Love

When to Fake It Till You Make It (and When You Shouldn’t)

Faking it for the right reasons can change you for the better. Here’s why.

Posted Jun 27, 2016By Amy Morin

One day, a client came to see me because she felt socially awkward. She knew that her inability to make small talk was holding her back both personally and professionally. As a shy person, she hated going to networking events. But making connections was vital to her career.I asked, “What do you usually do when you go to a networking event?” She said, “I stand awkwardly off to the side and wait to see if anyone will come talk to me.” I asked her, “What would you do differently if you felt confident?” and she said, “I’d initiate conversation and introduce myself to people.”

Right then and there, she discovered the solution to her problem: If she wanted to feel more confident, she had to act more confident. That wasn’t quite what she wanted to hear. She’d hoped for a solution that would immediately make her feel more confident. But the key to becoming more comfortable in social situations is practice.Her instinct was to wait until she felt more confident, but that confidence wasn’t going to magically appear out of thin air—especially if she was standing around by herself. However, if she started talking to people like a confident person, she’d have an opportunity to experience successful social interactions, and each of these would boost her confidence.

Acting “As If”

Acting “as if” is a common prescription in psychotherapy. It’s based on the idea that if you behave like the person you want to become, you’ll become like this in reality:

1. If you want to feel happier, do what happy people do—smile.

2. If you want to get more work done, act as if you are a productive person.

3. If you want to have more friends, behave like a friendly person.

4. If you want to improve your relationship, practice being a good partner.Too often we hesitate to spring into action. Instead, we wait until everything feels just right or until we think we’re ready. But research shows that changing your behavior first can change the way you think and feel.

The Biggest Mistake Most People Make

Faking it until you make it only works when you correctly identify something within yourself that’s holding you back. Behaving like the person you want to become is about changing the way you feel and the way you think.If your motives are to prove your worth to other people, however, your efforts won’t be successful, and research shows that this approach actually backfires. A study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that people who tried to prove their worth to others were more likely to dwell on their shortcomings. Ambitious professionals who wore luxury clothing in an effort to appear successful, and MBA students who wore Rolex watches to increase their self-worth just ended up feeling like bigger failures. Even worse, their attempts to project an image of success impaired their self-control. They struggled to resist temptation when they tried to prove that they were successful. Putting so much effort into faking it used up their mental resources and interfered with their ability to make good choices.

How to “Fake It” the Right Way

Acting “as if” doesn’t mean being phony or inauthentic. It’s about changing your behavior first and trusting the feelings will follow. As long as your motivation is in the right place, faking it until you make it can effectively make your goals become reality. Just make sure you’re interested in changing yourself on the inside, not simply trying to change other people’s perceptions of you.

By Mitchell Webb | Webb Therapy, Surry Hills Sydney

We all have moments in relationships where we give too much, worry too much, or lose ourselves a little in someone else. That is not codependency — that is being human. But when those moments become the architecture of the entire relationship, when your sense of self, your emotional stability, and your very identity become organised around another person’s needs, moods, and wellbeing, something more significant may be at play.

Codependency is one of the most misunderstood and underdiagnosed relational patterns in clinical practice. It is frequently mistaken for love, devotion, or simply being a caring person. Yet the research is consistent: left unaddressed, codependent patterns cause significant harm to both people involved — and they rarely improve on their own.

This article explores what codependency actually is, what the current evidence says about how to identify it, and — critically — what you can do if you recognise yourself in it.

What Is Codependency, Really?

The term “codependency” originated in the addiction treatment field in the 1970s and 1980s, used initially to describe the partners and family members of people with substance use disorders. Clinicians noticed that the people surrounding someone with addiction often developed their own set of dysfunctional patterns — enabling behaviour, emotional enmeshment, a compulsive need to control or fix the other person — that were distinct from, yet deeply intertwined with, the addiction itself.

Over the following decades, the concept broadened. Researchers and clinicians came to understand that codependency was not unique to addiction contexts. It appeared in relationships involving chronic illness, mental health conditions, emotional immaturity, narcissistic traits, and even in ostensibly “normal” relationships where one person had learnt, usually in childhood, that love was conditional on their usefulness or selflessness.

