The Potential Mediating Impact of Future Orientation on the ACE–Crime Relationship

• Author: Jessica M. Craig
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204018756470
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2019, Vol. 17(2) 111-128
The Potential Mediating Impact
ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
of Future Orientation on the
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1541204018756470
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
ACE–Crime Relationship
Jessica M. Craig1
Abstract
Prior research has established that having a low future orientation is associated with offending.
Additionally, it has been found that being exposed to adverse childhood events such as physical
abuse may lower one’s future orientation and increase one’s offending likelihood. One gap in this line
of research concerns the potential mediating role of future orientation on the relationship between
trauma and offending. The current study fills this gap in the literature using a sample of adjudicated
delinquents from a large southern state. The results from the study partially support the hypotheses;
while future orientation lowers the likelihood of offending and trauma exposure increases offending
likelihood, future orientation does not appear to mediate the relationship between trauma exposure
and crime. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.
Keywords
future orientation, recidivism, adverse childhood experiences, trauma
The Joint Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Future
Orientation on Offending
Prior research from both criminology and psychology has reported that young individuals holding
low future orientation are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as crime (Brezina, Tekin, &
Topalli, 2009; Caldwell, Wiebe, & Cleveland, 2006; Gibbs & Shelly, 1982; Piquero, 2016). A
smaller, more recent set of studies have explored the potential causes of this low perception (feeling
hopeless or negative) of the future and some have reported that experiencing child abuse or other
forms of violence may decrease the individual’s future orientation (Kerig & Becker, 2010; Mon-
ahan, King, Shulman, Cauffman, & Chassin, 2015; Swisher & Warner, 2013; Warner & Swisher,
2014). Some of these studies have been limited in their methodologies, though, and none have
1 Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jessica M. Craig, Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, 410 S. Avenue C, Chilton Hall, 273 L, Denton,
TX 76203, USA.
Email: jessica.craig@unt.edu

---

112
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(2)
investigated whether ACEs may also decrease the youth’s future orientation. This is unfortunate
given the negative impact this collection of 10 adverse events are known to have on offending and
other life outcomes (Bellis, Lowey, Leckenby, Hughes, & Harrison, 2014; Felitti et al., 1998; Fox,
Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015). The current study seeks to fill this void and investigate
whether future orientation mediates the relationship between ACEs and later offending.
Using a sample of adjudicated youth sentenced to some form of community placement (such as
probation supervision) in the state of Florida, the impact of ACEs on one’s future orientation will
first be assessed. Next, the potential mediating influence of future orientation on the positive
relationship between ACEs and later recidivism will also be considered. The findings from this
study seek to inform the intervention efforts considered by practitioners and policy makers. Spe-
cifically, if the study’s findings are in agreement with prior research, then the results may suggest
that interventions should include a focus on increasing an individual’s aspirations for the future in
order to help reduce further offending and other antisocial behavior. Prior to presenting the central
analyses of the study, an overview of the literature will be presented including a discussion of the
relationship between future orientation and crime and factors that may influence one’s future
orientation. First, an outline of ACEs and their impact on crime will be offered.
ACEs and Offending
Originally identified among a sample of privately insured adults, Felitti and his colleagues (1998)
reported 10 distinct negative childhood experiences that were positively correlated with a range of
negative health outcomes such as cancer, lung disease, and early death. Referred to as ACEs, these
negative childhood events include physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect,
emotional neglect, household substance abuse, violent treatment toward mother, parental separation
or divorce, household mental illness, and having an incarcerated household member. A unique
feature of the ACEs framework is that the frequency, severity, and/or duration of each distinct event
are not considered in the overall ACE score. Instead, if an individual experienced at least one
incident of the event (i.e., one incident of sexual abuse), then they score a 1 for that ACE. The
overall count of distinct experiences is summed, so that ACE scores can range from 0 to 10. As
scholars have continued to investigate the impact of ACEs on a range of outcomes, it has been found
that these experiences are highly interrelated and have a cumulative stressor impact on an individ-
ual’s brain development (Anda, Butchart, Felitti, & Brown, 2010; Anda et al., 2006; Cicchetti, 2013;
Teicher et al., 2003).
It has been reported that while ACEs have a detrimental impact on one’s later health, they are
also associated with an increase in delinquency and serious offending (Fox et al., 2015). Using a
sample of adjudicated delinquents from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FL DJJ), it has
been found that youth with more ACEs also have a higher risk of rearrest and have a shorter period
of time to rearrest than their counterparts (Wolff, Baglivio, & Piquero, 2015). Further, justice-
involved youth, particularly those from disadvantaged environments, are more likely to have
experienced these forms of trauma and abuse than those in the general population (Baglivio &
Epps, 2015; Baglivio, Wolff, Epps, & Nelson, 2015; Kerig et al., 2010). In sum, trauma-exposed
youth are more likely than their peers to experience a wide range of negative outcomes later in life,
ranging from involvement with the criminal justice system and deleterious health consequences.
However, what is less known, particularly with regard to the relationship between ACEs and
offending, are potential explanations for this relationship. It has yet to be investigated the impact
of these specific traumatic exposures on one’s later future orientation, a factor that is known to be
associated with offending.

---

Craig
113
Future Orientation and Offending
Future orientation, conceptualized as “the degree to which individuals possess positive attitudes
toward their futures” (Robbins & Bryan, 2004, p. 430), has been found to be associated with criminal
behavior and other risky acts in a wide range of samples (Caldwell et al., 2006; DuRant, Cadenhead,
Pendergrast, Slavens, & Linder, 1994; Robbins & Bryan, 2004). Specifically, it has been reported in
both qualitative and quantitative studies that individuals with lower future orientations who do not
think much of the future or perhaps believe they will die young are more likely to commit crimes
than those with higher degrees of future orientation (Brezina et al., 2009; Gibbs & Shelly, 1982;
Piquero, 2016). This is not unexpected given the arguments of both rational choice (Nagin &
Paternoster, 1993) and self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) theories. The arguments of the
rational choice theory are well portrayed in interviews that Gibbs and Shelly (1982) conducted with
a sample of commercial thieves. They found these men tended to possess a fatalistic attitude where
they, strongly believing they would one day get caught for their crimes, lived for the present. If one
does not hold much certainty for the future, an offender’s hedonistic calculus would suggest to enjoy
each day as they come without planning for the future (see also Brezina et al., 2009). Likewise, based
upon the general theory of crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) posit that one’s ability to plan for
the future composes one element of an individual’s self-control. If an individual is more oriented
toward immediate gratification as opposed to not putting one’s future at risk, then they will be
inclined to act upon their impulses and potentially engage in criminal behavior.1
As scholars from both psychology and criminology have assessed the relationship between future
orientation and antisocial behavior, a wide range of various operationalizations have been used. In
general, these can be separated into two groups: those that measure perceptions of an early death
(Brezina et al., 2009; Caldwell et al., 2006; DuRant et al., 1994; Piquero, 2016) and those that use a
personality inventory such as the Future Outlook Inventory (Kruger et al., 2015; Monahan, Stein-
berg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2009, 2013). Despite these separate strategies, they all suggest that those
with lower future orientation are more likely to offend than those with higher future orientation.
For instance, Caldwell, Wiebe, and Cleveland’s (2006) measure of future orientation relied upon
participants’ responses to a number of different indicators including the likelihood of living to 35,
being killed by 21, and being diagnosed with HIV/AIDs. Using an African American subsample of
Wave I Add Health respondents, the researchers reported that after controlling for a number of
different neighborhood, economic, and family actors, those who had lower future orientation were...