This article examines how Finns perceive obstacles to overcoming various substance and behavioural addictions.
Design
A random population survey (n=740) was conducted in the autumn of 2007. The survey included questions on five types of barriers to recovery: the properties of the substance or behaviour, the personal properties of the individual, the significance of the environment, the effect of difficult living conditions, and the prejudices and negative expectations of other people.
Results
The individual and the substances or behaviours as such were considered bigger obstacles to recovery than contextual factors such as the environment, living conditions or attitudes and prejudices. The substances were considered bigger obstacles to recovery than behaviours not involving psychoactive substances. The personal properties of the individual were considered a moderately big obstacle in all forms of addictions, while prejudices were believed to restrict the recovery possibilities the least.
Conclusion
The result reflects people's overall tendency to explain other people's unpleasant or troublesome behaviour with clear-cut and definable factors. The obstacles to recovery are located in the individual and substances and not so much in socio-cultural factors. The reduction of dependence problems could succeed better if, in addition to the individual factors, attention were directed at the environmental factors that feed and maintain these problems.
BlomqvistJ. (2009). What is the worst thing you could get hooked on? Popular images of addiction problems in contemporary Sweden.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Ddrugs,26(4), 373–397.
3.
BouldingK. E. (1961). The image: Knowledge and life in society.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4.
CarlsonR. (2006). Etnography and applied substance misuse research. In MillerW. R., & CarrollK. M. (Eds.), Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows, and what we should do about it (pp. 201–222). New York: The Guildford Press.
5.
ChristieN., & BruunK. (1986). Hyvä vihollinen: huumausainepolitiikka Pohjolassa [The good enemy: Drug policy in the north]. Espoo: Weiling+Göös.
6.
CunninghamJ. A., & BlomqvistJ., & Koski-JännesA., & RaitasaloK. (2012). Societal images of Cannabis use: comparing three countries.Harm Reduction Journal9:21. Retrieved from http://www.harmreduction-journal.com/content/9/1/21.
7.
FiedlerK. (1996). Processing social information for judgment and decision. In HewstoneM., StroebeW., & StephensonG. M. (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 135–166). Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
FurnhamA., & LowickV. (1984). Lay theories of the causes of alcoholism.British Journal of Medical Psychology,57(4), 319–332.
9.
FurnhamA., & ThomsonL. (1996). Lay theories of heroin addiction.Social Science and Medicine, 43, 29–40.
GriffithsM., & DuffJ. (1993). Etiologies of excessive behavior: A study of non-professional peoples' beliefs.Addiction Research,1(3), 199–206.
12.
HakkarainenP., & MetsoL. (2007). Huume kysymyksen muuttunut ongelmakuva: vuoden 2006 huumekyselyn tulokset [The changing spectrum of drug-related problems. Results of the 2006 drug survey.].Yhteiskuntapolitiikka,72(5), 541–552.
13.
HakkarainenP., & MetsoL., & SalasuoM. (2011). Hamppuikäpolvi, sekakäyttö ja doping vuoden 2010 huumekyselyn tuloksissa. [The hemp generation, mixed use and doping – results from the 2010 Drug Survey.]Yhteiskuntapolitiikka,76(4), 397–411.
14.
HautamäkiL. & HelénI., & KanulaK. (2011). Mielenterveyden hoidon lääkkeellistyminen Suomessa. [The medicalisation of mental health care in Finland.] In HelénI. (Ed.), Reformin pirstaleet. Mielenterveyspolitiikka hyvinvointivaltion jälkeen [Splinter of reform. politic of mental health after the welfare state.] (pp. 70–110). Tampere: Vastapaino.
15.
HellmanM. (2010). Construing and defining the out of control addiction in the media 1968–2008.Helsinki: Swedish School of Social Science.
16.
HerdD., & RoomR. (1982). Alcohol images in American film 1909–1960.Drinking and Drug Practices Surveyor, 18, 24–35.
17.
