Abstract
Disclosing a stigmatized identity presents a significant challenge for individuals in recovery from problematic drug use. Recovery is defined here as a socially mediated process that does not necessarily require abstinence but involves improvements across multiple areas of life. The enduring effects of drug use histories are compounded by a societal landscape shaped by stigma, suspicion, and fears of dangerousness tied to illegal drug use. While much has been written about illegal drug use and stigma, less attention has been focused on how individuals in recovery manage their stigmatized identities in personal, social, and employment settings. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 25 individuals in recovery and informed by modified labeling theory, this article explores the challenges of disclosure in recovery by focusing on the persistence of stigma concerns, the material and non-material traces of drug histories, and the strategies employed to manage such concerns. It illustrates how criminal records, visible markers on the body, shared narratives with others, and societal labels and stereotypes shape disclosure experiences, particularly during social transitions such as starting a new job or forming new friendships and romantic relationships. This article argues that disclosure is a key aspect of the social process of recovery, as individuals must continually negotiate identity and stigma in new social and employment settings. By examining how stigma is anticipated and managed, it provides new insights into the ongoing challenges of the recovery journey.
Introduction
Disclosing a stigmatized identity is a significant challenge for people in recovery from problematic drug use. In a society where illegal drug use is viewed through the lens of stigma, suspicion, and dangerousness, people in recovery must navigate societal labels and stereotypes as they (re)enter personal, social, and employment settings. The entrenched belief that the use of particular illegal drugs can permanently spoil an individual's character creates uncertainties about the possibility of authentic and lasting change that people in recovery need to navigate strategically. In his classic book Stigma, Goffman (1963, p. 57) described this predicament as an inner dialogue about whether “to display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on; to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when and where.” At the core of this disclosure dilemma is the need to balance authenticity with the potential risks of stigma, rejection, and discrimination. Examining how people in recovery navigate these dilemmas is vital in light of recent understandings of recovery as a socially mediated process focused on reintegration and improvements across various areas of life rather than one defined by abstinence (Bellaert et al., 2022; Martinelli et al., 2020). Stigma research in the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) field, however, has largely focused on the stigmatization of people who currently use drugs or on stigma as a barrier to accessing professional services (Krendl & Perry, 2023; Lloyd, 2013). A substantial body of work has also examined stigma associated with injecting drug use and hepatitis C (Dudley et al., 2007; Goodyear et al., 2021). Less attention has been given to how people in recovery manage the persistent challenges of stigma and disclosure throughout their lives.
This article draws on qualitative interviews with 25 individuals in recovery in the United Kingdom and integrates modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989) with wider literature on stigma management (Anderson & Ripullo, 1996; Goffman, 1963; Spivey, 2024) to examine how people in recovery anticipate and manage stigma. Modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989) suggests that individuals with stigmatized characteristics internalize societal labels and stereotypes through socialization. This leads them to anticipate stigma if others discover their status. To cope with stigma, individuals either withdraw from social contact, conceal their stigma from others, or disclose it pre-emptively to control the narrative and educate others about the stigma. Using modified labeling theory as a framework, this article argues that disclosure is not just a gateway to recovery (Earnshaw et al., 2021), a one-time event that initiates change, but an ongoing, relational process that recurs throughout recovery as individuals navigate new personal, social, and employment settings. It shows how disclosure dilemmas persist across the recovery journey, shaped by the material and non-material traces of stigmatized drug histories. Stigma management strategies were essential for coping with the anticipation of stigma but also served as tools for reframing identities and narratives, building trust and connection with others, and navigating structural and interpersonal barriers to social (re)integration.
Recovery, Stigma, and the Disclosure Dilemma
Recovery is a contested concept with multiple meanings (Morris et al., 2025; Sultan & Duff, 2021). Earlier definitions emphasized abstinence from all drugs (Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel, 2007), while recent understandings frame recovery as a socially mediated process that does not necessarily involve abstinence, instead a broad process of change across various areas of life, such as housing, education, employment, and personal and social relationships (Anderson et al., 2021; Bellaert et al., 2022; Dekkers et al., 2021; Martinelli et al., 2023). Typically, between 3 and 5 years, this process transitions into a phase of recovery characterized by stability and continuity in these life domains (Martinelli et al., 2020). Accompanying this transition is a fundamental shift in social identity, whereby a drug using identity is replaced by a recovery identity, enabled by meaningful interactions with others in recovery (Best et al., 2016). Stable recovery is facilitated by the accumulation of recovery capital, which are the “resources and capabilities that enable growth and human flourishing” (Best & Hennesy, 2022, p. 1140). Recovery capital can be divided into subcategories, including personal (e.g., resilience, self-esteem, health, skills, and qualifications), social (e.g., family, friends, and social networks), and community (e.g., access to recovery communities, stigma reduction initiatives, education, and employment opportunities) recovery capital. This framework was later extended to include types of negative recovery capital, such as age, gender, and stigma, which can impede the recovery process (Best & Colman, 2019; Cloud & Granfield, 2008).
