Running Head: FNTP AND RISK-TAKING BEAHVIORS

Adolescents’ Future Negative Time Perspective and Risk-Taking Behaviors: The Roles of

Coping Styles and Self-Control

Kai Dou

Department of Psychology, School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou China

Ming-Chen Zhang

Department of Psychology, School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou China

Yue Liang*

School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Department of Psychology, School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou China

⁎ Corresponding author: Yue Liang, School of Social Development and Public Policy,

Beijing Normal University. E-mail: liangyue1989@gmail.com (Yue Liang)

Acknowledgements: This work was supported a grant by National Natural Science

Foundation of China (No. 31800938) to Kai Dou, a grant from Natural Science Foundation of

Guangdong Province (2018A030313406) to Kai Dou and a grant from China Postdoctoral

Science Foundation (No. 2018M643038) to Yue Liang.

FNTP AND RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS 2

Abstract

The association between future time perspective and risk-taking behaviors has received

extensive empirical attention. However, the underlying mechanism that links future

negative time perspective to risk-taking behaviors are complex and not well-understood.

To address this gap, we adopted a longitudinal design examined the association between

FNTP and risk-taking behaviors, and the roles of coping styles and self-control in this

association among Chinese adolescents (total N = 581, 46.3% females). Results showed

that FNTP at wave 1 predicted risk-taking behavior at wave 3 via positive and negative

coping styles at wave 2. Furthermore, adolescents with low self-control and used

negative coping strategies prefer to engage in risk-taking behaviors as compared to their

high self-control counterparts. Taken together, these research findings underscore the

importance of considering influence of the future negative time perspective on

adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors, and provided important implications for developing

the preventions and interventions for reducing adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors.

Keywords: Future negative time perspective; Risk-taking behaviors; Coping styles;

Self-control; Chinese adolescents

Adolescents’ Future Negative Time Perspective and Risk-Taking Behaviors: The Roles

of Coping Styles and Self-Control

Introduction

Risk-taking behaviors, referring to individuals’ conscious engagement in activities

that involve potential danger or negative consequences (Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 2009; Gullone et

al., 2000), such as rebellious, reckless, and antisocial behaviors (Özmen & Sümer, 2011), are

commonly found in adolescents, and may set in motion a series of negative developmental

cascades in later life stages (Bryan et al., 2012; Chavarria et al., 2015). Adolescents’

engagement in risk-taking behaviors may due to their relatively short subjective perception of

time into future, which may lead to high levels of shortsightedness and ultimately result in

primarily focusing on immediate reward and risky decision making (Green et al., 1999) and

orient toward future (Donati et al., 2019; Göllner et al., 2018).

Prior researches have shown that adolescents’ future time perspective has great

implications on their development of risk-taking behaviors. However, research in this filed

still can be moved forwarded in several key directions. First, previous studies have primarily

treated future time perspective as a global construct and focused on the positive dimension of

the time perspective. Carelli et al (2014) suggested that time perspective not only contains

positive evaluations (e.g., hope, future planning), but also consists of individuals’ negative

views and anticipations (e.g. worry or anxiety) toward future (i.e. future negative time

perspective, FNTP). However, the association between negative future time perspective and
risk-taking behaviors remain unclear. Relatedly, the mechanism through which time

perspective was associated with risk-taking behavior remain unknown. According to the

Cognitive-affective Personality System (CAPS) (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), risk-taking

behaviors vary as a function of the characteristics of the decision makers (i.e., personality),

and features of the context. Specifically, considering that individuals with high levels of

FNTP envision their future as dark and hopeless (Carelli et al., 2014), when they

experiencing stressors, their negative coping system are more likely to be automatically

activated (Brady & Donenberg, 2006). They tend to avoid psychological contact with

stressors or negative emotions resulting from the stressful situation (Dariotis & Chen, 2020;

Votta & Manion, 2004). Their negative coping system activated by stressful situation may

drive them to engage in activities that could bring them immediate satisfaction (e.g., risk-

taking behavior). However, limited research attention has been paid to how adolescents’

coping styles may mediate the association between FNTP and risk-taking behaviors. Second,

considering that existing research have pointed to the important role of self-control in guiding

adolescents to regulate their behaviors in order to reach long-term goals (Dreves & Blackhart,

2019), it may serve as a protective role in the association between coping styles and risk-

taking behavior (Situ, Li, & Dou, 2015). FNTP may increase the propensity of negative

coping (Carelli et al., 2011), while self-control may be play protective (i.e., high self-control)

or deteriorated (i.e., low self-control) role for adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors. However,

few studies explore the relation between coping styles and risk-taking behavior in low self-

control versus high self-control (Li et al., 2016).

 To address these research gaps, the present study aims to provide a delineation of the

mechanisms underlying the association between adolescents’ FNTP and risk-taking

behaviors. First, we examined whether adolescents’ positive and negative coping styles serve

as mediators in the relation between FNTP and risk-taking behaviors. Furthermore, we

investigated whether adolescents’ self-control capabilities, a salient personal characteristic

related to adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors (de Ridder et al., 2012), moderated associations

among adolescents’ FNTP, coping styles, and risk-taking behaviors.

