![]()
1
INTRODUCING ADDICTION, BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
Sarah A. Buckingham and David Best
Become who you want to be by joining with the in-crowd, whoever you define them to be âŚ
Sarah A. Buckingham
The aim of this volume is to investigate how behavioural change (with a specific emphasis upon addiction behavioural change, e.g., recovery) may be actioned through the lens of the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherill, 1987). Emergent voices have begun to utilise this approach to investigate the social and psychological processes that might be in operation when individuals seek health behaviour change through joining with similar others (see Best, 2014; Jetten, Haslam & Haslam, 2012; Kelly & White, 2011).
Main themes and objectives
This fresh perspective for positive health behaviour change in the field of addictive behaviours demonstrates how people gain resilience from joining others with similar goals through a process of subjective identification. As such, a distinct social identity that is positive in health outcomes (e.g., recovery identity) emerges as a distinct comparison to the prior social identity that has become corrosive and damaging (e.g., addiction identity). This volume considers such change as a long-term process, with individuals who have sought addiction behavioural change as the sample in most, but not all, of the examples cited. It also presents addiction recovery as a social movement where social change can take place creatively and has implications for giving individuals who seek behaviour change and for professional treatment providers, the chance to regain a sense of hope, by building bridges into new worlds that are sustainable.
The key areas of interest that social identity research has explored (such as prejudice, discrimination, social conflict and social change) are a close fit with the challenges of active addiction and the recovery process. The social identity approach is a theory of social change. It is an integrative theory that does not pathologise. It is a theory that addresses group status. This is especially pertinent with low status groups such as addiction and associated stigmatised identities, where minimal resources are allotted to treatment. This approach illuminates why this might be both a novel perspective for this chronic social problem and a socially creative resolution.
In summary, this text brings together a growing body of research interest and insight about how social group membership and the resultant social identity formation can play a critical role in helping people to overcome addictive behaviours and practices. In essence, what this book attempts to do is to reconcile two literatures â one in relation to what we know about addiction behavioural change and the other in relation to social identity, to produce a strong and convincing narrative about the role that social identity change plays in the recovery process. For that reason, this chapter sets out with an overview of the background and history to the social identity approach, followed by a brief summary of the recovery literature, and finally a section where we will attempt to reconcile the two and lay out our hopes and expectations for this edited collection.
Why groups matter
Social relationships impact on our health. They have potential to have detrimental (Rook, 1984) or positive influence upon the individual (Sani, 2012; Jetten et al., 2012), depending on the nature of the relationship. Mutual respect, trust and support are indicative of positive involvement as opposed to abusive, mistrustful and emotionally neglectful relationships which are likely to have a detrimental effect on a range of aspects of wellbeing. What gives social relationships their beneficial impact upon the individual, and what makes group membership so important? Baumeister and Leary (1995) highlight the difference between feelings of belongingness and mere social contact. It is the emotional significance and the intimate connection that are pivotal. Becoming involved with social groups can offer a sense of meaning to people, and motivate them to become responsible for other group members, giving a sense of wellbeing and purposefulness that stem from a feeling of belonging. Ultimately the innate human need to belong and be part of the collective can be a motivator for extending the self beyond the individual perspective (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and contribute significantly to a meaningful existence.
Putnam (2000), in his work on social capital, stated that the chances of dying in the following year would be halved if an isolated individual became part of a group. Therefore, to feel part of and socially connected to other group members can have positive implications for both physical and mental health (Jetten et al., 2012). Social connectedness can be both emotionally and psychologically enhancing, by contributing to the self-construct and its consequent impact on perception and behaviour (Oakes, 1987; Turner, 1982). Group treatment programmes have often been perceived from an individualistic viewpoint, where the group is an aggregate of âIâsâ. Floyd Allport famously stated that âthere is no psychology of groups which is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individualsâ (Allport, 1924. p. 3).
