Chapter 4: Social Context and Environment

The social and physical environment represents a major component of the biopsychosocial-spiritual framework used across social work and related professions. Substance use behavior is shaped not only by biology or psychology but also by the environments in which people live, develop, and interact (Begun et al., 2020). Social context may function as either a protective influence or a source of elevated risk.

A person-in-environment perspective emphasizes that behavior can only be understood within the social systems surrounding the individual. Family relationships, peer networks, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, institutions, and policy environments all influence how substance use is initiated, reinforced, discouraged, or treated. Social ecological theory further explains that these influences operate across interconnected system levels ranging from immediate relationships to broader cultural and political structures (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986).

At the most immediate level, individuals interact within family and peer systems that influence learning, expectations, reinforcement, and access to substances. Broader systems such as schools, workplaces, healthcare organizations, treatment systems, and criminal-legal institutions shape opportunity, supervision, and access to support. At the broadest level, cultural values, policy decisions, media representation, and social attitudes influence how substance use is defined and how individuals experiencing substance-related problems are treated.

The physical environment also shapes substance use behavior. Access to substances, neighborhood conditions, retail density, housing instability, transportation, and community safety all influence patterns of use and opportunities for recovery. Research shows that easier access to alcohol, tobacco, vaping products, cannabis, and other substances increases the likelihood of use, particularly among adolescents (Miech et al., 2025).

Environmental influences also interact with biological vulnerability. Genetic predispositions related to alcohol, tobacco, and other substance use are shaped by social experiences and environmental exposure (Sher et al., 2010). Family monitoring, peer substance use, and the availability of alcohol may each strengthen or weaken biological vulnerability over time (Chen et al., 2009; Dick et al., 2007; Kendler et al., 2011).

Social attitudes toward substance use shape both personal experiences and public responses. Stigma involves negative beliefs, stereotypes, and judgments directed toward individuals experiencing substance use problems, seeking treatment, or living in recovery (Begun et al., 2020). Stated attitudes and underlying associations do not always match. In one experimental study, participants expressed relatively compassionate views on explicit measures while their implicit associations linked people who inject drugs with deserving punishment rather than help, a pattern strongest for Latino and Latina targets (Kulesza et al., 2016).

Stigma exists at multiple levels. Individuals may internalize shame and blame related to their substance use. Families and communities may reinforce stereotypes through judgment or exclusion. Professionals and institutions may communicate stigma through language, policy, or unequal treatment practices. Public policy also reflects stigma when substance use is approached primarily through punishment rather than prevention, treatment, or harm reduction.

These attitudes carry consequences. In interviews with people who use drugs, participants described concealing their use from health professionals, seeking care belatedly or not at all, hiding evidence of injecting at work, and encountering marginalization across healthcare, employment, and the criminal justice system (Fraser et al., 2017). Public education efforts emphasizing recovery and treatment effectiveness have shown potential to reduce discriminatory attitudes (McGinty et al., 2015).

Policy also shapes substance use behavior by altering social and physical environments. Minimum legal drinking ages influence youth drinking and traffic crashes (Carpenter et al., 2016; Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002). Tobacco taxation reduces overall tobacco use, and young people respond more strongly to price than adults do (Chaloupka et al., 2011; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2011). State limits on youth access to tobacco track with adolescent smoking (Luke et al., 2000), and comprehensive advertising bans reduce youth awareness of tobacco marketing (Moodie et al., 2008). Greater alcohol outlet density is associated with higher consumption and related harms, though policies limiting density have not been directly evaluated (Campbell et al., 2009). Marketing exposure has itself been linked to youth drinking (Scott et al., 2008; Snyder et al., 2006). Policy may function either as prevention or as a contributor to harm depending on how it is implemented.

Social norms further shape substance-related behavior by communicating what behaviors are viewed as acceptable, expected, or deviant within a given group or culture. Adolescents and emerging adults are especially influenced by perceived peer approval and social acceptance (Eisenberg et al., 2014). Cultural systems, religious traditions, ethnic identity, and subcultures may function as either protective or risk factors related to substance use.

