The question of why people keep using drugs even though they know it may be harmful. For instance, someone may promise to quit after a negative experience, but then again find themselves returning to the same behaviour. Substance use is not always perceived correctly (Goldstein & Volkow, 2011). Even though substance use causes people to lose their jobs, relationships, and their own health, they continue to use (Marlatt & Donovan, 2005. It might look like they are being obstinate, self-destructive, or simply lacking willpower. However, psychologically, it is both self-preservation and a very complicated process.
To cope with the psychological toll of their actions, individuals develop systems of justification. These are not necessarily conscious attempts to mislead others, but unconscious mechanisms that protect self-image (Cramer, 2014). For example, substance use may be attributed to external stress rather than internal dependence. Freud’s defence mechanisms and Festinger’s cognitive dissonance help explain these justifications (Freud, 1923; Festinger, 1957).
The Ego Under Siege: Freudian Viewpoint
In terms of Freud (1923), the id is the instinctive component of the mind that operates on the “pleasure principle” and seeks immediate gratification. The superego is the internalised representation of society’s rules, moral codes, and ideals, which guide behaviour. In between is the ego, the rational element that mediates between the id’s desires, reality, and the superego’s standards (Goldstein & Volkow, 2011; Freud, 1923).
In addition, the mind is in a state of intense internal conflict. The id demands the instant gratification or relief that the substance provides. The superego pressures the person with guilt and shame that the ego has to deal with. To shield itself from psychological discomfort, the ego utilises defence mechanisms. These are unconscious methods that change, reject, or falsify reality to lower anxiety and protect the self-schema (Cramer, 2014).
Denial: The First Line of Defence
Denial is the most basic and widespread defence in addiction. Psychologically, it is an absolute refusal to accept reality or facts, which in turn causes a person to act as though a painful experience, thought or feeling does not in fact exist (Pickard, 2016).
- Absolute Denial: “I don’t have a problem”. The person does not see a problem with their substance use despite strong evidence to the contrary. For example, individuals may say, “I don’t have a problem, I can stop anytime,” even when repeated attempts to stop have failed.
- Minimisation: I only go out and drink on the weekends, and I don’t use it to the same extent as my friends do. Through comparison with heavier users, the individual preserves their self-image.
- Avoidance: Avoiding topics, settings, or individuals or people who raise concerns about their substance use.
Oftentimes, people use substances to relieve emotional pain (Khantzian, 1997), and this makes sense to them that their behaviour is no different from them just having a bit of fun. Society’s judgment and stigma only increase the denial as the person tries to protect themselves from the feeling of shame by not acknowledging the problem (Room, 2005).
Read More: From Denial to Humour: The Ladder of Our Mind’s Defences
Rationalisation: The Appearance of Reason
While denial blocks reality, rationalisation explains it away. Rationalisation is a defence mechanism to justify our actions, which helps us avoid facing the underlying issue. Common rationalisations include:
- Stress Relief: Anyone in my situation would require this for relaxation and stress relief.
- Social Expectations: I drink to fit in and for success in my field.
- Self-Medication: I can deal with my chronic back pain this way, or I can quiet my anxiety, which in turn allows me to function. Substance use in many cases is driven by attempts to cope with emotional distress rather than simply seeking pleasure (Khantzian, 1997).
Another common form includes statements like, “I deserve this after a long day,” or “everyone around me does it,” which shifts responsibility away from the behaviour itself.
Read More: Breathing Techniques for Stress Relief and Emotional Balance
Cognitive Dissonance: Why We Struggle to Let Go of Addiction
Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of uneasiness that arises from having conflicting thoughts and behaviours. These cannot coexist peacefully. Statements such as “I know this is harmful, but I can handle it” or “I will stop later” reflect attempts to reduce this internal tension. As it is difficult to change behaviour due to physical dependence, individuals often change their interpretation of the behaviour instead. One of the reasons why drug addicts continue to use drugs is that they manipulate the image they have of themselves (McMaster & Lee, 1991).
This is what Freudian defences do best in terms of Festinger’s dissonance reduction. Denial and rationalisation reduce the distress. By rationalising that “I only drink because my spouse is very hard to get along with”, the dissonance is resolved. The individual still sees themselves as a good person. Justifications become the cement that holds together a split identity.
Read More: Cognitive Dissonance Theory by Leon Festinger
Conclusion
Some might think addiction is only a lack of willpower, but it is a really complicated mix of psychological defences and inner conflict. Denial and rationalisation serve to momentarily shield the person; however, they only result in the problem going unrecognised for a longer time. Denial and rationalisation protect individuals in the short term but prevent them from recognising the need for help. Identifying a problem is a slow process for many people as individuals go through various stages of readiness to change (DiClemente, 2003).
Trying to quit includes the risk of relapse, and cycles of breaking and resuming from the recovery experience instead of the failure one (Marlatt & Donovan, 2005). Interventions that include Motivational Interviewing (MI) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) provide individuals with ways to untangle these cycles but also offer an understanding atmosphere within which to do so (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). Defence mechanisms are self-protection, and therapy helps a person to go in the direction of better ways of coping.
References +
Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Addiction, cigarette smoking, and voluntary control of action: Do cigarette smokers lose their free will? Addictive Behaviours Reports, 5, 67–84.
Cramer, P. (2014). Protecting the self: Defence mechanisms in action. Guilford Press.
DiClemente, C. C. (2003). Addiction and change: How addictions develop, and addicted people recover. Guilford Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition, 19, 1–66.
Goldstein, R. Z., & Volkow, N. D. (2011). Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: Neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(11), 652–669.
Khantzian, E. J. (1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4(5), 231–244.
Marlatt, G. A., & Donovan, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviours. Guilford Press.
McMaster, C., & Lee, C. (1991). Cognitive dissonance in tobacco smokers. Addictive Behaviours, 16(5), 349–353.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Pickard, H. (2016). Denial in addiction. Mind & Language, 31(3), 277–299.
Room, R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24(2), 143–155.
Vaillant, G. E. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defence: A guide for clinicians and researchers. American Psychiatric Publishing.
Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–16.
Leave feedback about this