FNTP and Risk-Taking Behaviors

Time perspective refers to individuals’ thoughts and feelings toward the past, the

present, and the future (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), including positive and negative feeling

toward the past (i.e., Past Positive and Negative), pleasure-oriented attitude towards life with

little concern for future consequences (i.e., Present Hedonistic), beliefs about whether future

could be influenced by individual actions (i.e., Present Fatalistic), and thoughts dominated by

striving for future goals and rewards (i.e., Future Orientation) (Chen & Vazsonyi, 2012).

Individual differences in time perspective, which are associated with the abilities to pitting

long-term benefits against immediate gains, have been implicated as causes of adolescents’

risky decision-making behaviors (Cosenza et al., 2016; Sekścińska et al.,2018). For example,

adolescents with high levels of positive attitude toward past, present, and future engaged in

low levels of risk-taking behaviors (Worrell et al., 2011). In contrast, high levels of negative

views toward the past and the present were associated with increasing levels of risk-taking

propensities (Chavarria et al., 2015; Zimbardo et al., 1997).

 However, much of the empirical inquiry into the relation between time perspective

and risk-taking behaviors have either treated future time perspective as global construct or

focused on the positive aspect of future time perspective (Cosenza et al., 2016; Rudolph et

al., 2018). What is missing from the prior research, is how the negative aspect of future time

perspective affect adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors (Carelli et al., 2011). Future negative

time perspective (FNTP) refers to individuals’ negative feelings toward future (Carelli et al.,

2014), and their anticipations and considerations of future negative consequences.

Adolescents with high levels of FNTP may be shortsighted, envision their future as hopeless

(Carelli et al., 2011), devaluate future rewards, and prefer the present reward rather than

future reward (Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2020). Given that risk-taking behavior brings satisfaction

with “here and now” to adolescents, therefore, those who with high level of FNTP are more

likely to engage in risk-taking behavior.

Empirical research on implications of FNTP for adolescents’ impulsivity (Carelli et

al., 2011) and risk-taking behavior (Mello et al., 2018) have been accumulating. Specifically,

by weakening the individuals’ ability to plan for the future, FNTP make them pay more

attention to immediate satisfaction rather than long-term outcomes (Kim et al., 2020).

However, much of prior studies adopted a cross-sectional design which precludes the

possibility to examine whether high levels of FNTP may elevate the risk of adolescents’

engagement of risk-taking behaviors within a relatively long period of time.

Coping style as a mediator between FNTP and risk-taking behavior

 One potential pathway through which FNTP impacts adolescents’ risk-taking

behaviors is by shaping various styles they manage their cognition, emotions, and behaviors

to cope with stressful life events (Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Dariotis & Chen, 2020).

Coping refers to one's attitude and decision-making process to deal with the internal and

external demands of the person–environment transaction (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, &

DeLongis, 1986). Coping styles theoretically consist of two dimensions (Li et al., 2016, Xie,

1998), negative coping (e.g., avoidance, dependent strategy) with more automated, and

positive coping (e.g., seeking help, problem solving strategy) with more purposeful and need

more efforts. Some previous studies suggested that the functions of negative coping and risk-

taking are similar. In the current study, we define coping styles as a cognitive attitude, it may

better tease apart its link to risk-taking behaviors (Dariotis & Chen, 2020).

According to The Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality (CAPS),

personal characteristics interact with situation demands to elicit cognitive and affective

processes, which may ultimately result in risk-taking behaviors (Mischel & Shoda, 1995).

Individuals with high levels of FNTP have negative expectations toward future and perceived

that future outcomes are uncontrollable. Therefore, they are more vulnerable to stressful

situations, given that stressful situations may automatically activate their negative coping

system, such as problem avoidance, avoiding psychological contact with stressors (Votta &

Manion, 2004), which may lead them to engage in activities with immediate reward (i.e.,

risk-taking activities) (Veenstra et al., 2007; Vogel & Schwabe, 2019; Young & Limbers,

2017). Moreover, FNTP may be detrimental to adolescents’ capability of envisioning future

implications of their current choices and thus may hinder their likelihood to adopt positive

coping strategies (Wan et al., 2020). However, whether negative and positive coping styles

may serve as two core explanatory mechanisms for the effects of FNTP on adolescents’ later

risk-taking behavior remain unknown.

Self-Control as a moderator

Considering that self-control has been identified as a salient correlate for

impulsiveness (de Ridder et al., 2012; Tangney et al., 2004), it may operate together with

coping styles to explain why FNTP is associated with risk-taking behaviors. Multiple theories

(e.g., General Theory) and empirical studies share the premise that low self-control increase

adolescents’ risk for developing rebellious and antisocial behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi,

1990; Meldrum et al., 2018; Vazsonyi et al., 2017) while high self-control positively

associated with a host of beneficial outcomes (Friese et al., 2017; Tangney et al., 2004). As

such, low self-control operates as a risk factor and strengthen deleterious effects of negative

coping styles on adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors (Situ et al., 2015) and weaken the

beneficial effects of positive coping styles in reducing adolescents’ risk-taking behavior

(King & Gaerlan, 2013). However, few studies have investigated whether high versus low

self-control may moderate the association between coping styles and risk-taking behaviors.

The Current Study

To address the aforementioned gaps, the current study aims to investigate the

associations among adolescents’ FNTP, coping styles, self-control, and risk-taking behaviors.

First, we examine whether FNTP would be positively associated with adolescent’s risk-taking
behaviors. Second, we investigate whether coping styles would serve as a mediator in the

relation between FNTP and risk-taking behaviors. Third, we explore whether self-control

would moderate the association between coping styles and risk-taking behavior. We

hypothesize: (1) FNTP would be associated positively with risk-taking behaviors via negative

association with positive coping and positive association with negative coping; (2) Self-

control play a moderating role between Coping styles and risk-taking behaviors.

