Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 8.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Treat Q. 2025 Jan 4;43(3):414–429. doi: 10.1080/07347324.2024.2448458

Social Environment and Personality Factors Associated with Giving and Receiving Help Among Sober Living House Residents

Douglas L Polcin a, Elizabeth Mahoney a, Meenakshi Subbaraman a, Amy A Mericle b, Sarah E Zemore b
PMCID: PMC12333534  NIHMSID: NIHMS2045477  PMID: 40787426

Abstract

-The current study sought to identify social, environment and personality factors associated with giving and receiving help among 205 sober living house (SLH) residents in Los Angeles. Study measures included the Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI), the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES), and six scales assessing giving and receiving help in three contexts: SLHs, 12-step meetings, and family/friends. Regression models showed the strength of the social model recovery environment (measured by the RHES) and three personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion) were predictors of helping in different contexts. Suggestions for facilitating helping in SLHs and other settings are provided.

Keywords: Sober living house, recovery home, retention, social model, helping

Introduction

Studies of persons in treatment and those attending mutual help groups for alcohol problems have shown that helping others can be beneficial (Pagano et al., 2007, 2009; S. E. Zemore & Pagano, 2008). For example, Pagano et al. (2007) studied helping behaviors among persons with co-occurring substance use and body dysmorphic disorders and found significant beneficial effects for helping others, including better substance use and mental health outcomes. In a study of peer helping in day hospital and residential treatment programs, S. E. Zemore and Kaskutas (2008) found that both 12-step involvement and peer helping were associated with higher odds of sobriety at 6- and 12-month follow-up. In an overview of the helping literature, S. Zemore (2007) emphasized two helping behaviors as particularly influential in AA groups: sponsoring other AA members and completing the twelfth step of AA, which involves carrying the message forward to other persons with alcohol problems.

A notable limitation of existing studies on helping is that they do not examine the effects of helping from a broad perspective that incorporates the effects of multiple influences. For example, studies typically examine the influence of one type of helping (e.g., receiving or giving help) from one source (e.g., 12-step groups or treatment). Thus, we are unclear about the types of helping that are most influential on drinking outcomes.

Recovery homes

Giving and receiving help may be especially important in other contexts, such as residential recovery homes. Recovery homes are alcohol- and drug-free living environments where people with alcohol and drug problems live together and provide mutual support for recovery. Some recovery homes offer on-site services delivered by professionals, such as case management, recovery groups, and job skills training. Other homes rely on a social model approach to recovery (e.g., Borkman et al., 1998), which emphasizes abstinence, peer support, experiential learning, resident empowerment, and involvement in 12-step recovery groups. Because of their emphasis on peer support as a primary therapeutic factor, homes with these characteristics offer excellent opportunities to study the effects of giving and receiving help.

SLHs are a good example of recovery homes based on social model recovery principles (Wittman & Polcin, 2014). These homes require abstinence and typically either mandate or strongly encourage attendance at mutual help groups such as AA. They do not offer onsite services but encourage residents to use professional services in the surrounding community as needed. Because SLHs are neither licensed nor required to report their existence to any government agency, it is difficult to ascertain their exact number. However, in California, a sober living house association, the Sober Living Network reports a membership of 550 houses. SLH operations are overseen by a house manager who is typically a person in recovery and often with experience living in a SLH environment.

Sober-living house research

Studies assessing outcomes for SLH residents have been encouraging. Research has shown that SLH residents make improvements in multiple areas of functioning (D. L. Polcin et al., 2010). In addition to reductions in substance use and severity of alcohol and drug problems, improvements have been found for employment, arrests, and psychiatric symptoms (Polcin, Mericle, et al., 2023). Studies of SLHs targeting specific subgroups have also found favorable results, including criminal justice involved residents (D. L. Polcin et al., 2018) and persons with recent histories of unstable housing (D. L. Polcin & Korcha, 2017). Predictors of favorable outcomes among SLH residents include higher involvement in 12-step groups, social networks with fewer heavy alcohol and drug users, and lower psychiatric severity (D. L. Polcin et al., 2010).

