Abstract
Developmental theories and previous research suggest that individuals do not develop separately from their environments. Yet, limited information is known about how ecological influences specifically shape early adolescents’ development. To address this, the current study examined environmental influences on early adolescents’ future orientation development. Leveraging a linear regression analysis, the current study investigated how 3,570 fifth-grade students’ exposure to school and neighborhood disorder shapes their future orientations. This study hypothesized that students’ exposure to school and neighborhood disorder would detrimentally influence their future orientations; however, the results demonstrated mixed findings. While students’ exposure to school disorder positively influenced their future orientations, their exposure to neighborhood disorder had the inverse effect. In addition, early adolescents’ future orientations were not influenced by the interaction between neighborhood and school disorder. The findings suggest that scholars should further explore mechanisms or moderators to understand the discrepancy between previous work and theory.
Keywords
Introduction
Future orientation scholars have extensively examined the developmental impact of future-oriented thinking during adolescence (Call et al., 2002; Nurmi, 1989). Adolescents who think about, prepare for, and execute future goals display greater health outcomes, academic performance, and career opportunities in adulthood than non-future-oriented individuals (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Seginer, 2008, 2009; So et al., 2018; Stoddard et al., 2011). Similarly, those who hold more positive attitudes toward their futures regularly explore their post-secondary options (Seginer, 2008; Seginer et al., 2004), make more future-conscious decisions (Aronowitz, 2005; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Oyserman & Horowitz, 2023; Seginer, 2008; So et al., 2018), have greater behavioral regulation, and engage in fewer destructive activities, such as substance use, early sexual engagement, and criminal mischief (Animosa et al., 2018; Borowsky et al., 2009; Gushue & Whitson, 2006; Seginer, 2009; Steinberg, 2008).
Scholars have also explored how individual and socio-cognitive factors influence adolescent future orientation, including race (W. T. Brown & Jones, 2004; Stoddard et al., 2011), gender (Borowsky et al., 2009; Levinson & Ohler, 1998; Seginer, 2009; Vondracek, 2001), socioeconomic status (Borowsky et al., 2009; Guthrie et al., 2009; Nurmi, 1987; Steinberg et al., 2009), educational factors like individual achievement (Borowsky et al., 2009; Davis & Niebes-Davis, 2010; Jamieson & Romer, 2008) and parental education status (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2009; Seginer et al., 2004), relational factors, such as peer and teacher relationships (Iovu, 2014; A. M. Ryan et al., 2019; So et al., 2018), and self-attributing factors like individual self-beliefs (Bandura, 1994; Germeijs & Verschueren, 2009; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Seaton et al., 2009; Seginer et al., 2004). Although researchers have demonstrated that these demographical, educational, and relational variables correlate with and predict future orientation, evidence suggests that other underlying factors, including environmental context, might also be associated with and play a role in shaping adolescents’ future orientations (Dupéré et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Shobe & Page-Adams, 2001).
Ecological frameworks suggest that individuals develop in dynamic systems of interaction that directly influence their development (Brofenbrenner, 1979; Ford & Lerner, 1992). These interactions are particularly important for young individuals learning to navigate their social and environmental contexts during adolescence (Brofenbrenner, 1979; Ford & Lerner, 1992). Despite the ecological influences on adolescent development, very little is known about how young people’s interactions and experiences in their immediate environments (e.g., schools and neighborhoods) influence their thinking about themselves and their futures. This paper seeks to fill this gap by investigating how early adolescents’ perceptions of their school and neighborhood conditions, in relation to other individual and ecological factors, shape their future thinking. Examining the relationship between youths’ perceptions of their environments and future orientation using self-reported data can provide deeper insights into early adolescents’ environmental experiences and how they influence their developmental processes and journeys toward adulthood.
Literature Review
Future Orientation and Environmental Factors
Previous research suggests that an individual’s environmental experiences can influence their development, life chances, and paths to adulthood (Dupéré et al., 2012; Eccles & Roeser, 2010, 2011; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Samblanet, 2014; Shobe & Page-Adams, 2001; R. Spencer, 2006; Witherspoon et al., 2018). Young people’s early environmental experiences are rooted in their schools and neighborhoods, which can significantly influence their cognitive, physical, and social development (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014). The developmental changes youth experience within these settings are likely determined by the qualities and characteristics of the environments themselves (Bronfenbenner, 1999; Eccles & Roeser, 2010, 2011; Greenfield, 2009). Thus, conditions of both schools and neighborhoods are particularly important for early adolescents developing within their confines as they could have lasting long-term effects on their academic performance, engagement in risk behaviors, prosocial behavior, and of particular interest, future orientations (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996; Behnke et al., 2011; Chapman, 2005; Elliott et al., 1996; Molnar et al., 2004; Roosa et al., 2005; Vartanian & Houser, 2010; Wodtke et al., 2011). Factors within school and neighborhood contexts can support youths’ development; however, environments lacking resources, structural and environmental safety, stability, or social cohesion can be detrimental to adolescents’ development and future orientation (Samblanet, 2014; Witherspoon et al., 2018).
