DESHIJE

In general, the results were in contrast to the hypothesis about the influence of work commitment on antisocial behavior factoring in substance use. This study hypothesized if young people have higher work commitment, then they will have lower substance use, which will decrease

antisocial behavior. However, work commitment was associated with higher levels of antisocial behavior through the presence of substance use. As mentioned earlier, literature is divided on the effect of employment on substance use. On one side, some studies argue that employment is effective in lowering substance use (Arkinson et al., 2003; Brown & Montoya, 2009; SAMHSA, 2014). The opposite camp states earned income from employment facilitates access to substances (CDAR, 2007; Uggen & Shannon, 2014). It is evident that the results of the path from work commitment to substance use in this study supports the latter interpretation of the relationship between work and substance use. Regarding this path, many related studies, particularly focusing on juveniles, have provided consistent findings (Johnson, 2004; Kaestner, Lo Sasso, Callison, & Yarnoff, 2013; Paschall, Flewelling, & Russell, 2004; Osilla, Hunter, Ewing, Ramchand, Miles, & D’Amico, 2013; Wu, Schlenger, & Galvin, 2003). For example, in a recent cross-sectional study, Osilla and her colleagues (2013) examined the association between work intensity and substance use using data from at-risk youths who were referred to a diversion program between 2008 and 2011. They found the more the youth worked, the more they used illicit substances

96

after controlling for demographic characteristics. Another recent study done by Kaestner and his colleagues (2013) using the 1997 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and Monitoring the Future survey also supported these findings by reporting that hours of work were positively associated with alcohol and tobacco use.

The focus on juveniles in the above studies might imply that the deterrence effect of work on substance use would be stronger among adults than juveniles transitioning to young adults. Earlier explanations of the role of work experience among juveniles suggested they would benefit from work since young people could learn a sense of responsibility in terms of earning income and being supervised by adult employees (Uggen & Wakefield, 2008). However, Uggen and Wakefield (2008) demonstrate the work effect is mostly limited to adults because if

adolescents are exposed to too much work, it may likely negatively affect school performance and impact their sense of aspiration, which appears to increase behavioral problems (Bachman & Schulenberg, 1993; Uggen & Wakefield, 2008). This may be a rational justification for the contrasting yields to the hypothesis of work commitment decreasing substance use for those who just entering young adulthood or transitioning from juveniles to young adults. As Uggen and Wakefield (2008) delineated, for many working at-risk youth, employment could function as a gateway to using illicit substances (Wu et al., 2003). This can potentially be explained by several factors, including relationships with adult employees who had an early initiation of substance use (learning from them); substance use as a byproduct of psychosocial difficulties derived from heavy work commitment in terms of time investment or stress; earning income allowing easier access to substances (Wu et al., 2004). Given that these factors are widely known as possible

97

explanations of the path of work to substance use, the sample in this study might have followed similar experiences in transitioning into young adulthood.

Overall, the partial mediational results (i.e., young people with high work commitment were more likely to use substances and having substance use tended to increase antisocial behavior) of this study indicate that when we are framed by certain aspects of the theory (i.e., structural factors such as social bonds) to investigate potential factors related to criminal desistance, researchers might lose insight into projecting an accurate picture of the issue.

Although Sampson and Laub’s theory highlights that social bonds like employment are concrete mechanisms of external restraints of individual behaviors, they may overemphasize the structural factors on reducing criminal behavior (Barry, 2013). As a matter of fact, Sampson and Laub (2003) once pointed out their theoretical limitations. They explained that in developing their framework, they had utilized the Gluecks’ data, which was comprised of sample populations born in Boston between 1922 and 1929, who had spent their young adulthoods during a time when alcohol abuse was pervasive, but hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin were not common as in the present day. Thus, this study’s analysis suggests that the factors affecting intrapersonal conditions (i.e., substance use problems) should not be ignored when investigating personal criminal desistance using Sampson and Laub’s theory of social bonds. This would be aligned with Maruna (1999)’s critique on the structural theory explaining the criminal desistance

process, that without considering such subjective matters (i.e., personal motivations to use illicit substances, internal conflicts between self-regulation through work commitment and substance use, etc.), an argument that being employed leads individuals with criminal histories to desist from crime may be weak. The findings from this study may support this aspect. Therefore, in

98

order to address the limitations revealed in this study using the structural theory on criminal desistance, future study needs to further examine the effect of work on substance use using a nationally represented sample. In addition, it may be helpful to add other conceptual models to more fully understand criminal desistance (Bottoms, Shapland, Costello, Holmes, & Muir, 2004; Crank, 2014; Giordano et al., 2002; LeBel et al., 2008) to ask and answer the question how personal commitment and motivation can be combined with structural resources to promote desistance from crime (Barry, 2013).

To sum up, while the findings were not consistent in both the longitudinal and cross- sectional results, the evidence illustrates, based on the results from the contemporary analyses, while employment as social bonds has been considered the dominant pathway to criminal desistance, the effect of employment as a deterrent of antisocial behavior may be diminished depending on the level of substance use. This implies there needs to be a more nuanced study by tapping into both structural and subjective theories assume regarding the process of criminal desistance (e.g., examining personal commitment and motivations combined with structural conditions) to better understand criminal desistance. To validate this explanation, future research should highlight personal and structural determinant factors affecting substance use as well as interactions within the two theories.