Method

Participants and procedures

Data were collected from 3 schools in a large city in southern China. All procedures

involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the research ethics committee

at XXX University (Protocol Number: XXX) (Blind). Fliers with basic information about the

current study were first distributed to parents and adolescents. Parents who were willing to

participate in the study signed parent consent form. A total of 594 parents granted consent for

their children’s participation. Written consents were also obtained from adolescents. A total

of 581 adolescents (M = 15.35, SD = 1.36, 46.3% females) participated in the first wave of

data collection. The sample was diverse in terms of parents’ levels of education and areas

where they came from. In the current sample, 86.4% of the participants came from urban

areas, and 13.6% came from rural areas. With regard to parents’ levels of education, 36.1% of

the fathers graduated from high school, 42.9% of the fathers had a college degree or

equivalent, and 8.1% had a graduate degree, 39.9% of the mothers graduated from high

school, 39.8% had a college degree or equivalent, and 5.2% had a graduate degree. Of the
581 adolescents, 552 (attrition rate = 0.05%) and 545 (attrition rate = 0.01%) participated in

the assessments at Waves 2 and Wave 3 respectively. The time interval of data collection was

three months between two waves.

Data collection procedures were identical across waves. Adolescents who agreed to

participated in the study were invited to fill out the surveys in the classroom where two

research assistants presented to ensure that participants were not disturbed when answering

questionnaires and to address questions that participants had during whole process of data

collection. After completing the questionnaires, all participants were compensated with small

gifts for their participation.

Measures

Future negative time perspective at Wave 1. Future negative time perspective was

measured by the 10-item Future Negative (FN) Scale (S-ZTPI, Carelli et al., 2011; Košťál, et

al., 2016). Participants Each of the 10 items (“if I have to take a quick decision, I am often

worried that it was wrong”) was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (from “1 = very

uncharacteristic”, to “5= very characteristic”). Items were summed with a higher score

indicating that the participant was more likely to think about future with worry and to

anticipate negative outcomes. The internal consistency was .79 in the current study.

Risk-taking behaviors at Wave 1 and Wave 3. Risk-taking behaviors were assessed by

the 11-item Adolescent Risk-taking Questionnaire (ARQ; Gullone et al., 2000). Adolescents

indicated their frequency of performing certain risk-taking behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale

(0 = never done, 1 = hardly ever done, 2 = done sometimes, 3 = done often, 4 = done very
often). These risk-taking behaviors were categorized into three dimensions: rebellious

behaviors (e.g., smoking), reckless behaviors (e.g., having unprotected sex), and antisocial

behaviors (e.g., cheating). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .63 to .76 for subscales and

was .75 to .81 for the overall scale at Wave 1 and Wave 3. Mean scores of each dimension

were computed and used in analyses. The composite average score of risk-taking behaviors

assessed at Wave 1 were used as baseline entered in the model. This measure has been

demonstrated to be valid and reliable in Chinese samples (Zhang et al., 2011).

Coping styles at Wave 2. The 20-item Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ;

Xie, 1998) was used to assess participants positive (e.g., “seeking help from friends and

peers”) and negative coping (e.g., “accepting reality, because there is no way to fix the

problems”) styles. Participants indicated how often they use a certain type of coping strategy

on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “never use” to 3 = “frequently use.” Items of each

subscale were summed with a higher score indicating that the participants frequently adopted

either positive or negative coping style. The internal consistency for the positive and negative

style subscale was .76 and .67 respectively. Prior studies have demonstrated that the SCSQ

was valid and reliable in Chinese population (Li et al., 2016).

Self-control capability at Wave 2. Self-control capability was assessed by the 13-item

Brief Self-Control Scale (e.g., “I say inappropriate things”; Tangney et al., 2004), a reliable

tool in previous study conducted in the Chinese context (e.g., Situ et al., 2015). Participants

reported their levels of self-control capabilities on a 5-point scale ranging from “1 = not like
me at all” to “5 = very much like me.” Mean scores were computed and used in all analyses.

The Cronbach’s alpha was .84 in the current study.

Covariates at Wave 1. Child Sex (1 = male, 2 = female), child age, mothers’ and

fathers’ education (1 = had a degree less than high school, 2 = had a high school degree, 3 =

had a college degree or equivalent, 4 = had a graduate degree), and areas where the

participants came from (1 = urban area, 2 = rural area) were included as covariates in all the

analyses.

Data analytic strategies

The primary hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) via

Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1992-2015). Missing data points were handled by using the

full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML; Acock, 2005). First, we conducted a

series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to evaluate the factorial structures of the risk-

taking behaviors. Second, we conducted a process model in which future negative time

perspective at Wave 1 was specified as exogenous variables predicting risk-taking behaviors

(which were specified as latent variable manifested by rebellious behaviors, thrill-seeking

behaviors, reckless behaviors, and antisocial behaviors) at Wave 3. In order to accurately

estimate the Type I error rates and detect indirect effects, we examined the indirect effects

using the bias-corrected bootstrapped standard errors and confidence intervals (CIs) with

2,000 bootstrap resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We further examined the meditating

roles that positive and negative coping strategies assessed at Wave 2 in the association

between future negative time perspective at Wave 1 and risk-taking behaviors at Wave 3.
Additionally, whether self-control capabilities at Wave 2 moderated the relations between

coping strategies (i.e., positive and negative coping strategies) and risk-taking behaviors was

investigated by using the procedures outlined by Preacher et al (2007).