Given that adolescents’ developmental advancement is largely environment-dependent (Bronfenbenner, 1999; Eccles & Roeser, 2010, 2011; Greenfield, 2009), it is reasonable to expect that young people’s exposure to—and perceptions of—disordered environments may adversely impact their development and derail them from achieving their envisioned futures (Aronowitz, 2005). The following literature suggests why disorder within the school and neighborhood environment may be particularly influential for early adolescents’ future orientations (Eccles & Roeser, 2010, 2011; Hill et al., 2018; Samblanet, 2014).
School Disorder
School disorder, the physical and social conditions of a school that elicit challenging learning environments, has been associated with students’ underachievement (Chen, 2007), dropout decisions (Daly et al., 2008; Peguero et al., 2019), school commitment (Cavendish, 2013), and other developmental outcomes (Leventhal, 2018; Sharkey & Faber, 2014; Minh et al., 2017). School disorder often occurs within school settings that are violent, disruptive, and dysfunctional (Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Kozol, 2005, 2012; Lo et al., 2011; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Wang & Dishion, 2012). Research examining the effect of the school environments on student outcomes has used objective and subjective measures of school disorder, including student, teacher, and administrator perceptions of disorder, school-based incidents reported to police, school security responses to disorder, student and teacher self-reported victimization, student fear and avoidance behaviors, and student misbehavior (Elliott et al., 1998; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Kaufman et al., 2000; Lawrence, 1998; Welsh, 2000, 2001).
Previous studies using subjective and objective measures consistently suggest that when such indicators of school disorder are prevalent, secondary school environments become more about survival and less about learning, enrichment, or future preparation, ultimately compromising students’ academic performance, capacity for learning, and safety (Barnes et al., 2006; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016; Morrison, 2001; Peguero et al., 2019; Welsh, 2003). Scholars also found that school disorder was related to student delinquency, depression, poor cognitive functioning, and diminished academic motivation (Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Kozol, 2005, 2012; Lo et al., 2011; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Wang & Dishion, 2012). While scholars have not directly explored the relationship between school disorder and future orientation among early adolescents, existing research leveraging both objective and subjective measures suggests that the conditions of the school environment can influence one’s behavior and future thinking (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Samblanet, 2014). School disorder can contribute to students feeling stuck and discouraged in school, crippling their abilities to navigate problems, pursue educational and future goals, and obtain academic success (Youth Development Executives of King County, 2011); these outcomes negatively affect expectations, classroom learning engagement, and academic progress (Chen, 2007; Peguero & Bracy, 2015). The association between disordered school environments and negative academic and developmental outcomes supports the proposition that disorderly schools may also negatively affect students’ future-focused behaviors and thinking.
Hurd et al. (2018) empirically explored the link between school disorder and students’ future preparedness, as moderated by supportive school figures. Their findings suggest that students were less influenced by school disorder and more willing to explore their futures when there was a presence of helpful mentors, teachers, and peers within their school environments. This is particularly important because as students engage in their school environments, they not only interact with the physical environment but also engage with individuals like teachers and peers who equally contribute to their development (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014, 2016; Nurmi, 1991; Samblanet, 2014; M. B. Spencer et al., 1997). Hurd et al.’s study provides important insights into the supportive role school figures can play in the presence of school disorder; however, given that the study examined the relationship between school disorder as part of a larger school climate variable and future expectations as an outcome variable, more investigation is needed to understand the relationship between school disorder and future orientation, particularly during students’ early adolescent years. The current study leverages the importance of peer and teacher relationships and, more specifically, investigates the relationship between youths’ perceptions of disorder and their future orientation.
Neighborhood Disorder
Neighborhood disorder is commonly referred to as the observed and perceived physical and social features of neighborhoods that may signal the breakdown of order and social control and undermine the quality of life (Ndjila et al., 2019). Neighborhood disorder is a well-represented and studied construct in the literature, especially its relationship to adolescent developmental outcomes (J. Brown et al., 2019; R. E. Lee & Cubbin, 2002; Molnar et al., 2004; Spilsbury et al., 2006). Through years of empirical studies and analyses, scholars have found that adolescents’ exposure to disordered neighborhoods can cause environmental risks that diminish their academic, emotional, psychological, and physical development (Coley et al., 2013; Popkin et al., 2004; Smart et al., 2021; Teixeria et al., 2020; Weitzman et al., 2013). Researchers have echoed this finding and shown that chronic exposure to neighborhood disorder is associated with poor academic functioning, performance, and school behavior (Bowen & Bowen, 1999; Daly et al., 2008). Despite the recognized risks of being exposed to disordered neighborhoods impacting adolescents’ holistic development, the precise influence of one’s perception of neighborhood disorder on their future orientation remains unclear. This construct may either hinder or support their transition into adulthood.
