Future Orientation and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Trust

Previous studies show consistent differences in how people evaluate future consequences and implications of this for a variety of phenomena. The implications for the individual propensity for taking part in different forms of political participation have received limited scholarly attention, however. This is unfortunate since it affects how people voice their concerns over future problems and thereby also whether and how decision-makers become aware of these concerns. We here examine this in a cross-sectional study conducted in Finland (N = 1,673). We apply the Considerations of Future Consequences (CFC) framework as a measure of individuals’ future orientation and distinguish between considerations of future consequences (CFC-future) and considerations of immediate consequences (CFC-Immediate). We study the direct associations with institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation and the moderating role of political trust in shaping these associations. Our results show CFC-future has a positive association with both institutionalized and non-institutionalized political participation, while CFC-immediate has a negative association with participation. Political trust moderates the association with non-institutionalized political participation since the association is stronger for citizens with low political trust. This may suggest that citizens use particular participatory avenues to communicate their worries over future problems, and to which decision-makers must be attentive.

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale Among Malaysian Young Adults: A Psychometric Evaluation

Background: The consideration of future consequences (CFC) determines the extent to which individuals consider the potential future outcomes of their current behavior. The significance of assessing the CFC scale’s validation in different contexts has been acknowledged by the previous studies. While the majority of the studies have been conducted in western countries, no study has been conducted in Malaysia. The aim of the current study was to validate a Malaysian version of the CFC scale among Malaysian young adults.Methods: The methodological cross-sectional approach was adopted in this study. The study recruited 529 young adults (age range from 25 to 40) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the paper survey. Construct validity was assessed using content validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and average inter-item correlation (AIC) were used to assess the scale’s internal consistency. Also, composite reliability (CR) and maximal reliability (MaxR) were used to assess the construct reliability. Measurement invariance was tested across gender.Results: The findings of the exploratory factor analysis indicated that the Malaysian version of the CFC scale has a two-factor structure (i.e., CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate) with 10-item explaining 61.682% of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the two-factor structure of the CFC scale with good construct validity. The internal consistency and CR were acceptable. [The Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and CR for CFC-I were 0.901 (CI 95%: 0.881–918), 0.901, and 0.887, respectively. Also, these parameters for CFC-F were 0.867 (CI 95%: 0.838–891), 0.868, and 0.867, respectively].Conclusion: We found acceptable psychometric evidence for the 10-item two-factors CFC scale used in the context of young adults in Malaysia. The validated instrument can be used in future studies to assess young adults’ CFC tendency and CFC-related behavior in Malaysia.

Fundamental Shifts in Strategic Thinking Concepts and their Teaching Implications

<p>Powerful forces of disruption are penetrating the core concepts of strategic thinking and the strategy education industry.</p><p>Traditional strategic thinking literature and instruction material rest on a solid base of concepts developed by authors from Ansoff and Drucker to Porter, Mintzberg and Prahalad. Their concepts lasted for decades and their literature is a standard feature of business school strategy teachings until this very day. Disruptive forces are changing this situation, however, Generic and functional disruptive forces from boundary-breaking technologies, and norm shaking sociology to rule-breaking economics and unsettling political shifts, have gone a long way towards introducing a new paradigm.</p><p>The following article provides an attempt at identifying those concepts worn out by new realities or end game concepts, and those others constituting a novel thrust.</p><p>The article draws a picture of possible future consequences as well. Those include research prospects, curricula implications and competency gaps.</p>

Predictive validity of A-level grades and teacher-predicted grades in UK medical school applicants: a retrospective analysis of administrative data in a time of COVID-19

