — Professor of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dr. Balliet’s research centers on human cooperation, prosocial behavior, trust, and temporal decision-making.
• Alan Strathman, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychological Sciences, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Dr. Strathman is the primary originator of the original 12-item Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (Strathman et al., 1994).

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14) is to quantify individual differences in temporal cognitive orientation—specifically how individuals weigh immediate versus distant outcomes when making behavioral decisions. Human life is replete with intertemporal dilemmas in which an action entails immediate costs or benefits that conflict directly with long-term consequences. For example, engaging in vigorous physical exercise involves immediate expenditure of effort and physical discomfort to attain distal health benefits, whereas smoking or consuming refined sugars yields immediate hedonic gratification at the expense of potential long-term morbidity.

Historically, the original 12-item CFC scale developed by Strathman et al. (1994) conceptualized temporal orientation as a single bipolar continuum. Individuals scoring high on the unidimensional scale were assumed to prioritize distant outcomes while concurrently discounting immediate concerns, whereas low scorers were assumed to prioritize immediate gratification. However, subsequent behavioral and cognitive research revealed that an individual can simultaneously experience high concern for immediate comfort and high concern for long-term objectives, or conversely, exhibit indifference toward both temporal horizons. The purpose of refining the scale into the 14-item two-factor model (Joireman et al., 2012) was to decouple these two cognitive processes, providing independent, reliable subscale metrics that capture both orientations without confounding them into a zero-sum construct.

The scale serves vital functions across both basic psychological research and applied domains:

• Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: The CFC-14 is widely utilized to predict engagement in preventive health behaviors, such as screening attendance, physical exercise, medication adherence, vaccination, and balanced nutrition, as well as health-compromising behaviors including substance use, binge drinking, and reckless driving.
• Environmental and Pro-Environmental Research: Ecological conservation represents a classic intertemporal social dilemma where immediate individual restraint or financial investment produces delayed collective benefits. The CFC-14 facilitates the assessment of consumer willingness to support sustainability initiatives, carbon footprint reduction, and resource conservation.
• Organizational and Consumer Psychology: In financial decision-making, the tool predicts consumer debt accumulation, retirement savings, impulsive purchasing, investment horizons, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
• Clinical and Forensic Psychology: The instrument aids in evaluating impulsivity, self-regulatory deficits, executive dysfunction, antisocial behaviors, and risk-taking propensities, informing targeted cognitive-behavioral interventions aimed at expanding temporal horizons.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CFC-14 is Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC), defined as a stable cognitive-motivational personality trait reflecting the degree to which individuals consider the potential distant outcomes of their current behaviors and the extent to which they are influenced by those anticipated outcomes. In the CFC-14 framework, this overarching construct is bifurcated into two distinct, correlated, yet functionally dissociable dimensions:

Consideration of Future Consequences – Future (CFC-Future)

The CFC-Future dimension comprises seven items (Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14) that capture an individual’s proactive focus on long-term goals, distant milestones, and the delayed ramifications of their actions. Individuals with elevated CFC-Future scores routinely anticipate future scenarios, formulate long-range behavioral strategies, and demonstrate an enduring willingness to sacrifice short-term comfort or pleasure in pursuit of meaningful distal outcomes. Conceptually, CFC-Future reflects an active cognitive bridge connecting current behavioral choices to states that will not materialize for months, years, or decades. For example, an individual high in CFC-Future willingly endures the acute inconvenience of rigorous study schedules or strict dietary regimens because their cognitive representation of distant academic or physiological health goals is vivid, salient, and motivationally potent.

Consideration of Future Consequences – Immediate (CFC-Immediate)

The CFC-Immediate dimension comprises seven items (Items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12) that reflect a pronounced sensitivity to immediate desires, current convenience, short-term relief, and proximal consequences (typically spanning hours, days, or weeks). Rather than merely representing a passive absence of future orientation, CFC-Immediate reflects an active prioritization of immediate gratification, convenience, and present utility, often accompanied by rationalizations that distant problems can be resolved at a later date or will resolve themselves spontaneously. High scorers on CFC-Immediate prioritize convenience and comfort in their daily decision-making, showing heightened reactivity to immediate visceral or situational cues. For instance, when confronted with an adverse warning regarding long-term health hazards, an individual high in CFC-Immediate may dismiss the warning under the heuristic assumption that medical technologies will advance or that the issue can be managed when crisis levels are reached.