Goffman (1963) defined stigma as any deeply discrediting attribute that marks an individual as different from the rest of society. He identified three categories: abominations of the body, character defects, and tribal stigma. Fraser et al. (2017, p. 194) suggest that people who use drugs can be marked by all three: “The intoxicated or dependent body is an abomination—the product of a weak will, belonging to a tribal underclass of deviant and damaged souls.” Stigma exists on a continuum from relatively mild to severe (Link & Phelan, 2001), with consequences differing according to the drug used and the behavior of the person using it (Lloyd, 2013). Since the 1990s, attitudes toward those who use cannabis have softened (Parker et al., 1998), while people who use heroin and crack cocaine continue to be portrayed as untrustworthy and dangerous (Taylor, 2008). These negative attitudes, which are embedded within society's recognition orders (Walmsley, 2023), can impede social reintegration (Best & Colman, 2019). To recognize the challenges affecting people with stigmatized identities in social interactions, Goffman (1963) distinguished between the “discredited” and “discreditable.” The “discredited” are those whose stigma is already known or visible and who must manage socially awkward interactions with others who are aware of it. The “discreditable,” in contrast, are those whose stigma is not apparent and who must decide whether to disclose and risk negative judgments and outcomes. People in recovery fit the discreditable category as their stigma is mostly concealable, creating the dilemma about whether to risk devaluation, rejection, and discrimination by disclosing it (Link et al., 1989).
Disclosure in recovery has received relatively little attention from AOD researchers. In their analysis of the influence of different settings on disclosure, Anderson and Ripullo (1996) found that employment settings were particularly problematic due to rigid definitions of and constraints on normative identities. Recognizing their “stigma potential” and “fears of formal and informal reprisals following disclosure,” their participants concealed their recovery identity “while embracing normative identities located at work” (1996, p. 31). This contrasts with disclosure in personal relationships, which is more often motivated by the desire to build trust, intimacy, and authenticity. Earnshaw et al. (2021) examined the impact of disclosure goals on the outcomes of disclosure among people in recovery. Individuals with the goals of honesty, trust, and authenticity reported more positive outcomes such as improved relationship quality and social support. Those who sought to avoid disclosing their past were more likely to report negative consequences. AOD researchers have recently debated the disclosure of their own recovery identity to employers (Burns, 2021) and instances of personal drug use to the academic community (Revier, 2022; Ross et al., 2020). Similar concerns are raised, such as professional devaluation and discrimination. On the other hand, in recognizing the value of disclosure, they emphasize the role of disclosure in researcher reflexivity and furthering the social justice agenda by presenting alternative narratives of drug use.
Modified Labeling Theory: Anticipated Stigma and Stigma Management Strategies
This article uses modified labeling theory to understand how individuals in recovery manage the expectations of devaluation, rejection, and discrimination linked to their stigmatized identity. Link et al. (1989) developed modified labeling theory to address key limitations in traditional labeling theory, which emphasizes societal reaction and the internalization of labels leading to secondary deviance (Becker, 1963). Instead, modified labeling theory shifts the focus on how individuals anticipate and cope with the stigma associated with the label. However, stigma concerns are not experienced equally. For instance, people in recovery from problematic drug use with criminal records, visible marks on their bodies, or whose history of problematic drug use is embedded in the stories of others are particularly vulnerable to stigma. These vulnerabilities can increase the anticipation of stigma and make it more challenging to navigate interpersonal, social, and institutional environments.