A limited number of studies have examined how house characteristics influence outcomes. For example, Mericle et al. (2019) found that houses that were part of a larger group of houses had better abstinence outcomes. Mahoney et al. (2021) found the strength of social model recovery dynamics in the homes predicted length of stay (LOS). Location of houses is also a factor. Mahoney et al. (2023) found higher density of AA meetings and treatment programs near the house was associated with better substance use outcomes.

Although giving and receiving help are purported to be essential aspects of social model recovery, there are only a few studies that have examined their role in SLHs. Polcin, Mahoney, et al. (2023) looked at the frequency of giving and receiving help in SLHs and other contexts, which included 12-step meetings and family/friends. They found helping behaviors overlapped such that giving and receiving help were highly correlated and that helping in one context was associated with helping in others.

The effects of helping might vary depending on the context. A recent study by Zemore et al. (under review) examined the effects of helping on alcohol use and problems during the first 6 months after residents entered a SLH. In controlled models, help given in all three contexts and help received in

12-step and family/friends contexts predicted lower odds of alcohol use, while greater family/friends help given predicted fewer drinking days among drinkers. Greater help received in both SLH and 12-step contexts predicted lower odds of alcohol problems.

Overall, these findings support the contention that giving and receiving help have positive influences on outcomes. Results also expand our understanding of associations between helping and drinking outcome in different settings. The study is the first longitudinal design to describe the beneficial effects of giving and receiving help among SLH residents.

Determinants of helping in sober living houses

An important limitation in the current literature is the lack of information about factors that facilitate and hinder helping. Although social model characteristics have not been studied in terms of their effects on giving and receiving help, they might play an important role in creating the social context for helping to flourish. The social model approach to recovery provides ample opportunities for residents to engage in mutual helping. For example, helping interactions among SLH residents often emerge as a result of residents attending 12-step groups together, house meetings, and social activities in the community. They also occur during informal interactions at the houses when residents share their histories of addiction as well as their successes and challenges during recovery. Both emotional support and practical help are essential aspects of social model recovery.

Although the social environment might play an important role in helping, there may be individual influences as well. For example, the potential for personality traits to have influences on helping is supported by studies showing associations between a measure of personality traits, the Big Five, and drinking and related consequences (see Lui et al., 2022). Big Five personality traits associated with positive drinking outcomes include conscientiousness and agreeableness. Traits associated with negative outcomes included extroversion and neuroticism. In a review by Lui et al. (2022), a trait labeled openness was found to be unrelated to drinking or drinking-related consequences. No studies have reported associations between the Big Five scales and outcomes in peer-operated recovery homes or associations between personality characteristics and helping.

Purpose

The primary aim of the current study was to identify social, environmental and personality factors associated with giving and receiving help among SLH residents. We aimed to examine helping in three contexts: SLHs, 12-step groups, and family and friends. Given the centrality of social model recovery as the primary approach in SLHs, we hypothesized that a measure assessing the strength of the social model environment, the RHES (Polcin et al., 2021), would be associated with higher giving and receiving help among residents living in the houses. Because there is evidence that giving and receiving help in one context is associated with giving and receiving help in other contexts (Polcin, Mahoney, Subbaraman & Mericle, 2023) we also hypothesized the RHES would be associated with helping in 12-step and family/friend contexts.

To depict a broad picture of factors influencing helping, we also assessed individual-level variables. Personality characteristics on the Big Five were selected as the primary individual-level variables due to their associations with a variety of outcomes, including social support, health, and psychopathology (Hengartner et al., 2016). Although the effects of different personality characteristics on alcohol outcomes are mixed (Lui et al., 2022), we expected most of the personality characteristics would facilitate helping. Specifically, we hypothesized the personality trait neuroticism would be associated with lower helping scores, while positive personality traits that are often associated with supportive social interaction (i.e., openness, consciousness, extroversion and agreeableness) would be associated with increased helping. Results from the current study should inform SLH providers about where and how to target their efforts to increase helping in all three contexts (SLHs, 12-step groups, and family/friends), but particularly in the SLHs, as the social environment offers multiple opportunities to engage in giving and receiving help (Polcin, Mahoney, et al., 2023).

