What Lies Ahead
| DOI | 10.1177/0734016813501193 |
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
| Author | Samantha S. Clinkinbeard |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminal Justice Review
2014, Vol. 39(1) 19-36
What Lies Ahead:
ª 2013 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
An Exploration of Future
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016813501193
cjr.sagepub.com
Orientation, Self-Control,
and Delinquency
Samantha S. Clinkinbeard1
Abstract
Self-control has been consistently linked to antisocial behavior and though low self-control makes
delinquency more likely, neither the findings nor the theory suggests that low self-control necessi-
tates participation in such behavior. There remains a shortage of research on those situational
factors or individual characteristics that might lessen the effects of low self-control on antisocial
behavior. Future orientation is one such characteristic that can have implications for the control
of behavior. The purpose of the current study was to explore the independent and interactive
effects of future orientation and low self-control on delinquency using data from Wave 1 of the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. A series of regressions showed that self-
control and future orientation had independent effects on delinquent behavior. Further, future-
oriented achievement expectations conditioned the effect of self-control on delinquency such that
the effects of self-control were weakened with increases in future orientation. The findings suggest
that prevention programs should place more emphasis on helping youth plan for the future. Further,
research should more fully explore the other aspects of future orientation (e.g., specificity of plan-
ning and change/stability of aspirations), as they relate to self-control and delinquency.
Keywords
self-control, delinquency, future orientation, educational expectations, motivation
Introduction
Delinquency, as described by the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), tends to be
motivated solely by egoistic desires such as pleasure and thrill seeking. Persons who participate in
delinquency are believed to have low self-control and share tendencies such as a ‘‘here and now’’
orientation and an inability to defer gratification. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990),
1 School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA
Corresponding Author:
Samantha S. Clinkinbeard, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge St,
Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
Email: sclinkinbeard@unomaha.edu
20
Criminal Justice Review 39(1)
those prone to delinquency are not likely to think much about the future or have the patience or tena-
city to work toward achieving future goals. Though there is a lack of direct evidence linking the
criminological construct of self-control to future-oriented thinking (Silver & Ulmer, 2012), a few
studies do note a negative relationship between impulsivity (a major component of self-control) and
future orientation (Oyserman & Saltz, 1993; Robbins & Bryan, 2004; Steinberg et al., 2009). Fur-
ther, there is some evidence that delinquent offenders tend to score lower than non-offenders on
measures of future orientation (Oyserman & Markus, 1990a; Oyserman & Saltz, 1993; Trommsdorff
& Lamm, 1980). This evidence, however, does not dictate that adolescents who participate in delin-
quency are completely devoid of orientation toward the future. In fact, many youthful offenders do
indeed report conventional expectations about education, jobs, and personal relationships (Clinkin-
beard & Murray, 2012; Clinkinbeard & Zohra, 2012).
Although it is likely that low levels of orientation toward the future often coexist with low self-
control, one is not necessarily a defining element of the other (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev,
1993; Steinberg et al., 2009). Psychological research tells us that human beings are complex crea-
tures and it is quite common for people to have contradictory traits, beliefs, and attitudes (Donahue
& Harary, 1998; Festinger, 1957; Hampson, 1998). Although one may hypothesize that persons with
low self-control, as a group, will be less oriented to the future than those with high self-control, it is
still quite possible for individuals to have low self-control and to simultaneously generate expecta-
tions, aspirations, and fears about the future. Further, there is reason to believe that such expectations
may serve as protection against the negative outcomes associated with low self-control. Specifically,
future-oriented beliefs and expectations could serve as motivational capital (Clinkinbeard & Zohra,
2012) against low self-control tendencies (i.e., thoughts about the future serve as motivation to avoid
delinquency and exercise self-control even if it is not one’s general tendency to do so; Silver &
Ulmer, 2012).
The current study is an investigation of future orientation, as it relates to self-control and delin-
quent behavior among adolescents. More specifically, the analysis focuses on three questions
regarding these relationships. First, do youth with lower levels of self-control tend to have lower
levels of future orientation, as suggested by the general theory of crime? Second, do self-control and
future orientation each have unique contributions to the explanation of delinquent behavior? Finally,
can a healthy orientation toward the future serve as protection against delinquency among those with
low levels of self-control? The literature review that follows includes a brief overview of the future
orientation and self-control concepts and their relationships to delinquency, followed by a short
discussion of future orientation and its relationship to current behavior.
Future Orientation, Self-Control, and Delinquency
Future orientation is an umbrella term (Steinberg et al., 2009) that captures a wide range of social
psychological and developmental designations that have been conceptualized and measured in
a number of different ways (Greene & DeBacker, 2004). Future orientation can include expectations
and aspirations, possible selves, future time perspective, and strategy generation, among others.
When measuring future orientation, researchers may focus on the extent to which one actually con-
siders the future, how far into the future one extends his or her thinking, the perceived likelihood of
achievement, completeness of planning (e.g., are expectations linked to strategies), balance between
hopes and fears, salience, and so on. In the current study, future orientation is conceptualized as the
extent to which one desires and expects positive future selves.
Self-control was first defined in the criminological literature as the ‘‘relatively stable differences
across individuals in the propensity to commit criminal (or equivalent) acts’’ (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990, p. 137) and then later redefined as differences in the ‘‘tendency to consider the
full range of potential costs of a particular act’’ (Hirschi, 2004, p. 543). Persons who are low in
Clinkinbeard
21
self-control are generally self-interested and tend to share a number of characteristics such as
inability to defer gratification, a lack of tenacity, an adventuress nature, and minimal tolerance for
frustration. According to theory and research, low self-control is a result of ineffective parenting
early in life (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004; Unnever,
Cullen, & Pratt, 2003). Self-control (low or high) was initially hypothesized to crystallize by ages
10–12 with relatively little change throughout the remainder of life (Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, &
Vaughn, 2008; Piquero et al., 2010), though recent research has questioned the stability assumption
(Hay & Forrest, 2006; Na & Paternoster, 2012). Finally, a few researchers have highlighted an
important distinction between one’s capacity for self-control and the desire to exercise it (Cochran,
Aleksa, & Chamlin, 2006; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2004).
Though the relationship between low self-control and future-oriented thinking may not be expli-
cit, there are certainly assumptions made in the literature. One of the components of low self-control,
as described by Gottfredson and Hirshi (1990), is a ‘‘here and now’’ orientation accompanied by an
inability to defer gratification. The redefined self-control (Hirschi, 2004) goes a bit further, suggest-
ing that persons low in self-control do not consider all of the consequences of their behavior. Though
these definitions and discussions certainly imply that persons with low self-control have trouble
anticipating consequences and modulating their behavior toward the future, it does not necessarily
follow that persons low in self-control never think, dream, or worry about the future. More impor-
tant, this assumption has never been explored empirically (Silver & Ulmer, 2012).
Both self-control and future orientation have been linked to delinquency though self-control is far
more frequently studied in criminology. Though self-control may not be quite as powerful as initially
suggested, it has certainly garnered evidence as a consistent predictor of crime and delinquency (see
Piquero et al., 2010; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Low self-control has been associated with problematic
drinking and substance use, property crime, dating violence (both psychological and physical), and
other types of violent crime, as well as offender noncompliance (Baker, 2010; Conner, Stein, &
Longshore, 2009; Desmond, Bruce, & Stacer, 2012; Gover, Jennings, Tomsich, Park, & Rennison,
2011). With regard to future orientation, there is a small body of work, primarily in...
To continue reading
Request your trial