ObjectivesTo compare in UK medical students the predictive validity of attained A-level grades and teacher-predicted A levels for undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes. Teacher-predicted A-level grades are a plausible proxy for the teacher-estimated grades that replaced UK examinations in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also models the likely future consequences for UK medical schools of replacing public A-level examination grades with teacher-predicted grades.DesignLongitudinal observational study using UK Medical Education Database data.SettingUK medical education and training.ParticipantsDataset 1: 81 202 medical school applicants in 2010–2018 with predicted and attained A-level grades. Dataset 2: 22 150 18-year-old medical school applicants in 2010–2014 with predicted and attained A-level grades, of whom 12 600 had medical school assessment outcomes and 1340 had postgraduate outcomes available.Outcome measuresUndergraduate and postgraduate medical examination results in relation to attained and teacher-predicted A-level results.ResultsDataset 1: teacher-predicted grades were accurate for 48.8% of A levels, overpredicted in 44.7% of cases and underpredicted in 6.5% of cases. Dataset 2: undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes correlated significantly better with attained than with teacher-predicted A-level grades. Modelling suggests that using teacher-estimated grades instead of attained grades will mean that 2020 entrants are more likely to underattain compared with previous years, 13% more gaining the equivalent of the lowest performance decile and 16% fewer reaching the equivalent of the current top decile, with knock-on effects for postgraduate training.ConclusionsThe replacement of attained A-level examination grades with teacher-estimated grades as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may result in 2020 medical school entrants having somewhat lower academic performance compared with previous years. Medical schools may need to consider additional teaching for entrants who are struggling or who might need extra support for missed aspects of A-level teaching.

Future time perspective and trust in government: The mediation of the consideration of future consequences

Evidence suggests that college students’ future-related feelings and cognition may influence their trust in government. This study aims to explore whether the association between college students’ future time perspective and trust in government is mediated through the consideration of future consequences (CFC). A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from 1,617 college students (86.6% women) aged 17 to 31 years in China via an online questionnaire. The results showed that the students’ positive, negative and confused future orientation was positively associated with their trust in government. The consideration of far- future consequences positively mediated the relationship between a positive future orientation and trust in government. These findings support the possibility to evaluate college students’ government trust level according to their future orientation, which will improve their positive political participation.

Delay Discounting and the Cost of Waiting

<p>If offered $50 now or $100 in a year, many of us will choose $50 now. This occurs because of delay discounting – the idea that reinforcers lose value over time. Individuals tend to display shallower discounting (self-controlled decision-making) in hypothetical discounting tasks, and steeper discounting (impulsive decision-making) in experiential discounting tasks. Hypothetical discounting tasks involve participants making a series of hypothetical monetary decisions (e.g. $50 now versus $100 in a year) over a range of delays. Experiential discounting tasks involve participants experiencing the delays and outcomes of their choices. A critical difference between hypothetical and experiential discounting tasks is the type of delay they use. Hypothetical discounting task delays typically involve postponing. This involves participants imagining the reward is delivered to them after the delay and that they are free to pursue other activities during the delay. Experiential task delays involve participants waiting out each delay before they receive their reward, (unable access any alternative reinforcement during the delay). Individuals discount more steeply when tested experientially than hypothetically. Experiment 1 investigated whether waiting and postponing are different discounting constructs. We achieved this via a 2 X 2 within-subjects design where both experiential and hypothetical discounting tasks had both Waiting and Postponing conditions. The hypothetical discounting task involved participants being instructed to imagine waiting for a reward after a delay (Waiting Condition), or imagine the reward would simply be delivered to them after the delay (Postponing Condition). The experiential task involved participants playing a video game that involved having to stop playing and wait for a larger number of points after a delay (Waiting Condition), or playing the game and getting the points delivered after the delay (Postponing Condition). We expected steeper discounting rates when waiting compared to postponing in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks. We found this effect only in the hypothetical task; however, this might be due to our procedure. We randomised the waiting and postponing trials in both tasks and this may have resulted in the participants being unable to discriminate between the interspersed trials. Experiment 2 investigated whether this methodological feature affected discounting in the experiential task, and we found that blocking the trials resulted in the anticipated effect. We found steeper discounting in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks for waiting compared to postponing after implementing this change, suggesting that waiting and postponing are different constructs. Experiment 3 investigated what drives the difference between waiting and postponing. We found that waiting has a greater effect on reward value than postponing due to the inability to access alternative reinforcement during the delay. We also investigated the relationships among our discounting measures and a measure of the consideration of future consequences, and a measure of delayed gratification. We found no correlation among discounting and these measures, and no consistent correlation between waiting and postponing. Overall, our results indicated that waiting and postponing are distinct constructs, and that the inability to access alternative reinforcement during a delay is the key difference between them.</p>

