How to Cite
Acuña, I. ., Zalazar Jaime, M. F. ., Michelini, Y. ., Ignacio Guzmán, J. ., Godoy, J. C. ., Galarce, E. ., & Joireman, J. . (2020). Argentine validation of the consideration of future consequences scale (CFC-14). Acta Colombiana De Psicología, 23(1), 346–368. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2020.23.1.16
License

 Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:

 Acta Colombiana de Psicología complies with international intellectual property and copyright laws, and particularly with Article No. 58 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, Law No. 23 of 1982, and the Agreement No. 172 of September 30, 2010 (Universidad Católica de Colombia Intellectual Property Regulation).

 Authors retain their copyright and grant to the Acta Colombiana de Psicología the right of first publication, with the work registered under Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use the published material, provided they credit the authorship of the work and the first publication in this Journal.

Abstract

Consideration of future consequences is the extent to which people anticipate and are influenced by the potential future consequences of their current behavior. A well-established tool to measure this behavior is the 14-item Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFC-14). The CFC-14 has shown appropriate psychometric properties in several languages. This scale comprises two factors: the CFC-Immediate (CFC-I, 7 items) and the CFC-Future (CFC-F, 7 items). The main goal of this study was to assess the psychometric properties and internal consistency of the CFC-14 Scale in Spanish, using an Argentine sample. A second goal was to determine its convergent validity with impulsivity, and determine differences and invariance across gender and age groups. Using a web-based survey, data were collected from 512 participants (75.2% women) aged 13-74 years (M = 30.8). CFA showed a two-factor model as the best solution for the 13-items version (CFI.961, TLI .952, RMSEA .064 90%IC .054/.074, WRMR 0.979). Standardized regression weights (p≤ .05) ranged from .50 to .66 for CFC-F and between .43 and .83 for CFC-I. Composite reliability was also adequate: CFC-F achieved ρ = .80 and CFC-I ρ = .82. There were no differences across gender and age, but there was a progressive invariance between these groups. The CFC-F and UPPS-P subscales correlations were negative and significant, highlighting the negative and moder- ate correlation between CFC-F and the lack of premeditation (r=-.41). Thus, CFC-14 has adequate psychometric properties in an Argentine population, although more studies are necessary to determine the robustness of these findings.

Keywords:

References

Adams, J. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future con- sequences, smoking status, and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31(2), 260-263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025790

Azizli, N., Atkinson, B. E., Baughman, H. M., & Giammarco, E. A. (2015). Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 58-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.006

Banco Mundial. (2015). Mente, sociedad y conducta. Washington, D. C. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/leo-2014-6-es

Bruderer-Enzler, H. (2015). Consideration of future conse- quences as a predictor of environmentally responsible behavior: Evidence from a general population study. Environment and Behavior, 47(6), 618-643. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513512204

Camus, G., Berjot, S., & Ernst-Vintila,A. (2014). Validation fran- çaise de l’échelle de prise en considération des conséquences futures de nos actes (CFC-14). Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27(1), 35-63. Recuperado de https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-socia le-2014-1-page-35.html

Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2007). Standards for the development and review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test selection in psychological research. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 863-882. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/337/33770319.pdf

Dominguez-Lara, S. A., & Medrano, L. A. (2016). Invarianza factorial del Cognitive Emotional Regulation Questionnarie (CERQ) en universitarios limeños y cordobeses. Universitas Psychologica, 15(1), 89-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-1.ifce

Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory fac- tor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466-491. doi: https://doi.org/2004-21445-005[pii]r10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466

Gagnon, J., Daelman, S., Mcduff, P., & Kocka, A. (2013). UPPS Dimensions of Impulsivity Relationships with Cognitive Distortions and Childhood Maltreatment. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(1), 48-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000099

Geers, A. L., Wellman, J. A., Seligman, L. D., Wuyek, L. A., & Neff, L. A. (2010). Dispositional optimism, goals, and engagement in health treatment programs. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33(2), 123-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-009-9238-z

George, M., & Mallery, P. (2011). Descriptive Statistics. En S. Hartman (ed.), SPSS for Windows step by step. A simple guide and reference 18.0 update (pp. 95-104). Boston: Pearson.

Gick, M. (2014). An exploration of interactions between Conscientiousness and Consideration of Future Consequences on healthy eating. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 181-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.020

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1999). Análisis Multivariante (5. ª ed.). Madrid: Prentice Hall.

Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguish- ing between CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future sub-scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.011

Joireman, J., & King, S. (2016). Individual Differences in the Consideration of Future and (More) Immediate Consequences: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(5), 313-326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12252

Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449362

Joireman, J., Strathman, A., & Balliet, D. (2006). Considering future consequences. En L. Sanna & E. Chang (eds.), Judgments Over Time: The Interplay of Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors (pp. 82-99). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof

Mimura, C., & Griffiths, P. (2008). A Japanese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and equiva- lence assessment. BMC Psychiatry, 8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.11.004

Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 847-862. Recuperado de https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/337/33770318.pdf

Nigro, G., Cosenza, M., Ciccarelli, M., & Joireman, J. (2016). An Italian translation and validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences-14 Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 333-340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.014

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2. ª ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: evidence for a short version. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 405-413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598453

Pilatti, A., Godoy, J. C., & Brussino, S. A. (2012). Adaptación de instrumentos entre culturas: ejemplos de procedimientos seguidos para medir las expectativas hacia el alcohol en el ámbito argentino. Trastornos Adictivos, 14(2), 58-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1575-0973(12)70045-4

Pilatti, A., Lozano, O., & Cyders, M. (2015). Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale: A Rasch Rating Scale Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 10-21. doi: 10.1037/pas0000124

Pilatti, A., Rivarola-Montejano, G., Lozano, O. M., & Pautassi, R. M. (2016). Relationship between impulsivity and alcohol consumption in Argentinean men and women. Quaderns de Psicologia, 18(1), 75. doi: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/qpsicologia.1329

Raykov, T. (2012). Evaluation of latent construct correlations in the presence of missing data: a note on a latent variable modelling approach. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 65(1), 19-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X498162

Schafer, J. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/096228099671525676

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742- 752. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5. ª Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Toepoel, V. (2010). Is consideration of future consequen- ces a changeable construct? Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 951-956. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.029

Vásquez-Echeverría, A., Esteves, C., Vilares-Gomes, C., Ortuño, V., Gomes, C., & Ortuño, V. (2015). Portuguese Validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.5

Vásquez-Echeverría, A., Martín, A., Esteves, C., Ortuño, V. E. C., & Joireman, J. (2017). Adaptación y Validación Inicial al Castellano de la Escala de Consideración de las Consecuencias Futuras. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 44(2), 5-15. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP44.2.01

Verdejo-García, A., Lozano, Ó., Moya, M., Alcázar, M. Á., & Pérez-García, M. (2010). Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale: reliability, validity and association with trait and cognitive impulsivity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(1), 70- 77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903382369

Yu, C., & Muthen, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Zimbardo, P., & Boyd, J. (2015). Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo. En M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine & W. van Beek (eds.), Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 17- 55). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2

Reference by

Sistema OJS 3 - Metabiblioteca |