Methods

House and resident sample

The sample consisted of 205 persons who entered 28 SLHs in Los Angeles County. Recruitment was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Houses were recruited from diverse areas of Los Angeles including West Los Angeles (19%), Central Los Angeles (21%), South Bay/Long Beach (43%), and the San Gabriel/San Fernando Valleys (21%). The distribution of houses included 14 designated for men, 7 for women, and 7 for all genders. Most residences were members of the Sober Living Network (SLN), which is an association of SLHs located in California. The SLN provides certification, consultation, and advocacy to member houses. Other houses were members of the network until recently or had standards similar to those used by the SLN. The final sample had a range of 8 to 24 beds, with the mean number of beds being 13.4 (SD = 3.5). On average, the fees were $1,039 per month, with a range from $500 to $4,000.

Because the study aimed to examine helping among a variety of individuals, we employed limited inclusion/exclusion criteria. The most common substance used among the SLH residents in our sample was alcohol. We therefore decided to study helping among residents with alcohol use disorders. Participants were required to have a past year alcohol use disorder diagnosis using DSM-5 criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). An additional rationale for targeting alcohol use disorders was that some of the helping measures we used were developed using samples of persons with alcohol disorders. Participants were required to be 18 years of age or older and able to provide informed consent. If they were not able to attend a baseline interview during their first month in the house they were excluded.

Procedures

The first step for data collection required recruitment of SLHs. Managers or owners of houses registered with the SLN were contacted using information available from the network and invited to participate. Other houses were already known to the study team through participation in other studies.

New residents entering the homes were invited to participate via information on posted flyers, the house manager, or prior study participants. Baseline assessments were conducted within 30 days of entry into the house. On average, interviews were conducted 16.0 days (SD = 9.0) after entering the houses. Among residents who were eligible to participate in the study (N = 229), 205 were enrolled and completed baseline interviews. Follow-up interviews were completed at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. Follow-up rates at all time points were above 80%, ranging from 83% at 6 months to 93% at 1 month. Figure 1

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flow chart for sober-living house helping study.

shows the recruitment and data collection timelines. All study procedures were approved by the Public Health Institute institutional review board (IRB).

Measures

  1. Demographic characteristics were assessed at baseline and included sex, age, and race.

  2. The Big Five Personality Inventory is a widely used, empirically supported model of personality (Goldberg & Rosolack, 1990; Lui et al., 2022). Forty-four items assess five personality traits, which include scales for openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. The number of items on each scale ranges from 8 to 10 and they are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scales were assessed during the baseline interview.
    1. Openness includes characteristics such as imagination and insight. Persons high on this scale are curious about the world and other people. They are eager to learn new things and enjoy new experiences.
    2. Conscientiousness includes items that reflect thoughtful and goal directed behaviors. Persons high on this scale are mindful of details.
    3. Extraversion scores indicate the extent to which persons are sociable, assertive, and Outgoing.
    4. Neuroticism assesses negative personality traits, such as stress, worry, and mood swings.
    5. Agreeableness assesses the extent to which individuals are cooperative, interested in others, and consider the welfare of others.

Big Five scales have shown associations with a variety of outcomes including health, job performance, social support, and psychopathology (Hengartner et al., 2016). A meta-analysis of studies using mostly college and community samples found alcohol use and misuse to be negatively associated with conscientiousness and agreeableness (Lui et al., 2022). Higher extroversion scores were associated with higher drinking and neuroticism was associated with higher levels of drinking-related consequences.

  1. The Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES) (D. L. Polcin et al., 2021) is a measure designed to assess resident perceptions of social model characteristics in recovery homes. Appendix A shows a list of scale items. Eight scale items assess resident and house factors relevant to social model recovery, including social support for recovery, integration of 12-step work into daily house interactions, perceptions of the effectiveness of house meetings, and empowerment of residents in decision-making. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “a lot.” Psychometric properties of the RHES include principal components analysis, which shows that the scale is largely unidimensional. Internal consistency of the eight items is strong (alpha = 0.91). Construct validity was supported by correlations between the RHES and subscales scores on the Community Oriented Program Evaluation Scale (Moos, 1997). Support for predictive validity was established by showing the RHES was positively associated with length of stay and negatively associated with subsequent number of days of alcohol or drug use (D. L. Polcin et al., 2021). The Administration of the RHES required the resident to be living in the SLH for at least 1 month. That period of time was deemed necessary for residents to formulate opinions about the social environment based on their experiences.