Dimensional Orthogonality versus Bipolarity

The critical structural innovation of the CFC-14 is the recognition that CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate are not merely opposite ends of a unitary continuum, but distinct psychological tendencies that share only moderate negative covariance (typically correlations ranging between r = -.30 and r = -.50). Consequently, classifying individuals along both dimensions simultaneously yields a nuanced four-fold typology: (a) Far-sighted / Future-dominant (high CFC-F, low CFC-I); (b) Present-oriented / Immediate-dominant (low CFC-F, high CFC-I); (c) Trapped / High Conflict (high CFC-F, high CFC-I), wherein individuals intensely desire long-term achievements yet struggle against intense proximal temptations; and (d) Unengaged / Temporal Low (low CFC-F, low CFC-I), characterized by a generalized lack of conscious temporal planning across both horizons.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the CFC-14 is situated at the intersection of several influential theoretical paradigms within cognitive, social, and motivational psychology:

Intertemporal Choice and Temporal Discounting Models

Foundational behavioral economics and cognitive science posited that humans systematically devalue rewards as a function of the delay to their delivery, a phenomenon termed temporal discounting or hyperbolic delay discounting. Strathman et al. (1994) synthesized this behavioral economic reality with individual difference psychology, arguing that individuals possess relatively stable dispositional discount rates. The CFC scale was constructed to capture this variance without relying solely on abstract monetary delay discounting tasks, which often fail to account for ecological behavioral complexity.

Ego-Depletion and Self-Control Theory

The bifurcation into CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate was heavily informed by self-regulation frameworks, notably the strength model of self-control formulated by Roy Baumeister and colleagues. Joireman, Balliet, Sprott, Spangenberg, and Schultz (2008) demonstrated that CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future interact uniquely with executive cognitive resources. Specifically, when self-regulatory resources are depleted (ego depletion), individuals naturally default to immediate behavioral inclinations unless supported by high trait self-control. Importantly, Joireman et al. (2008) discovered that CFC-Immediate correlates strongly with measures of impulsivity and low self-control, whereas CFC-Future correlates strongly with conscientiousness, organizational planning, and deliberate goal attainment, establishing that the two subscales map onto different self-regulatory subsystems.

Regulatory Focus Theory

A central theoretical breakthrough articulated by Joireman, Shaffer, Balliet, and Strathman (2012) linked the two-factor CFC construct to E. Tory Higgins’ Regulatory Focus Theory. Regulatory focus distinguishes between two motivational orientations: a promotion focus (centered on aspirations, accomplishments, growth, and ideal states) and a prevention focus (centered on duties, obligations, safety, and non-loss states). Joireman et al. (2012) posited and empirically demonstrated that CFC-Future operates primarily through a promotion orientation: future-oriented individuals view physical exercise, healthy nutrition, and academic pursuits not as mere defensive burdens, but as growth opportunities and positive ideals to be achieved. In contrast, CFC-Immediate aligns more closely with short-term avoidance or immediate hedonic approach systems. This integrative theoretical model explains why high CFC-Future leads to consistent healthy lifestyle adoption, resolving decades of ambiguity surrounding the specific motivational engines driving long-range behaviors.

Construal Level Theory

Under Construal Level Theory (CLT), distant future events are represented cognitively at high, abstract, superordinate, and decontextualized levels, whereas immediate events are represented at low, concrete, contextualized levels. The CFC-14 can be interpreted through CLT: individuals high in CFC-Future habitually conceptualize their lives in terms of high-level construals (identities, overarching values, life missions), making distant consequences psychologically salient. Conversely, individuals high in CFC-Immediate are oriented toward low-level construals (physical effort, immediate tactile sensations, situational inconvenience), making proximal obstacles disproportionately influential in behavioral selection.

7. Validity

The construct validity of the CFC-14 has been substantiated across diverse cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental investigations:

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was formally established by Joireman et al. (2012) through rigorous structural equation modeling across multiple independent samples. In initial calibration and cross-validation studies involving undergraduate students and adult community samples, confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a two-factor oblique model (differentiating CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate) yielded superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to a one-factor unidimensional model. Specifically, the comparative fit index (CFI) increased substantially from values below .85 in unidimensional models to values exceeding .94 in two-factor models, while root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) dropped below .06.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive correlation matrices confirm robust convergent and discriminant validity against established psychological constructs:

• Big Five Personality Traits: CFC-Future exhibits moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Conscientiousness (r = .38 to .48) and weak-to-moderate positive correlations with Openness to Experience, while displaying minimal association with Neuroticism. Conversely, CFC-Immediate correlates negatively with Conscientiousness (r = -.35 to -.45) and positively with Neuroticism and impulsivity-related facets.
• Time Perspective: When compared with the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), CFC-Future correlates strongly with ZTPI-Future (r = .55 to .65), whereas CFC-Immediate correlates strongly with ZTPI-Present Hedonistic (r = .40 to .52) and ZTPI-Present Fatalistic (r = .32 to .44).
• Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking: CFC-Immediate demonstrates strong convergent associations with Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) total scores and subscales (specifically motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity, r = .45 to .58), whereas CFC-Future exhibits inverse or negligible associations.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The predictive validity of the CFC-14 is documented across multiple life domains:

• Health and Lifestyle Behaviors: In Joireman et al.’s (2012) seminal validation study, CFC-Future significantly predicted higher frequency of vigorous physical exercise and balanced dietary intake, mediated entirely by a promotion focus. Conversely, CFC-Immediate directly predicted higher fast-food consumption, sedentary habits, and substance misuse.
• Academic Performance: In educational contexts, CFC-Future independently predicts cumulative grade point average (GPA), deliberate study habits, and reduced procrastination, even after controlling for general cognitive ability and baseline academic self-efficacy.
• Financial Management: CFC-Immediate reliably predicts compulsive buying, higher credit card debt, and short-term payoff preferences, whereas CFC-Future predicts retirement fund contributions, emergency savings behavior, and long-term equity investment.
• Environmental Behaviors: CFC-Future significantly predicts pro-environmental behaviors, including public transportation usage, recycling, and support for carbon tax legislation, whereas CFC-Immediate predicts resistance to immediate environmental cost policies.

8. Reliability

The Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14) exhibits strong psychometric reliability across internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability evaluations:

Internal Consistency

In the original 12-item scale (Strathman et al., 1994), treating all items unidimensionally yielded internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) typically between .80 and .85. However, post-hoc decomposition into post-hoc subscales revealed that the original 5-item future subscale had sub-optimal internal reliability (α ranging from .65 to .73). To resolve this limitation, Joireman et al. (2012) generated two additional future-oriented items (Items 13 and 14). With the addition of these two items, the expanded 7-item CFC-Future subscale demonstrates consistently high internal consistency:

• CFC-Future Subscale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from α = .80 to .84 across collegiate and adult non-student community samples. Composite reliability (ρ_c) coefficients in structural models routinely exceed .82.
• CFC-Immediate Subscale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from α = .81 to .85 across diverse demographic cohorts, with composite reliability coefficients exceeding .83.
• Full Composite CFC-14 (when scored unidimensionally after reverse-scoring immediate items): Produces an overall Cronbach’s alpha ranging between α = .84 and .88.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

The temporal stability of the CFC construct has been demonstrated across multiple time frames. In Strathman et al.’s (1994) baseline investigation, test-retest reliability across a 5-week interval yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient of r = .72. Subsequent evaluations of the CFC-14 by Joireman and colleagues revealed test-retest coefficients of r = .76 for CFC-Future and r = .74 for CFC-Immediate over a 6-week interval, confirming that the scale assesses a durable, trait-like disposition rather than transient psychological states.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural evolution from the unidimensional CFC-12 to the two-factor CFC-14 was guided by extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In exploratory analyses conducted by Joireman et al. (2008) and Joireman et al. (2012) using principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations, eigenvalues and scree plot examinations consistently confirmed a clear two-factor structure. Eigenvalues for the first two unrotated factors consistently exceeded 3.5 and 2.0, respectively, explaining over 45% of the total item variance. The rotated factor patterns revealed simple structure: all seven immediate items loaded strongly onto Factor 1 (CFC-Immediate) with loadings ranging from .48 to .78, and near-zero cross-loadings onto Factor 2 (typically < .15). Conversely, all seven future items (including the newly developed items 13 and 14) loaded heavily onto Factor 2 (CFC-Future) with standardized loadings ranging from .52 to .79, without meaningful cross-loadings onto Factor 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses directly compared competing structural models across independent empirical samples (Joireman et al., 2012):

• Model 1: One-Factor Unidimensional Model. All 14 items forced to load onto a single general CFC factor (with immediate items reverse-coded). This model demonstrated poor to marginal fit: χ²/df > 5.2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .78 – .83, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .74 – .80, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .088 – .102, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) > .085.
• Model 2: Two-Factor Oblique Model (Standard). Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14 loading onto CFC-Future; Items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12 loading onto CFC-Immediate, with the two latent factors allowed to correlate. This model demonstrated superior and acceptable-to-excellent fit indices: χ²/df < 2.4, CFI = .94 – .97, TLI = .93 – .96, RMSEA = .045 – .056 (90% CI [.038, .064]), and SRMR = .042 – .051.
• Model 3: Bifactor / Hierarchical Models. While a bifactor model featuring a general temporal consideration factor alongside specific future and immediate group factors can achieve mathematical convergence, the oblique two-factor model remains the most parsimonious, theoretically coherent, and practically actionable representation of the construct.