The American Psychological Association (2023) now broadly defines codependency as an emotional and behavioural pattern characterised by excessive reliance on others for approval, identity, and self-worth — typically at the expense of one’s own needs, boundaries, and sense of self.

Mental Health America describes it as a “relationship addiction”: a pattern where people form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally exhausting, and often damaging — yet feel compelled to stay because their sense of purpose and worth has become fused with the relationship itself.

Importantly, current research frames codependency not as a character flaw or a deliberate choice, but as a learned relational strategy — one that almost always has its roots in early experiences where a child learnt that to be loved, they needed to be needed.

The Difference Between Normal Relationship Behaviour and Codependency

This is perhaps the most important clinical question, and one that causes enormous confusion. Most people, at some point in a relationship, will:

• Put their partner’s needs before their own
• Worry excessively about someone they love
• Suppress their own feelings to keep the peace
• Feel their mood affected by their partner’s emotional state
• Struggle to maintain boundaries with someone they care about deeply

None of these, in isolation or temporarily, constitute codependency. Relationships involve genuine interdependence — research by Rusbult and Van Lange (2003) in the Annual Review of Psychology demonstrates that healthy mutual reliance is not only normal but essential to human flourishing. We are wired for attachment, and feeling affected by those we love is a feature of that, not a flaw.

The distinction lies in pattern, pervasiveness, proportion, and — critically — motivation.

In healthy relationships, care for another is chosen freely from a stable sense of self. You can be deeply affected by your partner’s pain without feeling responsible for fixing it. You can prioritise their needs without abandoning your own. You can be close without losing the thread of who you are.

In codependent relationships, the dynamic is structurally different. The table below outlines the key distinctions that clinicians look for:

That last row is one of the most clinically telling features of codependency. When a codependent person’s partner recovers, stabilises, or no longer needs them in the same way, it can trigger a profound identity crisis — because the caretaking role was not just something they did; it was who they were.

Evidence-Based Signs You May Be in a Codependent Relationship

The following indicators are drawn from validated clinical frameworks, including the work of Darlene Lancer (a leading researcher in codependency treatment), the Codependency Assessment Tool (CAT), and broader attachment and self-determination research.

1. Your emotional state is governed by the other person’s

You feel happy when they are happy, anxious when they are struggling, guilty when they are upset — regardless of whether you had any role in it. Their mood functions as the weather system you live inside. This is clinical enmeshment: a blurring of the emotional boundary between self and other.

2. You feel responsible for managing their emotions

Not just concerned — responsible. You find yourself working to regulate their feelings, prevent their distress, or shield them from the consequences of their behaviour. You walk on eggshells. You rehearse conversations. You adjust yourself to pre-empt their reactions.

3. Your self-worth is tied to being needed or useful

You feel most secure, most loveable, most like “yourself” when the other person is relying on you. When they don’t need you — when they are doing well, managing independently, or connecting with others — you feel vaguely anxious, unsettled, or unnecessary.

4. You have significant difficulty saying no

Not simply a preference for harmony, but a deep fear of what will happen if you assert a need, a limit, or a disagreement. Saying no feels dangerous — not mildly uncomfortable, but genuinely threatening to your sense of safety in the relationship.

5. Your own needs feel unimportant, illegitimate, or too much to ask

You consistently prioritise the other person’s needs, minimise your own, and feel guilty or ashamed for having them at all. Other people’s needs feel urgent and real; yours feel like an inconvenience.

6. You enable behaviour that harms the other person (or you)

You cover for them, make excuses, absorb consequences, or rescue them from situations they need to face. You know, somewhere, that this is not helping — but stopping feels impossible, cruel, or too frightening.

7. The relationship has become your primary source of identity

Outside of this relationship, you are not sure who you are, what you want, or what matters to you. Your social connections, interests, and sense of purpose have narrowed to the point where the relationship has become your whole world.