The group in this context is not an epiphenomenon (a consequence of an aggregate of individuals who happen to have come together) but a distinct psychological entity (Sani, 2012). For the purpose of this current work we perceive the group to be greater than the sum of the individual parts and to have uniquely emergent psychological properties. The positive qualities of group membership can be indicative of complex change with a depth of understanding, not possible by isolated individuals, and that can have profound impact on those who join and integrate with such groups. In contrast, membership of unhealthy and excluded groups can have a persistent and deleterious effect on members.
Introducing the social identity approach: A new perspective
The regeneration of European social psychology began in the early 1960s in Italy. The European Journal of Social Psychology was launched in 1971. Its birth symbolised the consolidation of European social psychology and consequent independence from American influence and the individualistic perspective (Hogg & Williams, 2000). Within this framework, Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed âan integrative, theory of intergroup conflictâ. Traditionally based on large social groups the key areas for their research investigation were prejudice, discrimination, social conflict and social change.
Seemingly irrevocable trends in social psychology set by Allport (1924) were empirically challenged by the Bristol group. Tajfel and then Turner and colleagues developed the emergent theory we now know as the social identity approach incorporating social identity theory and subsequently self-categorisation theory, promoting the concept of the group as a psychological entity with emergent qualities but with the possibility of individual differences.
The emergent theory
In the original theory of social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the membership of social groups and the inter-relational qualities of alternative groups was of pivotal importance. Both social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (which followed), describe the cognitive, evaluative and emotional aspects of group member ship as the predominant features present within smaller groups and in more global social categories. The social identity approach (Hogg and Abrams, 1995) introduced a change in perspective from the individual as part of a group to where significant group memberships are characterised as part of an individual who belongs to that group.
âPsychological group formation takes place to the degree that two or more people come to perceive and define themselves in terms of some shared in-group/out-group categorisationâ (Turner et al., 1987, p. 51). They range in size from the social group (that takes place on a face-to-face basis), to large groups, to collective identities (i.e., cultural identities). The purpose for such membership may incorporate many variables but significant factors for attraction to join a group may incorporate common fate, shared threat, perception of similarities between fellow members and close proximity. For this discussion, we focus upon psychological group formation as a vehicle for change. âPositive distinctiveness theoryâ as it was first named, was defined as: âthe individualâs knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membershipâ (Tajfel, 1972a, p. 292). It is not enough to be defined by others as belonging to social groups and being classified by others as belonging to such. It is an intrinsic part of this theory that individuals internalise qualities of their group into their self-concept and are subjectively attached to it. They perceive themselves and may be perceived by others (inside and outside of the group) as âingroupâ members. As such, the individual behaves in certain ways and perceive themselves in differing lights dependent upon current environmental and social influence.
Social categorisation
Social identity theory describes how individualsâ social perception is accrued through affiliation with significant others who share similar ingroup properties. Classification of self and others into social categories is dependent upon social consensus, social comparison, social competition, social learning and social control and emotional involvement. Social categorisation (into ingroup and outgroups) triggers inter-group discrimination and competiveness in the need to create a discrete social category we call the ingroup. This social category is made meaningful and real in comparison to an outgroup. It is through social categorisation and stereotyping that our perception of the world appears ordered and simplified, allowing individuals to navigate with clearly defined rules for behaviour through their daily lives. Hogg and Abram (1995, p. 17) described how lack of this effect would totally debilitate us: âwe would be overwhelmed and paralysed by overstimulationâ.
Tajfel argued that through social categorisation and intergroup discrimination, individuals strive for a positive self-concept, the self becoming positively evaluated through inter-group differentiation and distinctiveness (Tajfel, 1972b), delivering meaning to the social situation, and a framework for making sense of the challenges of daily life. Social identities were now perceived as mechanistic â flexible constructs mediating between the individual and his environment as vehicles for social change (Tajfel, 1974).