Structural inequality also shapes substance-related harm. Racism, poverty, housing instability, neighborhood disinvestment, and unequal access to healthcare influence both exposure to risk and access to protection. Experiences of discrimination and microaggressions have also been associated with increased substance use among several populations (Blume et al., 2012; Pro et al., 2018).

Family systems are among the most powerful social influences related to substance use, recovery, and long-term functioning. Families shape behavior through socialization, role expectations, reinforcement, monitoring, and emotional attachment. Family relationships may function as protective influences that reduce risk or as environments that contribute to stress, conflict, instability, or access to substances.

Family systems theory emphasizes that families operate as interconnected systems striving to maintain stability and balance (Begun et al., 2020). When substance misuse develops within a family, the effects extend beyond the individual and influence communication patterns, caregiving roles, emotional functioning, and daily routines throughout the family system.

Family systems are also embedded within broader social environments. Economic stress, neighborhood conditions, institutional involvement, community violence, healthcare access, and policy environments all influence family functioning. Social workers frequently assess these relationships through tools such as eco-maps, which visually identify the supportive and stressful systems surrounding a family.

Substance misuse may disrupt family roles and responsibilities. Responsibilities may become inconsistently fulfilled, shifted onto other family members, or neglected altogether. Children in these environments may experience instability, increased stress, or disruptions in caregiving. At the same time, resilience may emerge through supportive relationships with grandparents, extended family members, teachers, mentors, or other caring adults who provide compensatory support and stability (Werner & Johnson, 2004).

Research consistently shows that strong parent-child relationships, clear expectations, parental monitoring, emotional warmth, and positive family involvement function as protective factors against substance misuse (Hawkins et al., 1992). Conversely, chronic conflict, inconsistent supervision, neglect, and family disorganization increase vulnerability to substance-related problems.

Recovery also alters family systems. Families that adapted to active substance misuse must readjust to recovery and reintegration. Trust may take time to rebuild, and family members may struggle to redefine roles, expectations, and boundaries. Because recovery affects the entire family system, family-based interventions and supportive significant others often play an important role in long-term recovery outcomes (McCrady et al., 2003).

The family disease model emerged from recognition that addiction affects entire family systems, not only individuals. However, concepts such as codependency remain controversial. Critics argue that the label lacks reliable research support and pathologizes ordinary caregiving, particularly the caregiving long expected of women (Szalavitz, 2016).

An eco-map is a visual assessment tool used in social work to help practitioners understand how the systems surrounding an individual or family influence daily life and overall functioning. Within substance use and misuse practice, eco-maps help social workers examine the broader relational and environmental realities shaping recovery, treatment engagement, and long-term stability. Rather than focusing only on the individual, eco-maps encourage practitioners to explore how social connection, institutional systems, and environmental conditions interact within a person’s recovery process and lived experience (Hartman, 1978; Mattaini, 1995).

Section 4.3 examined family systems as present-tense social environments. It described how substance misuse disrupts roles, boundaries, and functioning across the family unit. Family environments, however, do not simply create conditions that affect current behavior. They shape developmental experiences that influence how a person learns to cope, form relationships, and manage their own health long into adulthood. This section extends the family systems discussion across the lifespan. It examines what research shows about how substance misuse affects child development. It looks at how adverse childhood experiences build up over time and shape the course of a child’s development, and at what those early environments can mean for adult life.

Adverse Childhood Experiences

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) offer one of the clearest frameworks for understanding how social environments produce health outcomes across the lifespan. Felitti et al. (1998) established the original ACE framework using seven categories of childhood adversity. Later work in the same cohort expanded the framework to ten categories organized across three domains (Dong et al., 2004). The first is abuse, encompassing physical, emotional, and sexual harm. The second is neglect, which may be physical, emotional, or both. The third is household dysfunction, which covers witnessing domestic violence, living with a parent with a substance use disorder or mental illness, having a household member who was incarcerated, and experiencing parental separation or divorce.