8. You experience disproportionate fear of the relationship ending

Beyond the normal grief of losing someone important, the prospect of this relationship ending feels like annihilation — as though without it, you would cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

What Causes Codependency? The Evidence

Current research strongly implicates early attachment experiences as the primary driver of codependent patterns. Studies in developmental psychology consistently show that children who grow up in environments characterised by:

• Emotional unpredictability or neglect
• A parent or caregiver with addiction, mental illness, or chronic instability
• Conditional love (affection given in exchange for performance, caretaking, or compliance)
• Parentification (being required to manage a parent’s emotional world)

…are significantly more likely to develop the relational strategies we now recognise as codependency. These children learn, at a pre-verbal and deeply embodied level, that love is not unconditional — that it must be earned through service, vigilance, or self-erasure.

Attachment theorists describe this as an anxious or disorganised attachment style: a chronic hypervigilance to the emotional states of others, combined with an unstable or underdeveloped sense of self.

Critically, Mental Health America notes that codependency is a multigenerational pattern — one that is modelled, transmitted, and reinforced across families and generations, often without anyone recognising it for what it is. This is why it so frequently feels normal. To the person in it, it simply feels like love.

How to Navigate a Codependent Relationship: What the Evidence Recommends

Recognising codependency is significant. What comes next matters enormously. The following steps reflect current evidence-based approaches, including schema therapy, attachment-focused therapy, and self-determination theory.

Step 1: Name it without shame

Codependency is not a character defect. It is a survival strategy that once served a purpose. The self-critical spiral of “why can’t I just stop?” is itself part of the pattern — a form of the same self-erasure that drives codependency in the first place. Begin by acknowledging what is true, with as much compassion as you can manage.

Step 2: Seek individual therapy — not couples therapy, at least not first

This is one of the most consistent recommendations in the clinical literature, and one of the most frequently ignored. The instinct in a codependent relationship is to focus on the relationship — to fix the dynamic, to work on “us.” But codependency is fundamentally an individual pattern that predates the current relationship. Individual therapy is the appropriate first step.

Evidence-based modalities with strong outcomes for codependency include:

• Schema Therapy: Identifies the early maladaptive schemas (core beliefs about self and relationships) that drive codependent behaviour, and systematically reworks them
• Attachment-focused therapy: Addresses the insecure attachment patterns at the root of codependency, building what attachment researchers call “earned security”
• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Builds psychological flexibility, value-based action, and a stable sense of self that does not depend on external validation
• Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT): Particularly helpful where emotional dysregulation and enmeshment are prominent features

Step 3: Begin the work of differentiation

Differentiation — the developmental process of becoming a distinct self within a close relationship — is at the heart of codependency recovery. In practical terms, this means:

• Identifying your own feelings, needs, and values separately from the other person’s
• Practising sitting with the other person’s distress without rushing to fix it
• Rebuilding connections, interests, and a sense of identity outside the relationship
• Gradually practising the expression of needs and limits — starting small, building tolerance

This is not a process of becoming cold or detached. Research on interdependence consistently shows that the more securely differentiated a person is, the more genuinely intimate they can be. As The Bridge to Recovery notes, this is what attachment researchers call the “dependency paradox”: the more safely you can depend on someone, the freer and more authentically connected you become.

Step 4: Address enabling behaviours directly

If the relationship involves someone with an addiction, mental health condition, or chronic instability, the codependent person is almost certainly engaging in enabling — behaviours that, with the best of intentions, prevent the other person from experiencing the natural consequences that might otherwise motivate change.

This is extraordinarily difficult to stop, not because the person doesn’t understand it intellectually, but because it is underpinned by deep anxiety and a terror of what will happen if they don’t intervene. Therapeutic support is usually required to navigate this safely.

Step 5: Consider whether the relationship can become healthy

This is a question that must be held with honesty. Some relationships, with both parties doing meaningful work, can move from codependency toward genuine interdependence. This typically requires both people to be willing to acknowledge the dynamic, engage in individual therapeutic work, and — often — couples therapy once both have established some individual stability.

Other relationships cannot sustain that shift. If the other person has no interest in change, or if the dynamic is also characterised by coercive control, abuse, or sustained exploitation, the most honest clinical recommendation is that the healthiest path forward may be to leave.

This is not a failure. It is, in many cases, the most courageous and self-respecting act available.

