Addiction Research and Theory, February 2013; 21(1): 43–51
Copyright ß 2013 Informa UK Ltd.
ISSN: 1606-6359 print/1476-7392 online
DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2012.685120
Present orientation, future orientation and alcohol use
in Northern Irish adolescents
Michael T. McKay1, Andrew Percy2, & Jon C. Cole1
1
Department of Applied Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street
South, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK and 2School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen’s University,
Belfast, UK
(Received 2 November 2011; revised 6 April 2012; accepted 10 April 2012)
Earlier initiation into more problematic drinking
behaviour has been found to be associated with more
problematic drinking later in life. Research has
suggested that a lower future time perspective (and
higher present time perspective) is associated with
health-compromising behaviours such as problem-
atic alcohol use in college student, University
undergraduate and general population samples.
This study used a cross-sectional design to examine
whether consideration of future consequences
(CFC), assessed by the Consideration of Future
Consequences Scale, was significantly related to
drinking behaviour in a large sample (n ¼ 707) of
Northern Irish adolescents. Alcohol use was self-
reported by means of a composite measure of
drinking behaviour. Demographic data were also
gathered. After controlling for year in school (proxy
for age), sex and for clustering at school level, lower
future orientation and higher present orientation
were found to be significantly associated with more
problematic self-reported drinking behaviour.
These results extend recent findings of a significant
relationship between a foreshortened future time
perspective and more problematic self-reported
drinking behaviour in a UK sample of University
undergraduates, to a large UK sample of adoles-
cents. Given the relationship between early-onset
drinking and more problematic use in later life,
health promotion interventions might explore using
the CFC construct in targeting adolescent drinkers.
Keywords: Adolescent, alcohol, time perspective
Correspondence: M. T. McKay, Department of Applied Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford
Street South, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK. Tel: 0044 2892 670918. Fax: 0044 2892 667573. E-mail: Michael.Mckay@liverpool.ac.uk
43
INTRODUCTION
Research has identified significant relationships
between early initiation and later problematic misuse
of alcohol and other drugs (e.g. DeWit, Adlaf, Offord,
& Ogborne, 2000; Kandel, 1982; Kandel, Simcha-
Fagan, & Davies, 1986; White, Bates, & Labouvie,
1998). These long-term negative outcomes include
more frequent drinking (Monshouwer, Smit, De Zwart,
Spruit, & Van Ameijden, 2003; Takakura & Wake,
2003), alcohol abuse and social problems (e.g. DeWit
et al., 2000; Grant & Dawson, 1997; Grant, Stinson, &
Harford, 2001; Hingson, Heeren, & Winter, 2006), and
adult criminality (Kandel et al., 1986; Stacy &
Newcomb, 1995). Early onset of excessive alcohol
consumption has also been found to be associated with
proneness to higher anxiety later in life (Berglund,
Fahlke, Berggren, Eriksson, & Balldin, 2006), and
heavy exposure to neurotoxins, such as ethanol, affects
brain maturation and neurocognitive function (Spear,
2000). One study found that the clearest predictor of
alcohol dependence in young adults was regular
alcohol use in the teenage years (Bonomo, Bowes,
Coffey, Carlin, & Patton, 2004). In sum, the misuse of
alcohol in adolescence has been linked with increased
risk of alcohol dependence and other social and health
problems in adulthood (Bonomo et al., 2004; Guo,
Collins, Hill, & Hawkins, 2000; Viner & Taylor, 2007).
Time perspective is an individual difference variable
which describes the influence that considerations of
past, present and future have on decision-making
related to present behaviours (Adams, 2009).
Subjective time perspective implies that in the present
moment individuals may recollect the past, perceive
the present and anticipate the future (Shipp, Edwards,
& Schurer-Lambert, 2009). Thoms and Blasko (2004)
44 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.
argue that although largely unnoticed in everyday life,
future time perspective in particular provides a cogni-
tive structure or anchor in the mind that is in turn
critical to human motivation. Focusing on the future
and the degree (or depth) to which that focus extends,
helps afford individuals a reference point for their
reasoning and decision-making.
Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) argued that learned time
perspective exerts a dynamic influence on many
important decisions, judgements and actions. Time
perspective has been conceptualised and defined in a
multiplicity of ways. Definitions have variously
focused on the influence on present decision-making
and behaviour of a person’s psychological future and
past (e.g. Lennings, 2000; Lewin, 1951; Zimbardo &
Boyd, 1999); the cognitive structures used by individ-
uals to project, collect, access, value and organise
events that reside in distinct temporal loci (e.g. Lasane
& O’Donnell, 2005; Seijts, 1998); the length (in
objective terms) of one’s personal time horizon
(Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999; Wohlford,
1966) or on the behavioural out-workings of individual
differences in time perspective (e.g. Henson, Carey,
Carey, & Maisto, 2006; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger,
& Edwards, 1994). Many of these conceptualisations
define time perspective as a relatively stable individual
difference variable that can explain behaviours across a
wide variety of domains including physical health.