HesselbrockK., & HesselbrockM. (2006). Developmental perspectives on the risk for developing substance abuse problems. In MillerW. R., & CarrollK. M. (Eds.), Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows, and what we should do about it (pp. 97–114). New York: The Guildford Press.
18.
HewstoneM., & FinchamF. (1996). Attribution theory and research: Basic issues and applications. In HewstoneM., StroebeW., & StephensonG. M. (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 167–204). Oxford: Blackwell.
19.
Hirschovits-GerzT. (2008). Suomalaisten käsityksiä riippuvuuksista sukupuolen, iän sekä yhteiskunnallisen todellisuuden vaikutuksia mielikuviin [The influence of gender, age, and societal reality on social representations of different addictions]. (Master's thesis). Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.
20.
Hirschovits-GerzT., & Koski-JännesA. (2010). Suomalaisten käsityksiä riippuvuuksista. Sukupuolen, iän sekä yhteiskunnallisen todellisuuden vaikutuksia mielikuviin. [The influence of gender, age, and societal reality on social representations of different addictions].Sosiologia,47(1), 3–23.
21.
Hirschovits-GerzT., AhonenJ., & TammiT. (2012). Peli, persoona vai tilanne? Raha-peliongelmaisten typologiat tutkimuskir-jallisuudessa ja peliongelmaisia hoitavien ammattilaisten näkemyksissä. [Game, person or situation? Gambler typologies in research literature and in Finnish addiction workers' categorisations].Janus,20(3), 231–248.
22.
Hirschovits-GerzT., HolmaK., Koski-JännesA., RaitasaloK. M., BlomqvistJ., CunninghamJ., & PervovaI. (2011). Is there something peculiar about Finnish views on alcohol addiction? – A cross-cultural comparison between four northern populations.Research on Finnish Society, 4, 41–54.
23.
Hirschovits-GerzT., & PennonenM. (2012). Ammattilaisten ja kansalaisten mieliku-vat omaehtoisesta toipumisesta ja hoidon tuottamasta lisäarvosta eri riippuvuuksista toivuttaessa [Population and professional images on the recovery from different addictions without help and with the help of the added value of treatment].Yhteiskuntapolitiikka,77(5), 495–510.
24.
HolmaK., Koski-JännesA., RaitasaloK., BlomqvistJ., PervovaI., & CunninghamJ. A. (2011). Perceptions of addictions as societal problems in Canada, Sweden, Finland and Russia.European Journal of Addictions, 17, 106–112.
25.
JasparsJ., & FraserC. (1984). Attitudes and social representations. In FarrR., & MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 101–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JonesE. E., & NisbetR. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior.New York: General Learning Press.
27.
KatainenA. (2011). Tupakka, luokka ja terveyskäyttäytymisen ongelma. [Smoking, class and the problem of health behaviour]. (Sosiologia no. 2). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
28.
Koski-JännesA. (2006). Viettelyksiä ja yleisiä uskomuksia – addiktiot kasvuympäristön riskitekijöinä [Seduction and general beliefs – addictions as a risk in growing up.]. In JärventieI., LähdeM., & PaavonenJ. (Eds.), Lapsuus ja kasvuympäristöt – tutkimuksen kuvia. [Childhood and the environments of growing up – pictures from research.] (pp. 260–276) Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.
29.
Koski-JännesA., Hirschovits-GerzT., & PennonenM. (2012). Population, professional and client support for different ways of managing addictive behaviors.Substance Use and Misuse, 47, 296–308.
30.
Koski-JännesA., Hirschovits-GerzT., PennonenM., & NyyssönenM. (2012). Population, professional and clients' views on dangerousness of various addictions on individual and society.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 29(2), 139–154.
31.
KuussaariK. (2006). Näkemysten kirjo, sirpa-loitunut tieto. Terveydenhuollon, sosiaa-litoimen ja nuorisotoimen työntekijöiden käsityksiä huumeiden käyttäjien hoitopalvelujärjestelmästä. [The spectrum of opinions, splintered knowledge. Conceptions of workers in health care, social welfare and youth work on the treatment service system for drug users]. (Stakes research no. 155). Helsinki: Stakes.