Previous research suggests that youths’ perceptions of their opportunities, agency, and future outcomes are influenced by their environmental conditions (Samblanet, 2014). Youths formulate ideas about their future based partially on the contexts in which they develop (Samblanet, 2014). Markus and Nurius’ (1986) work on possible selves supports this claim and expresses that an individual’s neighborhood conditions likely relate to how they see their future and imagine their possible selves. Shobe and Page-Adams (2001) similarly suggested that a person’s “view of the future [may be] shaped by the neighborhood environments in which they interact” (p. 119). Youths’ neighborhood experiences also inform their perceptions of control.
“Neighborhoods shape opportunities for experiences of control, predictability, and safety” (Dupéré et al., 2012, p. 183). If those contexts include a significant amount of observed physical or social neighborhood disorder, youth may feel physically and psychologically unsafe (Falkenburger et al., 2018) and assume that their futures are as equally disadvantaged or constrained as the investment, control, and care in their neighborhood environments (Samblanet, 2014). Luthar (1999) and Osai (2016) offered potential explanations for these assertions; they proposed that when young individuals perceive a lack of opportunities in their surroundings, they may conform to the limited options available while resisting what could be attainable.
Exposure to disordered neighborhoods may also be linked to the onset of early substance use, which has negative implications for adolescent development and often elicits more risky adolescent behaviors, such as early sexual engagement and gang affiliation that can disrupt future-oriented opportunities and thinking (Karriker-Jaffee et al., 2012; Rosenfeld et al., 2006). Drawing from the findings of related studies exploring neighborhood disorder and negative developmental outcomes, it is likely that future orientation is negatively associated with neighborhood risks. Such claims motivated this study’s exploration of the relationship between youths’ perception of neighborhood disorder and future orientation (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Samblanet, 2014).
School and Neighborhood Disorder
An individual’s future orientation may be further impacted by multiple environmental influences, such as exposure to disorder in both school and neighborhood contexts. Understanding the combined influence of neighborhood and school disorder is essential for supporting adolescent and future orientation development. However, to our knowledge, only one study has investigated the relationships between school and neighborhood disorder and adolescent outcomes. Smart et al. (2021) examined the connection between the school neighborhood and differences in adolescent academic outcomes, filling a gap in the relatively unexplored area of how school neighborhoods influence academic outcomes. The findings suggest that the school neighborhood may impact academic achievement and complement previous research showing that the characteristics of one’s neighborhood of residence, such as structural disadvantage, can impact school performance (Galster et al., 2016; Minh et al., 2017; Sharkey & Faber, 2014). Although not directly examined, their findings suggest that exposure to both school and neighborhood disorder may have exacerbating effects on future orientation. Their findings also imply that unique dynamics are at play in both contexts that may negatively contribute to adolescents’ developmental experiences.
Research on chronic environmental stressors provides insight into the adverse effects of adolescents exposed to multiple stressors (Aronowitz, 2005; Samblanet, 2014). Evans and Stecker (2004) highlighted that exposure to multiple stressors is linked to performance depletion, a lack of persistence, and learned helplessness. Similarly, persistent exposure to stressors like school and neighborhood disorder increases the likelihood of risky behaviors (Currie et al., 2000; Peguero & Bracy, 2015). This impedes adolescents’ ability to engage in education and future-oriented opportunities, work productively, and handle adult responsibilities (Garbarino et al., 1997; Richardson & Colfer, 1990). The compounding effect occurs because the school and neighborhood environments are not isolated. For instance, students from neighborhoods with high crime rates or social instability may bring these stressors to school, affecting their ability to concentrate and learn. In turn, a school with academic problems, violence, or disorder can deter families, potentially worsening neighborhood conditions. This interplay intensifies the negative impact, creating a cumulative burden on adolescents and showing that these effects are not just the sum of individual stressors but an intricate interaction that magnifies their adverse consequences.
Leveraging a multi-context approach could “provide a more comprehensive perspective on the variation in the social ecology of [their] environment than the use of a single measure or indicator alone” (Elliott et al., 1996, p. 392). It could also offer richer insight into how dimensions of adolescents’ school and neighborhood contexts become salient and affect their developmental processes, like future orientation development and adulthood transition (Sharkey & Faber, 2014). Findings from previous studies reinforce the potential relationship between both school and neighborhood disorder and future orientation. They also allude to the necessity of exploring the interaction between school and neighborhood disorder and their potential influence on future orientation. As such, this work investigates the joint effects of school and neighborhood disorder and their interaction on future orientation development, a unique contribution of this study.
Conceptual Framework
Developmental systems theory (DST) provides a rich framework to understand the potential relationship between an adolescent’s exposure to school and neighborhood disorder and their future orientation development. DST “positions human development in relational and contextual space” (Benson et al., 2006, p. 903) and suggests that one’s development is deeply rooted in their contextual interactions. Like Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory (EST), which examines human development within ecological contexts, DST offers a dynamic and interactive positioning that provides a more nuanced understanding of the iterative, transformative, and ongoing nature of the developmental process (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Unlike traditional approaches to behavioral development built on dichotomous thinking, DST narrows in on three dimensions that are distinct and interconnected: (a) the individual, (b) the context in which the individual is embedded, and (c) the interaction between the individual and context (Ford & Lerner, 1992; Lerner & Castellino, 2002).
