The influence of considering the past,present,and future on college satisfaction

Abstract

Although we all live in the present and often hear about the importance of living “here and now”, every moment of our lives is highly influenced by explicit and implicit thoughts about our past and potential future. The present study investigated the relation between individuals' tendencies to either drift towards the past by, e.g. constantly re-evaluating and regretting past choices, towards the future by, e.g. basing present actions on anticipated future consequences, and their inclination to deal with the present by either committing to chosen alternatives or procrastinating on their implementation. Finally, the influence of these factors on participants' satisfaction with their chosen college major was also explored. The obtained results indicate a close relationship between the assessed considerations of different temporal directions. Furthermore, regret, procrastination, commitment (choice closure), and consideration of future consequences (future focus) were revealed as statistically significant predictors of students' satisfaction with their college major. These findings indicate that individuals' considerations of various temporal directions influence their valuation of own choices and life outcomes and open new questions regarding the general relevance and effects of mental time travel.

Keywords

Commitment consideration of future consequences procrastination regret satisfaction

Introduction

In order to improve the quality of our daily lives and moment-to-moment experiences, we are often advised to fully focus on the present moment and to live “here and now”. We are told that previous experiences should be left in the past, because thinking about them too much can make us feel remorseful and unhappy. In this view, revisiting the past too often is counterproductive because we cannot change it no matter what we do. Instead, we should focus on the present and occasionally bring future possibilities to mind, although such future-oriented thinking should also be restricted because it is by definition based on guesses and uncertainties. Pondering too much about potential alternatives that we may, or may not encounter in the future can be not only very time consuming, but also unproductive and should therefore be minimized. According to this view, the best “approach” is to focus on the present moment, because it is the only one in which we can act and make a meaningful difference.

In recent years, researchers have conducted numerous studies aimed at exploring individuals' tendencies to cognitively visit the past and the future, or to concentrate on the present. The obtained findings partly corroborate previously mentioned advices. Indeed, our past is something that we cannot change and thinking too much about it can be hurtful and lead to negative emotions such as regret (Inman, 2007). Similarly, excessive consideration of future outcomes and situations may also be non-functional because there is a lot of uncertainty related to them and negative predictions of future outcomes can undermine our motivation to even approach obstacles that may lie ahead (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). Therefore, focusing on the present may indeed be the “best approach”. In line with this, research on mindfulness clearly shows the benefit of being committed and present in the current moment (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Zimbardo and Boyd, 2008).

However, despite the adaptive value on mindful presence, focusing on the present moment is not always beneficial (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). In addition, many findings indicate that such approach is always neither possible nor desirable. Our identity is built on our memories (Wilson and Ross, 2003), and our past defines who we are in the present. We learn from our experiences, and in order to deal with the present we have to be constantly grounded in the past. Therefore, although dwelling too much on them may be disruptive, returning to our past experiences is inevitable and may be associated with adaptive and beneficial outcomes (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Furthermore, it has been suggested that even negative emotions triggered by the past, such as regret, may also serve an adaptive function (Zeelenberg, 1999). Similar to the past, our potential future represents another aspect of our lives that we cannot avoid thinking about every time we might want to. Specifically, it has been suggested that constant prediction and anticipation represent some of the core features of our neural and cognitive processing (Bar, 2007; Bubic et al., 2010; Schacter et al., 2007; Suddendorf and Busby, 2005). We are constantly forming both explicit and implicit predictions about our near and far future that motivate and guide our actions. This ability to transcend the present moment has even been suggested to represent a core evolutionary advantage that has defined us as human species (Suddendorf and Corballis, 1997). These findings clearly indicate that, regardless of the potential value of mindful presence in the current moment, one can never escape cognitive excursions into other temporal dimensions, neither the past nor the future.