Dube et al. (2002) found that individuals with multiple ACEs were two to four times more likely than those with none to develop adult alcohol problems. This elevated risk extended to relationship patterns and drinking behavior more broadly. When multiple ACEs were present, the risk increased regardless of whether parental alcohol use was itself one of the adversities. Accumulated adversity, rather than any single type of exposure, most consistently predicts later substance use risk.

This relationship is significant but not deterministic. Children of parents with alcohol use disorder face elevated risk, but the majority never develop an alcohol use disorder themselves. Windle (1997) makes the distinction precisely: the expression of an alcohol use disorder among children of parents with the disorder is probabilistic rather than deterministic, occurring at some level of certainty below one hundred percent. Risk is not destiny. ACEs increase vulnerability. They do not guarantee a particular outcome. What surrounds the child, and whether protective relationships are available, matters considerably.

The distinction this section has been building matters more than any single piece of evidence supporting it. Conditions that raise risk are not the same as the outcomes that are supposed to follow from them, and treating the two as interchangeable turns a social pattern into a personal failing. People who have lived through early adversity, family disruption, or time in state care frequently describe environments that asked too much of them rather than deficits within themselves. That distinction matters in any profession that responds to substance use, whether the response is clinical, educational, medical, or legal.

Toxic Stress and Developmental Consequences

When children experience chronic adversity without adequate adult support, stress response systems can become dysregulated in ways that affect neurological development, emotional regulation, and behavioral functioning over time. The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005/2014) distinguishes toxic stress from tolerable or positive stress by its severity, duration, and the absence of a buffering relationship. In substance-affected households, children frequently encounter conditions that compromise development across multiple dimensions. Caregiving may be inconsistent and unpredictable. Financial instability is common. Emotional environments often shift in ways the child cannot anticipate or control. Children may also take on responsibility for managing an adult’s wellbeing with little support or acknowledgment.

The childhood survival roles documented in the clinical literature should be understood within this context. Wegscheider-Cruse (1989) described a set of roles observed in families affected by alcohol, including the hero, the scapegoat, the lost child, and the mascot. Black (1982) described a parallel set of adaptive patterns among children raised in these families. Each role reflects a different strategy for managing instability and is best understood as an adaptive response to an environment that offered limited options for maintaining stability.

These roles are not personality traits or diagnostic categories. They are functional responses to a family system under sustained stress. Understood this way, the roles are evidence of resilience and adaptation, not disorder. They also point to what is missing: a family environment stable enough that children do not need to organize their lives around managing an adult’s behavior. Park and Schepp (2015) note that children in substance-affected households frequently show developmental and behavioral difficulties across multiple domains, and that individual, parental, familial, and social factors each shape how much those experiences affect a given child. Those difficulties are best understood not as problems within the child but as the predictable outcomes of environments that asked too much.

Protective Factors and Resilience

Resilience research consistently points to one finding: a stable, supportive relationship with at least one caring adult is the most reliable buffer against the developmental effects of childhood adversity (Werner & Smith, 2001). That adult does not need to be a parent. Extended family members, school personnel, mentors, and community figures can all serve this protective function. The presence of even one such relationship can change the path from ACEs toward later harm.

Ryan et al. (2010) reviewed longitudinal research on parenting and adolescent alcohol use. Several family-level factors delayed a young person’s first drink and reduced later drinking, and they carried comparable weight: parental modeling, limiting a child’s access to alcohol, parental monitoring, the quality of the parent-child relationship, and general communication. Connection to affirming community resources, positive peer relationships, and a sense of belonging at school each contribute additional buffering. For practitioners, this is the evidence base for relationship-centered, strengths-based work that prioritizes stability and connection over symptom focus alone.

