Continued guilt, shame, and internalised stigma correlated to alcohol and other drug use

Addiction fundamentally alters the brain’s reward and decision-making systems through well-documented neurobiological mechanisms. When substances like drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) are consumed, they trigger massive releases of dopamine in the brain’s reward circuit, particularly in areas like the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. With repeated exposure, the brain adapts by reducing natural dopamine production and decreasing the number of dopamine receptors, creating tolerance and requiring increasingly larger amounts of the substance to achieve the same effect. This neuroadaptation hijacks the brain’s natural reward system, making everyday activities less rewarding while the addictive substance becomes disproportionately important.

Over time, addiction also impairs the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for executive functions like decision-making, impulse control, and weighing long-term consequences. This creates a neurological double-bind: the midbrain structures driving craving and drug-seeking behaviour become hyperactive, while the prefrontal systems that would normally regulate these impulses become weakened. Chronic substance use also disrupts stress response systems, making individuals more vulnerable to relapse during difficult periods. These changes help explain why addiction is recognised as a chronic brain disease rather than simply a matter of willpower – the neuroplastic changes can persist long after substance use stops, though the brain does have remarkable capacity for recovery with sustained abstinence and appropriate treatment.

The Challenge of Stopping

The challenge of stopping stems from the profound neurobiological changes addiction creates in the brain’s fundamental survival systems. The brain essentially learns to treat the addictive substance as necessary for survival, similar to food or water. When someone tries to quit, they face intense physical withdrawal symptoms as their neurochemistry struggles to return to homeostasis, combined with psychological cravings that can persist for months or years. The damaged prefrontal cortex makes it extremely difficult to override these powerful urges with rational decision-making, while stress, environmental cues, and emotional states can trigger automatic drug-seeking responses that feel almost involuntary. This creates a cycle where attempts to quit often lead to temporary success followed by relapse, which many interpret as personal failure rather than recognising it as part of the neurological reality of the condition.

Addiction appears progressive because tolerance drives escalating use over time, while the brain’s reward system becomes increasingly dysregulated. What begins as recreational use gradually shifts to compulsive use as natural dopamine production diminishes and neural pathways become more deeply entrenched. The condition typically follows a predictable pattern: initial experimentation leads to regular use, then to use despite negative consequences, and finally to compulsive use where the person continues despite severe impairment in major life areas. Additionally, chronic substance use often damages the brain regions responsible for insight and self-awareness, making it harder for individuals to recognise the severity of their condition. The progressive nature is also influenced by external factors – as addiction advances, people often lose social supports, employment, and housing, creating additional stressors that fuel continued use and make recovery more challenging.

Understanding addiction when you’re not “addicted” to alcohol or other drugs

The difficulty in understanding addiction, even among people with their own compulsive behaviors, stems from several key differences in how these conditions manifest and are perceived. While behaviors like sugar consumption, social media use, or shopping can indeed activate similar dopamine pathways, they typically don’t create the same level of neurobiological hijacking that occurs with substances like alcohol, opioids, or stimulants. Addictive drugs often produce dopamine surges 2-10 times greater than natural rewards, creating more profound and lasting changes to brain structure and function. Additionally, many behavioral compulsions allow people to maintain relatively normal functioning in major life areas, whereas substance addiction typically leads to progressive deterioration across multiple domains – relationships, work, health, and legal standing.

The social and cognitive factors also create barriers to understanding. Most people can relate to losing control occasionally – eating too much dessert or spending too much time scrolling their phone – but these experiences usually involve temporary lapses that can be corrected relatively easily through willpower or environmental changes. This creates a false sense of equivalency where people think “I can stop eating cookies when I want to, so why can’t they just stop drinking?” They don’t grasp that addiction involves a qualitatively different level of brain change where the substance has become neurobiologically essential, not just psychologically preferred. There’s also often a moral lens applied to addiction that doesn’t exist for other compulsive behaviours – society tends to view overconsumption of legal, socially acceptable things as personal quirks or minor character flaws, while addiction to illegal substances or excessive alcohol use carries heavy stigma and assumptions about moral failing, making it harder to see as a medical condition requiring treatment rather than simply better self-control.