A widely used measure of time perspective is the
Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFCS;
Strathman et al., 1994). Higher CFCS scores (or greater
consideration of future consequences, CFC) have been
associated with safer sexual behaviour and HIV testing
(Appleby, Marks, Miller, Murphy, & Mansergh, 2005;
Dorr, Krueckeberg, Strathman, & Wood, 1999), a
greater likelihood of participating in health screening
(Orbell & Hagger, 2006; Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow,
2004), a reduced likelihood of obesity (Adams &
Nettle, 2009; Adams & White, 2009) and smoking
(Adams & Nettle, 2009). Those high in CFC have been
shown to be less susceptible to the peer pressure to
drink alcohol (Reifman, 2001) and to self-report less
problematic alcohol use (Beenstock, Adams, & White,
2011; Strathman et al., 1994). The sum of these studies
indicates that those who are more considerate of the
future are less likely to engage in health-compromising
behaviours.
Until relatively recently, the CFCS had been
conceptualised as unidimensional, simplistically con-
ceptualising future orientation to indicate the absence
of present orientation. However, more recent analyses
have suggested that a multiple factor structure provides
a better fit for the data. These results have been found
in general population samples (e.g. Adams, 2012),
college student samples (e.g. Joireman, Balliet, Sprott,
Spangenberg, & Schultz, 2008; Petrocelli, 2003) and
among adolescents (e.g. Rappange, Brouwer, & Van
Exel, 2009). In the case of Adams (2012) and Joireman
et al. (2008), the factor solutions were labelled future
(CFC-F) and immediate (CFC-I) subscales. The study
by Rappange et al. (2009) provided limited support for
this factor structure. Items within the CFC-F subscale
were those positively worded items from the CFCS
(items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) and items within the CFC-I
sub-scale were the remaining negatively worded items.
Both Joireman et al. (2008) and Adams (2012) reported
a negative correlation between these two factors, and
indicated that the CFC-F factor reflected future orien-
tation and the CFC-I factor reflected present orienta-
tion. However, this correlation can only be negative
when the negatively worded items in the CFCS are not
reverse-scored, as directed by Strathman et al. (1994),
otherwise the CFC-I reflects not consideration of
immediate consequences, as opposed to active consid-
eration of immediate consequences. Although not
indicated in the manuscript, personal communication
with Jeffrey Joireman revealed that, in fact, the
negatively worded items had not been reverse scored
in his study. Joireman et al. (2008) reported that lower
levels of trait self-control were best predicted by higher
levels of CFC-I (not CFCF), while Adams (2012)
reported that only CFC-I scores were significantly
associated with health variables in multiple linear
regression analyses.
There has been a considerable amount of research
into the relationship between adolescent time perspec-
tive and, for example, academic motivation (e.g. Miller
& Brickman, 2004; Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, &
Lacante, 2004) and academic achievement (e.g.
Lennings, Burns, & Cooney, 1998; Mello & Worrell,
2006). Accordingly many positive relationships
between future time perspective and other variables
have been revealed. These include academic motiva-
tion (Greene & DeBacker, 2004; Miller & Brickman,
2004; Simons et al., 2004), delay of gratification
(Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004), and academic
achievement (e.g. De Volder & Lens, 1982; Shell &
Husman, 2001). However, less research has taken place
in the relationship between adolescents’ time perspec-
tive and health-related outcomes. In a study of Dutch
adolescents (mean age ¼ 13.2 years), a significant
positive relationship between CFC and health-related
attitudes was reported (Rappange et al., 2009), and in a
study of adjudicated adolescents in the USA (mean
age ¼ 15.3 years), fewer alcohol or drug-related prob-
lems were associated with a higher future orientation
(Robbins & Bryan, 2004).
This study extends previous research in a number of
ways. First, while the prospective relationship between
earlier onset problematic drinking and more problems
in later life has been established, there is a dearth of
literature documenting how adolescent drinking is
related to the consideration of the future consequences
of current behaviour. Second, we used a large sample
of adolescents from the UK which extends the previous
work in adolescent samples to a new geographical area.
Third, we used a composite measure of adolescent
drinking behaviour, taking into account of a range of
 PRESENT ORIENTATION, FUTURE ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE
alcohol use dimensions including, but not limited to,
drinking frequency, quantity, experience of health and
social problems and duration of use. Previous research
has used either very specific populations (Robbins &
Bryan, 2004) and/or very specific alcohol-related
measures (e.g. frequency of drinking/drunkenness,
Robbins & Byran, 2004), or non-alcohol-specific
health attitudes questions (e.g. Rappange et al., 2009).
This study aimed to investigate the bivariate and
more fully controlled (with demographic measures)
relationship between adolescent drinking behaviour
and CFC. Based on CFC research in adolescent and
non-adolescent populations, we hypothesised that
factor structure analyses of the CFCS would yield
multiple factors. Additionally, we hypothesized that
more problematic drinking behaviour would be asso-
ciated with an increased CFC-I score (increased present
orientation) rather than a reduced CFC-F score
(reduced future orientation).
M ET H OD S
Participants
Participants were pupils in eight post-primary (High)
schools in the Eastern Health Board area of Northern
Ireland (NI). Post-primary schools in NI are either
Grammar or Secondary schools. Grammar schools
select students at age 11 (school year 8) on the basis of
higher academic ability, while Secondary schools are
more comprehensive/vocational. Schools were strati-
fied for inclusion according to the Grammar/Secondary
divide and randomly chosen to reflect the overall
demographics of the area. A total of 27 schools were
recruited for participation in a series of alcohol-related
studies (e.g. McKay, Sumnall, Field, Goudie, & Cole,
2011) from the totality of schools in the Health Board
area. Schools were coded by one member of the
research team and allocated to the three studies by
another researcher who was blinded to the school
identities. All schools approached agreed to participate.
Schools were asked to provide between 20 and 25
pupils from each of school years 8–12 (ages 12–16).