Family Legacy and Adult Functioning

Adults who grew up in households affected by substance misuse, abuse, or chronic instability often carry patterns that were adaptive in childhood but create difficulty in adult relationships and functioning. Ackerman (1983) describes a recurring set of patterns in adults who grew up in homes affected by substance misuse. Emotional expression tends to be guarded. Control strategies such as perfectionism or hypervigilance frequently emerge as ways of managing environments that felt consistently unpredictable. Kelley et al. (2005) link these childhood family environments to attachment difficulties in adulthood, which can make relational trust hard to establish. The scale of these developmental experiences is substantial. Drawing on 2023 national survey data, McCabe et al. (2025) estimate that nearly 19 million children in the United States, about one in four of everyone under eighteen, live with at least one parent who meets diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder. Alcohol use disorder is the most common, affecting more than 12 million of those children, and more than 7.5 million live with a parent whose disorder is moderate or severe. These are the childhoods that become the adult histories described here.

These patterns are understandable when examined developmentally. A child who learned that adults are unpredictable may become an adult who monitors relationships carefully. A child who managed family stress may become an adult who struggles to set limits. A child who survived by staying out of the way may become an adult who has difficulty asking for help. Practitioners working with adults who have these histories should understand the behavior in its developmental context rather than treating it as personality pathology.

Codependency: Historical Concept and Contemporary Critiques

The concept of codependency emerged in the early 1980s to describe relational patterns commonly observed in family members of people with substance use disorders. Hoenigmann-Lion and Whitehead (2007) note that the term was broadly applied to describe boundary difficulties, excessive focus on others’ needs, and behaviors aimed at managing or protecting the person with the substance use disorder. Dear et al. (2004) found no shared definition across the published literature, which is part of why the term traveled so widely. The concept opened useful conversations and helped many people name patterns they had difficulty articulating.

The professional literature has been less consistent in its support. The DSM-5-TR does not include codependency as a diagnosis. Empirical studies have produced mixed findings, and there is no professional consensus on how codependency should be defined or measured (Dear & Roberts, 2005), or on whether it is meaningfully distinct from established diagnostic categories. Anderson (1994) and Krestan and Bepko (1990) raised substantive concerns that behaviors labeled codependent often reflect what social structures have historically demanded of women, raising questions about whose adaptation is being pathologized.

For practitioners, neither uncritical acceptance nor dismissal serves clients well. Family members of people with substance use disorders often do develop relational patterns that were adaptive in stressful environments and that create real difficulty in later relationships. Understanding those patterns with empathy, without blame, and within their developmental context remains clinically meaningful regardless of the label applied.

Peer relationships represent one of the strongest social influences on substance use behavior across adolescence and adulthood. Peer groups influence substance use through reinforcement, modeling, access to substances, social approval, and perceived norms. Association with peers who engage in substance use increases the likelihood of initiation and escalation, while relationships with peers who discourage substance use can function as protective influences (Coyle et al., 2016; Zimmerman & Farrell, 2017).

Peer influence does not operate independently from family influence. Positive parental monitoring and strong family relationships reduce the impact of peers who support substance misuse (Marschall-Lévesque et al., 2014).

Individuals also tend to associate with others who share similar beliefs and behaviors, a process referred to as homophily (McPherson et al., 2001). Individuals experiencing substance misuse often develop social networks where substance use becomes normalized and reinforced. Recovery frequently involves restructuring these social networks and building relationships that support sobriety, accountability, and stability (Mohr et al., 2001). Network-focused treatment that shifts a person’s social support away from drinking has produced sustained reductions in alcohol use (Litt et al., 2009).

Peer support also plays a major role in recovery processes. Within recovery settings, peers are often individuals with shared lived experience who provide support, guidance, accountability, and hope. Mutual aid organizations, recovery housing, sober schools, collegiate recovery programs, and peer recovery services all emphasize the importance of recovery-supportive social networks (Davidson et al., 2012; Laudet et al., 2014; Paquette et al., 2019).

Research evaluating peer-delivered recovery support services has generally shown favorable outcomes, particularly regarding treatment engagement, recovery support, and social connectedness (Bassuk et al., 2016; Eddie et al., 2019). These reviews also caution that the evidence base is uneven, and Bassuk et al. rated only two of the studies they reviewed as strong in scientific rigor. Supportive significant others may strengthen recovery efforts or complicate them depending on the nature of the relationship. Recovery-supportive environments encourage treatment engagement, reinforce healthy behavior, and reduce isolation. In contrast, confrontational approaches rooted in shame or coercion remain controversial, and their effectiveness has rarely been examined outside a narrow research literature. Only about 30 percent of families coached to stage a confrontational intervention follow through with it, and non-confrontational family approaches produce higher rates of treatment engagement (Meyers et al., 2002, as cited in Kosovski & Smith, 2011).