Within the context of DST, it is also important to consider the role of perception. Future orientation is a natural part of adolescent development with influences at both the individual and contextual levels, as predicted by DST. Given this understanding, it is likely that adolescents’ contextual and individual factors interact to influence the development of their future orientations. Bronfenbrenner (1979) supported this notion with his claim that “what is perceived, desired, feared, thought about, or acquired as knowledge, and how the nature of this psychological material changes is a function of a person’s exposure to and interaction with their environment” (p. 9). This study explores how early adolescents’ future orientation is linked to their perceived exposure to school and neighborhood disorder, along with individual characteristics like race, gender, and positive self-perception. Recognizing perception as a vital element in the developmental system underscores the dynamic interplay between environmental factors and individual experiences in shaping future orientation.
Research Question and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to better understand how environmental factors contribute to the development of early adolescents’ future orientations. More specifically, this study seeks to explore how adolescents’ perception of both school and neighborhood disorder predict their future orientations while also considering ecological factors like peer and teacher relationships and individual factors such as gender, race, and positive self-perception. To better understand the associations between adolescents’ future orientations and the joint effects of school and neighborhood disorder and their interaction, we employ a cluster regression analysis.
Our hypotheses are grounded in extant research, illuminating the potential relationship between adolescents’ perception of environmental disorder and future orientation. We postulate that early adolescents’ perception of school disorder will exert a detrimental influence on their future orientations, aligning with prior investigations (Barnes et al., 2006; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016; Morrison, 2001; Peguero et al., 2019; Welsh, 2003). Similarly, we hypothesize that early adolescents’ perception of neighborhood disorder will also adversely affect their future orientations (Dupéré et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Samblanet, 2014). For early adolescents who report exposure to both school and neighborhood disorder, we posit that these young people will have lower future orientations than those not exposed to disorder or those exposed to disorder in one context (Aronowitz, 2005; Elliott et al., 1996; Sharkey & Faber, 2014; Smart et al., 2021).
Additionally, peer/student and teacher relationships are critical factors within the school environment. Previous researchers have called attention to the critical role that peers play in shaping students’ future orientation (Iovu, 2014; A. M. Ryan et al., 2019; So et al., 2018), particularly during early adolescence, when young people begin forming peer relationships (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; A. M. Ryan et al., 2019). Thus, we anticipate that students with positive peer relationships within the school context will also have higher future orientations than their peers with poor student-and-teacher relationships. Supportive school figures, such as teachers and counselors, offer valuable advice, help adolescents navigate stressors and resources, and prepare them for their post-secondary futures (Hurd et al., 2018). As such, we hypothesize that students with positive teacher relationships will also report having more positive future orientations.
Although the focus of this study is on the effect of school and neighborhood disorder on adolescents’ future orientation, we account for and include several other factors that may also contribute to future orientation in our analyses. For example, youth with positive self-perceptions tend to have higher motivation to engage in future-seeking behaviors than their counterparts (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2009; Seginer et al., 2004). Therefore, we posit that early adolescents with positive perceptions of themselves will also have more positive future orientations (Bandura, 1994; Seaton et al., 2009). Previous research has underscored how educational factors such as individual achievement and parental education status influence adolescents’ future orientation (Borowsky et al., 2009; Davis & Niebes-Davis, 2010; Jamieson & Romer, 2008); thus, we account for this in our analyses. Finally, we include gender, race, and school site as control variables and make no predictions regarding their relationships with future orientation.
Data and Methods
Data
This study utilizes data from the Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) and School Safety Research Project, a larger intervention study seeking to reduce violence and create supportive and healthy school and neighborhood environments for youth and community members to thrive. Students attended 20 schools from a Midwestern District with similar standardized achievement levels (i.e., 62%–74% meeting state standards), demographics, and student body populations. All participating school students were given the opportunity to complete the survey unless they declined participation or their parents opted them out of the 45-min self-report survey administered during class time. Data collection commenced only after participants and families fully understood and accepted the participant information sheet and completed study consent forms denoting their voluntary participation. Survey data were gathered in the fall and spring of the 2017 to 2018 school years through repeated cross-sections. Each wave involved different fourth- to sixth-grade students, representing a diverse range of racial/ethnic groups and ages (10–12 years old). At the request of participating schools, the study team did not collect individual student identifiers; thus, although all students were eligible to complete surveys at each wave of data collection, it was not possible to link individual participant responses across time.
