Addiction

Living with an Addictive behaviour

Someone who has had the experience of growing up in a family where there is an addiction may feel significantly affected by this experience. In recent a UK government document it was estimated that for every chemically dependent person another 8 were affected by their addiction. This presents a huge and growing problem for our society, and suggests that families of addicted people are worthy of research in their own right.

Since the 1980s therapists and researchers have written about the effects of growing up in a family where there is an addictive behaviour and called the symptoms that ensue for the family member 'Co-dependency.' Giving this set of problems a label is not intended to stigmatise but rather allows researchers to develop ways of investigating and describe these consequences. Most simply Codependency is defined as "a preoccupation with others that results in self-neglect."

Research of this fascinating area has been taking place in the US for some time, and shows that there are some significant consequences in adulthood for ‘Co-dependents’. This body of research can be summarised to state that Co-dependents are statistically more likely to find themselves in a relationship with a person who is addicted, have more physical illness, and mental distress such as depression, and they are more likely to become addicted themselves. Some of these consequences are a direct result of what happened to the person in childhood. While the Co-dependent stays in what feels like the hopelessness of their childhood, little changes, and often life may feel like it is becoming increasingly difficult. Clearly, the most common areas where this distress is felt is in personal relationships and in self-care.

To begin to try and understand Co-dependency in the UK we have started to collect information to ascertain its severity and frequency. Below are the results of two small studies where we have pooled the data together. These studies were undertaken with young men and women attending University.

Contact Jennifer for more information

Co-dependency in Male and Female University Students

Dr Jennifer Parker

Aims

In 2008 The UK Government recognised that services for drug problems should extend to helping family members, as well as the chemically dependent person. To begin to develop models of helping, the nature and definition of the problem needs to be adequately described. American literature has termed the cluster of symptoms that family members present with as ‘Co-dependency'. The key features of Co-dependency are defined by Fischer et al (1992: 1-12) as having a ‘dysfunctional pattern of relating to others with an extreme focus outside oneself, lack of open expression of feelings, and attempts to derive a sense of purpose exclusively through relationships with others.’ Psychologists have developed questionnaires that measure levels of ‘co-dependency’, amongst them is the Co-dependency Assessment Tool designed by Hughes-Hammer, Martsolf & Zeller (1998).

Individuals with co-dependency are thought to exhibit excessive levels of caring behaviour that they will direct towards their ‘significant (usually chemically dependent) other.’ Research has shown that they are more likely to enter into relationships with individuals who suffer from an addiction, and they will attempt to control the chemically dependent person’s behaviour and/or chemical use. In doing so the co-dependent person will not consider or address their own needs, rather they will focus on the needs and desires of others. A co-dependent person will not see this behaviour as self-destructive, and will believe that their behaviours, and actions, are undertaken in the best interest of the chemically dependent person’s well-being.

The majority of the studies conducted by psychologists have taken place in the United States. Here I presented the preliminary results of ongoing investigations into male and female levels of co-dependency in the UK.

Co-dependency has been reported as mainly a female problem (Kresco & Bepko, 1999; Babcock & McKay, 1995). However, this finding is by no means unequivocal. The aim of this study was to provide relevant comparative data for British men and women. The Hughes-Hammer (1998) Co-dependency Assessment Tool (CODAT) was used to measure levels of co-dependency. On completion of the study participants were given a debrief sheet explaining the nature of comparisons and were reminded of their right to withdraw at any time and with no explanation.

Method

One hundred and eleven participants were recruited using opportunity sampling. All participants were students at the University of the West of England (UWE), 41 were male and 70 female. A quantitative approach to data analysis was undertaken to provide a more accurate measure of the differences between each gender.

Results

The CODAT is comprised of five constructs believed to adequately describe a range of co-dependent behaviours. These are: 1) Other focus and self-neglect, 2) Self-worth and low self-esteem, 3) Hiding self where the person presents a positive self image, but feel the opposite, 4) Medical problems specifically related to Co-dependency and 5) Feelings about their Family of Origin. A high scores on each factor was 25, anything above 12.5 having been scored on each factor was considered to show co-dependent responding. Participants total score for each of the 5 factors were added together to give a total score. Using this summed approach, a score equal to or greater than 62.5 indicated a significant degree of co-dependency. We are pleased to report that both men's and women's scores fell below this critical number.

Men’s total average score on CODAT was 43.1 (range from 31 to 64) and for females 48.2 (range form 33 – 64). This suggests that statistically both averages indicated low to moderate Co-dependency in the two groups. Men's and women’s average total scores were not significantly different (t = 1.756, df, 46, p = >0.05) but did tend towards significance (p = 0.085).

Figure 1: Men's and Women’s average scores for each component of the CODAT



















Men and women reported comparative levels of self-esteem impairment, medical problems, and hiding their true feelings. Women reported significantly more discontent when they reflected upon relationships & communication in their family of origin (F = 6.08,MSe = 49.363, df 1, 46, p = <0.05). More specifically, women agreed with statements such as “I was not able to able to talk openly in my family” both during childhood and at the present time. They also agreed to having grown up in 'a troubled family' and they recognised that they had dysfunctional ways of coping with this. The highest average scores for both men and women were self-neglect, hiding the self, and issues relating to family of origin.

Conclusions

In contrast to previous studies no overall sex difference was found between men's and women's levels of co-dependency. However, women’s average scores were five points higher than men’s and this difference did tend towards significance. The averages for both genders indicated moderate levels of co-dependency. The issues that contributed to moderate co-dependency scores were self-neglect, hiding the self, and issues relating to family of origin.

These findings can be made useful by having information available for all students who enter University in relations to self help groups that specialise in supporting these problems. This could be implemented by placing information sheets in Welcome Packs that give details of where support can be accessed. Furthermore, University counselling services should be prepared to support these young adults who may suffer morethan most in terms of confidence and completing their studies.

Furthermore, work-shops addressing the aforementioned issues could be put in place to support students. This would meet the holistic needs that people have, not only to learn, but also to have emotional and physical stability. University may be the first ‘stable setting’ for those with co-dependency and as such it should be ready to provide for any needs that arise as a result of changing environment which codependents find especially challenging. Caution should be encouraged as this was an exploratory study and the number of participants taking part was low. Furthermore, we intend to add to this data base and make further suggestions regarding gender differences in co-dependency.


References

Babcock,M. and McKay, C. (1995). Challenging Co-dependency: Feminist Critiques. University of Toronto Press

Fishcer, J., Wampler, R., Lyness, K., and Thomas, E., (1992). ‘Offspring codependency: Blocking the impact of the family of origin.’ Family Dynamics of Addiction Quaterly, Vol. 2, pp.1-12.

Hughes-Hammer, C., Martsolf, D, S., and Zeller, R, A., (1998). ‘Development and Testing of the Codependency Assessment Tool’, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, Vol. 12, October, pp.264-272.

Krestan, J., and Bepko, C., (1990). ‘Codependency: The social reconstruction of female experience’, Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 60, pp.217-232.