Link et al. (1989) suggest that labeled individuals employ three strategies to cope with anticipated stigma: withdrawal, secrecy, and preventative telling. The withdrawal strategy involves limiting social contact to others with the same stigma or to those who empathize and understand it. Goffman (1963) referred to these groups as the “own” and the “wise,” respectively. It is the least used strategy (Park & Tietjen, 2021; Winnick & Bodkin, 2008), and its use can result in negative psychological and social outcomes. In contemporary recovery contexts, however, socializing only with the “own” and the “wise” is now recognized as fundamental to the formation of a recovery identity (Best et al., 2016). This suggests that withdrawal may now serve a dual purpose: as a response to anticipated stigma and as a strategy for identity formation. Therefore, rather than being irrelevant, this strategy serves an important role in coping with stigma, though in a more intentional and recovery supportive way, particularly in light of the growing recovery population and the expansion of recovery communities and environments.
Secrecy involves concealing a stigmatized identity from others to avoid negative outcomes (Link et al., 1989). This strategy is similar to Goffman’s (1963, p. 42) concept of passing, whereby individuals manage “undisclosed discrediting information” to appear as “normal.” In contrast to standard privacy, secrecy is the active concealment motivated by a fear of devaluation or discrimination. Anderson and Ripullo (1996) found that people in recovery used secrecy in employment settings to avoid discrimination, and Ramakers (2022) found that people released from prison used it in the labor market for up to 2 years post-release for similar reasons. Secrecy, however, is more complicated for, and not always available to, those with criminal records due to the legal requirement to disclose criminal convictions in certain professions and organizations (Baur et al., 2018). In interpersonal relations, where sharing personal identities is part of the relationship-building process, secrecy over an extended period can lead to dissonance between personal and social identities (DeJordy, 2008). This dissonance can create pressure to disclose to receive recognition for aspects of identity. Secrecy has short-term benefits, but it can lead to isolation, stress, and shame (Link et al., 1989).
Preventative telling is a pre-emptive strategy used to control the narrative and educate others about stigma (Link et al., 1989). Discreditable individuals use preventative telling to reframe their identities, demonstrate moral character, build trust, and mitigate future stigma-related concerns. It is commonly used in employment settings where individuals disclose pragmatically to manage impressions and counteract negative stereotypes. Spivey (2024) identifies specific tactics within this strategy: “reframing” the offender label from its culturally recognized meaning to something less stigmatizing and “refocusing” the conversation from labels to examples of personal agency, moral character, and achievements. These tactics often draw on culturally available narratives, such as redemption stories, which individuals use to construct a coherent sense of self by integrating their past, present, and future. These narratives emphasize the transformative journey from a negative condition, such as problem drug use, to positive outcomes such as recovery and contributions to the community (Maruna, 2001; McAdams & McLean, 2013). As will be demonstrated later, a successful recovery narrative, particularly in professional settings, often involves abstinence from drugs. By integrating their stigmatized past into narratives of change, growth, and recovery, individuals use preventative telling to reshape how others perceive them.
Methodology
Between July 2023 and January 2024, I recruited 25 people in recovery to participate in qualitative interviews about their experiences of disclosing a history of problematic drug use. To be included in the research, participants had to be in self-defined recovery or had had a problem with illegal drugs but no longer do. This broad definition enabled a range of recovery identities and pathways to be sampled, including both abstinence and non-abstinence-based recovery. A snowball sampling technique was used to recruit participants as this technique is effective in recruiting hard-to-reach populations (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). A senior practitioner and service user lead from different recovery organizations in South-West England agreed to support the initial referral process. To maximize opportunities to recruit people in stable recovery, defined as being in recovery for over 5 years, and an under-researched group, it was decided that staff members in recovery would be the initial participants and start the referral process. An email containing information about the research and the researcher's contact details was circulated to staff within both organizations. Four staff members who were in recovery, two from each organization, agreed to be interviewed and facilitate recruitment. Of the initial four participants, two attended 12-step fellowships, and two self-identified as being in recovery. The referral process continued until 25 participants were interviewed. On average, most participants referred 1–2 people to the study. All participants were offered a £15 Amazon e-voucher to compensate for their time (Pickering, 2018). Three participants in stable recovery declined the offer of a voucher, instead suggesting that the money be donated to charity or given to someone less fortunate than themselves.
Twenty participants were in recovery from problematic heroin and/or crack cocaine use. Four were in recovery from cocaine use, and one ketamine, though all but one of these five reported a period of heroin use in the past. Thirteen participants were male, 12 were female, and all were White. Their ages ranged from 32 to 59 years old, with most being in their 40s or 50s. Many of the participants started using heroin during the heroin epidemics of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fourteen currently attended 12-step fellowships, either Alcoholics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, or Narcotics Anonymous, and three stopped attending after around 7 years in recovery. Two were no longer abstinent, and most of them maintained friendships with 12-step members. Among the other participants, seven identified as being in recovery, and one preferred not to use recovery terminology, instead preferring to say that he was a “heroin addict” but not anymore. In terms of length of recovery, 4 were under 1 year, 4 were between 1 and 5 years, and 17 were between 5 and 25 years.