  2. Helping measures consisted of six scales. Help given and received was assessed for each of the three contexts (SLHs, 12-step, and family/friends). Helping measures were drawn from existing scales with published psychometric properties. Scales were adapted when necessary to allow assessments of giving and receiving different types of help. Cronbach’s alphas for these scales in a previous study ranged from 0.89 to 0.94 (Polcin, Mahoney, et al., 2023). Additional information about scale items and psychometrics can be found in Polcin, Mahoney, et al. (2023). Helping was assessed at all data collection timepoints, which included baseline and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up.

a) Help given and received: SLHs.

These scales included the same items from the family and friends measures described below, except the questions were in reference to fellow residents in the SLHs where they lived. Residents were presented with the same lead-in for each helping behavior. “In the past month, how often did you help other residents living in your SLH?” For help received residents were asked, “In the past month, how often did any other residents in your SLH help you?

After a resident left the SLH we did not obtain information about helping in the house because they no longer lived there and did not have the opportunity to give and receive help in the SLH environment. At 3 months 59.1% of the participants were still residing in the house, but that rate declined to 27.8% at 6 months.

b) Help given and received: 12-step groups.

Helping in a 12-step context was assessed using the Service to Others in Sobriety (SOS) scale developed by Pagano et al. (2009). Study interviewers asked if residents had attended any 12-step meetings in the past 30 days. If they had, they were asked 12 questions assessing helping behaviors. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (rarely) to 5 (always) over the past month. Scores were obtained by averaging items. To assess helping others, we used the original 12 items on the SOS. To assess receiving help, we modified the wording to guide the respondent to consider help received. SOS items reflected various helping behaviors, including spending time with a sponsee or sponsor, guiding or being guided through the steps, and sharing personal stories with other AA members. We added two items to the receiving help scale where helping was defined as the participant being told they were helpful at the meetings and needed.

c) Help given and received: family and friends.

Scales included seven items drawn from Schwartz et al., (2003) assessing instrumental help. Examples of items included helping others find a job, run errands, watch children, and access transportation. The lead-in for each helping behavior asked, “In the past month, how often did you help family or friends?” For help received residents were asked about ways family and friends provided help using the same lead-in. “In the past month, how often did you receive help from family or friends? Response categories were never - 0, sometimes - 1, or frequently - 2. Higher scores indicated more helping.

We added five additional items from scales developed by Kaskutas et al. (2007), Zemore and Kaskutas (2008), and Schwartz et al. (2003) that assessed emotional help. Examples of items included offering moral support and encouragement and spending time with someone when they need it. Scaled scores were calculated by averaging item responses.

Analysis

Our analysis plan began with descriptive characteristics of the sample, including demographics and mean scores for the Big Five and RHES scales. Scores for the six helping scales were based on data collected at all five time points. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models assessed whether the RHES and each of the Big Five scales predicted giving and receiving help in each helping context (i.e., SLH, 12-step meetings, and family/friends). Models controlled for time, age, sex, and race. When analyses of these separate models showed two or more predictors of any of the helping scales, we assessed the relative strength of those predictors by entering them together into the same model controlling for demographics.

Results

Descriptive characteristics

Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics of the sample (N = 205). Approximately two-thirds were male and a majority (59%) were nonwhite. The average age was 38.6 (SD = 12.6). Past-year alcohol use disorder was an eligibility requirement. However, use of other substances was common, including methamphetamines (42%), cocaine (13.2%), and opiates (20.5%). The bottom of Table 1 shows the helping scale scores for each interview. The largest increase in helping between baseline and 6-month follow-up was giving help at the SLH. Helping in that context increased from 0.82 (0.44) at baseline to 1.00 (0.37) at 6-month follow-up. The largest decline in helping was receiving help from family/friends, which declined from 1.04 (0.52) at baseline to 0.93 (0.52) at 6-month follow-up. The means for other helping scales remained relatively stable.