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Potentially traumatic events in childhood, such as abuse or household dysfunction, that are associated with elevated risk for later substance problems.

Family systems. The view that a family operates as an interconnected unit, so that substance use by one member affects the functioning of the whole.

Person-in-environment. A perspective that understands a person’s behavior and circumstances in relation to the social and physical environments surrounding them.

Recovery support. The relationships and social resources, including peers, that help sustain recovery over time.

Risk and protective factors. Conditions that raise or lower the likelihood of substance problems, operating across individual, family, peer, and community levels.

Social ecology. The layered systems, from family and peers to neighborhood and policy, that influence a person’s exposure to risk and protection.

Stigma. Negative social judgment attached to substance use that can limit help-seeking and shape how people are treated.

Structural inequality. Patterns of disadvantage built into social, economic, and political systems that distribute substance-related harm unevenly across groups.

Ackerman, R. J. (1983). Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents (2nd ed.). Learning Publications.

Anderson, S. C. (1994). A critical analysis of the concept of codependency. Social Work, 39(6), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/39.6.677

Bassuk, E. L., Hanson, J., Greene, R. N., Richard, M., & Laudet, A. (2016). Peer-delivered recovery support services for addictions in the United States: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.003

Begun, A. L., Bares, C. B., & Chartier, K. G. (2020). Social environmental contexts of addictive behavior. In A. L. Begun & M. M. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work and addictive behaviors (pp. 110–128). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203121-8

Black, C. (1982). It will never happen to me! M.A.C. Printing and Publications Division.

Blume, A. W., Lovato, L. V., Thyken, B. N., & Denny, N. (2012). The relationship of microaggressions with alcohol use and anxiety among ethnic minority college students in a historically White institution. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025457

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Campbell, C. A., Hahn, R. A., Elder, R., Brewer, R., Chattopadhyay, S., Fielding, J., Naimi, T. S., Toomey, T., Lawrence, B., & Middleton, J. C. (2009). The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(6), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.028

Carpenter, C. S., Dobkin, C., & Warman, C. (2016). The mechanisms of alcohol control. Journal of Human Resources, 51(2), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.51.2.0314-6240R

Chaloupka, F. J., Straif, K., & Leon, M. E. (2011). Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tobacco Control, 20(3), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.039982

Chen, L.-S., Johnson, E. O., Breslau, N., Hatsukami, D., Saccone, N. L., Grucza, R. A., Wang, J. C., Hinrichs, A. L., Fox, L., Goate, A. M., Rice, J. P., & Bierut, L. J. (2009). Interplay of genetic risk factors and parent monitoring in risk for nicotine dependence. Addiction, 104(10), 1731–1740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02697.x

Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2007). Alcohol excessive consumption: Regulation of alcohol outlet density. The Community Guide. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/alcohol-excessive-consumption-regulation-alcohol-outlet-density.html

Coyle, C., Bramham, J., Dundon, N., Moynihan, M., & Carr, A. (2016). Exploring the positive impact of peers on adolescent substance misuse. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 25(2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2014.896761

Davidson, L., Bellamy, C., Guy, K., & Miller, R. (2012). Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: A review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry, 11(2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.05.009

Dear, G. E., & Roberts, C. M. (2005). Validation of the Holyoake Codependency Index. The Journal of Psychology, 139(4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.293-314

Dear, G. E., Roberts, C. M., & Lange, L. (2004). Defining codependency: A thematic analysis of published definitions. In S. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 34, pp. 189–205). Nova Science.