Given the relevance of this topic, the present study explored several individual tendencies related to our conceptions and considerations of different temporal directions. In relation to the past, it focused on participants' tendency to travel to earlier times and regret previously made decisions. With respect to the present, participants' procrastinating tendency was explored, with the hypothesis that those who typically delay or avoid their planned activities (Van Eerde, 2000) may be more prone to experiencing regret regarding such behavior. In addition, a somewhat opposite tendency of dealing with the present moment, namely committing to made decisions without imagining alternative outcomes or actions, was also assessed. Finally, one aspect of participants' approach towards the future was explored by measuring their tendency to consider future consequences of actions while making a decision (Strathman et al., 1994). Besides investigating the relationship between these constructs, the present study related them to a measure of participants' satisfaction with one important aspect of their lives. Given that the participants were all college students, they were additionally asked to report their satisfaction with the chosen college major. It was hypothesized that the level of college satisfaction would be determined both by individuals' tendency to return to the past and regret previously made choices, as well as their inclination to consider outcomes of future actions. Also, it was expected that commitment and procrastination would represent additional significant predictors of participants' college satisfaction. Finally, it was hypothesized that the effects of procrastination and commitment would be mediated by the participants' tendency to consider future outcomes. This hypothesis was based on a previous study that has suggested the mediatory role of consideration of future consequences in explaining the relationship between procrastination and a somewhat different set of outcomes, namely individuals' health behaviors (Sirois, 2004). Although this study had not confirmed the suggested mediatory role, it motivated the present exploration that was also guided by the premise that the individuals' approach to their present choices and decisions would be contingent on whether such decisions are based primarily on present or future considerations.

Methods

210 college students participated in the present study (13.1% male and 86.9% female; average age M = 23 years, SD = 1.76). Participants completed four instruments: Regret scale (Schwartz et al., 2002), Decision commitment scale (Sparks et al., 2012), Consideration of future consequences scale (Strathman et al., 1994), and the Behavioral procrastination measure (Strong et al., 1979). In addition, the participants reported their level of satisfaction with the attended college (chosen college major) using a 5-point Likert-type response scale (1 – completely unsatisfied; 5 – completely satisfied).

Regret scale (Schwartz et al., 2002) is an instrument designed for assessing how individuals deal with decision situations after making a choice and their tendency towards experiencing regret after making a certain decision. The scale consists of five items (e.g. When I think about how I'm doing in life, I often assess opportunities I have passed up) that the participants rate on a 7-point Likert type scale (1 – completely disagree; 7 – completely agree). An exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction method and varimax rotation was performed, which indicated the existence of one underlying factor that explained 49.3% of the variance. Due to unsatisfactory factor loading, one item was eliminated from the analysis and participants' score was calculated based on the remaining four items. With a possible range of scores on this scale being 4–28, the participants in the current study scored an average of 13.14 points (SD = 5.17). The reliability of the scale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.77.

Decision commitment scale (Sparks et al., 2012) is a scale that assesses individuals' tendency to commit to decisions. Specifically, using a 7-point Likert type scale (1 – completely disagree; 7 – completely agree), the participants rate their agreement with 11 items (e.g. If I'm having trouble making a choice, I remind myself that I can just change my mind later) that describe situations in which they may avoid committing to a made choice by retaining the option to change their minds. An exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction method and varimax rotation was performed, which indicated the existence of two underlying factors that together explained 43.6% of the variance. Seven items that primarily described one's tendency not to keep alternative options open following a choice loaded onto the first factor that explained 27.5% of the variance and is named Closing alternatives. With a possible range of scores on this subscale being 7–49, the participants in the current study scored an average of 30.13 points (SD = 7.69). The reliability of this subscale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.76. The remaining four items that primarily described one's tendency to settle on the chosen alternative loaded onto the second factor that explained 16% of the variance and is named Choice closure. With a possible range of scores on this subscale being 4–28, the participants in the current study scored an average of 16.76 points (SD = 4.25). The reliability of this subscale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.54.

Behavioral procrastination measure (Strong et al., 1979) is a 5-item scale that assesses the frequency of procrastinating behaviors during learning that was chosen because of its content relevance for the student sample. The participants rate how often they engage in behaviors described within each item (e.g. I watched TV or listened to music when I should have been studying) using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 – never; 5 – always). An exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction method and varimax rotation was performed, which indicated the existence of one underlying factor that explained 53.6% of variance. Due to unsatisfactory factor loading, one item was eliminated from the analysis and participants' score was calculated based on the remaining four items. With a possible range of scores on this scale being 4–20, the participants in the current study scored an average of 13.66 points (SD = 3.32). The reliability of the scale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.79.