Step 6: Build the life you paused

Recovery from codependency is not simply the removal of a problematic pattern. It is the construction of something new: a stable, internally anchored sense of self; relationships characterised by genuine reciprocity; a life in which your own needs, values, and wellbeing are not an afterthought but a foundation.

This takes time. It is not linear. But the research is clear that it is possible — and that the therapeutic work, while challenging, produces lasting and meaningful change.

A Note on Seeking Support in Australia

If you recognise yourself in this article, please know that you are not alone and that effective help is available. A number of pathways are worth considering:

• Individual therapy with a psychologist or psychotherapist experienced in attachment, schema, or relational trauma
• SANE Australia (sane.org) — mental health support and resources
• Beyond Blue (beyondblue.org.au) — resources and access to counselling
• Co-Dependents Anonymous (CoDA) Australia — a peer support programme based on the 12-step model, with meetings available nationally and online

The fact that you are asking these questions is already significant. Awareness is where change begins.

Mitchell Webb is a counsellor and psychotherapist based in Surry Hills, Sydney, with a focus on relational patterns, attachment, and identity. Webb Therapy offers individual counselling and psychotherapy for adults navigating complex relationship dynamics.

References

American Psychological Association. (2023). APA Dictionary of Psychology. apa.org

Mental Health America. Codependency. mhanational.org

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351–375.

Feeney, B. C., & Van Vleet, M. (2010). Growing through attachment: The interplay of attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 226–234.

Lancer, D. (2014). Conquering shame and codependency. Hazelden Publishing.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.

There have been various theories and models proposed over time to help us understand why individuals use alcohol and other drugs, and why some people become dependent or ‘addicted’ but not others. The following are several models or theories of addiction. They reflect the political, medical, spiritual, and social forces of those times in history.

The Moral Model

Alcohol and tobacco was introduced in the Western countries during the 1500’s. The widespread use and misuse of chemical substances resulted in a range of social problems and it was thought by some that substance use was “problematic” and “morally wrong” (Lassiter & Spivey, 2018). The moral model viewed AOD dependency as a moral and personal weakness that involved a lack of self-control, and was often viewed as a potential danger to society (Stevens & Smith, 2014).

The moral model considered addiction a “sin” and a result of free, yet irresponsible, choice. Therefore, many politically conservative groups, religious groups, and legal systems tended to punish the individual who uses AOD. The moral model or attitude towards addiction can still be seen today in certain cultures. Those who still believe addiction is morally “wrong” tend to perceive the most appropriate way to treat the individuals who use AOD are through legal sanctions, such as imprisonment and fines. For example, in many countries, drivers who are caught under the influence of alcohol or other drugs are not considered for treatment programs but instead receive court sentences as punishments (Fisher & Harrison, 2017).

This model has been rejected by alcohol and other drugs professionals as unscientific and contributes to the stigma surrounding addiction and substance use (White, 1991, cited in Fisher & Harrison, 2017).

The Disease Model

This model takes up the medical viewpoint and proposes addiction as a disease or illness that an individual has. It proposed that addiction is a disease that is progressive and chronic whereby the individual holds no control as long as the substance use continues. In other words, their addiction will continue to deteriorate with the continuous AOD (Thombs & Osborn, 2019). It also proposes that individuals who uses AOD can never be cured from addiction, though it can be readily treated through sustained abstinence such as self-help fellowships and treatment community. 

In the 1940s, Jellinek proposed a disease model in relation to alcoholism, arguing that it is a disease caused by a physiological deficit in an individual, making the person permanently unable to tolerate the effects of alcohol (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Jellinek identified signs and symptoms and clustered them into stages of alcoholism, as well as progression of the disease, which form the basis of 12-step or Anon-type programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; Stevens & Smith, 2014). 

Under the disease model, treatment requires complete abstinence. Once an individual has accepted the reality of their addiction and ceased substance use, they are labelled as being in recovery, but are never ‘cured’ (e.g., “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic”; Thombs & Osborn, 2019). Whilst originally applied to alcohol dependency, it has now been generalised to other substances and many traditional substance use treatment models are based on this model (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020; Stevens & Smith, 2014).

