Abstract

Vulnerability to developing addiction is shaped by multiple factors such as genetics, socioeconomics, social life and culture. However, family dynamics play a central role. This paper explores how parenting, emotional regulation and behavioural modelling influence addiction risk while also looking at possible preventions and interventions. Drawing from recent studies, the review shows that dysfunctional family environments, characterised by conflict, neglect or substance misuse, significantly increase susceptibility to addiction, while supportive family structures act as protective factors. Although other influences such as peer pressure and biology remain important, family dynamics often serve as the foundation that amplifies or mitigates these risks.

I. Introduction

Addiction is a rising global issue, affecting millions worldwide. Drug use disorders impact around 64 million people, while alcohol use disorders affect approximately 400 million (Sibeko, 2025). Behavioural addictions are also prevalent, with an estimated 11.1% global rate, and internet addiction alone, measured by excessive screen time, affects 36.7% of the population (CITA, 2025). The American Society of Addiction Medicine (2019) defines addiction as a chronic, treatable condition involving compulsive substance use or behaviours despite harmful consequences, influenced by interactions between genetics, brain function, environment and life experiences. Neurobiologically, addiction is closely linked to the brain’s dopamine reward system, where repeated exposure to addictive substances or behaviours alters neural pathways associated with pleasure, motivation and decision-making (Volkow et al., 2016). These changes can increase susceptibility to compulsive behaviours, making genetic predispositions and environmental factors highly interdependent. Addiction vulnerability, the likelihood of developing an addiction, is shaped by multiple influences, including biology, peers, trauma and family environment (Sasiadek et al., 2021). This paper argues that family dynamics play a critical role by shaping emotional regulation, coping strategies and behavioural modelling, making them one of the strongest predictors of addiction vulnerability compared to other influences.

II. Understanding Addiction Vulnerability

Addiction vulnerability refers to an individual’s predisposition or risk of developing addiction due to multiple interacting factors, including biological, psychological and environmental influences. It involves brain changes that affect emotional, motivational and cognitive processes, which contribute to risky behaviours and impaired self-control (Balogh et al., 2013). During adolescence, when these brain systems are still developing, individuals are especially susceptible to addiction. This heightened risk-taking and reduced decision-making capacity make adolescence a critical period for the onset of addictive behaviours. 

Genetic factors contribute 30-60% of addiction risk. Some genes influence dopamine receptor density and neurotransmitter systems like GABA, known for its calming and relaxing effect (Cleveland Clinic, 2022), affecting reward pathways and impulse control in the mesocorticolimbic system, a major dopamine pathway in the brain that plays a crucial role in motivation, reward, learning, memory and movement. Neurobiological changes include altered activity in brain areas related to motivation, reward, executive control and stress regulation. Chronic stress and drug exposure cause neuroadaptations that make addiction more likely (Miela et al., 2018). Family environment profoundly shapes emotional regulation and attachment, both key in addiction vulnerability. Dysfunctional family dynamics like conflict, neglect, abuse or poor parental support impair neurodevelopment and coping abilities. Early adverse family experiences disrupt brain systems involved in stress response and reward processing, increasing risk of maladaptive behaviours including addiction (Amaro et al., 2021). Family dynamics play a significant role within the broader context of addiction vulnerability but should be understood alongside other factors such as genetics, peer influence and environmental conditions. The family environment shapes emotional regulation, coping skills and behavioural patterns, which can either increase or reduce the risk of addiction. While a supportive and stable family can serve as a protective factor, dysfunctional family relationships may heighten susceptibility, especially when combined with other risks. Thus, family dynamics are a key component within the complex interplay of influences that determine addiction vulnerability.

III. Family Dynamics as a Critical Factor

III.I Emotional Regulation

Parenting styles play a critical role in shaping addiction vulnerability, with consistent evidence linking lack of parental warmth, rejection and family dynamics to long-term substance use risks. In an integrative review of studies on women with addiction-related problems, Abasi and Mohammadkhani (2016) synthesised evidence linking specific parenting styles to later substance problems. Across the reviewed studies, lower parental warmth and higher parental rejection/hostility were consistently associated with greater addiction vulnerability, partly via poorer emotion regulation and maladaptive coping. The review groups family risks into (a) partner/parent conflict, (b) parenting style and (c) broader family disturbances, arguing that they shape stress responses and attachment patterns over development. As it is a review rather than a single experiment, it aggregates multiple observational designs rather than reporting one effect size; the converging pattern is that secure, responsive parenting predicts resilience, while inconsistent/controlling or neglectful styles predict vulnerability.