Standardized Factor Loadings

Representative standardized factor loadings (λ) from structural validation studies demonstrate uniform robustness across both latent constructs:

• CFC-Future Subscale: Item 1 (λ = .64), Item 2 (λ = .58), Item 6 (λ = .54), Item 7 (λ = .60), Item 8 (λ = .66), Item 13 (λ = .78), Item 14 (λ = .79).
• CFC-Immediate Subscale: Item 3 (λ = .72), Item 4 (λ = .76), Item 5 (λ = .51), Item 9 (λ = .63), Item 10 (λ = .71), Item 11 (λ = .75), Item 12 (λ = .56).

The correlation between the two latent factors is moderate and negative, typically observed between r = -.32 and r = -.48, underscoring that while the two dimensions are moderately inversely related, they represent distinct psychological constructs.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Rating Scale.
• Construct Assessed: Consideration of Future Consequences, comprising Consideration of Future Consequences – Future (CFC-Future) and Consideration of Future Consequences – Immediate (CFC-Immediate).
• Number of Items: 14 items (7 items measuring CFC-Future, 7 items measuring CFC-Immediate).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computer-based survey (interactive web or clinical software).
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 14 and above).
• Reading Level: 6th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ≈ 6.2).
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Extremely uncharacteristic of you (not at all like you)
  • 2 = Moderately uncharacteristic
  • 3 = Slightly uncharacteristic
  • 4 = Neutral / Middle point
  • 5 = Slightly characteristic
  • 6 = Moderately characteristic
  • 7 = Extremely characteristic of you (very much like you)

  (Note: While the original 12-item scale utilized a 5-point scale, the CFC-14 incorporates a 7-point scale to maximize response variance and distributional sensitivity).

• Scoring Protocols:
  • CFC-Immediate Subscale Score: Compute the mean of items 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12:
    
    CFC-Immediate = (Item 3 + Item 4 + Item 5 + Item 9 + Item 10 + Item 11 + Item 12) / 7
    
    Scores range from 1.0 to 7.0, where higher scores reflect greater prioritization of proximal, short-term outcomes and convenience.
  • CFC-Future Subscale Score: Compute the mean of items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14:
    
    CFC-Future = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 6 + Item 7 + Item 8 + Item 13 + Item 14) / 7
    
    Scores range from 1.0 to 7.0, where higher scores reflect greater attention to distal goals, future impact, and willingness to sacrifice immediate comfort.
  • Overall Composite CFC Score (Optional Unidimensional Scoring): When a single continuous index of future-orientation is required for longitudinal comparisons or meta-analyses, recode/reverse-score the seven immediate items such that Recoded = 8 - Original Score (i.e., 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, 7 becomes 1), and calculate the grand mean across all 14 items:
    
    CFC-Total = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 6 + Item 7 + Item 8 + Item 13 + Item 14 + Item 3_r + Item 4_r + Item 5_r + Item 9_r + Item 10_r + Item 11_r + Item 12_r) / 14
    
    Higher overall scores denote a stronger future orientation relative to immediate concerns.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Two Factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14) was formally published in 2012 in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by authors Jeff Joireman, Monte J. Shaffer, Daniel Balliet, and Alan Strathman. Building upon Strathman et al.’s original 1994 instrument, the CFC-14 was placed in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research applications.

Licensing and Accessibility: Researchers, educators, and clinicians are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale without payment of licensing royalties, provided that proper scholarly attribution is given to the authors through citation of the foundational validation papers (Joireman et al., 2012; Strathman et al., 1994). Commercial entities, digital test publishers, or proprietary behavioral consulting enterprises planning to incorporate the instrument into fee-charging platforms or commercially monetized diagnostic batteries should seek permission from the corresponding author, Dr. Jeff Joireman (Carson College of Business, Washington State University), or the copyright-holding publisher (Society for Personality and Social Psychology / SAGE Publications).

12. References

Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (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(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.011

Joireman, J., Shaffer, M., Balliet, D., & Strathman, A. (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(10), 1272–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362

Joireman, J., Strathman, A., & Balliet, D. (2006). Considering future consequences: An integrative model. In L. Sanna & E. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 82–99). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195177664.003.0006

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

13. Items of the Scale