Consideration of future consequences scale (Strathman et al., 1994) assesses the extent to which individuals focus on short-term or long-term consequences of their actions. It is a 12-item scale in which participants rate whether each item is characteristic for themselves using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 – extremely uncharacteristic; 5 – extremely characteristic). An exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction method and varimax rotation was performed, which indicated the existence of two underlying factors that together explained 50.2% of the variance. Seven items that primarily described one's tendency to focus on the current moment (e.g. I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself) loaded onto the first factor that explained 32% of the variance and is named CFC-Immediate (Present focus). With a possible range of scores on this subscale being 7–35, the participants in the current study scored an average of 22.60 points (SD = 5.10). The reliability of this subscale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.82. The remaining five items that primarily described one's willingness to disengage from the present and consider the future (e.g. I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being in order to achieve future outcomes) loaded onto the second factor that explained 18.2% of the variance and is named CFC-Future (Future focus). With a possible range of scores on this subscale being 5–25, the participants in the current study scored an average of 18.22 points (SD = 3.39). The reliability of this subscale measured using the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.74. This factor structure of the Consideration of future consequences scale corroborates previous findings distinguishing between one present-oriented, and one future-oriented factor within this scale (Joireman et al., 2008).

Results

In order to explore the relationship between the measured personal characteristics and college satisfaction in more detail, the cross-correlations among the measured variables were first calculated. The obtained results indicated statistically significant negative correlations between students' college satisfaction, regret and procrastination, while positive correlations of similar magnitude were identified with respect to college satisfaction, specific factors of commitment (choice closure) and the consideration of future consequences (future focus). The remaining correlations may be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlation matrix for the tested variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Regret	–	−0.369**	−0.078	−0.073	0.042	0.082	−0.236**
2. Closing alternatives		–	0.054	0.236**	−0.067	−0.059	0.029
3. Choice closure			–	−0.143*	0.248**	−0.012	0.228**
4. Present focus				–	0.256**	−0.226**	0.038
5. Future focus					–	−0.141*	0.240**
6. Procrastination						–	−0.229**
7. College satisfaction							–

Note: *p<0.05; ** p<0.01.

Predicting satisfaction with the college major

Next, in order to determine the relative contributions of different personal characteristics to participants' satisfaction with their college, a regression analysis was used with college satisfaction as a criterion. In this analysis regret, procrastination, two factors of the Consideration of future consequences scale and two factors of the Decision commitment scale were introduced as predictors. The obtained results indicate regret, procrastination, choice closure, and future focus as significant predictors of students' college satisfaction (Table 2).

Table 2.

Results of the regression analysis using satisfaction with the college major as a criterion and regret, procrastination, two factors of the Decision commitment scale (closing alternatives and choice closure) and two factors of the Consideration of future consequences scale (present focus and future focus) as predictors.

	β	t	p	R	R ²	F
Regret	−0.233	−3.369	0.001**	0.417	0.174	7.034**
Closing alternatives	−0.058	−0.813	0.417
Choice closure	0.151	2.204	0.029*
Procrastination	−0.192	−2.902	0.004**
Present focus	−0.036	−0.492	0.623
Future focus	0.191	2.693	0.008**

Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01.

β – standardized regression coefficient; t – value of the t-test; p – level of significance; R – multiple correlation coefficient; R² – variance explained by the predictors; F – F-ratio.

Mediatory effects of future focus

To evaluate the hypothesis that the effects of procrastination and choice closure on students' college satisfaction were mediated by the future-oriented dimension of the Consideration of future consequences scale (future focus), a mediation analysis was conducted. Generally, there exist numerous approaches to testing mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2002, 2004), among which the causal steps procedure followed by the Sobel test represents one of the older and more traditional methods (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982). However, this method has been criticized because it does not directly asses the significance of indirect effects, while the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) assumes a normal distribution of the cross product and has lower power, especially in small and moderately sized samples (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Therefore, in the present study the bootstrapping method was used for testing the mediatory role of future focus as it represents a more efficient method of testing mediation (Hayes, 2009; MacKinnon et al., 2002, 2004; Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008). In the bootstrapping approach, 5000 samples of the original size were taken from the obtained data and mediatory effects were calculated in each of them. Next, the bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals, namely intervals that are similar to the 2.5 and 97.5 percentile scores of the obtained distribution of the cross products over k samples corrected for distribution bias (Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008), were examined. When interpreting the obtained results, mediation was considered significant if the upper and lower bounds of these confidence intervals did not contain zero. Thus, the obtained results indicated that future focus mediated the influence of both choice closure and procrastination on students' college satisfaction (Table 3).