This study utilized fall 2018 data from fifth-grade classrooms, representing our most recent data collection. This period aligns with the developmental phase, where youth undergo secondary transitions, gaining more agency and autonomy in navigating their school, teacher, and peer contexts. Fifth grade is also a critical time for students to develop future orientations and prepare for their adulthood pathways (Nurmi, 1989, 1991). Utilizing such data increased the likelihood of observing the effects under study. Survey participants (n = 3570) were included if they responded to the main study variables, constituting less than 10% of the original sample. Given that most of the sample was included, missingness did not influence the findings. The sample had the following racial/ethnic composition: African American (31%), the largest ethnic-racial group, European American (33%), Hispanic (4%), American Indian (8%), Asian (1%), Mixed Race (10%), and non-reported (13%). Within the sample, most students were 10 years of age (70%), with the others representing 11 (25%) and 12 (5%) years of age. Of the students included, respondents are 49% female and reported living in the Midwest region.
Measures
Dependent Variable
Future Orientation
Future orientation was measured using 15 items from Wyman et al.’s (1993) scale, which captured participants’ thoughts on their future, including life goals, purpose, life challenges, and future expectations. Example items include: “I have clear goals for my life” and “I will be able to handle the problems that might come up in my life.” Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = .932). Items were averaged with higher scores indicating more positive thoughts toward the future.
Predictor Variables
Perception of School Disorder
Six items from Esbensen et al.’s (2009) Environmental Conditions Scale were used to assess participants’ perceptions of the physical and social environmental conditions of their school. Participants responded to questions about the quality of buildings and violence in their schools to determine the level of perceived school disorder (e.g., “Places in your school where some students are afraid to go” and “Having things stolen at school”). Response options included 1 (not a problem), 2 (somewhat of a problem), or 3 (a big problem), which showed good reliability for the sample (α = .783). Items were averaged with higher scores indicating a greater perception of school disorder.
Perception of Neighborhood Disorder
Six items from Esbensen et al.’s (2009) Environmental Conditions Scale were used to assess participants’ perceptions of the environmental conditions of their neighborhood. Items assessed both the physical and social aspects of neighborhoods to capture the extent to which the participants perceived their neighborhood as disordered (e.g., “Run-down or poorly kept buildings in your neighborhood” and “Hearing gunshots in your neighborhood”). Response options included 1 (not a problem), 2 (somewhat of a problem), or 3 (a big problem), which showed good reliability for the sample (α = .861). Items were averaged with higher scores indicating more pronounced neighborhood disorder.
Student Relationships
Student relationships were assessed using an adapted scale from the San Francisco Unified School District’s Restorative Practices Whole-School Implementation Guide (Berkowitz, 2017). This six-item scale examined students’ relations with their peers, with specific emphasis on cultural learning and willingness to get to know other students (e.g., “Students get along with other students” and “Students get to know other students during class”). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were averaged with higher scores reflecting stronger student relationships (α = .686).
Student-Teacher Relationships
Student-teacher relationships were evaluated using five items from the San Francisco Unified School District’s Restorative Practices Whole-School Implementation Guide (e.g., “Students and teachers/school staff speak respectfully with one another”; Berkowitz, 2017). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), which showed good reliability for the sample. Items were averaged with higher scores indicating strong student-teacher relationships (α = .80).
Positive Self-Perception
Students’ positive self-perception was assessed using Esbensen et al.’s (2009) four-item scale. Sample items include “I am thought of as a good student” and “I am generally honest and tell the truth.” Surveyors provided responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), which showed good reliability for the sample (α = .841). Items were averaged with higher scores indicating more positive self-perception.
Control Variables
As mentioned in the literature review, previous studies have found that individual characteristics and parent educational background are associated with youth future orientations. Thus, we controlled for student race/ethnicity, gender, grades, parent education, and school sites in these analyses.
Race/Ethnicity
Respondents were asked to select any racial/ethnic groups that represented their racial/ethnic membership (forced-choice): (a) White/not Hispanic, (b) Black/African American, (c) Hispanic, (d) American Indian/Native American, (e) Asian/Pacific Islander, (f) Other (specify). For analysis, participants who selected more than one response were coded as multiracial. Dummy codes were created with “White/not Hispanic” as the reference condition.
Gender
Students were asked to self-report their gender identity as female and male. Students did not have gender non-conforming or non-binary options but could elect to skip this question. For analysis, gender was coded female = 0 and male = 1.
Grades
Participants’ self-reported grades were included in the analysis as a proxy for student academic performance. Respondents identified a grade letter that best represented their overall academic performance at the time of the study. Response options included 1 (F student), 2 (D student), 3 (C student), 4 (B student), and 5 (Straight A student).
Parental Educational Status
Respondents’ parental educational statuses served as a proxy for socioeconomic status and parental educational attainment. When applicable, both parents’ educational statuses were self-reported, albeit separately, and coded in such a way that higher values indicated more advanced educational statuses. Respondents could select options ranging from less than high school to more than undergraduate education.
School Location
Students in the sample attended 20 unique schools. A variable was generated noting participants’ school sites. This variable was used to account for school-specific variation in our analyses.