They were asked to provide pupils with a range of
academic abilities, and in schools where pupils are
banded or ‘streamed’ on the basis of academic testing,
they were asked to provide a middle band class. The
study received ethical approval from the Ethics
Committee at the University of Liverpool and permis-
sion from the designated Head Teacher of each school.
Consent
An ‘opt out’ passive consent, approved by the
University of Liverpool Ethics Committee, ensured
that parents received detailed information on the study
and were only required to respond if they were
unhappy about their child’s participation. On the day
of the data collection, each participating pupil engaged
in an active consent procedure so that they also had to
indicate a willingness to participate in the study.
45
Procedure
Data were gathered under examination-like conditions.
Participants were issued with a set of response sheets
and all questionnaires were administered verbally by
the researcher, allowing pupils with literacy difficulties
to take part and also to help maximise the number of
fully completed response sheets. This meant that those
with reading difficulties did not have to read the
questions, and afforded all participants the opportunity
to ask for clarification on any of the questions asked.
Data collection took approximately 30 min in each
school.
Instruments
The CFCS (Strathman et al., 1994) is a 12-item scale
made up of five positively worded items (items 1, 2, 6,
7 and 8) and seven negatively worded items. Each of
the positively worded items deals with intentional and
active efforts to consider future consequences, while
the negatively worded items deal with intentional and
active efforts to concern one with immediate outcomes.
Responses were on a five-point Likert-type scale from
‘very untrue of me’ (scored 1) to ‘very true of me’
(scored 5). The positively worded items were summed
to yield a CFC-F score. The negatively worded items
were not reverse scored and were summed to yield a
CFC-I score, so that CFC-I in the present analyses
reflects active consideration of immediate conse-
quences. The scale has demonstrated good psychomet-
ric properties, with  coefficients of 0.80–0.86 and a
2-week test–retest reliability of 0.76, and a 5-week
test–retest reliability of 0.72 (Strathman et al., 1994).
The Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale (AAIS;
Mayer & Filstead, 1979) is a 14-item self-report
screening measure for alcohol abuse in adolescents.
In respect of alcohol research, it serves to help identify
adolescents whose alcohol use impacts adversely on
psychological functioning, social relations and/or
family life. Questions are answered on a Likert scale
allowing for a highest possible score of 79. According
to the developers, calculation of total scores allows for
the following categorisations: abstainers ¼ 0; ‘normal’
(those who rarely drink) adolescents ¼ 1–19; adoles-
cents who drink but do not experience problems ¼
20–41; alcohol misusers ¼ 42–57 and ‘alcoholic-like’
drinkers ¼ 58–79. The scale has demonstrated good
psychometric properties, with  coefficients of 0.96
and a 2-week test–retest reliability of 0.91 (Mayer &
Filstead, 1979). In a meta-analysis of adolescent
alcohol screening measures, Shields et al. (2008)
reported that among AAIS-administered samples
made up of at least 80% Caucasians, the average
reliability estimate was 0.86, compared to a single
study that administered the AAIS to an all-African
American sample yielding a reliability estimate of
0.62. Given the demographics of the present
sample, the AAIS was considered an appropriate
assessment tool.
46 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.
Statistics
All analyses were conducted using Mplus (version 4)
(B.O. Muthén & L.K. Muthén, 1998–2007) or SPSS
v17.0. Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were used
to examine significant differences between drinking
groups and year in school on CFC sub-scale scores.
Mann–Whitney U-tests were used to examine sex
differences on CFC sub-scales. A Pearson 2 test was
used to examine the sex distribution among AAIS
groups. To examine predictive covariates of AAIS
group membership, a multinomial logistic regression
(MLR) model was estimated in SPSS. As the data were
clustered at the school level (i.e. pupils within schools),
it was necessary to correct the regression standard
errors to take account of the non-independence of study
respondents. To do this, a set of dummy variables were
fitted for the clustering at school level. Alternative
methods for modelling the lack of independence of
observations, including a two-level multilevel model or
the use of a robust estimator with standard errors
corrected for the non-independence of observations
were not implemented due to the small number of
schools within the sample. Both procedures require a
minimum number of clusters of between 30 and 50.
Individual MLR models were computed for CFC-I and
CFC-F sub-scales to determine which variables were
significantly associated with membership of the three
AAIS groups. Revised AAIS group was entered as the
dependent variable, with year in school and sex entered
as factors, and the possible effects of clustering at
school level controlled for by the use of dummy
variables (also entered as factors). CFC-I and CFC-F
scores were entered as covariates in their respective
models.
RESULTS
Of those pupils selected by their schools for participa-
tion, all consented to do so, and no parent withheld
consent for their child’s participation. A total of 734
questionnaires were completed of which 27 question-
naires were excluded as a result of having been
partially completed or spoiled. Of the 707 valid
responses, 422 (59.8%) questionnaires were completed
by males. At the time of data collection, there were no
questions asked nor points of clarification sought by
participants.
In terms of the structure of the CFCS, parallel
analysis, using O’Connor’s (2000) SPSS routine,
indicated that the optimum number of components to
be retained was two. Additional support for a two
component solution was also provided by the eigen-
values greater than 1 rule with an observed eigen-
value ¼ 3.94 for factor one (CFC-I), and an
eigenvalue ¼ 1.33 for factor two (CFC-F).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed on both
the one-factor and the two-factor solutions (CFC-I/
CFC-F). As reported elsewhere (Adams, 2012;
Joireman et al., 2008), the two-factor solution provided
a better fit for the data than the one-factor model.
