Beyond the Shadow of a Trait: Understanding Discounting Through Item-Level Analysis of Personality Scales

Charlton, Shawn R.; Gossett, Bradley D.; Charlton, Veda A.

doi:10.1007/bf03395778

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, patience and self‐efficacy are not overlapping individual characteristics. This result is in line with prior work in the psychology literature that finds no significant correlation between self‐efficacy and time preferences (Charlton, Gossett, and Charlton ()).…”

Section: Alternative Hypotheses and Robustness Checkssupporting

confidence: 91%

Noncognitive Abilities and Financial Delinquency: The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Avoiding Financial Distress

Kuhnen¹,

Melzer

2018

The Journal of Finance

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate a novel determinant of financial distress, namely, individuals' self‐efficacy, or belief that their actions can influence the future. Individuals with high self‐efficacy are more likely to take precautions that mitigate adverse financial shocks. They are subsequently less likely to default on their debt and bill payments, especially after experiencing negative shocks such as job loss or illness. Thus, noncognitive abilities are an important determinant of financial fragility and subjective expectations are an important factor in household financial decisions.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Hypotheses and Robustness Checkssupporting

confidence: 91%

Noncognitive Abilities and Financial Delinquency: The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Avoiding Financial Distress

Kuhnen¹,

Melzer

2018

The Journal of Finance

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards (1994), the CFCS has been traditionally assumed as a unidimensional scale assessing a factor that ranges from low CFC of immediate behavior to high CFC of immediate behavior (Arnocky, Milfont, & Nicol, 2014). However, multiple studies have found a bi-factorial structure of the CFCS, which seems to reveal a dimension tackling the consideration of short-term or immediate consequences of behavior, and another that addresses the consideration of long-term or distant consequences (Adams, 2012;Arnocky et al, 2014;Charlton, Gossett, & Charlton, 2011;Toepoel, 2010). If this bi-dimensional structure in the CFCS continues to be confirmed, the instrument would be helpful in investigating the conflict between short-term and long-term interests in environmental matters, adding a temporal dimension other than the future orientation into the investigation of CC determinants.…”

Section: Time Perspective and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Consideration of Immediate and Future Consequences in Accepting and Responding to Anthropogenic Climate Change

Corral-Verdugo¹,

Caso-Niebla²,

Tapia-Fonllem³

et al. 2017

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) is one of the most important types of pro-environmental behavior. Greenhouse gases have been repeatedly cited as a leading cause of climate change (CC). However, before engaging in CC mitigation behaviors, individuals must accept the reality of CC. Few studies addressing the influence of individual time perspective on climate change mitigation have been found. No study investigating the relationship between time perspectives and acceptance of the reality of CC exists. This study was aimed at filling that research gap. The study examines the impact of consideration of immediate and distant consequences of behavior on individual acceptance of the reality of CC and commitment to engage in CC mitigation behaviors. Two-hundred-and-forty-five undergraduate students responded to an instrument investigating those variables. A structural-equation model revealed that consideration of distant consequences affects acceptance of CC, but considering immediate consequences do not influence that acceptance. Accepting that CC is real affects the commitment to act pro-environmentally, which in turn influences CC mitigation commitment. Consideration of distant consequences also positively affects willingness to engage in CC mitigation; yet, consideration of immediate consequences produced no effect on that commitment.

show abstract

“…The four CFC factors differently related to discounting rate when facing small, medium and large amounts of rewards. Most of the previous studies had used average scores of temporal discounting relating to CFC scores or subscale scores (Charlton, 2011;Joireman et al, 2005;Joireman et al, 2008); our results, however, shed new light on the distinct roles of the CFC factors in specific temporal choices. Distinguishing among the four factors also provided researchers with the opportunity to determine which aspects of the CFC account for a given behavior, and to compare competing models regarding the relations between the CFC and a given outcome, such as the buffering hypothesis and the susceptibility hypothesis (Joireman et al, 2008).…”

Section: Linking With Temporal Discountingmentioning

confidence: 56%

Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four-factor distinction

Zhang

Kong

Zhang

et al. 2015

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond the Shadow of a Trait: Understanding Discounting Through Item-Level Analysis of Personality Scales

Cited by 12 publications

References 39 publications

Noncognitive Abilities and Financial Delinquency: The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Avoiding Financial Distress

Noncognitive Abilities and Financial Delinquency: The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Avoiding Financial Distress

Consideration of Immediate and Future Consequences in Accepting and Responding to Anthropogenic Climate Change

Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four-factor distinction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About