Results

The descriptive statistics for key study variables and covariates as well as the zero-

order bivariate correlations between key study variables and covariates are shown in Table 1.

All associations were in the expected directions.

[Insert Table 1 in here]

The model depicted in Figure 1 fit the data well: Chi-square = 38.508, N = 581, df =

17, p < .001, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .047 with 90% CI [.027, .066], SRMR = .021. The direct

association between future negative time perspective and risk-taking behaviors was

significant (β = .061, p = .016). The bootstrapping analyses identified a series of indirect

effects as shown in Table 2. Results indicated that both negative and positive coping styles at

Wave 2 served as significant mediators of the association between future negative time

perspective at Wave 1 and risk-taking behaviors at Wave 3 after controlling for child sex,

age, parental levels of education, and areas where they came from. Specifically, FNTP was

associated with positive coping style (β = -.177, p < .001), which in turn were related

negatively to risk-taking behaviors (β = -.114, p < .001). FNTP was related positively to
negative coping style (β = 0.252, p < .001) which was associated with risk-taking behaviors

(β = 0.106, p < .001).

[Insert Figure 1 and Table 2 in here]

Additionally, results indicated that self-control served as a significant moderator in

the relation between negative coping style and risk-taking behaviors (β = -.085, p = .050),

whereas self-control capacities did not moderate the relation between positive coping and

risk-taking behaviors (β = 0.031, p = .553). Furthermore, when individuals’ levels of self-

control capabilities were higher (one SD above the mean), the indirect effect from future

negative time perspective to risk-taking behaviors via negative coping style was not

significant, B = -.017, S.E. = .059, 95% CI [-.194, .077], β = -.025. When self-control

capabilities were lower (one SD below the mean), the indirect effect from future negative

time perspective to risk-taking behaviors via negative coping was significant, B = .071, S.E.

= .043, 95% CI [.005, .188], β = .102. We further conducted a simple slope test (Aiken &

West, 1991) to illustrate the moderation effects. As shown in Figure 2, adolescents with

lower levels of self-control capabilities and negative coping style were more likely to engage

in risk-taking behaviors as compared to adolescents with higher levels of self-control

capabilities and frequently using negative coping strategies.

[Insert Figure 2 in here]

Discussion

FNTP and risk-taking behaviors

The current study adopted a longitudinal design and examined the relation between

FNTP and risk-taking behavior in Chinese adolescents. We found that adolescents’ future

negative time perspective was associated positively with adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors.

This finding supported hypotheses of the Cognitive-affective Personality System (CAPS)

(Mischel & Shoda, 1995) that personality and situational characteristics may synergistically

elicit risk-taking behaviors. Those who imagine their future lives as hopeless are more likely

to adopt negative coping strategies when encountering stressful situation. As a result, they

tend to avoid problems and psychological contact with negative emotions related to stressors,

which drive them to seek immediate gratification instead of future planning. Additionally, we

also found that adolescents with low self-control and used negative coping strategies were

more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors as compared to their high self-control

counterparts. Findings of the current study contributed to existing literature by examining

how negative aspect of future time perspective may be associated with adolescents’ risk-

taking behaviors and provided important implications for developing interventions aiming to

prevent adolescents from engaging in risk-taking behaviors by reducing their levels of FNTP

and promoting their positive coping and self-control capabilities.

Positive and negative coping styles as mediators

 Consistent with our hypothesis, results showed that both positive and negative coping

styles mediated the relation between FNTP and risk-taking behavior. The results also

provided empirical support to the Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality (Mischel

& Shoda, 1995), which suggests FNTP as a personality trait, may affect individuals’ behavior

via their cognition in particular situation. In stressful situations, adolescents with FNTP

preferred temporary distraction (i.e., negative coping) (Vogel & Schwabe, 2019) to reduce

emotional pain in a short-term rather than coming up with plans to solve problems they were

facing (i.e., positive coping) (Sideridis, 2008). Although negative coping may not always be

the optimal response to life’s problems, avoiding difficult situations or negative thoughts to

minimize exposure to unpleasant affections is still a preferred option to them as compared to

solving problems. Moreover, given that adolescents high in FNTP perceived future as

uncontrollable, when facing stressful situation, they are more prone to activate their negative

coping system such as preferring avoidant problem-solving strategies and, as a result, they

are more likely to pursuit immediate reward rather than delay satisfaction (Kang et al., 2018;

Zambianchi & Bitti, 2013). Thus, adolescents ultimately increased the propensity to engage

in risk-taking behaviors for immediate emotional gratification.

Additionally, results indicated that the indirect effects that FNTP on risk-taking

behaviors was stronger via negative coping than which through positive coping. Existing

interventions primarily focused on reducing adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors by

encouraging them to develop positive coping (Dariotis et al., 2016; Davey, Eaker, & Walters,

2003). Our results suggested that for adolescents with high levels of FNTP, helping them
recognize the difference between positive and negative coping and preventing them from

adopting negative coping (Fowler et al., 2020) may be an effective way to promote their

resilience and reduce their levels of risk-taking behaviors (Bricker et al., 2011; Young, &

Limbers, 2017).