32.
LuhtanenM., TamminenK., & VaramäkiR. (2012). Suomalaisten alkoholiasenteet 2012. [Finnish attitudes to alcohol]. Helsinki: SOSTE.
33.
MargolisS. (2002). Addiction and the ends of desire. In BrodieJ. F., & RedfieldM. (Eds.), High anxieties: Cultural studies in addiction (pp. 19–37). Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
MaunuA., & SimonenJ. (2010). Miksi juodaan? Nuoret, humala ja sosiaalisuus. [Why drink? Youth, drunkenness and sociability.] In MäkeläP., MustonenH., & TigerstedtC. (Eds.). Suomi juo [Finland drinks] (pp. 85–98). Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
35.
MetsoL., WinterT., & HakkarainenP. (2012). Suomalaisten huumeiden käyttö ja huumeasenteet. Huumeaiheiset väestökys-elyt Suomessa 1992–2010. [Drug use and drug attitudes among Finns – Drug-related population surveys in Finland 1992–2010]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
36.
MäkeläP., MustonenH., & TigerstedtC. (Eds.) (2010). Suomi juo [Finland drinks]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
37.
MillerW.R., & CarrollK.M. (Eds.) (2006). Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows, and what we should do about it.New York: The Guildford Press.
38.
MoscoviciS. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In FarrR., & MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MueserK., DrakeR., & McGovernM. (2006). Comorbid substance use disorders and psychiatric disorders. In MillerW. R., & CarrollK. M. (Eds.), Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows, and what we should do about it (pp. 115–133). New York: The Guildford Press.
40.
PeräläJ. (2011). “Miksi lehmät pitää tappaa?” Etnografinen tutkimus 2000-luvun alun huumemarkkinoista Helsingissä. [Ethnographical study of the drug market in Helsinki in the early 2000s]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
41.
RaitasaloK. M. (2008). Informal social control of drinking: Finland in the light of international comparison.Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
42.
RoomR. (1978). Governing images of alcohol and drug problems: The structure, sources and sequels of conceptualizations of intractable problems.Berkeley: University of California.
43.
RoomR. (2001). Governing images in public discourse about problematic drinking. In: HeatherN., PetersT. J., & StockwellT. (Eds.), Handbook of alcohol dependence and alcohol-related problems (pp. 33–45). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
44.
RoomR., & LubmanD.I. (2010). Politics and science in classifying the dangers of drugs.Evidence-Based Mental Health,13(4), 97–109.
45.
RönkäS., & VirtanenA. (Eds.) (2009). Huumetilanne Suomessa 2009. [Drug situation in Finland 2009]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
46.
StahlbergD., & FreyD. (1996). Attitudes: Structure, measurement and functions. In HewstoneM., StroebeW., & StephensonG. M. (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 205–239). Oxford: Blackwell.
47.
SulkunenP. (2007). Images of addiction: Representations of addictions in films.Addiction Research and Theory,15(6), 543–559.
48.
SulkunenP., & RantalaV. (2011). Is pathological gambling an addiction or just a big problem?Addiction Research and Theory,20(1), 1–10.
49.
TanhuaH., VirtanenA., KnuutiU., LeppoA., & KotovirtaE. (2011). Huumetilanne Suomessa 2011 [Drug situation in Finland 2011]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
50.
Tew,J (2005). Social perspectives in mental health.London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
51.
TurjaT., HalmeJ., MervolaM., Järvinen-TassopoulosJ., & RonkainenJ.-E. (2012). Suomalaisten rahapelaaminen 2011. [Finnish gambling 2011.] Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
52.
WeckrothA. (2001). Päihteestä huumeeksi – huumeongelman kulttuuriset tulkinnat. [From intoxicant to drug – the cultural interpretation of the drug problem]. In PiisiR. (Ed.), Huumetyö. [Drug Work.] (pp. 30–47) Helsinki: Tammi.