The semi-structured interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 2 hours, most finishing around 1 hour and 15 minutes. The interview schedule was designed to examine the participants’ disclosure experiences and strategies. The interviews explored drug histories, recovery journeys, disclosure experiences in education, voluntary work, employment, family, friendships, and romantic relationships, disclosure strategies, and positive and negative experiences. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in full, and the transcriptions were uploaded to NVivo for analysis. The analytic strategy involved applying both inductive and deductive approaches to the transcribed interviews, a common strategy used in qualitative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The interview transcripts were read for an initial impression, and a line-by-line coding technique was applied to organize the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In the initial reading of the data, it was observed that the expectation of stigma was a key concern in the disclosure decisions of the participants and that their disclosure strategies resembled the stigma management strategies contained in modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989). This theory and the literature on stigma management (Anderson & Ripullo, 1996; Goffman, 1963; Spivey, 2024) were used as an analytical framework with sensitizing concepts to guide the analysis. Ethical approval for the project was granted by the University of the West of England's Ethics Review Committee.
Findings and Discussion
The findings are presented in two sections to address key aspects of the stigma and stigma management experiences of the participants. The first section explores the complex relationship between anticipated stigma and recovery, showing that disclosure dilemmas are a dynamic and ongoing challenge shaped by the material and non-material traces of stigmatized drug histories. The second section examines how participants actively manage anticipated stigma through strategies that reframe their identities, foster trust and connection, and navigate the structural and interpersonal barriers to social (re)integration and participation.
The Recovery Journey, Disclosure Dilemmas, and Stigma Vulnerabilities
Earnshaw et al. (2019) suggest that disclosure is a gateway to recovery that individuals must navigate to socially (re)integrate. However, disclosure is not a one-off event but rather part of the ongoing negotiation of identity in personal, social, and employment settings, making it integral to the dynamics of change and stability that define the recovery journey (Bellaert et al., 2022; Martinelli et al., 2020). The participants’ experiences reveal that disclosure dilemmas were more frequent during the first few years of recovery, when change is more common and the recovery identity is still forming and fragile. Laura, like the other participants, had navigated disclosure dilemmas across most areas of her life (e.g., family, healthcare, and voluntary work). Common to these dilemmas was a tension between the fear of judgment and the desire for acceptance if she revealed her drug history, as she reflects on here in the context of returning to work: I’d worked in doctor's surgeries, factories, I know I’m highly capable, I know. But will these workplaces accept me, do you know what I mean, if I am truly honest about my past?. (Laura, 46 years old, female, 3 years in recovery)
The recovery literature (Bellaert et al., 2022; Martinelli et al., 2020) tends to overlook the themes of change, stigma, and disclosure in stable recovery and instead focuses on stability, growth, and positive outcomes as its defining features. However, social transitions, such as applying for a new job or entering a new romantic relationship, friendship, or social circle, often reignited concerns about stigma for those in stable recovery. These transitions disrupted established routines, and consequently, identities had to be renegotiated in new interpersonal and institutional settings. For participants with stigma vulnerabilities, such as institutional records, physical markers, or shared narratives with others, these transitions heightened fears of devaluation, rejection, and discrimination.
Regarding institutional records, Jane had recently applied for a senior management position in a different organization due to the CEO of her organization announcing his retirement. She worried that the new CEO may not be as supportive as their predecessor and could block opportunities to progress her career. For Jane, and those with criminal records, application forms, and job interviews were reminders of their vulnerability to stigma and discrimination and transformed the recruitment process into a struggle for professional recognition. As she explained: I was thinking about what I was going to do and say. I don’t think people should have to over disclose in order to be heard and seen and to be valued on things because realistically people should be focusing on what I’ve achieved in the last nine years, not what happened there. (Jane, 47 years old, female, 9 years in recovery)
Physical traces of past drug use on the body posed a distinct vulnerability to stigma. Nathan (39 years old, male, 5 years in recovery) believed that his teeth revealed his heroin addiction: “I think the teeth kind of do, they do give it away.” Injecting scars on the body was another source of vulnerability due to difficulties concealing them. Lisa, for example, believed the scars on her legs and arms revealed her history of injecting drug use: No matter how much I cover them up, I feel like people can always see the scars. I do get quite anxious in social situations, especially when it's warm and I can’t wear long sleeves. (Lisa, 51 years old, female, 8 years in recovery) Imagine being in a relationship even if they are completely clueless. The heaviness of the scars on my body will reveal it anyway. So even if I wanted to keep it private, I can’t. My body exposes me for my drug use.