Social mobility and social change
How do people achieve social change? Subjective belief systems are intrinsically linked to social consensus.1 These personal belief systems are based upon how an individual perceives social group relations within their society and how others perceive them (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). By re-defining group boundaries and subjective belief systems from within, group members may, through their collective action, elevate their social status and consequently their individual levels of self-esteem and efficacy (St. Claire & Clucas, 2012). This may occur through introduction of novel group norms, where new self-categories may change the perception of both individual and group members. It is an adaptive process described by self-categorisation theory (Turner et al., 1987).
Self-categorisation theory
Self-categorisation theory (Turner et al., 1987) could be described as the cognitive and perceptual component underlying social identity theory. It describes an adaptive process. This theory attempts to portray the current psychological reality of the individual interacting within their social environment. Behaviour is shaped through psychological group formation where collective action and identification with similar others is influential through mutuality and co-operation. According to situational relevance and the perception of reality that is directed by the social context, an individual may become depersonalised (they do not operate from an individual perspective) and adopt a prototypical identity linked to accessible groups that are central and important to the person. Attraction to an ingroup (âusâ) against others who form the outgroup (âthemâ) at any given moment, helps define the self in the best possible light (see Turner, 1987). The context of comparison between groups may be actual or symbolically represented (Oakes, 1987). The self is perceived as being as one with the ingroup (Smith & Henry, 1996) and therefore interchangeable with other ingroup members. Prototypes for groups are the most representative and typical cases of group identity and are context-dependent.
Self-categories are creative, perceptual constructs of the self, dependent upon emotional significance, past, present and future allegiances, current motivations, goals and expectations. The process of self-categorisation defines the self-concept at a given level of abstraction or inclusiveness. Therefore personal identity may come to the fore at a given time (âIâ and âmeâ) or a collective identity may be more appropriate to define the self (âweâ and âusâ) always in environmental context (internal and external). Prior history of similarity (comparison) at a higher level of inclusiveness is essential for later comparison between self-categories. These are hierarchically organised at differing levels of abstraction and inclusiveness, for example, Homo Sapiens, woman, Eve. It is emphasised that self-categorisations are not self-images that are static but more a cinematic action picture with behaviour and environment intrinsically linked in motion. The individual as actor reacts or responds to others through time and space.
Overall, social identity theory provides us with a series of hypotheses about behaviour and behaviour change that have been widely applied across a series of health behaviours (e.g., Jetten et al., 2012) and increasingly to mental health (e.g., Cruwys et al., 2014) and homelessness (Walter et al., 2015). In the next section, we provide a brief overview of the concept of addiction, behavioural change and social identity and what the evidence is around recovery from addiction, before providing a brief overview of how the social identity model has been applied in understanding addiction behavioural change processes in a wider context.
Recovery
Although it remains a contested and controversial term, there have been several attempts at defining addiction recovery. The Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel defines recovery from substance dependence as a âvoluntarily maintained lifestyle characterised by sobriety, personal health and citizenshipâ (2007, p. 222). This position is consistent with the UK Drug Policy Commission statement on recovery as âvoluntarily sustained control over substance use which maximises health and wellbeing and participation in the rights, roles and responsibilities of societyâ (2008, p. 6). However, this characterisation of recovery is only partial as it largely ignores the experiential and personal components of recovery, focusing instead on the visible and observable components of recovery. This distinction has been made clearly in the mental health field, by Slade (2010) who has differentiated between clinical recovery (symptom remission), functional recovery (getting a job and coping with daily life demands), personal recovery (improvements in wellbeing and life satisfaction) and social recovery (developing strong and supportive social networks).
From the subjective perspective, client-led perspectives on recovery, such as Valentineâs (2011) statement âyou are in recovery if you say you areâ (p. 264), emphasise the importance of the subjective experience of change. This definition is consistent with the mental health recovery model advanced by Deegan (1988). She argues that recovery constitutes the lived experience of people as they accept and overcome the challenge of disability, ârecovering a new sense of self and of purpose within and beyond the limits of the disabilityâ (Deegan, 1988, p. 54).
As Llewellyn, Archibald, Clairmont and Crocker (2013), ...