A Word On Nicotine (Tobacco Products)

Yes, nicotine absolutely does release large amounts of dopamine, making it highly addictive despite being legal and socially accepted in many contexts. Nicotine causes an increase in dopamine levels in the brain’s reward pathways, creating feelings of satisfaction and pleasure.Research shows that nicotine, like opioids and cocaine, can cause dopamine to flood the reward pathway up to 10 times more than natural rewards.

This helps explain why nicotine addiction can be so powerful and difficult to overcome, even though people often view smoking or vaping as less serious than other forms of substance addiction. Repeated activation of dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area by nicotine leads not only to reinforcement but also to craving and lack of self-control over intake. The addiction develops through the same basic mechanisms as other substances – as people continue to smoke, the number of nicotine receptors in the brain increases, requiring more of the substance to achieve the same dopamine response.

What makes nicotine particularly insidious is its legal status and social acceptance, which can make people underestimate its addictive potential. The rapid delivery of nicotine to the brain (within 10-20 seconds when smoked) creates an almost immediate reward that strongly reinforces the behaviour. This is why many people who successfully quit other substances still struggle with nicotine, and why nicotine addiction often serves as a gateway that primes the brain’s reward system for addiction to other substances.

Unhelpful Cognitions

Mental Filter: This thinking style involves a “filtering in” and “filtering out” process – a sort of “tunnel vision”, focusing on only one part of a situation and ignoring the rest. Usually this means looking at the negative parts of a situation and forgetting the positive parts, and the whole picture is coloured by what may be a single negative detail.

Jumping to Conclusions: We jump to conclusions when we assume that we know what someone else is thinking (mind reading) and when we make predictions about what is going to happen in the future (predictive thinking).

Mind reading: Is a habitual thinking pattern characterized by expecting others to know what you’re thinking without having to tell them or expecting to know what others are thinking without them telling you. This is very common, and most people can identify. Oftentimes, when we are telling someone a story about an interaction, we’ve had with someone else, we will make mind reading assumptions without actually having fact or evidence e.g., “They haven’t phoned me in two weeks so they must be angry with me for cancelling on them last week.”

Personalisation: This involves blaming yourself for everything that goes wrong or could go wrong, even when you may only be partly responsible or not responsible at all. You might be taking 100% responsibility for the occurrence of external events. It can also involve blaming someone else for something for which they have no responsibility. This can often occur when setting a boundary with someone and you take responsibility for their guilt or anger.

Catastrophising: Catastrophising occurs when we “blow things out of proportion” and we view the situation as terrible, awful, dreadful, and horrible, even though the reality is that the problem itself may be quite small.

Black & White Thinking: Also known as splitting, dichotomous thinking, and all-or-nothing thinking, involves seeing only one side or the other (the positives or the negatives, for example). You are either wrong or right, good or bad and so on. There are no in-betweens or shades of grey.

Should-ing and Must-ing: Sometimes by saying “I should…” or “I must…” you can put unreasonable demands or pressure on yourself and others. Although these statements are not always unhelpful (e.g., “I should not get drunk and drive home”), they can sometimes create unrealistic expectations.

Should-ing and must-ing can be a psychological distortion because it can “deny reality” e.g., I shouldn’t have had so much to drink last night. This is helpful in the sense that it communicates to us that we have exceeded our boundaries, however, saying “shouldn’t” about a past situation can be futile because it cannot be changed.

Overgeneralisation: When we overgeneralise, we take one instance in the past or present, and impose it on all current or future situations. If we say, “You always…” or “Everyone…”, or “I never…” then we are probably overgeneralising.

Labelling: We label ourselves and others when we make global statements based on behaviour in specific situations. We might use this label even though there are many more examples that are not consistent with that label. Labelling is a cognitive distortion whereby we take one characteristic of a person/group/situation and apply it to the whole person/group/situation. Example: “Because I failed a test, I am a failure” or “Because she is frequently late to work, she is irresponsible”.

Emotional Reasoning: This thinking style involves basing your view of situations or yourself on the way you are feeling. For example, the only evidence that something bad is going to happen is that you feel like something bad is going to happen. Emotions and feelings are real however they are not necessarily indicative of objective truth or fact.