Results for the one-factor model were: Comparative Fit
Index ¼ 0.86, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) ¼ 0.92, Root
Mean Squared Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) ¼ 0.09. Results for the two-factor model
were: CFC ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.07. There
was also a moderate correlation (r ¼ 0.45, p < 0.01)
between the CFC-I and CFC-F factors.
Previously, as herein, we had found ‘Normal’
(6.9%) and ‘Alcoholic-like’ (1.1%) groups to have
relatively few members and had formed three revised
AAIS groups (e.g. McKay, Sumnall, Cole, & Percy,
2012; McKay et al., 2011). The three new groups were:
abstainers (score ¼ 0); non-problematic drinkers (1–41)
(including ‘Normal’ and ‘Drinkers’ groups); and prob-
lematic drinkers (including ‘Misusers’ and ‘Alcoholic-
like’ 42–79). Table I displays the distribution of males
and females among the revised AAIS groups. A
Pearson 2 test revealed no significant difference in
the distribution of males and females among the
revised AAIS groups.
The results of the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–
Whitney U-tests comparing median CFC-I and
CFC-F scores by sex and year of school are shown in
Table II. There was no evidence that CFC-F score
varied by sex or year of school. While CFC-I did not
differ by sex, there was evidence that it did vary by
year of school. Pupils in years 10 and 11 (aged 13–15)
had higher scores than those in other years.
Table III displays results of revised AAIS groups
and CFC-I and CFC-F. Revised AAIS groups differed
significantly on CFC-I and CFC-F scores, with scores
increasing from abstainers through to problematic
drinkers for CFC-I, and scores decreasing from
abstainers through to problematic drinkers for CFC-F.
Results of the individual MLR analyses are
displayed in Table IV.
In the CFC-F model, problematic drinkers were
more likely to be in higher school year and to report
significantly lower CFC-F than both abstainers and
non-problematic drinkers. Sex was not significantly
associated with revised AAIS group membership.
In the CFC-I model, problematic drinkers were more
likely to be in higher school year and to report
significantly higher CFC-I than both abstainers and
non-problematic drinkers. Again, sex was not signifi-
cantly associated with revised AAIS group
membership.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This study found that both present and future orienta-
tion assessed using the CFCS, are related to self-
reported adolescent alcohol use behaviour, with higher
present orientation and lower future orientation asso-
ciated with more problematic drinking. Despite the
relatively large sample size and the fact that
the hierarchical nature of the data was accounted for
in the regression model, the study is not without
 PRESENT ORIENTATION, FUTURE ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE 47

Table I. Sex distribution for AAIS groups. while CFC-F can still be conceptualized as active
consideration of the future consequences of present
AAIS group Males n (%) Females n (%) Total n (%) behaviour (hereafter future orientation), CFC-I, with
reverse scoring, can be conceptualized as active
Abstainers 126 (29.8) 90 (31.7) 216 (30.6)
consideration of the immediate consequences of pre-
Non-problematic 226 (53.4) 137 (48.2) 363 (51.3)
Problematic 71 (16.8) 57 (20.1) 128 (18.1)
sent behaviour (hereafter present orientation).
Results of this study showed that both sub-scales of
Total 423 (59.8) 284 (40.2) 707 the CFCS were significantly associated with drinking
2
Note: Pearson  ¼ 2.11 and p ¼ 0.35. group membership in bivariate analyses, and also that
these measures accounted for some of the variance in
problematic drinking above and beyond that predicted
by demographic factors. Higher scores on present
Table II. Results of non-parametric analyses for sex, year in orientation were associated with more problematic
school and CFCF/CFCI. drinking and higher scores on future orientation were
associated with abstinence.
CFC-F CFC-I The results support previous alcohol studies in the
time perspective literature, which have reported asso-
Male 17.0 (15.0–19.0) 24.0 (21.0–26.0)
Female 17.0 (15.0–19.0) 24.0 (20.3–25.0)
ciations between measures of time perspective and any
alcohol consumption (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd,
Mann–Whitney U-test U ¼ 56,325.0, U ¼ 59,475, 1999) and total alcohol consumption (Henson et al.,
p ¼ 0.16 p ¼ 0.82 2006; Levy & Earleywine, 2004). For example,
Year 8 (n ¼ 109) 17.0 (15.0–19.0) 23.0 (20.0–25.0) Smart (1968) found that future time perspective in
Year 9 (n ¼ 134) 17.0 (15.0–18.3) 23.0 (21.0–26.0)
alcoholics and social drinkers were significantly
Year 10 (n ¼ 145) 17.0 (15.0–20.0) 24.0 (22.0–26.5)
Year 11 (n ¼ 201) 17.0 (15.0–19.0) 24.0 (20.5–26.0)
different, with alcoholics having less extensive and
Year 12 (n ¼ 118) 17.0 (15.0–19.0) 23.0 (21.0–26.0) less coherent future time perspectives. In a sample of
Kruskal–Wallis test H (4) ¼ 2.63, p ¼ 0.62 H (4) ¼ 9.69* University undergraduates, Beenstock et al. (2011)
found that those who were more considerate of
Notes: Shown are medians (þIQR). CFC-F, consideration of future consequences were less likely to drink
future consequences future sub-scale and CFC-I, consideration hazardously.
of future consequences immediate sub-scale. *p < 0.05.