Non-material traces of drug histories emerged as another vulnerability to stigma, often surfacing in shared narratives within family and romantic relationships. For example, Nathan, who was married throughout most of his heroin addiction, talked about how his wife's telling of her life story in social settings often contained indirect references to his heroin addiction. This became particularly challenging in social interactions with people he was not familiar with. He mentioned how his wife's anxiety could lead her to inadvertently reveal his past through her conversations with others about her own experiences. For example: There have been times where we’ve been in a group of people relatively unfamiliar to me, and she might, out of nervousness or anxiety, sort of blurt out this. My wife talks about her experiences because she still holds onto trauma around me essentially not being there.
These experiences illustrate how anticipated stigma and disclosure present ongoing challenges throughout the recovery journey, influenced by personal vulnerabilities, social and institutional contexts, and relational dynamics. While disclosure can support recovery and social reintegration, it can also risk exposing individuals to stigma, especially during social transitions or when institutional and physical signs of drug histories become visible. These challenges show how stigma continues to influence the lives of those in recovery and, in part, hinder their ability to move beyond their past.
Stigma Management: Withdrawal, Preventative Telling, and Secrecy
The participants addressed the challenges described above by employing the stigma management strategies identified by Link et al. (1989), with preventative telling and secrecy being the most frequent. This section first examines the withdrawal strategy, followed by “compelled preventative telling” and secrecy in employment settings, and “delayed preventative telling” in interpersonal and social relations.
Withdrawal: Life and Stigma in the Recovery Bubble
While the participants did not deliberately limit social contact to the “own” and “wise” to avoid stigma (Goffman, 1963; Link et al., 1989), most spent the first few years of recovery immersed in what Rob, Jacob, and Alan referred to as the “recovery bubble.” This is a social world dominated by recovery-oriented social relations and environments, such as living in recovery accommodation, volunteering or working for a recovery organization, and socializing or forming romantic relationships exclusively with others in recovery. The recovery bubble was particularly relevant to those involved in 12-step fellowships, who were more likely to remain immersed, to varying degrees, within this social world for a longer period. The participants talked about this bubble in positive terms, as illustrated here by Jacob: “very affirming, it's very allowing, you’re really open. It's a very positive experience.” Concerns with disclosure, stigma, devaluation, and rejection were noticeably absent in the recovery bubble due to the lack of meaningful interactions with “normals” (Goffman, 1963). In contrast, Nathan, who spent little time in the recovery bubble, returned home after residential treatment and began education and voluntary work within 18 months. This exposed them to disclosure dilemmas and stigma management much earlier than the other participants. Entering work or education did not necessarily mean participants had left the recovery bubble; for many, the majority of their social lives, identities, and daily routines remained rooted in recovery culture, even as they engaged in mainstream settings.
However, not all stigma was absent from the recovery bubble. Normative judgments about acceptable recovery pathways created tensions for some participants. For example, Louise had recently volunteered for a local recovery organization and talked about feeling judged by the other volunteers for occasionally drinking alcohol. Reflecting on this experience, she explained: Their [other volunteers] idea of recovery is different to mine. I have a drink now and then and to those guys I’m not in recovery but to the drug organisation I am. I’d like to go out with my colleagues after work sometimes like on a Friday […] I don’t want people looking at me and going she shouldn’t be drinking. (38 years old, female, 1 year in recovery)
While the recovery bubble protected the participants from drug-use-related stigma, exiting it often exposed them to institutional and societal stigma. Jacob, for example, struggled to secure school placements during his teacher training degree due to repeated criminal record checks: “I got called into the office at the university. They said [the] headmaster just wouldn’t let me go in there.” Despite qualifying as a teacher, because of these struggles, he decided to pursue a lived experience role instead. Jacob was not the only participant whose career trajectory was shaped by institutional stigma. Louise decided to pursue a career as a recovery worker, starting as a volunteer, only after a local NHS hospital rescinded an offer for a healthcare assistant position. The hospital accused her of dishonesty because she mistakenly ticked the wrong box on a criminal record check form.
