Psychology, Interamerican
The Consideration of Future Consequences: psychometric properties, geographical distribution and association with substance use in a representative sample of Montevideo, Uruguay
Ocean Abstract Art
PDF (Español (España))


Consideration of future consequences
psychometric properties
scale scores
socioeconomic status
substance use

How to Cite

Alvarez-Nuñez, L. S., Selma, H., & Vásquez-Echeverría, A. (2020). The Consideration of Future Consequences: psychometric properties, geographical distribution and association with substance use in a representative sample of Montevideo, Uruguay. Revista Interamericana De Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 54(1), e287.


The Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale assesses the degree to which people are influenced by the immediate or distant consequences of their behaviors. In a representative sample of Montevideo, the aim of this study is to explore its psychometric properties, establish its population scales, explore its territorial distribution and evaluate the associations of the CFC with the consumption of drugs. In this study, the two-factor solution provides better fit, with adequate reliability. The CFC present significant differences according to age and sex, for which specific scales are offered. Likewise, we found mixed evidence on their territorial distribution and a small effect size on the consumption of some substances. Results are discussed based on the role of the CFC to explain behavior with intertemporal consequences.
PDF (Español (España))


Adams, J. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future consequences, smoking status, and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31(2), 260–263.

Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. Health Psychology, 28(1), 83–90.

Alvarez-Nuñez, L. (2018). Confiabilidad y validez de la Escala Consideración de las Consecuencias Futuras en español Cómo pensamos en las consecuencias inmediatas (pero no las distantes) de nuestras acciones se asocia a un patrón conductual saludable. Tesis de maestría no publicada. Universidad de la República, Uruguay.

Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 298–308.

Beenstock, J., Adams, J., & White, M. (2011). The association between time perspective and alcohol consumption in university students: cross-sectional study. The European Journal of Public Health, 21(4), 438–443.

Byrne, B. (2013). Testing Change Over Time The Latent Growth Curve Model. In Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (pp. 313–344). New York: Routledge.

Camus, G., Berjot, S., & Ernst-Vintila, A. (2014). Validation française de l’échelle de prise en considération des conséquences futures de nos actes (CFC-14). Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27(1), 35–63.

Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.

Daugherty, J. R., & Brase, G. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, pp. 202–207.

Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862–867.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2011). Resultados del Censo de Población 2011: población, crecimiento y estructura por sexo y edad.

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.

Joireman, J., Becker, C., Barbosa-Leiker, C., & Duell, B. (2005). Aggression as a function of concern with future consequences and anticipated interaction with an aggressive peer. Poster presented at the 6th Annual Convention of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology Conference, New Orleans, LA. January 2005.

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, 10(5), 313–326.

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.

Joireman, J., Strathman, A., & Balliet, D. (2006). Considering Future Consequences An Integrative Model. In E. Sanna, J. Lawrence, & E. Chang (Eds.), Judgments Over Time The Interplay of Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors (pp. 82–99).

Lindsay, J. J., & Strathman, A. (1997). Predictors of Recycling Behavior: An Application of a Modified Health Belief Model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(20), 1799–1823.

McKay, M. T., Cole, J. C., & Percy, A. (2015). Further evidence for a bifactor solution for the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Measurement and conceptual implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 219–222.

McKay, M. T., Morgan, G. B., van Exel, N. J., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Back to “the Future”: Evidence of a Bifactor Solution for Scores on the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(4), 395–402.

McKay, M. T., Perry, J. L., Percy, A., & Cole, J. C. (2016). Evidence for the reliability and validity, but not the practical utility of the two-factor Consideration of Future Consequences Scale-14. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 133–136.

Murphy, L., Cadogan, E., & Dockray, S. (2019). The Consideration of Future Consequences: Evidence for Domain Specificity Across Five Life Domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 014616721987347.

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.

Pepper, G. V., & Nettle, D. (2017). The behavioural constellation of deprivation: Causes and consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40(July), e314.

Percy, A., McKay, M. T., Perry, J. L., & Cole, J. C. (2018). Refining the clinical application of the consideration of future consequences scale -14. Current Psychology.

Ponce, J., & Tubbio, M. (2013). Precios de inmuebles: aproximaciones metodológicas y aplicación empírica. Documento de Trabajo Del Banco Central Del Uruguay.

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.

Toepoel, V. (2010). Is consideration of future consequences a changeable construct? Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 951–956.

Vásquez-Echeverría, A., Antino, M., Alvarez-Nuñez, L., & Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. (2018). Evidence for the reliability and factor solution of the CFCS-14 in Spanish: A multi-method validation in Spain and Uruguay. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 171–175.

Vásquez-Echeverría, A., Tomás, C., & Cruz, O. (2019). The development of episodic foresight in preschoolers: the role of socioeconomic status, parental future orientation, and family context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 32(1), 12.

Vásquez Echeverría, A., Martín, A., Ortuño, V., Esteves, C., & Joireman, J. (2017). Adaptación y validación inicial al castellano de la Escala Consideración de las Consecuencias Futuras. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación-e Avaliação Psicológica, 44(2), 5–15.

Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755.

Zhang, Z., Kong, M., Zhang, L., & Li, Z. (2015). Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four-factor distinction. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 99–104.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2020 Lucía Stephanie Alvarez-Nuñez, Alejandro Vásquez Echeverría, Hugo Selma