Analytical Approach
This study employed linear regression methods to examine self-reported contextual and individual predictors of future orientation in a sample of early adolescents using R Studio. Linear regression was appropriate in this case, given our hypotheses related to the unique effects of school and neighborhood disorder after controlling for one another as well as other influences. The addition of an interaction term between both measures of disorder further enabled the assessment of the joint or exacerbating effect multiple sources of exposure may have on youth future orientation. Due to possible violations of independence assumptions resulting from students’ shared school experiences, we used cluster-robust (i.e., “sandwich”) estimators to account for observations nested within schools using the “sandwich” package in R (Antonakis et al., 2021; Huang, 2014; Zeileis, 2004; Zeileis et al., 2020). Leveraging such an approach allowed us to ensure an accurate estimate of regression coefficients and standard errors. We selected the clustered error approach over multi-level modeling given preliminary examination of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 1%) for future orientation, the smaller number of level—2 units (i.e., schools), and lack of information at the school-level (Maas & Hox, 2005).
Initially, we examined descriptive statistics, conducted correlation analyses, and evaluated preliminary assumptions for regression. In examining the descriptive statistics, we observed the central tendencies, spreads of data, and their continuous and linear relationships to evaluate the statuses of outliers, influential cases, heteroskedasticity, and multicollinearity. We included a correlation matrix to examine and compare unadjusted associations between key variables to be included in the regression models. Our regression assumptions were also met.
Following the descriptive analyses, we completed two regression models (a base model and an interaction model) to assess how the joint effects of school and neighborhood disorder and their interaction influenced future orientation. In the base model, we explored the known predictors alongside our variables of interest, school and neighborhood disorder, while also controlling for gender, race, grades, parental education, and school location. In the interaction model, we added an interaction term between school and neighborhood disorder to assess the exacerbating effects on future orientation when students are exposed to both school and neighborhood disorder.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for our study variables are presented in Table 1. School and neighborhood disorder were negatively correlated with future orientation (r = −.06, p < .001; r = −.09, p < .001). High levels of perceived neighborhood and school disorder were correlated with lower scores on future orientation. Conversely, student and teacher relationships were positively correlated with future orientation (r = .39, p < .001; r = .40, p < .001). Positive self-perception had the strongest correlation with future orientation (r = .61, p < .001). School and neighborhood disorder were also highly correlated (r = .64, p < .001).
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Main Study Variables and Selected Covariates.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Regression Model w/Clustered Standard Error
Regression results are displayed in Table 2. In the main effects model, both perceived school and neighborhood disorder were significantly associated with future orientation (b = 0.10, t = 3.73, p < .001, and b = −0.09, t = −4.49, p < .001, respectively). Students with higher perceptions of school disorder were more likely to report higher levels of future orientation (b = 0.10, t = 3.73, p < .001). Conversely, students with higher perceptions of neighborhood disorder were more likely to report lower future orientations (b = −0.09, t = −4.49, p < .001). Student-student relationships and student-teacher relationships were also positively associated with future orientation (b = 0.15, t = 6.69, p < .001, and b = 0.11, t = 8.24, p < .001, respectively). Students with positive peer and teacher relationships were also more likely to have higher levels of future orientation. Students’ positive self-perception was also a significant predictor (b = 0.41, t = 29.73, p < .001). Students who held positive perceptions of themselves were more likely to report positive future orientation scores. The interaction term between perceived school and neighborhood disorder was not statistically significant in the interaction model.
Future Orientation, Predictors, and Covariates.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
This study sought to understand how early adolescents’ perceptions of their environmental conditions influence their future orientations. Based on existing evidence, we hypothesized that early adolescents’ perceptions of school disorder would negatively influence their future orientation. However, in this study, youths’ perceptions of school disorder were shown to positively influence their future orientations. Yet, this unexpected finding may be explained by previous work around coping and resilience. First, J. H. Lee et al. (2017) suggested that individuals develop coping responses when engaging in adverse environments. In order to navigate unsettled spaces, individuals may disassociate (the psychological concept of detaching emotionally and mentally) or use their situation as motivation to remove themselves from these ill settings (Burt et al., 2021). The resilience literature supports these claims and further purports that some individuals, despite their circumstances, persist in the face of adversity, overwhelming fear, obstacles, or discomfort (Biggs et al., 2015; Hunter & Chandler, 1999; Ungar, 2008). From this, one can surmise that students experiencing disordered school settings lean more intently and committedly into their futures as relief mechanisms. They remain future-focused without allowing their conditions to comprise their future trajectories. Some literature also suggests that those with resilience perform better in stressful and pressured environments like disordered school settings (Raybucks & Hicks, 1994; Seginer, 2008). As such, external factors within disordered schools likely influence students’ positive future focus, as observed in this study. It is also plausible that in disordered school environments, some positive factors exist, like positive student and peer relationships, to help students pursue their futures despite the environmental difficulties (Hurd et al., 2018).