These findings challenge and extend traditional views of withdrawal strategies. In contemporary recovery contexts, limiting social contact to others in recovery can support positive growth and identity formation (Best et al., 2016) rather than simply leading to negative psychological and social outcomes (Link et al., 1989). Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that while the recovery bubble offered protection against drug-use-related stigma and opportunities for identity formation, it was not entirely free from other forms of stigma and negative judgment. In this respect, it was shaped not only by the normative structures of wider society but also by norms around acceptable ways of pursuing recovery.
Compelled Preventative Telling in Employment Settings: Resisting Stereotypes, Narratives, and Second Chances
Fears of devaluation and discrimination were particularly evident in employment settings, with most participants describing job applications and interviews as the main “pinch points” for disclosure dilemmas. Stigmatizing attitudes toward people with drug histories are particularly pervasive in employment settings (Anderson & Ripullo, 1996; Lloyd, 2013; Spencer et al., 2008). In this setting, the participants’ choice of stigma management strategy followed a general pattern: if they had criminal convictions, and needed to complete a criminal records check, preventative telling was used. Secrecy was preferred when criminal record checks were not required. An exception to this rule occurred when job adverts explicitly stated that lived experience was a desirable quality of candidates, making disclosure, in this context, an asset rather than a liability.
Surprisingly, the participants with criminal records tended to disclose their drug histories to potential employers despite the risk of facing double stigma (Krendl & Perry, 2023; Lloyd, 2013). This type of disclosure can be conceptualized as “compelled preventative telling”, whereby discrediting information (e.g., drug histories) is disclosed to control the narrative, not out of choice, but in response to external pressure (e.g., criminal record check). Criminal record checks can compel disclosure by reducing complex life stories to simplified narratives of offending that serve to reinforce negative and oppressive stereotypes (Baur et al., 2018). For example, Jane believed that once a potential employer learned that she had been to prison for supplying heroin and crack cocaine, they viewed her through the predatory drug dealer stereotype as someone who sells drugs to children (Coomber, 2010). To reclaim control over the narrative, she disclosed her drug history: It [criminal record] says the intention to supply heroin and crack cocaine. It's kind of never getting away from it is there. And if I turned round and said well actually I did that because I was just greedy and wanted to make loads of money. I knew it would sound worse than if you were going, well, actually I had a problem with it and I thought that was a really good way to solve my problem. I think people are actually more understanding of that. Like oh, right, so you had the drugs because you had a drug problem rather than yes, I was out there selling to children outside schools. There's a different connotation isn’t there in people's minds around it?
This reframing tactic, however, introduced a new challenge: confronting the stigma associated with the problem drug user label. To address this, the participants employed a refocusing tactic (Spivey, 2024), whereby they shifted attention away from the stigmatizing labels onto their personal identities and the agency they had regained over their lives. For example, Jacob refocused the conversation onto his abstinence from drugs, strength of character to overcome addiction, parenting his two children, his achievements in education, and his work experience while in recovery: I got a little bit emotional. So, I said, all of that is because I’m in recovery from drug addiction. As you can see, when I’m like, clean, I’ve done this and this. I can remember saying it to him, I’m really sorry. But it's just been like fucking, it's really hampered, what I want to do. He was really good: “if you can’t get a bit emotional and get a second chance in a community college.” And he gave me the job.
Redemption narratives provided a moral framework for the interview that, in some cases, facilitated empathy, forgiveness, and second chances. These narratives shifted the prospective employer's decision-making from focusing solely on professional qualifications to incorporating moral considerations. For instance, in Jacob's case, they extended empathy and understanding by stating that he deserved a second chance. Jacob, like several other participants in stable recovery, shared similar experiences of positive outcomes after disclosing. However, Jane's decision to apply for a new job highlights the precariousness of second chances, particularly in the context of career progression and organizational change. She described the fragility of her position: “If anyone turns around and goes, ‘Oh my God, we didn’t know about this’: should you have? Actually, it's private and confidential, and has it had any bearing on whether I can do my job?.” The anticipated stigma from the incoming CEO led Jane to consider leaving the organization. This demonstrates how disclosure, even when initially returned positive outcomes, can create long-term vulnerabilities.