Delay Discounting and the Cost of Waiting

<p>If offered $50 now or $100 in a year, many of us will choose $50 now. This occurs because of delay discounting – the idea that reinforcers lose value over time. Individuals tend to display shallower discounting (self-controlled decision-making) in hypothetical discounting tasks, and steeper discounting (impulsive decision-making) in experiential discounting tasks. Hypothetical discounting tasks involve participants making a series of hypothetical monetary decisions (e.g. $50 now versus $100 in a year) over a range of delays. Experiential discounting tasks involve participants experiencing the delays and outcomes of their choices. A critical difference between hypothetical and experiential discounting tasks is the type of delay they use. Hypothetical discounting task delays typically involve postponing. This involves participants imagining the reward is delivered to them after the delay and that they are free to pursue other activities during the delay. Experiential task delays involve participants waiting out each delay before they receive their reward, (unable access any alternative reinforcement during the delay). Individuals discount more steeply when tested experientially than hypothetically. Experiment 1 investigated whether waiting and postponing are different discounting constructs. We achieved this via a 2 X 2 within-subjects design where both experiential and hypothetical discounting tasks had both Waiting and Postponing conditions. The hypothetical discounting task involved participants being instructed to imagine waiting for a reward after a delay (Waiting Condition), or imagine the reward would simply be delivered to them after the delay (Postponing Condition). The experiential task involved participants playing a video game that involved having to stop playing and wait for a larger number of points after a delay (Waiting Condition), or playing the game and getting the points delivered after the delay (Postponing Condition). We expected steeper discounting rates when waiting compared to postponing in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks. We found this effect only in the hypothetical task; however, this might be due to our procedure. We randomised the waiting and postponing trials in both tasks and this may have resulted in the participants being unable to discriminate between the interspersed trials. Experiment 2 investigated whether this methodological feature affected discounting in the experiential task, and we found that blocking the trials resulted in the anticipated effect. We found steeper discounting in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks for waiting compared to postponing after implementing this change, suggesting that waiting and postponing are different constructs. Experiment 3 investigated what drives the difference between waiting and postponing. We found that waiting has a greater effect on reward value than postponing due to the inability to access alternative reinforcement during the delay. We also investigated the relationships among our discounting measures and a measure of the consideration of future consequences, and a measure of delayed gratification. We found no correlation among discounting and these measures, and no consistent correlation between waiting and postponing. Overall, our results indicated that waiting and postponing are distinct constructs, and that the inability to access alternative reinforcement during a delay is the key difference between them.</p>

Co-created Future Scenarios as a Tool to Communicate Sustainable Development in Coastal Communities in Palawan, Philippines

Scenarios can be used to communicate potential future changes and engage and connect different audiences in exploring sustainable solutions. Communicating scenarios using creative visualisation, co-creation and a focus on local contexts are especially promising. This research is conducted on the island of Palawan in the Philippines as part of the GCRF Blue Communities project. With a quasi-experimental design, we investigate the psychological and emotional effects of the engagement with future scenarios as a tool for communicating sustainability. Together with local stakeholders and community members, three distinct, locally relevant scenario narratives (Business as Usual, Best Case, and Worst Case) have been co-created. Subsequently, a sample of N = 109 local high school students was asked to creatively engage with these scenario narratives. Intentions to engage in sustainable behaviour, perceived behavioural control, ascription of responsibility, consideration of future consequences, six basic emotions and connectedness to place were assessed before and after the activity via paper-pencil administrated questionnaires. A mixed-model analysis showed significant increases in intentions to engage in sustainable behaviour, however, this increase disappeared when consideration of future consequences was added as a covariate, suggesting a mediating effect. The level of consideration of future consequences also increased significantly after engaging with any of the future scenarios, which questions the common interpretation of consideration of future consequences as a trait variable. Perceived behavioural control significantly increased following the engagement with each of the scenarios whereas ascription of responsibility and connectedness to place did not show any changes. Overall, the two most emotion-evoking scenarios, Best Case Scenario and Worst Case Scenario, turn out as superior over the Business as Usual Scenario, which points to the relevance of emotional framing for effective messaging in our sample. This is the first systematic, quantitative assessment of the effects of future scenarios as a communication tool.