Table 3.

Results of the mediation analyses testing the mediatory role of future focus within the relationship between procrastination and choice closure with college satisfaction.

Total effects of independent variables on college satisfaction
IV	B	SE	t	p
Procrastination	−0.069	0.020	3.365	0.0009**
Choice closure	0.054	0.016	3.374	0.0009**

Direct effects of independent variables on college satisfaction
IV	B	SE	t	p
Procrastination	−0.060	0.020	2.956	0.0035**
Choice closure	0.042	0.016	2.623	0.0094**

Indirect effects of independent variables on college satisfaction (mediation by future focus)
IV	PE	SE	Lower BCa CI	Upper BCa CI
Procrastination	−0.0090*	0.006	−0.0264	−0.0007
Choice closure	−0.0113*	0.006	0.0025	0.0275

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

IV – independent variable; B – unstandardized regression coefficient; SE – standard error; t – value of the t-test.

p – level of significance; PE – point estimates; BCa CI – 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.

Discussion

The present study explored how considerations of different temporal directions influence individuals' satisfaction with one important present aspect of their lives. Specifically, a sample consisting mostly of female university students rated their satisfaction with the college major and completed several inventories that assessed their tendency towards mentally returning to the past and regretting previous choices, considering future consequences, and dealing with the present by either committing to made choices or procrastinating on their implementation. The obtained results revealed regret, procrastination as well as specific factors of commitment (choice closure) and consideration of future consequences (future focus) as significant predictors of students' satisfaction. Furthermore, the effects of both procrastination and choice closure on college satisfaction were mediated by students' tendency to focus on the future.

Relating considerations of different temporal directions

Our present is now, but in our minds we are constantly occupying and visiting different temporal dimensions. Even in our environment we often see reminders of the past and encounter simulations of the future. We think and learn from historical events, imagine and prepare for what lies ahead, and enjoy literature and movies that depict either historical periods or science fiction futuristic worlds. Although we all share this broad tendency to time travel in our minds, individuals differ with respect to their preferences for general time travel dimensions, as well as their inclination towards considering, evaluating and approaching their personal past, present and future (Ettlin and Hertwig, 2012; Shipp et al., 2009; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Some individuals tend to constantly revisit their past, while others prefer to ponder about the future and potential events that still await them in life. Generally, thinking about past experiences can be very informative, functional and adaptive (Zeelenberg, 1999). Even if we look towards our past with negative emotions, and realize that we have not lived up to our expectations and plans, recapitulating our past may allow us to not only to learn more about ourselves but also to correct our current behavior and make the wanted improvements (Staudinger, 2001). However, although regretting past experiences may be helpful if it leads to positive changes through corrective actions (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 1999), it nevertheless represents an unpleasant, potentially long-lasting cognitive and emotional state that can be especially painful when coupled with the underlying self-reproach function (Inman, 2007). In addition, although we may occasionally all regret some aspects of our past, some individuals are more prone to this than others. In that sense, regret may be viewed as a specific decision tendency that influences and colors all our decision making situations and is strongly linked to several other decision styles and approaches (Schwartz et al., 2002). For example, regret is more often experienced among maximizers, individuals who typically strive for best possible outcomes, and in the process also experience less satisfaction and well-being in comparison to those who are easier to please with “good enough” outcomes (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009; Schwartz et al., 2002).