Dick, D. M., Pagan, J. L., Viken, R., Purcell, S., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Rose, R. J. (2007). Changing environmental influences on substance use across development. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(2), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.10.2.315

Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T. J., Loo, C. M., & Giles, W. H. (2004). The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(7), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.008

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive Behaviors, 27(5), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00204-0

Eddie, D., Hoffman, L., Vilsaint, C., Abry, A., Bergman, B., Hoeppner, B., Weinstein, C., & Kelly, J. F. (2019). Lived experience in new models of care for substance use disorder: A systematic review of peer recovery support services and recovery coaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01052

Eisenberg, M. E., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., & Hemphill, S. A. (2014). Social norms in the development of adolescent substance use: A longitudinal analysis of the International Youth Development Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(9), 1486–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0111-1

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Fraser, S., Pienaar, K., Dilkes-Frayne, E., Moore, D., Kokanovic, R., Treloar, C., & Dunlop, A. (2017). Addiction stigma and the biopolitics of liberal modernity: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Drug Policy, 44, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.005

Hartman, A. (1978). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Social Casework, 59(8), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438947805900803

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64

Hoenigmann-Lion, N. M., & Whitehead, G. I. (2007). The relationship between codependency and borderline and dependent personality traits. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 24(4), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J020v24n04_05

International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2011). Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control (IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Tobacco Control, Vol. 14). International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Kelley, M. L., Nair, V., Rawlings, T., Cash, T. F., Steer, K., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2005). Retrospective reports of parenting received in their families of origin: Relationships to adult attachment in adult children of alcoholics. Addictive Behaviors, 30(8), 1479–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.03.005

Kendler, K. S., & Eaves, L. J. (1986). Models for the joint effect of genotype and environment on liability to psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143(3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.143.3.279

Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C., & Dick, D. M. (2011). Predicting alcohol consumption in adolescence from alcohol-specific and general externalizing genetic risk factors, key environmental exposures and their interaction. Psychological Medicine, 41(7), 1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171000190X

Kennedy, M. C., Karamouzian, M., & Kerr, T. (2017). Public health and public order outcomes associated with supervised drug consumption facilities: A systematic review. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 14(5), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y

Kosovski, J. R., & Smith, D. C. (2011). Everybody hurts: Addiction, drama, and the family in the reality television show Intervention. Substance Use & Misuse, 46(7), 852–858. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2011.570610

Krestan, J.-A., & Bepko, C. (1990). Codependency: The social reconstruction of female experience. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60(3), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377319009516677

Kulesza, M., Matsuda, M., Ramirez, J. J., Werntz, A. J., Teachman, B. A., & Lindgren, K. P. (2016). Towards greater understanding of addiction stigma: Intersectionality with race/ethnicity and gender. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 169, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.020

Laudet, A., Harris, K., Kimball, T., Winters, K. C., & Moberg, D. P. (2014). Collegiate recovery communities programs: What do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 14(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2014.872015

Levengood, T. W., Yoon, G. H., Davoust, M. J., Ogden, S. N., Marshall, B. D. L., Cahill, S. R., & Bazzi, A. R. (2021). Supervised injection facilities as harm reduction: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(5), 738–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.017

Litt, M. D., Kadden, R. M., Kabela-Cormier, E., & Petry, N. M. (2009). Changing network support for drinking: Network Support Project 2-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015252

Luke, D. A., Stamatakis, K. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2000). State youth-access tobacco control policies and youth smoking behavior in the United States. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00196-3

Marschall-Lévesque, S., Castellanos-Ryan, N., Vitaro, F., & Séguin, J. R. (2014). Moderators of the association between peer and target adolescent substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 39(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.025

Marshall, B. D. L., Milloy, M.-J., Wood, E., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2011). Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. The Lancet, 377(9775), 1429–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7

Mattaini, M. A. (1995). Visualizing practice with children and families. Early Child Development and Care, 106(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443951060107

McCabe, S. E., McCabe, V. V., & Schepis, T. S. (2025). US children living with a parent with substance use disorder. JAMA Pediatrics, 179(7), 797–799. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.0828

McCrady, B. S., Epstein, E. E., & Sell, R. D. (2003). Theoretical bases of family approaches to substance abuse treatment. In F. Rotgers, J. Morgenstern, & S. T. Walters (Eds.), Treating substance abuse: Theory and technique (2nd ed., pp. 112–139). Guilford Press.