Secrecy in Employment Settings: Negotiating a Professional Identity
Not all the participants had criminal records or worked for organizations or in professions that required them to be disclosed. If a criminal record check was not required, or drug histories were not needed to explain gaps in employment, most participants concealed their drug histories to avoid devaluation or discrimination. In some cases, criminal and drug histories were disclosed to those who needed to know, such as human resources and line managers, with secrecy being used with co-workers.
Secrecy was employed to avoid rejection and protect professional identities, often influenced by past negative experiences of disclosure. Gabby returned to education to become a primary school teacher and concealed her identity as a “recovering cocaine addict” during her degree and when she applied for jobs believing that it conflicted with the image of a primary school teacher. She recalled being asked, in the post-interview clearance form, if she had had a drug or alcohol problem in the last 5 years. As she attended Cocaine Anonymous meetings, she faced a disclosure dilemma: I thought I can technically say no, I haven’t had a problem in the last five years. But it is still a problem, it's just not an active problem in the way that it was before, do you know what I mean? It's a grey area, isn’t it?. (46 years old, female, 22 years in recovery)
Jane's experience is somewhat unique among the participants, but it highlights the complexity of stigma management for people in recovery with criminal records who progress to senior leadership positions within large organizations. She used both compelled preventative telling and secrecy, strategically disclosing up to those in positions of power, such as the CEO and human resources, while maintaining secrecy with junior staff. Disclosing up, in part, enabled Jane to build trust and conform to expectations of transparency and accountability. At the same time, concealing her past from those below her in the management hierarchy protected her professional authority and avoided disruptive workplace dynamics (Follmer et al., 2020). As she explained: With the position that I have within the organisation it's quite difficult for me to have really close relationships with junior staff, which suits me in some ways. I can’t disclose that to one junior manager and expect her then to keep my confidence, that's unfair of me to do that.
Goffman (1963) suggests that to pass as normal, stigmatized individuals must manage discrediting information. Both Jane and Gabby attended 12-step meetings in towns and cities different from where they worked to reduce the risk of bumping into someone from work. Gabby avoided social media to reduce the risk of her past being discovered by co-workers and parents, whereas Jane used pseudonyms to connect with friends on social media. Jane described a further threat to secrecy, which illustrates the vulnerability of shared narratives with others. A family member had threatened to tell her employer and work colleagues about her history: My uncle was threatening to tell everybody about who I was and what I had done and all this kind of stuff … some bloody horrible thing like that. I just wanted to be known as Jacob, me, not Jacob the recovering addict, you know what I mean, be there as like another employee, another work colleague.
Delayed Preventative Telling in Personal and Social Settings: Trust, Authenticity, and Risk
Stigma management became an important interpersonal skill in social interactions with people outside of recovery (Vigdal et al., 2024). Most of the participants in stable recovery had built different types of relationships with individuals who were not in recovery in settings such as workplaces, education, parenting roles, and leisure activities. These interpersonal relations ranged from being transactional, focused on practical exchanges or shared activities, to deeper friendships built on trust, honesty, and authenticity. Anticipated stigma and disclosure became a more pressing concern when such friendships moved from the initial setting in which they developed to social settings, such as homes, cafes, pubs, and other leisure and entertainment settings, where norms of openness, honesty, and authenticity were stronger.
Earlier in recovery, the participants typically used either preventative telling or secrecy in these types of social relations. However, as they transitioned to stable recovery, they adopted a “delayed preventative telling” approach to disclosure. This approach involves postponing the disclosure of discrediting information until trust and authenticity have been established. By doing so, the participants could anchor such relationships in their present identities and narratives, which gave them time to build rapport and shape perceptions before revealing their stigmatized past. Drug histories could then be strategically integrated into coherent life stories, rather than dominating how they were perceived. The accumulation of new biographical information during recovery not only supported the development of new friendships but also provided evidence of good moral character and redemption when disclosure occurred.
In their use of delayed preventative telling, the participants carefully navigated timing and trust. For example, Peter resisted the temptation to disclose to several friends he met while at university until his final year, allowing them to get to know him better. The disclosure opportunity arose while he and his friends were in a pub celebrating the submission of an assignment and he decided to share the real reason why he did not drink alcohol. Similarly, Lucy was open about her past after a few months of starting a local parenting support group only when she felt it was safe and would not be judged. Lea delayed disclosing her past cocaine addiction in her friendships with two mums from her daughter's school. Like the other participants, her decision was driven by a fear of negative judgment and rejection: If I said something about it when I first started chatting to them outside school, they’ll probably think I’m just an ex-junkie or something, so I didn’t mention it. It took a while but I felt like I had to bring it up so they wouldn’t think I’ve not been honest about it.