III.II Coping Mechanisms and Stress Responses

Family dynamics play a significant role not only in the onset of addiction but also in relapse tendencies. A large cross-sectional study of 817 men in compulsory drug rehabilitation examined a moderated mediation model exploring how family intimacy influences relapse risk through psychological capital, with self-efficacy moderating this pathway. Self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to manage challenges and achieve desired outcomes, was a critical factor in strengthening this relationship because individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to translate family support into effective coping strategies (Nikmanesh et al., 2016). Using standardised self-report measures and PROCESS analyses, the study found that family intimacy scores were generally low, but higher family intimacy predicted lower relapse tendencies. This effect was mediated by psychological capital, including hope, optimism, resilience and self-efficacy, and was stronger among individuals with higher self-efficacy. Although the study’s cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reports limit causal conclusions, the findings highlight an important mechanism: cohesive family relationships can foster adaptive coping resources, which, in turn, reduce the risk of relapse (Xiaoqing et al., 2021).

III.III Behavioural Modelling and Learnt Patterns

Family environments play a central role in shaping patterns of substance use and addiction across generations. Qualitative research from New Zealand examined families affected by severe alcohol and drug problems among residents and ex-residents of the Higher Ground therapeutic community, a 25-bed, four-month rehabilitation programme. Through in-depth interviews, the study documented how family systems were often marked by conflict, secrecy and instability; participants frequently described growing up with substance use modelled as a coping norm. The analysis highlights intergenerational patterns: children internalise what they observe, including using substances in response to stress, making initiation and maintenance of addiction more likely later in life. Price (2025) emphasises similar mechanisms, arguing that family histories of addiction elevate risk through both genetic vulnerability and environmental modelling. When substance use is visible and normalised within the household, perceived barriers to experimentation decrease substantially, and because early experimentation statistically increases the likelihood of developing addiction (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2024), these dynamics create a powerful pathway toward higher addiction prevalence.

IV. Other Significant Factors Beyond Family

Family dynamics play a significant role within the broader context of addiction vulnerability but should be understood alongside other factors such as genetics, peer influence and environmental conditions.

IV.I Genetic and Biological Predisposition

Research has consistently shown that genetics play a significant role in addiction vulnerability, accounting for an estimated 30–60% of an individual’s risk (Roige & Johnson, 2023). A study conducted by Ducci and Goldman (2012), using twin and family-based designs, found that individuals with a family history of addiction are more likely to develop addictive behaviours themselves. Eiden et al. (2017) identify several genes linked to addiction risk, particularly those affecting dopaminergic pathways that regulate the brain’s reward system. Variations in the DRD2 gene, which influence dopamine receptor availability, are associated with heightened cravings and greater substance dependence. Individuals with fewer dopamine receptors experience reduced sensitivity to natural rewards, making them more likely to seek drugs or alcohol to achieve adequate dopamine release. However, these genetic effects are not deterministic; they interact with environmental factors such as stress and early substance exposure through gene-environment interactions and epigenetic changes, shaping overall addiction vulnerability.

However, genetics alone do not determine addiction; epigenetic mechanisms, where environmental factors affect gene expression, also play a key role. Stressful family environments, early exposure to substances or trauma can trigger the expression of genetic vulnerabilities through the diathesis-stress model (where stress interacts with a predisposition), while epigenetic mechanisms can alter gene activity itself, further shaping addiction susceptibility. A study cited in the same article examined children from households with parental alcohol dependence and found that those raised in chaotic family environments exhibited higher addiction rates than those in stable homes, despite having similar genetic predispositions. This interaction between genetics and environment underscores that while biological factors create a foundation for vulnerability, family dynamics can amplify or buffer these risks.

IV.II Peer Influence and Social Environment

Environmental and social factors can also play a role in addiction vulnerability. Environmental stressors such as trauma, abuse, neglect, chronic stress, social isolation and negative peer influences increase addiction vulnerability. These stressors produce neurobiological changes impairing self-control and emotional regulation (Sinha, 2008).

Peers exert a particularly strong influence on addiction vulnerability, especially during adolescence, when identity formation and social belonging are critical. According to Guo et al. (2023), adolescents surrounded by peers who engage in substance use are 2.5 times more likely to adopt similar behaviours compared to those whose friends abstain. This heightened susceptibility stems from both peer pressure, the direct encouragement to try substances, and social modelling, where individuals imitate behaviours to gain acceptance and avoid exclusion; therefore, prevention strategies should focus on promoting healthy peer norms and strengthening refusal skills to reduce risk.

The same study analysed high school students in urban areas and found that school environments and neighborhood contexts also shape substance use patterns. For example, students in schools with low supervision and limited extracurricular engagement reported higher levels of alcohol and drug use, likely because reduced structure and fewer rewarding alternatives increase susceptibility to substance use, a pattern supported by the classic Rat Park experiment, where rats placed in isolated, unstimulating cages consumed far more morphine than those in enriched, socially-connected environments, highlighting how stimulating contexts protect against addiction (Alexander, 2010). Similarly, neighborhoods characterised by high crime rates and weak community ties created environments where substance use was normalised.