In contrast to the unexpected positive relationship with school disorder, the negative association between neighborhood disorder and future orientation aligns with our hypothesis and existing literature. Prior research has consistently indicated that exposure to neighborhood risks can significantly impact an individual’s developmental outcomes (Leventhal, 2018; McBride Murry et al., 2011; Witherspoon et al., 2018). Neighborhood disorder represents a risk factor that not only exerts an influence on an individual’s overall development but also impacts their perceptions, cognitive processes, and future-oriented decision-making, as evidenced by the findings of Samblanet (2014). Exposure to conditions characterized by neighborhood disorder may lead individuals to experience feelings of insecurity and uncertainty, which could breed negative thoughts about their futures.
Previous scholars have argued that a person’s perceptions of safety, control, and predictability (Dupéré et al., 2012; Shobe & Page-Adams, 2001) relate to their ability to feel secure and grounded. Exposure to disorder may impede their capacity to envision future possibilities and maintain a future-focused mindset. Markus and Nurius’ (1986) work on possible selves demonstrates how environmental contexts influence one’s perception of future possibilities. Young people subject themselves to their environmental realities, believing that their actions are limited by what their environments dictate. This aligns with Shobe and Page-Adams’ (2001) findings, which suggest neighborhood environments shape one’s view of the future. Some adolescents struggle to imagine an alternative pathway and limit themselves to the options they perceive in their immediate surroundings (Luthar, 1999; Osai, 2016). Evidence indicates that these individuals may also develop learned helplessness and engage in adverse behaviors that detract them from achieving their desired futures (Karriker-Jaffee et al., 2012; Rosenfeld et al., 2006). Research indeed presents alternative realities for adolescents who experience neighborhood disorder. Witherspoon et al. (2018) particularly propose that protective factors such as social cohesion, extracurricular engagement, and neighborhood interventions can buffer the negative effect of one’s disordered environmental experiences.
While we anticipated that the interaction between school and neighborhood disorder would exacerbate the negative impact on future orientations, our results revealed no significant relationship between these two factors. This suggests that the effect of school disorder on future orientation does not depend on early adolescents’ perception of neighborhood disorder and vice versa. Although the interaction between school and neighborhood disorder was not upheld, this result reinforces the need to further understand the dynamics of each context, as schools and neighborhoods are distinct spaces, and people likely experience disorder differently across environmental contexts (Minh et al., 2017; Sharkey & Faber, 2014). Schools and neighborhoods likely evoke different experiences for students during critical stages of their development. While young people are particularly sensitive to their environmental conditions (Leventhal, 2018; Minh et al., 2017), some evidence suggests that adolescents’ environments become more critical and impactful as they grow older, engage more intentionally in their external contexts, and understand for themselves their lived experiences (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; Steinberg et al., 2009).
Given that students’ experiences become more nuanced, complex, and dynamic as they move through adolescence, it can be argued that certain environmental influences hold more developmental relevance in the latter stages of adolescence. The exacerbating effect of school and neighborhood disorder on future orientation may also be contingent on one’s developmental stage. Leventhal (2018) suggested that the cumulative impact of negative environmental conditions may vary in significance across different developmental stages, contingent on their co-occurrence. Therefore, it is plausible that the interplay between school and neighborhood contexts may have a diminished influence on the future orientation development of students, particularly in early adolescence.
Furthermore, the results suggest that early adolescents’ peer and teacher relationships influence their future orientation. The positive associations between peer and teacher relationships and future orientation align with previous findings. Scholars have emphasized the value of supportive and healthy peer and adult relationships and their importance for adolescent development and early school experiences (Iovu, 2014; A. M. Ryan et al., 2019; So et al., 2018). Not only do peer and teacher relationships help to facilitate positive experiences within school environments, but they also influence adolescents’ behaviors, overall feelings of support, and how they think about the future, as evidenced in previous research (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; A. M. Ryan et al., 2019).
Additionally, self-perception had the most profound influence on early adolescents’ future orientation. The results demonstrate that positive self-perceptions are intricately linked to their positive thoughts about the future. Research consistently shows that people’s thoughts about themselves influence their efficacy and sense of self (Bandura, 1994). Their internal assessment of themselves matters as they imagine what they could be, do, and accomplish. These claims also align with Fischhoff’s (2008) findings on the importance of individuals’ positive self-concepts as it relates to their future perspectives.
The relationships between the control variables and future orientation offer important developmental insights (Raybucks & Hicks, 1994; Seginer, 2008). Early adolescent girls have more positive future orientations than their male counterparts. Scholars have attributed these differences to future orientation measures, cultural expectations, and boys’ and girls’ socialization (Seginer, 2019; Seginer & Mahajna, 2018). Racial differences were also observed. Interestingly, Black students had more positive future orientations than their White counterparts. Research on race and future orientation often suggests that Black students are generally more fatalistic about their futures than their non-Black peers (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2014; So et al., 2018; Stoddard et al., 2011). However, evidence from this study suggests that early adolescence is a time when Black youth think positively about the future. During early adolescence, Black youth experience a youthful innocence and joy that is often non-existent (or robbed) in other adolescent phases (Henning, 2021). Black early adolescents are free to live and dream while holding positive perceptions about their futures (Osai, 2016). However, their future thoughts become compromised or more negative when they interact with the cruelty of an unjust, racialized world (Palmer & Mosley, 2021).