Self-control as a moderator

Results showed that the mediating effects of negative coping styles in the association

between FNTP and risk-taking behavior is only significant for adolescents with low levels of

self-control. Low levels of self-control served as an enhanced role in increasing the

deleterious effects that negative coping styles had on risk-taking behaviors. In line with the

risk-enhancing model (Masten, 2001), low self-control as a risk factor amplified the negative

effect of negative coping on adolescent risk-taking behaviors. In addition, behaviors of

adolescents with negative coping dominated by avoidance and dependent, while poor self-

control makes them more vulnerable to influence by risk environment such as deviant peer

affiliation and alcohol use (de Ridder et al., 2012), which increase the propensity of engaging

risk-taking behaviors.

Inconsistent with our hypothesis, self-control did not moderate the relation between

positive coping styles and risk-taking behaviors. It is possible that positive coping strategies

played a more important role in protecting adolescents from exhibiting risk-taking behaviors

than self-control did (Li et al., 2016). Nevertheless, Galla & Wood (2015) found that

individuals with high self-control reported fewer daily stresses. This may suggest that

individuals with good self-control may not need to spend a huge cognitive resource to cope
with stresses. Moreover, Knowles et al (2020) suggested that, adolescents’ motivation to

protect themself against the potential negative consequences of risk-taking may be weakened

when they do not expect to achieve future positive goals, regardless of their ability to

suppress their impulses. This may explain why self-control play a limited role. However,

future studies are needed to further clarify this relation.

Limitations and implications

Findings of prior studies have pointed to salient role that future time perspective plays

in reducing adolescents’ risk-taking behavior (e.g., Cosenza et al., 2016; Rudolph et al.,

2018). However, these studies primarily treated future time perspective as a global construct

and focused on its positive aspects. The current study further investigated how the negative

aspect of FTP (i.e., FNTP) influence adolescents’ risk-taking behavior. Thus, results of the

current study extend the time perspective theory and deepen our understanding of how

individuals’ time perspective may shape adolescents’ behavioral development.

Furthermore, our findings provided two important implications for developing

intervention aiming to reduce adolescents’ risk-taking behavior. First, encouraging

adolescents to use positive future oriented strategies such as future positive anticipation (Luo

et al., 2018) and episodic future thinking (Bromberg et al., 2015) may be an effective way to

reduce their usage of negative future oriented thinking and to ultimately inhibit risk-taking

propensity. Second, findings of the current study underscore potential values of targeting

adolescents with low self-control abilities and frequently adopting negative coping strategies,

who were at highest risk for developing risk-taking behaviors. Interventions would ideally
seek to help adolescents resist temporary temptation as well as to train them to acquire

positive strategies to cope with difficulties which may ultimately reduce the likelihood to

develop risk-taking behaviors (Borders et al., 2010).

Results of the current study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. First, all

variables were self-reported by adolescents, thus the common-method bias may inflate the

associations among key study variables. Future studies may benefit from using multi-

informant method such as teachers’ and parents’ observations and reports to more

comprehensively illuminate the relation between FNTP and risk-taking behavior. Second,

although key study variables were measured at three time points, we acknowledge that the

time intervals of data collection were relatively short. Therefore, additional studies adopting a

longitudinal design are needed to examine the association between FNTP and risk-taking

behaviors for a longer period of time. Third, although we tapped into the underlying

mechanism through which FNTP impact adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors, we merely

focused on the implications of personal characteristics for risk-taking behaviors. There are

contextual factors that require continued empirical inquire. For example, how the effects of

FNTP on risk-taking behaviors may vary as a function of various family contexts (Kerpelman

et al., 2013) or peer relationships (Orkibi & Dafner, 2015). Future studies should include

adolescents from different family. Finally, the present study focused on a sample of Chinese

adolescents. Therefore, the current result limits the generalizability of our findings and more

studies using samples from various cultures are needed.

Conclusions
 The present study investigated the underlying mechanism linking which adolescents’

future negative time perspectives and their risk-taking behaviors. Adolescents with high

levels of future negative time perspective were less likely to adopt positive coping and more

likely to use negative coping, which in turn was associated with their risk-taking behaviors.

These results provide empirical evidence to hypotheses of the Cognitive-affective Personality

System (CAPS) theory (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), high FNTP adolescents may be vulnerable

to stressful life events, which may activate adolescents’ negative coping systems.

Adolescents’ negative coping ultimately lead to risk-taking behaviors. Additionally,

consistent with hypotheses of the risk-enhancing model (Masten, 2001), low levels of self-

control may heighten risk for adolescents with high levels of future negative time

perspectives and frequently using negative coping strategies. Taken together, these findings

underscore the potential importance of reduce adolescents’ future negative time perspective

for preventing them from exhibiting risk-taking behaviors.