Interestingly, the study also noted that strong family bonds could buffer the influence of peer pressure; adolescents with supportive parents and open communication were less likely to engage in risky behaviours, even in high-risk social environments. This protective effect stems from the development of secure attachment and higher self-esteem, which reduce the need for external validation from peers. Moreover, strong parental involvement often equips adolescents with better decision-making skills and coping strategies, making them more resilient against negative social influences. This suggests that family-based prevention programmes, such as parent education and family therapy, could be highly effective in mitigating peer-driven substance experimentation. These findings suggest that while peers play a critical role, the family still acts as a protective or amplifying force depending on its dynamics.

IV.III Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors

Socioeconomic status (SES) and cultural influences also shape addiction vulnerability by affecting access to resources, exposure to stress and societal norms surrounding substance use. A study conducted by Xia et al. (2022) explored these dynamics by surveying individuals across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and found that poverty and limited educational opportunities significantly increased addiction risk. Individuals in low-income households often face chronic stressors like financial instability and unsafe living conditions, which correlate with increased substance use as a coping strategy. This aligns with the diathesis–stress model, wherein environmental stressors can activate latent vulnerabilities, and is supported by neurobiological evidence showing that chronic stress dysregulates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, impairing emotional and cognitive control and making substance use more likely (Lijffijt et al., 2014). 

Cultural factors further influence patterns of addiction. In some communities, substance use is stigmatised and strictly discouraged, creating a protective barrier. In others, however, alcohol or drug use may be normalised within social and familial traditions, inadvertently increasing risk. Xie et al. highlighted that strong community structures, such as religious organisations, mentorship programmes and cultural support networks, reduced substance abuse prevalence even in economically disadvantaged settings. These findings suggest that community-based prevention strategies, such as expanding access to mentorship initiatives and fostering culturally grounded support systems, can build resilience and provide healthy coping alternatives for at-risk individuals. Importantly, the findings emphasised the interaction between family and community contexts: individuals from supportive families were less affected by socioeconomic disadvantages, while those from unstable families were significantly more vulnerable. This underscores that while SES and cultural norms shape exposure to risk, family functioning often determines how individuals respond to these external pressures.

V. Family as a Strong Predictor (Comparative Analysis)

Family dynamics play a foundational role in shaping addiction vulnerability because they represent the earliest and most consistent influence on a child’s emotional, cognitive and behavioural development, particularly during the critical period for attachment formation in the first two to five years, as emphasised by “Bowlby’s Attachment Theory” (McLeod, 2025). While socioeconomic, genetics and broader environmental factors also contribute significantly, research shows that the family environment sets the stage for how individuals respond to these later influences. According to Xie et al. (2022), children raised in supportive, structured and communicative households exhibit lower susceptibility to both substance and behavioural addictions, regardless of genetic predisposition or peer influence. Such environments are protective against initial experimentation because children develop stronger emotional regulation and healthier coping skills, reducing the likelihood of trying substances in the first place. In contrast, dysfunctional family environments marked by conflict, neglect or inconsistent parenting not only increase the likelihood of early exposure and experimentation but also heighten the risk of maintaining and escalating addictive behaviours over time, as maladaptive coping strategies become reinforced.

Healthy family dynamics act as a buffer against addiction vulnerability by fostering emotional regulation, resilience and effective coping mechanisms. Open communication, warmth and strong parental involvement are associated with a significantly reduced risk of substance use disorders because they foster secure attachment, emotional regulation and trust within the parent-child relationship. When children feel heard and supported, they are more likely to disclose challenges, seek guidance and internalise healthy coping strategies. Moreover, strong parental monitoring combined with open dialogue reduces opportunities for risky experimentation and buffers against negative peer influence, thereby lowering the likelihood of both substance initiation and the escalation to addiction (Hernandez et al., 2016). For example, Xie et al. (2022) highlights that adolescents from families with high cohesion and parental monitoring are less likely to engage in risky behaviours, even when living in environments where substance availability is high. This suggests that positive family relationships can mitigate the effects of external risk factors such as peer pressure or neighbourhood influences.

However, family influence alone does not fully determine addiction outcomes. Some individuals raised in dysfunctional or high-risk family environments avoid addiction altogether due to protective external factors, including supportive peers, mentorship and therapy. For example, Guo et al. (2023) report that adolescents who form positive peer connections in school or community settings can develop resilience, even when family structures fail to provide emotional security. Similarly, early therapeutic interventions help reframe maladaptive coping patterns acquired in childhood, demonstrating that family dynamics, while critical, are not the sole determinant of addiction vulnerability.