Magnification and Minimisation: In this thinking style, you magnify the positive attributes of other people and minimise your own positive attributes. Also known as the binocular effect on thinking. Often it means that you enlarge (magnify) the positive attributes of other people and shrink (minimise) your own attributes, just like looking at the world through either end of the same pair of binoculars.

(CCI, 2008)

Social psychological models of behaviour attempt to explain why individuals act the way they do in various social contexts. These models integrate individual, interpersonal, and societal factors to provide insights into behaviour. Here’s an overview of some key models:

1. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) proposes that behaviour is influenced by:

– Attitudes toward the behaviour

– Subjective norms (perceptions of others’ approval)

– Perceived behavioural control (i.e., confidence in one’s ability to perform the behaviour [self-efficacy])

2. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) suggests that behaviour is the result of:

– Reciprocal interaction between personal factors (beliefs, attitudes), environmental factors (social norms), and behaviour itself

– Concepts like self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability) play a major role.

3. Health Belief Model (HBM), designed to predict health-related behaviours. Behaviour is driven by factors such as perceived:

– Susceptibility (risk of harm)

– Severity (consequences of harm)

– Benefits (advantages of action)

– Barriers (obstacles to action)

4. Cognitive Dissonance Theory explains how people strive for consistency between their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. When inconsistency arises, they feel dissonance (mental discomfort) and are motivated to reduce it by changing their attitudes or actions.

5. Social Identity Theory examines how individuals define themselves within social groups. Behaviour is influenced by group membership, including in-group favouritism and out-group bias.

6. Attribution Theory focuses on how people explain their own and others’ behaviours. Explains behaviour as being attributed either to internal (dispositional) or external (situational) factors. For example, it is common for people to attribute negative outcomes in their life to external factors rather than internal factors.

7. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains how people process persuasive messages and what determines whether those messages will change attitudes or behaviour. It’s often applied in areas like marketing, communication, and public health campaigns. The ELM identifies two primary routes through which persuasion can occur:

– Central Route; this route involves deep, thoughtful consideration of the content and logic of a message. People are more likely to take the central route when they are motivated to process the message (e.g., the topic is personally relevant or important to them) and they can understand and evaluate the arguments (e.g., they aren’t distracted, and they have enough knowledge about the subject). Persuasion through the central route tends to result in long-lasting attitude change that is resistant to counterarguments. Example: A person researching the pros and cons of electric cars before deciding to buy one.

– Peripheral Route, which relies on superficial cues or heuristics (mental shortcuts) rather than the message’s content. People are more likely to take the peripheral route when they are not highly motivated or lack the ability to process the message deeply, and when they focus on external factors like the attractiveness or credibility of the speaker, emotional appeals, or catchy slogans. Persuasion through this route tends to result in temporary attitude change that is less resistant to counterarguments. Example: A person choosing a product because their favourite celebrity endorsed it.

8. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It emphasizes the role of intrinsic motivation—doing something for its inherent satisfaction—over extrinsic motivation, which is driven by external rewards or pressures. It suggests that behaviour is influenced by the need for:

– Autonomy (control over one’s actions); When people perceive they have a choice and are acting in alignment with their values, their motivation and satisfaction increase.

– Competence; Refers to the need to feel effective, capable, and successful in achieving desired outcomes. People are motivated when tasks challenge them at an appropriate level and provide opportunities for growth and mastery. Example: A gamer progressing through increasingly difficult levels, gaining skills and confidence along the way.

– Relatedness; Refers to the need to feel connected to others and experience a sense of belonging. Supportive relationships and positive social interactions enhance motivation and well-being. Example: Employees feeling a bond with their colleagues in a collaborative work environment.

9. Social Learning Theory proposes that behaviour is learned through observation and imitation. Role models and reinforcement play a key role in shaping actions.

10. Transtheoretical Model (Stages of Change) explains behaviour change as a process occurring in stages: precontemplation, contemplation (ambivalence), preparation, action, and maintenance

These models provide frameworks to understand behaviours in contexts like health, decision-making, group dynamics, and social influence.