The disease model offered an alternative to the moral theory, helping to remove the moral stigma attached to addiction and replacing it with an emphasis on treatment of an illness (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020). Disease theory helped to explain how some people experience the physiological effects of addiction such as dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal more than others, and how these mechanisms are caused by a biochemical abnormality in an individual which increases their likelihood of developing a dependency (DiClemente, 2018). 

While the disease model was well received by a range of professionals, many criticised it because research did not find that the progressive, irreversible progression of addiction through stages always occurs as predicted (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020). Additionally, many in the AOD field argued that the model did not address the complex interrelated factors that accompany dependency (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Finally, some professionals argued that the concept of addiction being a disease may also convey the impression to some individuals that they are powerless over their dependency and/or not responsible for the consequences of destructive addictive behaviours, which can be counteractive to treatment (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

Genetic and Neurobiological Theories

These theories suggest that some people may be genetically predisposed to develop drug dependency. For example, individuals usually begin substance use on an experimental basis. They then continue using because there is some reinforcement for doing so (e.g., a reduction of pain, experience of euphoria, social recognition, and/or acceptance, etc.). Some people may continue to use substances in a controlled or recreational manner with limited consequences while others progress to non-medical use and eventually develop a dependency. Why? Genetic and neurobiological theories propose that this is the result of a genetic predisposition to drug dependency (Fisher & Harrison, 2017). 

Factors being considered by researchers in the genetic transmission of dependency on alcohol include neurobiological features such as an imbalance in the brain’s production of ‘feel good’ neurotransmitters or in the metabolism of ethanol, which is the key component of alcohol (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Other researchers explored genetic differences in temperament and personality traits which they argued may lead to certain individuals becoming more vulnerable in the face of challenging environmental circumstances, leading to AOD use (Stevens & Smith, 2014). Genetic predispositions such as these may explain why some individuals develop dependency on AOD while others in similar situations do not.

The Psycho-dynamic Model

This model proposes that substance use may be due to an unintentional response to some difficulties that an individual experienced in their childhood. This explanation is based on the theory that was put forward by Sigmund Freud, whereby the problems of whether we are able to cope with difficulties as adults are linked to our childhood experience. Many counselling approaches today are based on this theory which aim to seek understanding of people’s unconscious motivations and to enhance how they view themselves (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

The Psycho-dynamtic model also believes that AOD use is often secondary to a primary psychological issue. In other words, alcohol and other drugs is a symptom rather than a disorder, and AOD use is a means to temporarily relieve or numb emotional pain. For example, an individual suffering from depression might self-medicate with stimulants to relieve the enervating effects of depression or manage their anxiety by using benzodiazepines (Fisher & Harrison, 2017). 

There is evidence to support this model, whereby childhood traumatic events are associated with mental health problems and substance use disorders. Wu et al. (2010) conducted a study among 402 adults who were receiving substance use disorder treatments. They revealed that almost all (95%) of the participants experienced one or more childhood traumatic events, and 65.9% of them experienced emotional abuse and neglect from their childhood. The authors also reported that the higher the number of childhood traumatic events experienced, the higher the risk of substance use disorders and mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Personality Traits

Some theorists suggest that certain individuals have certain personality traits that are linked to AOD dependency. For example, dependency on alcohol has been associated with traits such as developmental immaturity, impulsivity, high reactivity and emotionality, impatience, intolerance, and inability to express emotions (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2020).

Social Learning Model

This model suggests that social learning processes such as observing other peoples behaviours (i.e., modelling) and cultural norms are important in the process of learning behaviours. Albert Bandura proposed Social Learning Theory which would argue that substance use is initiated by environmental stressors or modelling people around you with “perceived status”. For example, a child observes their parents use alcohol in social situations and the child is therefore more likely to perceive that AOD use for social situations is appropriate (Harrison & Fisher, 2017); the association between socialisation and alcohol has been established.

The social learning model also recognises the influence of cognitive processes such as coping, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancies. Some researchers are currently focusing on how an individuals expectation of the effects of drugs influence the pattern of AOD use and resulting dependency. Russell (1976, cited in Wise & Koob, 2013) suggested that dependency on substance is not only chemical (biological) but also behavioural and social in nature. 