Results elsewhere have found that a present orien-
tation is a stronger predictor of health behaviours than a
future orientation (e.g. Adams, 2012; Hamilton, Kives,
limitations. Data collected relied totally on participant Micevski, & Grace, 2003; Henson et al., 2006; Keough
self-report and, as participants were selected by the et al., 1999; Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd, 1997). The
individual school authorities, it must be taken on trust results of this study support the relationship between
that they provided a representative sample of pupils. present orientation and drinking behaviour. However,
Using a mainstream school-based population resulted interestingly, and importantly they suggest that future
in exclusion of early school-leavers and those in more orientation is also a significant variable in terms of
specialist learning centres. As the data are cross- adolescent drinking behaviours. This supports the
sectional and therefore preclude the drawing of causal association of both present and future orientation
conclusions. Additionally, research has suggested that reported elsewhere in adolescent substance use
other variables, for example socio-economic status (assessed by researcher-derived composite measure of
moderate the influence of time perspective. Future smoking, alcohol and cannabis; Wills, Sandy, &
work might use a direct measure of this at the Yaeger, 2001).
individual level in order to control more fully for Conceptually, this fits with the literature discussed
results. previously concerning the relationship between early-
Results revealed that a two-factor solution for the onset drinking and a greater likelihood of alcohol-
CFCS provided a better fit for the data than a one- related problems in later life. While longitudinal data
factor solution. This reflects results in adult popula- would be needed to definitively prove an association
tions elsewhere (Adams, 2012; Joireman et al., 2008). between lower future orientation and later alcohol
In fact, the fit indices in the present sample were very problems, the results of this study suggest that even in
similar to those reported by Joireman et al. (2008). adolescence, those drinking to a more problematic
Additionally, the moderate correlation between the level are less considerate of the future consequences of
CFCS factors supports the two-factor structure, sug- present behaviour, less future orientated and therefore
gesting that while the factors are not totally indepen- potentially less likely to be dissuaded from current
dent, neither are they poles on a unidimensional problematic drinking by health promotion messages
spectrum. With the non-reverse scoring of the nega- warning of the possibility of future negative outcomes.
tively worded items, the criticism of the CFCS as being Regarding their findings with University undergradu-
unidimensional can no longer be sustained, so that ates, Beenstock et al. (2011) concluded that if future
48 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.

Table III. Results of Kruskal–Wallis analyses for revised AAIS groups and dependent measures.

Non-problematic Problematic
Abstainers (n ¼ 216) drinkers (n ¼ 363) drinkers (n ¼ 128) Kruskal–Wallis test

CFC-F 18.0 (15.0–20.0) 17.0 (15.0–20.0) 17.0 (15.0–21.0) H (2) ¼ 22.48***

CFC-I 22.0 (20.0–25.0) 24.0 (21.0–26.0) 25.0 (22.3–28.0) H (2) ¼ 41.92***

Notes: Shown are medians (þIQR). CFC-F, consideration of future consequences future sub-scale and CFC-I, consideration of future
consequences immediate sub-scale. ***p < 0.001.

Table IV. Predictors associated with revised AAIS group membership: MLR.

CFC-I sub-scale CFC-F sub-scale

Abstainers (n ¼ 216) Non-problematic Abstainers Non-problematic

drinkers (n ¼ 363) (n ¼ 216) drinkers (n ¼ 363)

OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value

Step one
Sex
Female 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 –
Male 1.22 0.73, 2.04 0.46 1.39 0.88, 2.22 0.16 1.14 0.68, 1.90 0.62 1.39 0.88, 2.22 0.19
Year in school
Year 12 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 – 1.00 –
Year 11 2.38 1.16, 4.89 * 1.60 0.88, 2.92 0.12 2.28 1.12, 4.66 * 1.56 0.86, 2.83 0.14
Year 10 4.60 1.92, 11.04 ** 5.26 2.56, 10.81 *** 3.92 1.65, 9.33 ** 4.82 2.36, 9.83 ***
Year 9 11.88 4.78, 29.51 *** 5.95 2.67, 13.26 *** 12.20 4.93 30.22 *** 6.04 2.72, 13.43 ***
Year 8 36.82 10.93, 124.07 *** 12.12 3.87, 37.95 *** 43.95 13.04, 148.10 *** 13.19 4.20, 41.40 ***
CFCS subscale 0.82 0.77, 0.87 *** 0.90 0.85, 0.95 *** 1.23 1.14, 1.33 *** 1.12 1.04, 1.20 **

Notes: Shown are odds ratios (OR) (þ95% CI, confidence intervals). Reference category is problematic drinkers (n ¼ 128). *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. Clustering at school level controlled for using dummy variables.

time perspective can be confirmed as a predictor of
more problematic drinking through longitudinal
studies, then interventions aimed at altering future
time perspective and helping students focus more on
the longer term outcomes of their actions may be
beneficial in reducing harmful and hazardous drinking
in this population. Elsewhere (Hall & Fong, 2003)
some promising work has begun in this regard.