Comparable to the past, individuals also differ with respect to their tendency to consider future outcomes and consequences when making decisions in the present. While some individuals are willing to sacrifice their immediate wishes in order to secure the wanted future outcomes, others focus more on their current needs and disregard potential future benefits (Strathman et al., 1994). Previous research has related consideration of future consequences with a decrease of disadvantageous, and an increase of responsible health, environmental, citizenship as well as academic and vocational behaviors (Joireman et al., 2001, 2006, 2008; Kauffman and Husman, 2004; Moore and Dahlen, 2008; Strathman and Joireman, 2005; Walker and Tracey, 2012). In the present study, both regret and consideration of future consequences were correlated with different factors of present commitment to a chosen alternative. Specifically, the highest negative correlation was obtained with regard to regret and the tendency to close alternatives while making decisions, while somewhat lower correlations were obtained with respect to the assessed dimensions of commitment and consideration of future consequences. This is in line with the initial hypothesis, and indicates that individuals who tend to experience more regret also think more about possible outcomes of different unrealized alternatives, while those who consider future consequences during decision making tend to settle on the chosen option without thinking too much about “what might have been”. This opens new questions regarding the relationship between regret, future orientation and general counterfactual thinking (Roese, 1997) that may be elucidated by further research. In addition, individuals who consider future consequences more tend to procrastinate less during learning, which indicates that they are less likely to delay working on a task or to avoid implementing set intentions (Ferrari and Tice, 2000; Van Eerde, 2000). This result is in line with previous findings that have related procrastination to aspects of future time orientation (Specter and Ferrari, 2000), the delay of future gratification (Ferrari and Emmons, 1995) and responsibility (Johnson et al., 2000). Contrary to the initial hypothesis, the obtained results did not indicate that individuals who knowingly postpone their obligations feel more regret regarding their behavior. This is not in line with previous results indicating a link between regret and different types of procrastinating behaviors (Specter and Ferrari, 2000), as well as their influence on life satisfaction (Caldwell and Mowrer, 1998). Although the data from the present study do not offer provide a straightforward interpretation of the lack of association between regret and procrastination, they might reflect the fact that the measures of these tendencies differed with regard to their specificity levels. Namely, while regret was measured at a general level, procrastination tendencies were assessed at a more specific level, related to learning behaviors. In addition, the obtained findings may reflect the fact that not all procrastination behaviors are necessarily related to negative affect, as suggested by some previous reports (Pychyl et al., 2000).

Predicting students' satisfaction with the chosen college

Participants in the present study, all college students, were asked to report their satisfaction with the college major, as it was hypothesized that regret, procrastination, choice closure and future focus would all predict their level of college satisfaction. This would be in accordance with previous studies that have indicated a connection between satisfaction, regret and commitment (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Nystedt et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 2002; Sparks et al., 2012), as well as satisfaction and procrastination (Caldwell and Mowrer, 1998). This hypothesis was corroborated by the obtained results that revealed regret, procrastination, future focus and choice closure as significant predictors of participants' satisfaction with their chosen college. Specifically, regret had the strongest impact on participants' satisfaction, which is in line with previous studies that have indicated strong associations between decreased decision satisfaction and regret, often coupled with maximizing tendencies as well as increased counterfactual thinking (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2002; Kasimatis and Wells, 1995; Roets et al., 2012; Schwartz et al., 2002). On the other hand, a somewhat weaker association between college satisfaction, future focus and choice closure might be associated with the fact that future focus and choice closure primarily reflect our cognitive tendencies (Sparks et al., 2012; Strathman et al., 1994), while both regret and choice satisfaction have, in addition to this cognitive foundation, an additional emotional component that contributes to their association.

Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the connection between college satisfaction and two present-related tendencies, procrastination and choice closure, would be mediated by individuals' future-oriented thinking. A comparable suggestion regarding the role of consideration of future consequences in mediating the relationship between procrastination and one other life context, namely health behaviors was previously explored, albeit not confirmed (Sirois, 2004). In addition, it has previously been suggested that chronic procrastinators may avoid behaviors that will improve their future outcomes (Baumeister and Scher, 1988) because they consider future action outcomes less important than their immediate benefits or current needs (Sirois, 2004). The present results related to the suggested relevance of future focus indicated its mediatory role in the relationship between both procrastination and choice closure and college satisfaction. This indicates that the influence of the individuals' approach towards the present on their valuation of certain life outcomes is, in part, realized through their considerations and attitudes towards the future. However, it may also be hypothesized that the tendency to settle on the chosen alternative may unburden individuals and allow them to consider future outcomes in a more focused manner. Their increased satisfaction with the made choice would then be in line with previous research that has shown how people, after making a decision, reduce the cognitive dissonance associated with a difficult choice through “spreading of alternatives” and increasing their satisfaction with the chosen option (Festinger, 1997). In accordance with this, it has been previously even been suggested that commitment represents a necessary condition for such a reduction in dissonance and an increase in satisfaction to occur (Brehm and Cohen, 1962).