Delayed preventative telling is not without its vulnerabilities, as illustrated in Peter's experience below. His wife revealed his recovery status and past heroin addiction to her brother and sister-in-law before he had an opportunity to shape their perceptions of him. As he explained: I said to her afterward like you shouldn’t have really done that. She said, “but you’re generally quite open about it.” Usually, people get to know me first, and then I’ll disclose it. I don’t know whether I’m reading more into it than not, that that has colored their interaction with me to a degree. I try and make sure they are all covered up. I don’t wear sandals or anything, I wear my trainers all the time. Yes, because I have got holes in my groin, so I never really, like I remember been questioned about that and it's like, I made up some, I don’t even know what I made up, I made up some stupid lie.
Conclusion
This article offers novel insights into how individuals navigate and negotiate their stigmatized identity in the areas of life that support recovery. Consistent with modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989), the participants were acutely aware of their denigrated and subordinated social position (Krendl & Perry, 2023; Lloyd, 2013), which led to expectations of devaluation, rejection, and discrimination if their drug histories were discovered. These concerns were aggravated by specific vulnerabilities such as institutional records, physical markers on the body, and shared narratives with others. Stigma-related anxieties resurfaced during times of change, such as applying for a new job or entering a new friendship or romantic relationship, and during periods of stability, receded into the background. This ongoing negotiation of a stigmatizing label can be understood as integral to the recovery journey (Earnshaw et al., 2021). These findings contribute important insights into the role of disclosure in the social reintegration of people with histories of problem drug use (Bellaert et al., 2022; Martinelli et al., 2020). In addition, stable recovery should not be considered synonymous with stability, growth, and positive outcomes as this framing risks overlooking the challenges of anticipated stigma and stigma management.
Stigma management emerged as a vital interpersonal skill that enabled the participants to respond proactively to anticipated stigma linked to societal labels rather than passively internalize them. The demands of stigma management varied across different interpersonal and institutional settings and required adaptable self-presentation strategies (Anderson & Ripullo, 1996). In employment settings, the participants engaged in a “compelled” type of preventative telling in response to negative stereotypes enacted by criminal record checks (Baur et al., 2018). By drawing on culturally available drug-related crime, recovery, and redemption narratives, they reframed stigmatized drug histories into stories of growth, resilience, and moral transformation. Similarly, secrecy, where possible, was used as a protective strategy that allowed the participants to protect their professional identities by withholding potentially stigmatizing information. In close relationships, a “delayed” type of preventative telling enabled trust to be developed and friendships to form around present-day identities and narratives before revealing discrediting drug histories. Together, these strategies demonstrate how managing stigmatizing labels and negative stereotypes involves not only mitigating external pressures but also actively constructing and communicating personal identities and narratives. Furthermore, the findings provide important insights into the situational nature of anticipated stigma and stigma management, as well as how shifts in the strategic management of stigma can be closely tied to the changing life circumstances and biographies of individuals.
These findings have several implications for both policy and practice. To address the interpersonal, social, and institutional dimensions of drug-related stigma, the promotion of inclusive environments that support recovery and reduce stigma is required. Initiatives such as Inclusive Recovery Cities and public events that celebrate and increase the visibility of recovery can provide opportunities for positive interactions between people in recovery and the wider community (Best & Coleman, 2019). Such activities can address reductionist narratives that perpetuate stigma (Taylor et al., 2016) by offering alternative accounts of people who use drugs (Ross et al., 2020). A particularly significant obstacle to employment opportunities for the participants was criminal record checks. Such checks raised anxieties and, in some cases, forced the participants to abandon aspirations for careers in teaching and healthcare. Initiatives such as Ban the Box can reduce the exclusionary effects of criminal record disclosures in recruitment processes (Baur et al., 2018). Finally, integrating stigma management strategies into the recovery capital framework can encourage recovery services to raise awareness of and better prepare people in recovery for the challenges of disclosure dilemmas and stigma management.
Footnotes
Ethics Approval and Informed Consent
The Ethics Review Committee at the University of the West of England approved the interviews (approval: UWE REC REF No: HAS/14/11/40). Participants gave written consent before the interviews.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a British Academy (grant number SG2122\210145) and Leverhulme small research grant.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
The research participant did not consent for their data to be publicly available.