References

Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,

1012-1028. https://doi.org/1012–1028. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x

Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bal, S., Van Oost, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Crombez, G. (2003). Avoidant coping as a

mediator between self-reported sexual abuse and stress-related symptoms in

adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-

2134(03)00137-6

Benoit, R. G., Gilbert, S. J., & Burgess, P. W. (2011). A neural mechanism mediating the

impact of episodic prospection on farsighted decisions. Journal of Neuroscience, 31,

6771-6779. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.6559-10.2011

Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (2009). Threat to life and risk-taking behaviors: A review of

empirical findings and explanatory models. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 13, 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308330104

Boals, A., Vandellen, M. R., & Banks, J. B. (2011). The relationship between self-control and

health: The mediating effect of avoidant coping. Psychology & Health, 26, 1049-

1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.529139

Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Jajodia, A. (2010). Could mindfulness decrease anger,

hostility, and aggression by decreasing rumination? Aggressive Behavior, 36, 28-44.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20327
Brady, S. S., & Donenberg, G. R. (2006). Mechanisms linking violence exposure to health

risk behavior in adolescence: Motivation to cope and sensation seeking. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 673-680.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000215328.35928.a9

Bricker, J. B., Schiff, L., & Comstock, B. A. (2011). Does Avoidant Coping Influence Young

Adults' Smoking?: A Ten-Year Longitudinal Study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research,

13, 998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr074

Bromberg, U., Wiehler, A., & Peters, J. (2015). Episodic future thinking is related to

impulsive decision making in healthy adolescents. Child Development, 86, 1458-

1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12390

Bryan, A. D., Schmiege, S. J., & Magnan, R. E. (2012). Marijuana use and risky sexual

behavior among high-risk adolescents: Trajectories, risk factors, and event-level

relationships. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1429-1442.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a002754

Carelli, M. G., Wiberg, B., & Åström, E. (2014). Broadening the TP profile: future negative

time perspective. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.) Time

perspective theory; review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G.

Zimbardo (pp. 87-97). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-07368-2_5
Carelli, M. G., Wiberg, B., & Wiberg, M. (2011). Development and construct validation of

the Swedish Zimbardo time perspective inventory. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 27, 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000076

Chavarria, J., Allan, N. P., Moltisanti, A., & Taylor, J. (2015). The effects of present

hedonistic time perspective and past negative time perspective on substance use

consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 152, 39-46.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.04.027

Chen, P., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2012). Future orientation, school contexts, and problem

Behaviors: A Multilevel Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 67-81.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9785-4

Cosenza, M., Griffiths, M. D., Nigro, G., & Ciccarelli, M. (2016). Risk-taking, delay

discounting, and time perspective in adolescent gamblers: An experimental study.

Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 383-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9623-

Daniel, T. O., Sawyer, A., Dong, Y., Bickel, W. K., & Epstein, L. H. (2016). Remembering

versus imagining: When does episodic retrospection and episodic prospection aid

decision making? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 352-358.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.005

Dariotis, J. K., & Chen, F. R. (2020). Stress Coping Strategies as Mediators: Toward a Better

Understanding of Sexual, Substance, and Delinquent Behavior-Related Risk-Taking

 among Transition-Aged Youth. Deviant Behavior, 18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1796210

Dariotis, J. K., Mirabal-Beltran, R., Cluxton-Keller, F., Gould, L. F., Greenberg, M. T., &

Mendelson, T. (2016). A Qualitative evaluation of student learning and skills use in a

School-Based mindfulness and yoga program. Mindfulness, 7, 76-89.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0463-y

Davey, M., Eaker, D. G., & Walters, L. H. (2003). Resilience Processes in Adolescents:

Personality Profiles, Self-Worth, and Coping. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18,

347-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403018004002

de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.

(2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates

to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76-99.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749

Donati, M. A., Sottili, E., Morsanyi, K., & Primi, C. (2019). Time Perspectives and Gambling

in Adolescent Boys: Differential Effects of Present- and Future-Orientation. Journal

of Gambling Studies, 35, 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-018-9780-0

Dreves, P. A., & Blackhart, G. C. (2019). Thinking into the future: how a future time

perspective improves self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 141-

151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.049
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health

status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50,

571-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571

Fowler, J., Gullo, M. J., & Elphinston, R. A. (2020). Impulsivity traits and Facebook

addiction in young people and the potential mediating role of coping styles.

Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 6, Article 109965.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109965

Friese, M., Frankenbach, J., Job, V., & Loschelder, D. D. (2017). Does Self-Control Training

Improve Self-Control? A Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12,

1077-1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697076

Galla, B. M., & Wood, J. J. (2015). Trait Self-Control Predicts Adolescents' Exposure and

Reactivity to Daily Stressful Events. Journal of Personality, 83, 69-83.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12083

Göllner, L. M., Ballhausen, N., Kliegel, M., & Forstmeier, S. (2018). Delay of gratification,

delay discounting and their associations with age, episodic future thinking, and future

time perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 15, Article 2304

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02304

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.
Gullone, E., Moore, S., Moss, S., & Boyd, C. (2000). The adolescent risk-taking

questionnaire: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 15, 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152003

Green, L., Myerson, J., & Ostaszewski, P. (1999). Discounting of delayed rewards across the

life span: Age differences in individual discounting functions. Behavioural Processes,

46, 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-6357(99)00021-2

Gruhn, D., Sharifian, N., & Chu, Q. (2016). The Limits of a Limited Future Time Perspective

in Explaining Age Differences in Emotional Functioning. Psychology and Aging, 31,

583-593. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000060

Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 409-415.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.02.014

Johnson, S. B., Dariotis, J. K., & Wang, C. (2012). Adolescent Risk Taking Under Stressed

and Nonstressed Conditions: Conservative, Calculating, and Impulsive Types.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, S34-S40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.04.021

Kang, M., Bang, M., Lee, S. Y., Lee, E., Yoo, S. W., & An, S. K. (2018). Coping styles in

individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis: Associations with cognitive appraisals.

Psychiatry Research, 264, 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.079

Kenny, D. A. (2012). Mediation. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/ cm/mediate.htm

Kerpelman, J. L., McElwain, A. D., Pittman, J. F., & Adler-Baeder, F. M. (2013).

