Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

Introduction
In the decisions made in everyday life, there is often no straightforward option, and these decisions ultimately require a selection among various options, each with its specific advantages and disadvantages (1). People often face temporal dilemmas as to whether future consequences should be more valued or immediate consequences! For evaluating these two types of consequences, the researchers introduced a construct which is known as "consideration of future consequences." Individual differences in consideration of future consequences are related to motivation, decision-making, the pursuit of goals, and behavior in essential areas of life, including work, health, environment, financial, and educational issues (5). Consideration of future consequences is measured using an instrument that was first introduced by Stratman et al. in 1994 (4). Stratman et al. (4) introduced a 12-item instrument that rendered an overall score to measure how much individuals consider the immediate or distant consequences of their current actions. Despite studies (4, 6, 7) that indicated the appropriate psychometric properties and practical applicability of this instrument, some researchers reported the psychometric properties of this scale below the desired level (13). Other researchers question the concept of one-dimensionality in considering future consequences and believe that individuals may simultaneously consider both immediate and future consequences (14) and consider immediate and future consequences are not two poles of a single dimension (3). By adding two more items to this scale, Joireman et al., in response to such criticisms, proposed a new concept that represents consideration of immediate and future consequences as two related but separate temporal constructs instead of displaying them on a single continuum (14). Various studies have consistently supported the psychometric distinction between future and immediate subscales (17, 18), and the applicability of this scale in predicting different health-related behaviors is confirmed (22, 23, 25). Therefore, considering its validity and applicability, the present study was conducted to translate and examine the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Persian version of the scale.
 
Methods
In a cross-sectional study on a non-clinical adult population in Kermanshah, 380 people (53.2% male, 46.6% female, with average age 30.68) were selected through convenience sampling and responded to the research questionnaires. Data were analyzed using Cronbach's alpha test, confirmatory factor analysis, and Pearson correlation test through SPSS software version 26 and Mplus software version 7. To prepare the Persian version, three people first translated the latest English version of the questionnaire into Persian. Then, the items translated by those three people were compared together, and the appropriate items were selected. After the initial selection of items, the materials were provided to a group of psychologists, a group of bilinguals, and a group of students in non-psychological fields, respectively, to review them in terms of content, the equivalence of the Persian translation with the original items and comprehensibility of items to the non-psychologists and the final Persian version of the questionnaire was prepared based on the opinions of these people. Eventually, the final content was retranslated into English and compared with the original version to evaluate the fluency of the Persian items and, at the same time, to ensure that the meaning and concept did not differ from the original items. After preparing the Persian version, along with other questionnaires (Regret-Based Decision-Making Style Scale and Monetary Choice Questionnaire), this questionnaire was distributed in parks and public centers in Kermanshah among the target population who would like to participate in the survey and fill in the questionnaires.
 
Results
Two methods of Cronbach's alpha and the split-half coefficient calculation were used to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire. By removing an item with a weak correlation with other items from each of the subscales, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the future subscale was 0.65, and it was 0.70 for the immediate subscale, the split-half coefficient for the future subscale equaled 0.68, and it was 0.66 for the immediate subscale. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the questionnaire by estimating the weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted. The confirmatory factor analysis results (excluding two items with low correlation with other items) indicated that the two-factor model of the modified version of the questionnaire was fitted with the data to an acceptable level (RMSEA=0.07, CFI=0.92, TLI=0.89) (fig. 1). To evaluate the criterion validity of the questionnaire, the correlation between the scores of future and immediate subscales and the scores of "delayed discounting" and "regret-based decision-making style" scales was examined using the Pearson correlation test. The results of these tests suggested a significant negative correlation between consideration of future consequences and delayed discounting (P<0.05, r=-0.12) and a significant positive correlation between the expected regret and consideration of future consequences (P<0.01, r =0.33) as well as consideration of immediate consequences (P<0.01, r=0.15).

Fig. 1. Factor loadings of questions on the subscales of the consideration of future consequences scale
 
Conclusion
The results indicated that the Persian version of the consideration of the scale of the future consequences enjoys an acceptable level of reliability in internal consistency, as well as the split-half. The two-factor structure proposed for the modified version of this questionnaire was well fitted with the data. The two constructs of "consideration of immediate consequences" and "consideration of future consequences," although negatively related and even though those who consider immediate consequences more have less consideration for future consequences, and vice versa, are not necessarily two dimensions of the same construct. As demonstrated in the positive correlation of expected regret with both subscales, people may consider both immediate and future consequences simultaneously, and they are better to be considered separate constructs. Although the present study indicated good validity and reliability in the Persian version of the consideration of future consequences scale, since it was conducted only on non-clinical populations, implementation of it on clinical populations and comparison of results can help to specify the differences in thinking patterns between healthy people and individuals with mental health issues. Furthermore, examining the relationship between this construct and how people make decisions in real-life situations can clarify the applicability of this construct in predicting the quality of choices people may make in their life.
 
Ethical considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
In order to comply with ethical principles, participants were informed before conducting the research that participation in the research is voluntary and that there is no coercion for it.
Authors’ contributions
The first author did study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, and the second and third authors did data collection and data preparation.
Funding
No financial support has been received for this research, and it has been funded personally.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank all those who helped us in this research.
Conflict of interest
There was no conflict of interest.

Keywords: Anticipated regret, Consideration of consequences, Delay discounting, Factor structure, Psychometric properties.

Full-Text [PDF 972 kb]   (500 Downloads)    

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---

---