Consistent with previous research findings, this study showed that students’ early achievement is a strong indicator of how they view the future (A. D. Lynch et al., 2013; Schafer & Meece, 2009) and parents’ educational status plays an important role in students’ future orientation (Dotterer & Wehrspann, 2016). Interestingly, mothers’ educational status was particularly relevant in that mothers with college degrees or higher more positively influenced how younger students see the future than those with lower educational statuses. These results are consistent with previous studies that underscore the importance of mothers’ educational status on child outcomes (Seginer & Shoyer, 2012).
Overall, this study’s results highlight adolescents’ experiences with school and neighborhood disorder, contexts of disorder that are most salient for early adolescents, the importance of how early adolescents perceive themselves, and how valuable early adolescents’ peers and teacher relationships are to their future orientations. These findings force us to reexamine our study’s guiding framework. Although DST’s theoretical tenets led us to expect interaction effects between school and neighborhood disorder, our results suggested otherwise. This has profound implications for our comprehension of how DST operates in the context of adolescent development, which should be further explored in other samples. DST posits that human development is deeply rooted in contextual interactions, which initially guided our expectations of the interaction effects between school and neighborhood disorder. However, our results challenge these expectations.
As predicted by DST, future orientation is a natural part of adolescent development with influences at both the individual and contextual levels. This understanding suggests that adolescents’ contextual and individual factors interact to shape their future orientations. The likely bidirectional relationship between future orientation and the perception of environmental disorder highlights the need for DST to complement its focus on tangible environmental conditions with an exploration of individuals’ perceptions of their environment. Furthermore, the findings underscore the dynamic interplay between environmental factors and individual experiences in shaping future orientation, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced consideration of adolescents’ interactions across multiple environments within the DST framework.
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, this study relied on data collected through youth self-report. Although no objective measures of school and neighborhood were used in this study, scholars suggest that a person’s perception of their environment is a viable alternative in the absence of an objective measure (Basolo & Strong, 2002), and they are routinely used to assess youths’ perceptions about the school (e.g., student or teacher perceptions of disorder) and neighborhood environment (e.g., Elliott et al., 1998; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Kaufman et al., 2000; Lawrence, 1998; Welsh, 2000, 2001). In addition, how a young person experiences their environment matters and is equally, if not more important than the objective context (Hillcoat et al., 2006). This is especially important for early adolescents who may normalize their environmental settings and be unable to fully conceive of the structural, historical, and economic nuances of their daily realities (Teixeria et al., 2020; Wilks & Rudner, 2013). What matters most for early adolescents is how they feel about and see their environments, not necessarily what is or is not objectively in their environments (Bass & Lambert, 2004; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004). Second, there was limited variation in the future orientation measure. The individuals in the sample reported relatively high future orientation scores (mean ≈ 4). This restricted range may have limited the depth of analysis. The lack of additional school-level variables, such as school population, racial composition, and achievement levels, restricted our analysis. Including these variables could have provided a more comprehensive understanding but was not feasible in this analysis. In addition, we were unable to assess the nested relationship between schools and neighborhoods, which limited our ability to understand how schools were situated within neighborhoods as well as how neighborhood influences and characteristics contributed to school conditions. Future studies should be designed to leverage administrative data from the census tract data (i.e., a measure of neighborhood disadvantage) to better understand ecological influences on behavior.
Conclusions
Despite these limitations, the study offers a unique and novel perspective on studying future orientation. As stated, most studies have explored future orientation without considering contextual factors. However, this work added new contextual dimensions that furthered our understanding of early adolescents’ future orientation predictors. Our study provided deeper insight into how individuals interact within their environments and reinforced the theoretical principle that individuals are not separate from the environments in which they develop. Our findings also suggest that individuals’ environmental perceptions should be considered within ecological theories.
Further investigation into the interplay between school and neighborhood contexts is warranted. The absence of an interaction effect in this study, coupled with the unexpected positive relationship between school disorder and future orientation, suggests the need for a more nuanced exploration of these dynamics. Examining interactions with other ecological variables and predictors may reveal insights into when and how environments matter for students’ future orientations. Future research should explicitly outline these aspects and address concerns about the DST framework’s challenges related to the lack of interactions across multiple contextual settings. Additional studies should explore different ways to measure contextualized settings and analyze multiple interactions among these settings. There should also be a commitment to providing practical implications and interventions, particularly in understanding how positive peer and teacher relationships may mitigate the impact of neighborhood disorder on future orientation. This commitment aligns with the aim of offering actionable insights for supporting adolescents facing environmental challenges.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
