Thank you for your interest in the Pragmatic Prospection Scale!
Our lab developed the PPS to address the need for a high-quality measure of prospection as a constructive form of future-focused thinking. Other measures of future thinking focus on unconstructive thoughts (e.g., worry1, hopelessness2) or assess a general tendency to think about the future without determining whether the thoughts are constructive.3-4 Those measures fail to capture prospection as an adaptive capacity to imagine, and then take steps to bring about, one’s desired future.5-6
To address this gap, we developed a new self-report measure of pragmatic prospection. Pragmatic prospection involves thinking about the future in practical ways that aid in identifying, pursuing, and achieving desired outcomes. Guided by theoretical accounts of the construct,7-8 we wrote a large, initial item pool assessing all proposed facets of pragmatic prospection. After several rounds of pilot testing and refinement, we administered a final pool of 74 items to two large, independent samples, one consisting of U.S. employees recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, the other comprising undergraduate students recruited from the University of Pennsylvania. We performed analyses in parallel across the two samples, including item analysis, scale and subscale reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using both traditional and bifactor models.
Based on the results of those analyses as well as theoretical considerations of content validity and coverage, we selected the best items from the 74-item pool to form the final 18-item scale. The scale includes four reliable subscales that emerged in both samples. Model fit was excellent and provided support for calculating both a total score and subscale scores, given evidence for a hierarchical structure in which the subscales loaded robustly on, yet accounted for substantial variance beyond, the overall factor. Finally, debriefing questions administered along with the PPS indicated that both samples found the scale clear, easy to use, and consistent with how they typically think about and plan for the future.
We subsequently carried out a series of three validation studies with undergraduate samples. Those studies provided evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the PPS. As expected, PPS scores were positively associated with adaptive outcomes (e.g., well-being, flourishing) and negatively associated with maladaptive outcomes (e.g., procrastination, anxiety), assessed both concurrently and prospectively. PPS scores also predicted behavioral responses to a novel writing task that probed people’s thoughts about their desired future. In a separate validation study with a sample of over one thousand U.S. workers, PPS scores correlated with positive life and workplace outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, work productivity) and with other adaptive traits (e.g., cognitive flexibility, conscientiousness).
Taken together, these findings suggest that the PPS is a psychometrically promising measure that is relevant to adults from diverse backgrounds. We are currently writing up these results for publication, but if you would like to use the scale in the meantime, please use the following citation:
Ruscio, A. M., Khazanov, G. K., Reece, A., & Kellerman, G. (2023). Development and validation of the Pragmatic Prospection Scale, a measure of constructive future thinking. Manuscript in preparation.
The scale is linked below, along with preliminary psychometric results:
Pragmatic Prospection Scale (including scoring instructions)
Item content and reliability of the PPS subscales
Conference presentation: Development of the PPS
Taylor, M. E., Tsao, V., Zoupou, E., Gibson, C. L., Weingarten, J. P., Coetzee, G. S., Cohen, D. E., Taylor, K. C., & Ruscio, A. M. (2019, November). Development of the Pragmatic Prospection Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Atlanta, GA.
Conference presentation: Mental health correlates of the PPS
Sharetts, R., Schell, T., Laver, A., Adams, A., & Ruscio, A. M. (2020, November). Mental health correlates of pragmatic prospection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies.
We hope the PPS is helpful for your work. If you include the scale in your research, please let us know—we would love to hear about your findings!
References
1Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
2Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(6), 861-865. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037562
3Shipp, A. J, Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. L. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001
4Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual‐differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271‐1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
5Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317(5843), 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161
6Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317
7Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why people think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000060
8Baumeister, R. F., Maranges, H. M., & Sjåstad, H. (2018). Consciousness of the future as a matrix of maybe: Pragmatic prospection and the simulation of alternative possibilities. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154