VI. Implications for Prevention and Intervention

Effective prevention strategies should target families rather than focusing solely on individuals, as family dynamics strongly influence addiction vulnerability. According to Schäfer (2011), family-based interventions, such as parent education, family therapy and skills training, significantly reduce the risk of substance use by strengthening communication, emotional regulation and monitoring within the household. Policies should prioritise early support for at-risk families through accessible counselling services, parenting programmes and financial or social assistance to address underlying stressors. However, prevention should not rely on families alone; schools and community organisations play a critical supplementary role by fostering resilience, providing mentorship and creating safe environments that counteract negative home influences. A coordinated approach combining family-focused policies with community-based support offers the most effective strategy for reducing addiction risk.

VII. Conclusion

This paper explored how family dynamics shape addiction vulnerability relative to other influences such as genetics, peers and the broader environment. The findings suggest that while many factors contribute to addiction risk, family experiences play a particularly significant role by shaping emotional development, coping mechanisms and behavioural patterns early in life. Healthy family environments can serve as protective buffers, while dysfunctional dynamics may increase susceptibility. Ultimately, addressing addiction requires strengthening family systems alongside individual, social and community-based interventions.

Abasi, I. & Mohammadkhani, P. (2016). Family risk factors among women with addiction-related problems: An integrative review. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction, 5(2), e27071.

Ainsworth, M. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. In Bruner, J. S. (ed.) Advances in developmental psychology, pp. 1–51.

Alexander, B. K. (2010). Addiction: The View from Rat Park (2010). Bruce K. Alexander [online]. <https://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-park/148-addiction-the-%20view-from-rat-park> 

American Society of Addiction Medicine (n.d.). Definition of addiction. ASAM [online]. <https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction>

CITA (2025). Technology Addiction Statistics 2025, The Center for Internet & Technology Addiction [online]. <https://virtual-addiction.com/technology-addiction-statistics-2025/>

Cleveland Clinic (2022). Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Cleveland Clinic [online]. <https://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22857-gamma-aminobutyric-acid-gaba>

Cleveland Clinic (2023). What is a substance use disorder? Cleveland Clinic [online]. <https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/6407-addiction>

Eiden, R. D., Molnar, D. S. & Colder, C. R. (2017). Parenting and the development of alcohol use disorders: Insights from developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), pp. 473–495. 

Guo, Q., Xu, Y., Wu, M., Chen, L. & Wang, J. (2023). Family functioning and relapse risk among patients with substance use disorder: A moderated mediation model. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 18, 100539. 

ISSUP (2025). World Drug Report 2025, International Society of Substance Use Professionals & United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [online]. <https://www.issup.net/knowledge-share/resources/2025-07/world-drug-report-2025>

Miela, R., Cubata, W. J., Mazurkiewicz, D. W. & Jakuszkowiak-Wotjen, K. (2018). The neurobiology of addiction: A vulnerability/resilience perspective. European Journal of Psychiatry, 32(3), pp. 139-148

NIH (n.d.). The adolescent brain and substance use. National Institute on Drug Abuse [online]. <https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/adolescent-brain-substance-use>

Price, G. (2025). Family Footprints: The Invisible Risk Factors in Substance Addiction. Virtue Recovery Center [online]. <https://www.virtuerecoverykilleen.com/rehab-blog/family-history-of-substance-addiction-risk-factors/>

Rajita, S. (2008). Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1141, 105–130. 

Sanchez-Roige, S. & Johnson, E. C. (2023). Large Genome Study Finds a “General Addiction Risk Factor” Commonly Inherited Across Multiple Substance-Use Disorders. Brain & Behavior Research Foundation [online]. <https://bbrfoundation.org/content/large-genome-study-finds-general-addiction-risk-factor-commonly-inherited-across-multiple>

Schäfer, G. (2011). Family functioning in families with alcohol and other drug addiction. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 37, 135–151. 

Siegel, A. (2024). How Disrupted Family Life Can Cause Addiction. Olympic Behavioral Health [online]. <https://olympicbehavioralhealth.com/rehab-blog/disrupted-family-cause-addiction/>

Xia, Y., Gong, Y., Wang, H., Li, S. & Mao, F. (2022). Family function impacts relapse tendency in substance use disorder: Mediated through self-esteem and resilience. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 815118.

Xu, Z., Hou, B., Gao, Y., He, F. & Zhang, C. (2007). Effects of enriched environment on morphine-induced reward in mice. Exp Neurol, 204(2), pp. 714-719.

Zeng, X., Lu, M. & Chen, M. (2021). The relationship between family intimacy and relapse tendency among people who use drugs: A moderated mediation model. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 16(48).