McGinty, E. E., Goldman, H. H., Pescosolido, B., & Barry, C. L. (2015). Portraying mental illness and drug addiction as treatable health conditions: Effects of a randomized experiment on stigma and discrimination. Social Science & Medicine, 126, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.010

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Miech, R. A., Johnston, L. D., Patrick, M. E., & O’Malley, P. M. (2025). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2024: Overview and detailed results for secondary school students. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://monitoringthefuture.org/results/annual-reports/

Mohr, C. D., Averna, S., Kenny, D. A., & Del Boca, F. K. (2001). “Getting by (or getting high) with a little help from my friends”: An examination of adult alcoholics’ friendships. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(5), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2001.62.637

Moodie, C., MacKintosh, A. M., Brown, A., & Hastings, G. B. (2008). Tobacco marketing awareness on youth smoking susceptibility and perceived prevalence before and after an advertising ban. European Journal of Public Health, 18(5), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn016

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2005/2014). Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain (Working Paper No. 3, Updated ed.). Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/working-paper/wp3/

Noel, J. K., Babor, T. F., & Robaina, K. (2017). Industry self-regulation of alcohol marketing: A systematic review of content and exposure research. Addiction, 112(Suppl. 1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13410

Paquette, K. L., Pannella Winn, L. A., Wilkey, C. M., Ferreira, K. N., & Donegan, L. R. W. (2019). A framework for integrating young peers in recovery into adolescent substance use prevention and early intervention. Addictive Behaviors, 99, Article 106080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106080

Park, S., & Schepp, K. G. (2015). A systematic review of research on children of alcoholics: Their inherent resilience and vulnerability. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(5), 1222–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9930-7

Pro, G., Sahker, E., & Marzell, M. (2018). Microaggressions and marijuana use among college students. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 17(3), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2017.1288191

Ryan, S. M., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Parenting factors associated with reduced adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(9), 774–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048674.2010.501759

Scott, M. M., Cohen, D. A., Schonlau, M., Farley, T. A., & Bluthenthal, R. N. (2008). Alcohol and tobacco marketing: Evaluating compliance with outdoor advertising guidelines. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.026

Sher, K. J., Dick, D. M., Crabbe, J. C., Hutchison, K. E., O’Malley, S. S., & Heath, A. C. (2010). Consilient research approaches in studying gene × environment interactions in alcohol research. Addiction Biology, 15(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00189.x

Siegfried, N., Pienaar, D. C., Ataguba, J. E., Volmink, J., Kredo, T., Jere, M., & Parry, C. D. H. (2014). Restricting or banning alcohol advertising to reduce alcohol consumption in adults and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014(11), Article CD010704. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010704.pub2

Snyder, L. B., Milici, F. F., Slater, M., Sun, H., & Strizhakova, Y. (2006). Effects of alcohol advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.1.18

Szalavitz, M. (2016, October 25). Why the codependency myth of drug addiction needs to die. VICE. https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-the-codependency-myth-of-drug-addiction-needs-to-die-heroin-opioids-abuse/

Wagenaar, A. C., & Toomey, T. L. (2002). Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, 14, 206–225. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.206

Wegscheider-Cruse, S. (1989). Another chance: Hope and health for the alcoholic family (2nd ed.). Science and Behavior Books.

Werner, E. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2004). The role of caring adults in the lives of children of alcoholics. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(5), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120034012

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Cornell University Press.

Windle, M. (1997). Concepts and issues in COA research. Alcohol Health & Research World, 21(3), 185–191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6826804/

Wood, E., Tyndall, M. W., Zhang, R., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2007). Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction, 102(6), 916–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01818.x

Zimmerman, G. M., & Farrell, C. (2017). Parents, peers, perceived risk of harm, and the neighborhood: Contextualizing key influences on adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(1), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0475-5