It has also been suggested that substance use occurs when an individual thinks substance use is a coping mechanism. This can be learned from television and film, social medial, peer influence, or messages from caregivers during childhood. The individual hopes the AOD use will relieve from them from stress (Stevens & Smith, 2014). 

Socio-cultural Model

Different from the previous models, the socio-cultural model perceives substance use as an issue of society as a whole instead of focusing only on the individual. People tend to overestimate the influence of internal and psychological factors while underestimating the external and environmental factors, even among some alcohol and other drugs workers (Gladwell, 2000, cited in Lewis, Dana, & Blevins, 2015). Thus, this model highlights the importance of how society shapes substance use behaviours, such as cultural attitudes, peer pressures, family structures, economic factors, and more (Bobo & Husten, 2000). For example, Coffelt et al. (2006) found that parents’ alcohol use are associated with their children’s drinking behaviour, whereby when the adult’s alcohol problems increased, the likelihood of their adolescent child’s alcohol use increased. 

The Biopsychosocial Model

Substance use behaviour cannot be explained or understood scientifically or spiritually based on a single variable, antecedent, or “cause”. Biological, psychological, learning, social and cultural context all contributes to explaining why addiction develops and maintains. The interactions between these factors are presented in The Biopsychosocial Model – arguably the most commonly used model to explain addiction today. The model suggests that substance use and the progression of substance dependency can be explained by recognising that the body and mind are connected within a social and cultural context (Skewes & Gonzalez, 2013).

The model allows any combination of biological, psychological, social and cultural factors to contribute to AOD misuse and dependency, rather than a single dominating factor. This is much more holistic and integrative when attempting to understand the determinant of addiction (Stevens & Smith, 2014).

References:

1. Bobo, J. K., & Husten, C. (2000). Sociocultural influences on smoking and drinking. Alcohol Research and Health, 24(4), 225-232. 
2. Capuzzi, D., & Stauffer, M. D., Sharpe, C. W. (2020). History and etiological models of addiction. In D. Capuzzi, & M. D. Stauffer (Eds.), Foundations of addictions counseling (pp. 1-22). Pearson Education.
3. Coffelt, N. L., Forehand, R., Olson, A. L., Jones, D. J., Gaffney, C. A., Zens, M. S. (2006). A longitudinal examination of the link between parent alcohol problems and youth drinking: The moderating roles of parent and child gender. Addictive Behaviours, 31, 4, 593-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.034 
4. DiClemente, C. C. (2018). Addiction and change: How addictions develop and addicted people recover. The Guilford Press.
5. Fisher, G. L., & Harrison, T. C. (2017). Substance abuse: Information for school counsellors, social workers, therapists, and counsellors. Pearson Education. 
6. Lassiter, P. S., & Spivey, M. S. (2018). Historical perspectives and the moral model. In P. S. Lassiter, & J. R. Culbreth (Eds.), Theory and practice of addiction counselling. (pp. 27-46). Sage Publications. 
7. Lewis, J. A., Dana, R. Q., & Blevins, G. A. (2015). Substance abuse counselling. Cengage Learning.
8. Skewes, M. C., & Gonzalez, V. M. (2013). The biopsychosocial model of addiction. In P. M. Miller, A. W. Blume, D. J. Kavanagh, K. M. Kampman, M. E. Bates, M. E. Larimer, N. M. Petry, P. D. Witte, S. A. Ball (Eds.), Principles of addiction: Comprehensive addictive behaviours and disorders (pp. 61-70). Academic Press.
9. Stevens, P., & Smith, R. L. (2014). Substance abuse counselling: Theory and practice. Pearson Education. 
10. Teesson, M., Hall, W., Proudfoot, & Degenhardt, L. (2012). Addictions. Taylor & Francis Group.
11. Thombs, D. L., & Osborn, C. J. (2019). Introduction to addictive behaviours. The Guilford Press. 
12. Wise, R. A., & Koob, G. F. (2013). The development and maintainance of drug addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39, 254-262.
13. Wu, N. S., Schairer. L. C., Dellor, E., & Grella, C. (2010). Childhood trauma and health outcomes in adults with comorbid substance abuse and mental health disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 35(1). 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.09.003