Engagement in Risky Sexual Behavior. Youth & Society, 48, 101-125.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x13479614

Kim, S. J., Kim, H. J., & Kim, K. (2020). Time Perspectives and Delay of Gratification - The

Role of Psychological Distance Toward the Future and Perceived Possibility of

Getting a Future Reward. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 653-

663. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.S246443

King, R. B., & Gaerlan, M. J. M. (2013). High self-control predicts more positive emotions,

better engagement, and higher achievement in school. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 29, 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0188-z

Knowles, A., Rinehart, J. K., Steinberg, L., Frick, P. J., & Cauffman, E. (2020). Risky Sexual

Behavior among Arrested Adolescent Males: The Role of Future Expectations and

Impulse Control. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30, 562-579.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12499

Košťál, J., Klicperová-Baker, M., Lukavská, K., & Lukavský, J. (2016). Short version of the

Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI–short) with and without the Future-

Negative scale, verified on nationally representative samples. Time & Society, 25,

169-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463x15577254

Kuehn, K. S., King, K. M., Linehan, M. M., & Harned, M. S. (2020). Modeling the suicidal

behavior cycle: understanding repeated suicide attempts among individuals with

borderline personality disorder and a history of attempting suicide. Journal of

 Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88, 570-581.

https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000496

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosomatic

medicine, 55, 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199305000-00002

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Li, J. B., Delvecchio, E., Lis, A., Nie, Y. G., & Di Riso, D. (2016). Positive coping as

mediator between self-control and life satisfaction: Evidence from two Chinese

samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 130-133.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.042

Liu, X. C., Tein, J. Y., & Zhao, Z. T. (2004). Coping strategies and behavioral/emotional

problems among Chinese adolescents. Psychiatry Research, 126, 275-285.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2004.02.006

Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and

health: the increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making

tough choices. Journal of Personality, 72, 1395-1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2004.00301.x

Luo, Y., Chen, X., Qi, S., You, X., & Huang, X. (2018). Well-being and anticipation for

future positive events: Evidences from an fMRI Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 8,

Article 2199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02199

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. The American

psychologist, 56, 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.227

McKay, M. T., Andretta, J. R., Magee, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2014). What do temporal profiles

tell us about adolescent alcohol use? Results from a large sample in the United

Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 1319-1328.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.008

Meldrum, R. C., Trucco, E. M., Cope, L. M., Zucker, R. A., & Heitzeg, M. M. (2018). Brain

activity, low self-control, and delinquency: An fMRI study of at-risk adolescents.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 56, 107-117.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.007

Mello, Z. R., Oladipo, S. E., Paoloni, V. C., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Time perspective and

risky behaviors among Nigerian young adults. Journal of Adult Development, 26,

233-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-018-9304-2

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality

structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295x.102.2.246

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2012). Mplus User's Guide. Muthén & Muthén, Los

Angeles, CA.

Orkibi, H., & Dafner, E. (2015). Exposure to risk factors and the subjective wellbeing of

adolescents: the mediating role of time perspective. Child Indicators Research, 9,

663-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9336-0
Özmen, O., & Sümer, Z. H. (2011). Predictors of risk-taking behaviors among Turkish

adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 4-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.015

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40, 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42, 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

Rich, A. R., & Bonner, R. L. (1987). Concurrent validity of a stress-vulnerability model of

suicidal ideation and behavior: a follow-up study. Suicide & life-threatening behavior,

17, 265-270.

Rudolph, C. W., Kooij, D. T. A. M., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Occupational

future time perspective: A meta-analysis of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 39, 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2264

Sekścińska, K., Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J., & Maison, D. (2018). Individual differences

in time perspectives and risky financial choices. Personality and Individual

Differences, 120, 118-126. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.038

Seginer, R. (2008). Future orientation in times of threat and challenge: How resilient

adolescents construct their future. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

32, 272-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408090970

Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of

temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 1-22. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001

Sideridis, G. D. (2008). The regulation of affect, anxiety, and stressful arousal from adopting

mastery-avoidance goal orientations. Stress and Health, 24, 55-69.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1160

Situ, Q.-M., Li, J.-B., & Dou, K. (2015). Reexamining the linear and U-shaped relationships

between self-control and emotional and behavioural problems. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, 19, 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12118

Smith, A. R., Steinberg, L., Strang, N., & Chein, J. (2015). Age differences in the impact of

peers on adolescents' and adults' neural response to reward. Developmental Cognitive

Neuroscience, 11, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2014.08.010

Strough, J., de Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., Lemaster, P., Pichayayothin, N., & Delaney, R.

(2016). Hour glass half full or half empty? Future time perspective and preoccupation

with negative events across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 31, 558-573.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000097

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.

Developmental Review, 28, 78-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

Personality, 72, 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peters, S., Braams, B. R., & Crone, E. A. (2016). What motivates

adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on adolescents' risk

taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 70,

135-147. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.037

Vazsonyi, A. T., Mikuška, J., & Kelley, E. L. (2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-

control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48-63. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001

Veenstra, M. Y., Lemmens, P., Friesema, I. H. M., Tan, F. E. S., Garretsen, H. F. L.,

Knottnerus, J. A., & Zwietering, P. J. (2007). Coping style mediates impact of stress

on alcohol use: a prospective population-based study. Addiction, 102, 1890-1898.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02026.x

Vogel, S., & Schwabe, L. (2019). Stress, aggression, and the balance of approach and

avoidance. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 103, 137-146.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.01.020

Votta, E., & Manion, I. (2004). Suicide, high-risk behaviors, and coping style in homeless

adolescent males' adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 237-243.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.06.002
Wan, Y. H., Chen, R. L., Wang, S. S., Clifford, A., Zhang, S. C., Orton, S., & Tao, F. B.