While intuitively, it might make sense that health
promotion messages and/or education interventions
would specifically target the future longer-term conse-
quences of present adolescent drinking behaviour, a
number of points of caution need to be raised. First, the
CFCS is not specific in terms of what precisely is
meant by ‘future’. Only in two of its items does it state
‘for many years’ as indicative of a temporal horizon or
depth. This vagueness is potentially problematic in
applying the results of this study. Adolescent specific
research on the conceptualization of time has suggested
that the linguistic framing and temporal depth (how far
into the future the message extends) included in such
messages is important (McKay, Ballantyne, Goudie,
Sumnall, & Cole, 2012). Elsewhere research has
reported how adolescents conceptualise time
analogically (Mello et al., 2009). Additionally,
researchers have cautioned that temporal extension is
age-specific (Steinberg et al., 2009) and the temporal
future extension is highly correlated with past exten-
sion (Bluedorn, 2002). Therefore, notwithstanding the
already accepted relationship between early-onset
problematic drinking and alcohol-related problems in
later life, those targeting adolescent drinkers need to be
careful with the framing of their messages and the
temporal period over which the message extends.
Telling a 15-year old that outcome ‘A’ will occur when
they are 40 years old may mean very little, as they are
being asked to conceptualise a future time which is 10
years longer than they have been alive. For the
adolescent drinker, the future might refer as readily
to ‘next weekend’ as to ‘ten years-time’. Using data
from a series of focus groups, we recently reported that
adolescents’ future focus in respect of the negative
outcomes of drinking behaviour was on the immediate
future, and definitely not on chronic outcomes, and that
they rarely consider any negative future outcome of
their drinking behaviour (McKay, Ballantyne, et al.,
2012). Interestingly, however, the participants sug-
gested that they become more considerate of the future
 PRESENT ORIENTATION, FUTURE ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE
when prompted or encouraged to do so (with specific
reference made to studying for up-coming examina-
tions when prompted to do so by teachers). Therefore,
future research might seek to understand to what
degree if any, the CFC-F factor relates to time horizon
and/or temporal depth. Perhaps only then can future-
focused health messages for adolescents be at their
most salient. In the meantime, from a health perspec-
tive it might be best to view ‘future’ consequences as
those shorter-term more acute negative outcomes of
drinking behaviour.
The results for sex in this study are interesting.
There was no observed difference in CFC-F or CFC-I
scores between boys and girls. This is somewhat at
odds with other research where females have generally
been found to be more oriented to the future than
males, while males have been reported to be more
present-oriented than their female counterparts
(Beenstock et al., 2011; Keough et al., 1999;
Petrocelli, 2003; Steinberg et al., 2009; Zimbardo
et al., 1997). However, this finding has been found to
be dependent on the time perspective measure used
and, in some cases on the specific factor solution of
scales used (e.g. Petrocelli, 2003; Rappange et al.,
2009). In respect of the alcohol-specific results for sex,
the results suggest that girls are as likely to drink
problematically as boys. From a position where
historically girls in NI appeared to be less likely than
boys to drink problematically (e.g. Loretto, 1994),
more recent evidence has suggested that a convergence
has taken place so that girls are as likely as boys to
drink problematically (Eisenbach-Stangl & Thom,
2009; Health Promotion Agency, 2005; Northern
Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2008). These
results support this convergence. The results for year in
school (a proxy measure of age) are in line with much
other literature (e.g. McKay et al., 2011; McKay,
Sumnall, et al., 2012; Northern Ireland Statistics and
Research Agency, 2008; Percy & Iwaniec, 2010) which
has suggested that between ages 10 and 18, the
prevalence of alcohol consumption increases with
each increasing year band, so that while adolescent
consumption may begin in early adolescence it works
towards a peak in later adolescence.
One further issue merits discussion, namely, the use
of the CFCS in a multidimensional way. In its original
form, the scale was a unidimensional scale, and with
the non-reverse scoring of the negatively worded items,
it appears to make sense that this factor (CFC-I), in fact
measures present orientation. However, to the best of
our knowledge, there has been very little (Joireman
et al., 2008 as an exception) construct validity under-
taken on this measure. Future research might consider
testing the construct validity of the scale using other
measures of time perspective and/or variables which
have previously been found to correlated with time
perspective domains, for example, aggression, self-
esteem and self-efficacy.
49
CONCLUSI ON
A greater orientation to the present and a reduced
orientation towards the future have previously been
shown to be related to health behaviours, with research
generally supporting the idea that present orientation is
more important in this regard than future orientation.
The present data are at odds with this, suggesting
support for the association between more problematic
drinking behaviour and an increased present orienta-
tion, but also for the association of more problematic
drinking and a reduced future orientation. We found
that while present orientation is associated with
problematic drinking, future orientation is associated
with abstinence. While longitudinal data are required to
examine the causal nature of the relationship between
time perspective and problematic drinking, these
results suggest that interventions and/or health promo-
tion messages targeting adolescent drinkers need to be
considerate of both future- and present-focused mes-
sages. While abstainers and non-problematic drinkers
might benefit from their longer-term perspectives being
affirmed, more problematic drinkers might benefit
from specific work in relation to increase or enhance
their CFC, potentially to off-set what appears to be the
increased likelihood of their progressing into future
problematic adult use.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content
and writing of this article.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (2009). The role of time preference in smoking
cessation amongst older english adults. Health Psychology,
28, 529–534.
Adams, J. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future
consequences, smoking status, and body mass index. Health
Psychology, 31, 260–263.
Adams, J., & Nettle, D. (2009). Time perspective, personality
and smoking, body mass and physical activity: An empirical
study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 83–105.
Adams, J., & White, M. (2009). Time perspective in socioeco-
nomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. Health
Psychology, 28, 83–90.
