Association of Future Orientation With Violence Perpetration Among Male Youths in Low-Resource Neighborhoods | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table 1.  Characteristics of 866 Male Participants in a Study of Youth Violence
Characteristics of 866 Male Participants in a Study of Youth Violence
Table 2.  Associations Between Future Orientation and Violence Perpetration
Associations Between Future Orientation and Violence Perpetration
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Youth violence: facts at a glance. 2016; https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-datasheet.pdf.
2.
Nurmi  JE.  Development of orientation to the future during early adolescence: a four-year longitudinal study and two cross-sectional comparisons.  Int J Psychol. 1989;24(1-5):195-214. doi:10.1080/00207594.1989.10600042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Stoddard  SA, Zimmerman  MA, Bauermeister  JA.  Thinking about the future as a way to succeed in the present: a longitudinal study of future orientation and violent behaviors among African American youth.  Am J Community Psychol. 2011;48(3-4):238-246. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9383-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
DuRant  RH, Cadenhead  C, Pendergrast  RA, Slavens  G, Linder  CW.  Factors associated with the use of violence among urban black adolescents.  Am J Public Health. 1994;84(4):612-617. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.4.612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lippman  L, Moore  K, Guzman  L,  et al.  Flourishing children: defining and testing indicators of positive development. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2014. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8607-2
6.
Dahlberg  LL, Toal  SB, Swahn  MH, Behrens  CB.  Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: a compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2005.
Research Letter
September 2018

Association of Future Orientation With Violence Perpetration Among Male Youths in Low-Resource Neighborhoods

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • 2Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • 3Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • 4School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(9):877-879. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1158

Youth violence is pervasive and increases risk of injury and incarceration.1 Future orientation, defined as hopes and plans for the future, is associated with multiple prosocial outcomes, including school engagement and successful transition to adulthood.2 Research on the potentially protective role of future orientation in preventing violence perpetration is limited, and it has tended to focus narrowly on perceived life expectancy and, to a lesser extent, job aspirations.3,4 With use of a more comprehensive measure, we examined the association between future orientation and violence perpetration, including fighting and weapon-related violence, among male youths in low-resource neighborhoods.

Methods
Participants

We enrolled 866 males aged 13 to 19 years through youth-serving community agencies in 20 low-resource neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from August 2015 to June 2017, in an ongoing cluster-randomized violence prevention trial. Eligible youths were residents in intervention site neighborhoods who were willing to participate in the prevention program. Participants completed baseline in-person surveys on tablets (iPad Air; Apple) about future orientation, violence perpetration, school enrollment, and demographic characteristics. Study personnel obtained verbal participant assent (for participants 13 to 17 years of age) or consent (for participants ≥18 years of age). Data were deidentified with a secret code that was used to link survey responses to study participants. This involved answering a series of survey questions that were then combined to generate the code. The University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board approved the study with a waiver of parental permission. Participants received $10 remuneration.

Measures

Participants completed 7 future orientation questions that encompassed aspirations, goal-setting, and contribution and were operationalized on a 5-point Likert scale.5 Positive future orientation was defined as 4 = “a lot like me” or 5 = “exactly like me.” A binary summary future orientation score was defined as a mean of 4 or greater across the 7 items (Cronbach α = .93). Three validated Youth Risk Behavior Survey items6 assessed violence perpetration within the past 9 months: fighting, threatening someone with a weapon, and injuring someone with a weapon.

Statistical Analysis

Unadjusted logistic regression was used to examine associations between each future orientation item and the 3 measures of violence perpetration as well as between the summary future orientation score and perpetration outcomes. Adjusted models accounted for age, race/ethnicity, school enrollment, and caregiver educational level, because these characteristics have previously been associated with future orientation and violence perpetration.3 Analyses were conducted using Stata, version 15.0 (StataCorp).

Results

Mean participant age was 15.5 years (SD, 1.64 years), and 632 of 816 (77.5%) were black/African American (Table 1). In the previous 9 months, 66.4% (545 of 821 participants) had been in a fight, 28.6% (236 of 824 participants) had threatened someone with a weapon, and 14.7% (121 of 826 participants) had injured someone with a weapon. Four hundred eighty of 866 participants (58.3%) had a binary summary future orientation score of 1.

Having a positive future orientation was associated with significantly lower odds of threatening someone with a weapon (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92) and injuring someone with a weapon (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91) (Table 2). Placing high importance on reaching personal goals and believing in one’s ability to make a positive difference in the world were associated with significantly lower odds of threatening someone with a weapon (AOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83] and 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50-0.96], respectively) and injuring someone with a weapon (AOR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.72] and 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90], respectively). There were no significant associations between future orientation and being in a physical fight.

Discussion

Among predominantly black/African American male youths in low-resource neighborhoods, positive future orientation was associated with significantly lower odds of weapon-related violence perpetration. Building on earlier research that demonstrated inverse associations between perceived life expectancy, career aspirations, and violence perpetration,3,4 this study used a more comprehensive measure of future orientation and demonstrated inverse associations between aspirations, goal-setting, and contribution and perpetrating violence with a weapon. Limitations include a cross-sectional design that precludes assessing causation and the potential for reverse causation and unmeasured confounding.

African American male youths in low-resource urban neighborhoods bear a disproportionate burden of violence exposure and involvement.1 Identifying promotive factors is essential for designing interventions that recognize the strengths of young people and marshal those strengths to protect youth. Interventions that promote positive future orientation may be important in reducing risk of violence perpetration.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: April 3, 2018.

Corresponding Author: Alison J. Culyba, MD, PhD, MPH, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3420 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (alison.culyba@chp.edu).

Published Online: July 2, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1158

Author Contributions: Drs Culyba and Miller had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Culyba, Paglisotti, Miller.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Culyba.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Culyba, Abebe, Albert, Jones.

Obtained funding: Culyba, Miller.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Albert, Miller.

Study supervision: Miller.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grant KL2 TR001856 from the National Institutes of Health (Dr Culyba) and grant U01CE002528 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Drs Miller and Abebe).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank the many youths, community partners, parents, school administrators, and violence prevention advocates who are participating in this study.

References
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Youth violence: facts at a glance. 2016; https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-datasheet.pdf.
2.
Nurmi  JE.  Development of orientation to the future during early adolescence: a four-year longitudinal study and two cross-sectional comparisons.  Int J Psychol. 1989;24(1-5):195-214. doi:10.1080/00207594.1989.10600042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Stoddard  SA, Zimmerman  MA, Bauermeister  JA.  Thinking about the future as a way to succeed in the present: a longitudinal study of future orientation and violent behaviors among African American youth.  Am J Community Psychol. 2011;48(3-4):238-246. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9383-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
DuRant  RH, Cadenhead  C, Pendergrast  RA, Slavens  G, Linder  CW.  Factors associated with the use of violence among urban black adolescents.  Am J Public Health. 1994;84(4):612-617. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.4.612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lippman  L, Moore  K, Guzman  L,  et al.  Flourishing children: defining and testing indicators of positive development. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2014. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8607-2
6.
Dahlberg  LL, Toal  SB, Swahn  MH, Behrens  CB.  Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: a compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2005.
×