Limitations of the present study and directions for future research

While interpreting the results from the present study, it is important to consider several factors that may limit the generalizability of the reported findings, as well as issues that should be further explored in future studies. First, the variables of interest in the present study were measured using self-reports that are potentially associated with validity issues, such as inadequate accuracy that may be related to (self-)deceit, consistency seeking or self-presentation motives (Ericsson and Simon, 1980; McDonald, 2008; Paulhus and Vazire, 2007; Robins and John, 1997; Schwarz, 1999). For example, individuals may report inaccurate responses because they are motivated to present themselves in a favorable light, or may be unaware of some of their characteristics and experiences. In addition, self-report measures are associated with additional validity problems that are not specific to this method, such as cultural specificity, anchoring effects or primacy and recency effects (McDonald, 2008; Paulhus and Vazire, 2007). However, despite these limitations, self-reports are still the dominant method of assessment in some fields of social sciences, which may be attributed to their information richness as well as practicality, to name the most relevant (Paulhus and Vazire, 2007).

Furthermore, the gender distribution of students who participated in the present study was unbalanced, which reflects the general under-representation of male students in the college majors that were included within this study. This aspect is important to consider because previous studies have demonstrated the existence of gender differences related to some cognitive and decision making tendencies (Byrnes et al., 1999; Rassin and Muris, 2005) that may include considerations of various temporal directions (Petrocelli, 2003; Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999; Zimbardo et al., 1997). Therefore, it is important to interpret the obtained findings with caution and explore the relevance of gender differences in future studies. Finally, the interpretation of the obtained findings may be limited by single data collection or the potential of alternative models to account for the collected data (Frazier et al., 2004; Kline, 2010).

Although further work is needed for advancing our understanding of the relationship between individual approaches to different temporal directions, the present study revealed one relevant pattern of their interconnection and influence on students' satisfaction with the college major. Future studies might expand this issue by focusing on individual differences in emotionally neutral time travel to the past, because the (negative) emotional coloring of regret explored in this study might have biased the obtained findings. In addition, it would be important to consider the fact that considering the past can be done in a manner associated with positive emotions and outcomes, while one may approach the present in a fatalistic and hedonistic manner, as suggested by Zimbardo and Boyd (1999). Such aspects of temporal considerations were not addressed in the present study and should be investigated within future research. Furthermore, it would be interesting to further explore the relationship between personally relevant mental time travel and counterfactual thinking in general, as well as people's satisfaction with other relevant aspects of their lives and the overall quality of life. Along with the current study, such research will contribute to our understanding of the dynamics, as well as the consequences, of mental time travel.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work has been associated with the European project COST ISCH Action TD0904 “Time In MEntaL activitY: Theoretical, behavioral, bioimaging and clinical perspectives (TIMELY)”. The underlying research materials related to this manuscript may be obtained by contacting the author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bar

(2007) The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(7): 280–289.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

Baumeister

Scher

(1988) Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin 104(1): 3–22.

Brehm

Cohen

(1962) Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Brown

Ryan

(2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(4): 822–848.

Bubic

von Cramon

Schubotz

(2010) Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 4: 25.

Byrnes

Miller

Schafer

(1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125(3): 367–383.

Caldwell

Mowrer

(1998) The link between procrastination, delay of gratification, and life satisfaction: A preliminary analysis. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research 3(4): 145–150.

Dar-Nimrod

Rawn

Lehman

(2009) The maximization paradox: The costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences 46(5): 631–635.

10.

Ericsson

Simon

(1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87(3): 215–251.

11.

Ettlin

Hertwig

(2012) Back or to the future? Preferences of time travelers. Judgment and Decision Making 7(4): 373–382.

12.

Ferrari

Emmons

(1995) Methods of procrastination and their relation to self-control and self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 10(1): 135–142.

13.

Ferrari

Tice

(2000) Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality 34(1): 73–83.

14.

Festinger

(1997) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

15.

Frazier

Tix

Barron

(2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology 51(1): 115–134.

16.

Garbarino

Johnson

(1999) The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing 63(2): 70–87.

17.

Harmon-Jones

(2002) Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: The effect of action orientation on postdecisional attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(6): 711–723.

18.

Hayes

(2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs 76(4): 408–420.

19.

Inman

(2007) Regret regulation: Disentangling self-reproach from learning. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(1): 19–24.

20.

Johnson

Green

Kluever

(2000) Psychometric characteristics of the revised procrastination inventory. Research in Higher Education 41(2): 269–279.

21.

Joireman

Balliet

Sprott

(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.

22.

Joireman

Daniels

George-Falvy

(2006) Organizational citizenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences, and employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an In-basket simulation of OCBs1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36(9): 2266–2292.