Appleby, P.R., Marks, A.A., Miller, L.C., Murphy, S., &
Mansergh, G. (2005). Consideration of future consequences
and unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex
with men. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 119–133.
Beenstock, J., Adams, J., & White, M. (2011). The association
between time perspective and alcohol consumption in
university students: Cross-sectional study. The European
Journal of Public Health, 21, 438–443.
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S.A. (2004). Inherent associa-
tion between academic delay of gratification, future time
perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 35–57.
50 M. T. MCKAY ET AL.
Berglund, K., Fahlke, C., Berggren, U., Eriksson, M., &
Balldin, J. (2006). Personality profile in type 1 alcoholism:
Long duration of alcohol intake and low serotonergic activity
are predictive factors of anxiety proneness. Journal of Neural
Transmission, 113, 1287–1298.
Bluedorn, A.C. (2002). The human organization of time:
Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Business Books.
Bonomo, Y.A., Bowes, G., Coffey, C., Carlin, J.B., & Patton, C.
(2004). Teenage drinking and the onset of alcohol depen-
dence: A cohort study over seven years. Addiction, 99,
1520–1528.
Carstensen, L.L., Isaacowitz, D., & Charles, S.T. (1999). Taking
time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity.
American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
De Volder, M.L., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement
and future time perspective as a cognitive-motivational
concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
566–571.
De Wit, D.J., Adlaf, E.M., Offord, D.R., & Ogborne, A.C.
(2000). Age at first alcohol use: A risk factor for the
development of alcohol disorders. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 157, 745–750.
Dorr, N., Krueckeberg, S., Strathman, A., & Wood, M.D.
(1999). Psychosocial correlates of voluntary HIV antibody
testing in college students. AIDS Education and Prevention,
11, 14–27.
Eisenbach-Stangl, I., & Thom, B. (2009). Intoxication and
Intoxicated Behaviour in Contemporary European Cultures:
Myths, Realities and the Implications for Policy, (Prevention)
Practice and Research. Policy Brief (February), European
Centre for Social Welfare, Policy and Research, Vienna.
Grant, B.F., & Dawson, D.A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol use
and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and
dependence: Results from the national longitudinal alcohol
epidemiologic survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9,
103–110.
Grant, B.F., Stinson, F.S., & Harford, T.C. (2001). Age at onset
of alcohol use and DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence:
A 12-year follow-up. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13,
493–504.
Greene, B.A., & DeBacker, T.K. (2004). Gender and orienta-
tions toward the future: Links to motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 91–120.
Guo, J., Collins, L.M., Hill, K.G., & Hawkins, J.D. (2000).
Developmental pathways to alcohol abuse and dependence in
young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 799–808.
Hall, P.A., & Fong, G.T. (2003). The effects of a brief time
perspective intervention for increasing physical activity
among young adults. Psychology and Health, 18, 685–706.
Hamilton, J.M., Kives, K.D., Micevski, V., & Grace, S.L.
(2003). Time perspective and health promoting behavior in a
cardiac rehabilitation population. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 28, 130–139.
Health Promotion Agency (2005). Drinking behaviour among
young people in Northern Ireland: Secondary analysis of
alcohol data from 1997 to 2003. Belfast: Health Promotion
Agency.
Henson, J., Carey, M., Carey, K., & Maisto, S. (2006).
Associations among health behaviors and time perspective
in young adults: Model testing with boot-strapping replica-
tion. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 127–137.
Hingson, R.W., Heeren, T., & Winter, M.R. (2006). Age at
drinking onset and alcohol dependence: Age at onset,
duration, and severity. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 160, 739–746.
Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., &
Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences,
ego-depletion, and self-control: Support for distinguishing
between CFC-immediate and CFC-future sub-scales.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 15–21.
Kandel, D. (1982). Epidemiological and psychosocial perspec-
tives on adolescent drug use. Journal of the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 328–347.
Kandel, D.B., Simcha-Fagan, O., & Davies, M. (1986). Risk
factors for delinquency and illicit drug use from adolescence
to young adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 67–90.
Keough, K.A., Zimbardo, P.G., & Boyd, J.N. (1999). Time
perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 21, 149–164.
Lasane, T.P., & O’Donnell, D.A. (2005). Time orientation
measurement: A conceptual approach. In A. Strathman &
J. Joireman. Understanding behavior in the context of time:
Theory, research and application (pp. 11–30). London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lennings, C.J. (2000). The stanford time perspective inventory:
An analysis of a test of temporal orientation for research in
health psychology. Journal of Applied Health Behavior, 2,
40–45.
Lennings, C.J., Burns, A.M., & Cooney, G. (1998). Profiles of
time perspective and personality: Developmental considera-
tions. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 629–641.
Levy, B., & Earleywine, M. (2004). Discriminating reinforce-
ment expectancies for studying from future time perspective
in the prediction of drinking problems. Addictive Behaviors,
29, 181–190.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences: Selected
theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.
Loretto, W.A. (1994). Youthful drinking in Northern Ireland and
Scotland: Preliminary results from a comparative study.
Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 1, 143–152.
Mayer, J., & Filstead, W.J. (1979). The adolescent alcohol
involvement scale. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40,
291–300.
McKay, M.T., Ballantyne, N., Goudie, A.J., Sumnall, H.R., &
Cole, J.C. (2012). ‘Here for a good time, not a long time’:
Decision-making, future consequences and alcohol use among
Northern Irish adolescents. Journal of Substance Use, 17(1),
1–18.