(2020). Associations of coping styles with nonsuicidal self-injury in adolescents: Do

they vary with gender and adverse childhood experiences?. Child Abuse & Neglect,

104, 9, Article 104470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104470

Worrell, F. C., Mello, Z. R., & Buhl, M. (2011). Introducing English and German Versions of

the Adolescent Time Attitude Scale. Assessment, 20, 496-510. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1073191110396202

Xie, Y. N. (1998). The initial study of reliability and validity of the simplified Coping Style

Questionnaire (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 114-115.

Young, D., & Limbers, C. A. (2017). Avoidant coping moderates the relationship between

stress and depressive emotional eating in adolescents. Eating and Weight Disorders-

Studies on Anorexia Bulimia and Obesity, 22, 683-691.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-017-0396-7

Zhang, C., Zhang, L. J., & Shang, L. (2011). The verification of reliability and validity for

Adolescent Risk-taking Questionnaire-Risk Behavior Scale (ARQ-RB) which applied

to Chinese adolescent (in Chinese). Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25, 456-460.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152003

Zambianchi, M., & Ricci Bitti, P. E. (2013). The role of proactive coping Strategies, time

Perspective, perceived efficacy on affect regulation, divergent thinking and family

communication in promoting social well-being in emerging adulthood. Social

Indicators Research, 116, 493-507. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-013-0307-x

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.

https://doi.org/ 10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00113-x

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable

individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,

1271-1288. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-07368

 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Interrelations (N = 581).

Key study variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Future Negative Time Perspective (W1) 3.024 0.583 --
2. Positive Coping Style (W2) 1.856 0.511 -0.201** --
3. Negative Coping Style (W2) 1.136 0.521 0.282** 0.188** --
4. Rebellious Behaviors (W3) 0.338 0.495 0.140** -0.107* 0.199** --
5. Reckless Behaviors (W3) 0.066 0.353 0.043 -0.033 0.116** 0.645** --
6. Antisocial Behaviors (W3) 0.821 0.782 0.230** -0.195** 0.193** 0.478** 0.271** --
7. Risk-Taking Behaviors (W3) 0.380 0.334 0.094* -0.084 0.150** 0.383** 0.075 0.433** --
8. Self-Control Capabilities (W2) 3.127 0.653 -0.492** 0.246** -0.353** -0.187** -0.040 -0.410** -0.218** --
Covariates
9. Child Age (W1) 15.346 1.362 0.126** 0.034 0.081 0.047 -0.061 -0.016 -0.012 -0.173**
a
10. Child Sex (W1) 46.30 -- 0.054 0.101* 0.076 -0.099* -0.054 -0.047 -0.086* -0.047
11. Father's Education (W1) -- -- -0.017 0.049 0.082 -0.038 0.004 -0.004 0.049 0.001
12. Mother's Education (W1) -- -- -0.040 0.081 0.052 -0.031 0.001 -0.045 0.007 0.059
b
13. Place of Residence (W1) 86.40 -- -0.005 < 0.001 -0.003 -0.014 -0.037 0.011 -0.031 -0.067
a b
Note. n ranges from 524 to 581. W1–W3 = Waves of assessment 1–3; The percentage of female adolescents; The percentage of participants from urban
areas; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 or 0.001.
Table 2. Specific direct and indirect effects based on bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates (N = 581).
Bootstrapped estimates for indirect effects
Specific pathways tested
b S.E. 95% CI β
FNTP→Risk-Taking Behaviors 0.061 0.059 [0.006, 0.130] 0.112
FNTP→PCP→Risk-Taking Behaviors 0.020 0.008 [0.008, 0.039] 0.049
FNTP→NCP→Risk-Taking Behaviors 0.027 0.011 [0.011, 0.058] 0.040
Note. Bolded indirect pathways were significant based on bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI). According to Kenny
(2012), standardized indirect effects around 0.01 were “small”, effects around 0.09 were “medium”, and effect around 0.25 were “large.”
FNTP = Future Negative Time Perspective; PCP = Positive Coping; NCP = Negative Coping; b = unstandardized coefficient; S.E. = standard
error; CI = confidence interval for the standardized coefficient; β = standardized coefficient.
Figure 1. Model results for the associations among adolescents’ future negative time perspective, coping styles, and risk-taking behaviors.

Note. Model results for Model 2. Chi-square = 38.508, N = 581, df = 17, p < .001, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .047 with 90% CI [.027, .066], SRMR
= .021. All estimated parameters are standardized. For clarity, (a) pathways with p > .05 are depicted in grey dash lines, whereas pathways with
p < 0.05 are depicted in black solid lines; and (b) the pathways or correlation lines involving covariates are not depicted in the figure and the
relevant parameter estimates are not reported in this figure but available from the authors upon request. FNTP = Future Negative Time
Perspective. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed).
Figure 2. Moderation effects of self-control capabilities at Wave 2 on the association between negative coping style at Wave 2 and risk-taking
behaviors at Wave 3.