Sober social networks: The role of online support groups in recovery from alcohol addiction

Abstract

In the context of addiction research, positive recovery outcomes are affected by the quality of people's social interactions and perhaps to an even greater extent, by the defining norms of the groups they identify with—that is, using versus recovery groups. Here, we examine the role of online supportive networks in the process of recovery from alcohol addiction. We analyse the relationship between negative and positive aspects of recovery capital (i.e., self‐stigma, and respectively, positive recovery identity and self‐efficacy) as they relate to well‐being outcomes among alcohol users in an online recovery support group. Based on a computerised linguistic analysis of the naturally occurring data extracted from an online recovery support group (i.e., 257 posts made by 237 group members), we found that self‐stigma negatively predicts self‐efficacy and well‐being, and social identification with a recovery identity mediates these relationships. Overall, these findings highlight that positive engagement with supportive recovery networks is central to an effective and sustainable recovery.

Characterizing Participation and Perceived Engagement Benefits in an Integrated Digital Behavioral Health Recovery Community for Women: A Cross-Sectional Survey

“…This relationship with SR may serve as a mechanism of social connection. In fact, previous research suggests this type of social connection is critical to the recovery progress in person, as well as digitally [55-57]. When compared with those with less than 1 year, who use SR primarily to receive resources, and those with 5 or more years, who use it primarily to provide support, perhaps it is this focus on fostering connection that may be the driver of perceived positive life impact.…”

Examining the Relationship Between the Use of a Mobile Peer-Support App and Self-Injury Outcomes: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study

“…Relevant dimensions were identified from the initial literature review, including: (1) affect (eg, positive emotion and specific negative emotions [sadness and anger]), (2) social or relational (eg, mentions of family or friends), (3) affiliative language (eg, affiliation and we pronouns based on [ 64 , 66 ]), (4) self-focus (eg, I language), (4) rumination (a composite score of negative emotion and focus on the past), and (5) efficacy (a composite score of focus present, future, and certain language as in a study by Bliuc et al [ 64 ]).…”

“…On the basis of interpersonal models of self-injury [ 62 , 63 ], we probe the association between community involvement and themes of family and friends and self-injury outcomes. As a proxy for identification with the community, we assess affiliative language as in previous work [ 64 ].…”

Publishing in JCASP: The importance of theoretical relevance and of social impact

“…It may also be important, for instance, to investigate how the defining characteristics of specific activities impact on the volunteers' motivation, also in relation with volunteers' individual traits. As a further example, research with convenience samples cannot replicate the feelings, distress, reactions of individuals involved in disasters (Vezzali, Andrighetto, Drury, Di Bernardo, & Cadamuro, 2017) or experiencing severe traumas and some type of addiction (Bathje, Pillersdorf, Kacere, & Bigg, 2020; Bliuc, Doan, & Best, 2019). Further, isolating the characteristics of the context may be important to understand which of them may foster or instead inhibit individual and community resilience.…”

“…As stated by Muldoon and Cornish (2016), ‘JCASP aspires to publish research that makes a difference’ (p. 89). In this regard, we welcome contributions on a broad variety of psychological topics dealing with social and community areas that can be pertinent to practitioners and policy makers, for instance (but not limited to): volunteering (Livi et al, 2020), care (Graber, Zoli, Walker, & Artaraz, 2020), social interventions to cope with addictions (Bliuc et al, 2019), prosocial behaviour (Moloney et al, 2020), prejudice (Stathi, Di Bernardo, Vezzali, Pendleton, & Tropp, 2020), sexism (Salvati, Piumatti, Giacomantonio, & Baiocco, 2019), discrimination (Antfolk, Szala, & Oblom, 2019), migration (Bendjo, Karnilowicz, & Gill, 2019), social cohesion (Ponizovskiy, Arant, Larsen, & Boehnke, 2020), community participation (Sirlopù & Renger, 2020), mental health (Kapeli, Manuela, & Sibley, 2020), disability (Mpofu & Sefotho, 2019) and homelessness (Barile, Pruitt, & Parker, 2020).…”