McKay, M.T., Sumnall, H.R., Cole, J.C., & Percy, A. (2012).
Self-esteem and self-efficacy: Associations with alcohol
consumption in a sample of adolescents in Northern
Ireland. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 19,
72–80.
McKay, M.T., Sumnall, H.R., Field, M., Goudie, A.J., &
Cole, J.C. (2011). What differentiates adolescent problematic
drinkers from their peers? Results from a cross sectional study
in Northern Irish school children. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 18, 187–199.
Mello, Z.R., Bhadare, D., Fearn, E.J., Galaviz, M.M.,
Hartmann, E.S., & Worrell, F.C. (2009). The window,
the river, and the novel: Examining adolescents’ concep-
tions of the past, the present and the future. Adolescence,
44, 539–556.
Mello, Z.R., & Worrell, F.C. (2006). The relationship of time
perspective to age, gender, and academic achievement among
academically talented adolescents. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 29, 271–289.
 PRESENT ORIENTATION, FUTURE ORIENTATION AND ALCOHOL USE
Miller, R.B., & Brickman, S.J. (2004). A Model of future-
oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 9–33.
Monshouwer, K., Smit, F., De Zwart, W.M., Spruit, I., & Van
Ameijden, E.J.C. (2003). Progress from a first drink to first
intoxication: Age of onset, time windows and risk factors in a
Dutch national sample of secondary school students. Journal
of Substance Use, 8, 155–163.
Muthén, B.O., & Muthén, L.K. (1998–2007). Mplus version 4
[Computer Programme]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2008). Young
Person’s behaviour and attitudes survey (pp. 127–143).
Belfast: NISRA.
O’Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determin-
ing the number of components using parallel analysis and
Velicer’s MAP test. Behaviour Research Methods,
Instruments and Computers, 32, 396–402.
Orbell, S., & Hagger, M.S. (2006). Temporal framing and the
decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of
individual differences in consideration of future consequences
on persuasion. Health Psychology, 25, 537–548.
Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, T. (2004). Individual
differences in sensitivity to health communications:
Consideration of future consequences. Health Psychology,
23, 388–396.
Percy, A., & Iwaniec, D. (2010). Teenage drinking: Causes and
consequences (p. 39). Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic.
Pertocelli, J.V. (2003). Factor validation of the consideration of
future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 405–413.
Rappange, D.R., Brouwer, W.B.F., & Van Exel, N.J.A. (2009).
Back to the consideration of future consequences scale: Time
to reconsider? The Journal of Social Psychology, 149,
562–581.
Reifman, A. (2001, August). Future orientation buffers the
relationship between network drinking and own ability. Poster
presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Robbins, R.N., & Bryan, A. (2004). Relationships between
future orientation, impulsive sensation seeking, and risk
behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 19, 428–445.
Seijts, G.H. (1998). The importance of future time perspective in
theories of work motivation. The Journal of Psychology, 132,
154–168.
Shell, D.F., & Husman, J. (2001). The multivariate dimension-
ality of personal control and future time perspective in
achievement and studying. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 481–506.
Shields, A.L., Campfield, D.C., Miller, C.S., Howell, P.T.,
Wallace, K., & Weiss, R.D. (2008). Score reliability of
adolescent alcohol screening measures: A meta-analytic
inquiry. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse,
17, 75–97.
51
Shipp, A.J., Edwards, J.R., & Schurer-Lambert, 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.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004).
Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a
temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16,
121–139.
Smart, R.G. (1968). Future time perspectives in alcoholics and
social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 81–83.
Spear, L.P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related
behavioural manifestations. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioural Reviews, 24, 417–463.
Stacy, A.W., & Newcomb, P.M. (1995). Long-term social-
psychological influences on deviant attitudes and criminal
behavior. In H.B. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs, crime, and other
deviant adaptations: Longitudinal studies (pp. 99–127).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Steinberg, L., Graham, S., O’Brien, L., Woolard, J.,
Cauffman, E., & Banich, M. (2009). Age differences in
future orientation and delay discounting. Child Development,
80, 28–44.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S., & Edwards, C.S.
(1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing
immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742–752.
Takakura, M., & Wake, N. (2003). Association of age at onset of
cigarette and alcohol use with subsequent smoking and
drinking patterns among Japanese high school students.
Journal of School Health, 73, 226–231.
Thoms, P., & Blasko, D. (2004). Future time perspective as a
temporal anchor: Applications to organizations. Journal of
Business and Economic Research, 2, 27–39.
Viner, R.M., & Taylor, B. (2007). Adult outcomes of binge
drinking in adolescence: Findings from a UK national birth
cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61,
902–907.
White, H.R., Bates, M.E., & Labouvie, E.W. (1998). Adult
outcomes of adolescent drug use: A comparison of process-
oriented and incremental analyses. In R. Jessor (Ed.), New
perspectives on adolescent risk behaviour (pp. 150–181).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wills, T.A., Sandy, J.M., & Yaeger, A.M. (2001). Time
perspective and early-onset substance use: A model based
on stress-coping theory. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
15, 118–125.
Wohlford, P. (1966). Extension of personal time, affective
states, and expectation of personal death. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 559–566.
Zimbardo, P.G., & Boyd, J.N. (1999). Time perspective: A
valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.
Zimbardo, P.G., Keough, K.A., & Boyd, J.N. (1997). Present
time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality
and Individual Differences, 23, 1007–1023.
Copyright of Addiction Research & Theory is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.