23.

Joireman

Lasane

Bennett

(2001) Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(1): 133–155.

24.

Kasimatis

Wells

(1995) Individual differences in counterfactual thinking. In: Roese

Olson

(eds) What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 81–101.

25.

Kauffman

Husman

(2004) Effects of time perspective on student motivation: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Psychology Review 16(1): 1–7.

26.

Kline

(2010) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

27.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Hoffman

(2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7: 83–104.

28.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Williams

(2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 99–128.

29.

McDonald

(2008) Measuring personality constructs: The advantages and disadvantages of self-reports, informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire 1(1): 1–18.

30.

Moore

Dahlen

(2008) Forgiveness and consideration of future consequences in aggressive driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40(5): 1661–1666.

31.

Nystedt

Sjöberg

Hägglund

(1999) Discriminant validation of measures of organizations commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction among Swedish army officers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 40(1): 49–55.

32.

Paulhus

Vazire

(2007) The self-report method. In: Robins

Fraley

Krueger

(eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 224–239.

33.

Petrocelli

(2003) Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. The Journal of Social Psychology 143(4): 405–413.

34.

Preacher

Hayes

(2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruction Company 36: 717–731.

35.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–891.

36.

Pychyl

Lee

Thibodeau

(2000) Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 15(5): 239–254.

37.

Rassin

Muris

(2005) To be or not to be… indecisive: Gender differences, correlations with obsessive–compulsive complaints, and behavioural manifestation. Personality and Individual Differences 38(5): 1175–1181.

38.

Robins

John

(1997) The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on accuracy and bias in self-perception. In: Hogan

Johnson

Briggs

(eds) Handbook of Personality Psychology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 649–679.

39.

Roese

(1997) Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin 121(1): 133–148.

40.

Roets

Schwartz

Guan

(2012) The tyranny of choice: A cross-cultural investigation of maximizing-satisficing effects on well-being. Judgment and Decision Making 7(6): 689–704.

41.

Schacter

Addis

Buckner

(2007) Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8(9): 657–661.

42.

Schwartz

Ward

Monterosso

(2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(5): 1178–1197.

43.

Schwarz

(1999) Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54(2): 93–105.

44.

Shipp

Edwards

Lambert

(2009) Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110(1): 1–22.

45.

Sirois

(2004) Procrastination and intentions to perform health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences 37(1): 115–128.

46.

Sobel

(1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–312.

47.

Sparks

Ehrlinger

Eibach

(2012) Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences 52(1): 72–77.

48.

Specter

Ferrari

(2000) Time orientations of procrastinators: Focusing on the past, present, or future? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 15(5): 197–202.

49.

Staudinger

(2001) Life reflection: A social–cognitive analysis of life review. Review of General Psychology 5(2): 148–160.

50.

Strathman

Boninger

Gleicher

(1994) Constructing the future with present behavior: An individual difference approach. In: Zaleski

(ed.) The Psychology of Future Orientation, Lublin, Poland: Catholic University of Lublin Press, pp. 107–119.

51.

Strathman

Joireman

(2005) Understanding Behavior in the Context of Time: Theory, Research, and Application, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Strong

Wambach

Lopez

(1979) Motivational and equipping functions of interpretation in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology 26(2): 98–107.

53.

Suddendorf

Busby

(2005) Making decisions with the future in mind: Developmental and comparative identification of mental time travel. Learning and Motivation 36(2): 110–125.

54.

Suddendorf

Corballis

(1997) Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123(2): 133–167.

55.

Van Eerde

(2000) Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology 49(3): 372–389.

56.

Walker

Tracey

(2012) The role of future time perspective in career decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior 81(2): 150–158.

57.

Wigfield

Eccles

(2000) Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 68–81.

58.

Wilson

Ross

(2003) The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory 11(2): 137–149.

59.

Zeelenberg

(1999) The use of crying over spilled milk: A note on the rationality and functionality of regret. Philosophical Psychology 12(3): 325–340.

60.

Zeelenberg

Pieters

(1999) Comparing service delivery to what might have been behavioral responses to regret and disappointment. Journal of Service Research 2(1): 86–97.

61.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6): 1271–1288.

62.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(2008) The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life, New York, NY: Atria Books.

63.

Zimbardo

Keough

Boyd

(1997) Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences 23(6): 1007–1023.