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics (N = 205).

Gender – male (%) 66.8
Race (%)
White/Caucasian 40.7
Black/African-American 16.2
Latinx/Hispanic 36.3
Other/mixed 6.9
Age mean (sd) 38.6 (12.5)
Income above poverty line (%)a 39.7
Drugs of choice (DOC) (Multiple allowed)
Alcohol (%) 97.5
Methamphetamine (%) 42.0
Marijuana (%) 26.3
Cocaine (%) 13.2
Opiates (%) 20.5
Length of stay mean (sd) days 120.6 (67.8)
Big 5 Scale mean (sd)
Extraversion 27.4 (4.5)
Conscientiousness 31.0 (4.8)
Neuroticism 24.8 (5.4)
Agreeableness 33.6 (4.3)
Openness 36.8 (4.3)
Social Model Measure
RHES mean (sd) (n = 193) 26.4 (7.8)
Helping Scales mean (sd) BL scores (N = 205) 1-Month 2-Month 3-Month 6-Month
SLH receiving 0.92 (0.44) 0.87 (0.40) 0.85 (0.41) 0.84 (0.40) 0.92 (0.39)
SLH Giving 0.82 (0.44) 0.92 (0.41) 0.92 (0.39) 0.91 (0.41) 1.00 (0.37)
Family/Friends Receiving 1.04 (0.52) 0.93 (0.51) 0.90 (0.51) 0.88 (0.50) 0.93 (0.52)
Family/Friends Giving 0.90 (0.49) 0.81 (0.46) 0.83 (0.46) 0.83 (0.47) 0.89 (0.46)
12-step Receiving 3.56 (1.58) 3.52 (0.92) 3.42 (1.02) 3.43 (0.99) 3.23 (1.14)
12-step Giving 2.66 (0.98) 2.71 (0.90) 2.71 (0.99) 2.66 (1.05) 2.72 (1.09)
Open in a new tab

Demographic and Big Five variables were assessed at baseline. However, administration of the RHES required the resident to be living in the house at least one month before the interview, so this was first administered at the 1-month follow-up.

a

HHS 2023 Poverty line of $14,580 for one-person household since few respondents had dependents (n = 15).

GEE models predicting helping

Separate GEE models were used to assess the RHES and each of the Big Five scales as predictors of each helping scale (Table 2). The RHES was the only variable to predict both giving and receiving help in SLHs. Specifically, higher scores on the RHES were significantly (p < .001) related to more giving and receiving help in SLHs. Higher scores on the RHES also predicted significantly more receiving help at 12-step meetings (p < .05) and from family/friends (p < .05).

Table 2.

Generalized estimating equation models showing associations between the RHES and Big five personality characteristics with helping scales (separate models adjusting for time, age, sex, and race).

SLH Receiving SLH Giving 12-step Receiving 12-step Giving Family/Friends Receiving Family/Friends Giving
RHES 0.028 (0.023, 0.033) *** 0.021 (0.016, 0.027) *** 0.019 (0.004, 0.034) * 0.008 (−0.005, 0.020) 0.006 (0.000, 0.013) * 0.002 (−0.003, 0.008)
Extraversion −0.002 (−0.010, 0.007) 0.007 (−0.002, 0.016) 0.025 (−0.001, 0.052) 0.032 (0.010, 0.054) ** 0.006 (−0.007, 0.018) 0.003 (−0.010, 0.016)
Conscientiousness 0.002 (−0.007, 0.010) 0.006 (−0.003, 0.015) 0.024 (−0.003, 0.050) 0.026 (0.002, 0.051) * 0.009 (−0.004, 0.022) 0.016 (0.004, 0.028) **
Neuroticism 0.001 (−0.007, 0.009) −0.004 (−0.013, 0.004) −0.004 (−0.026, 0.017) −0.006 (−0.025, 0.013) −0.007 (−0.018, 0.004) −0.003 (−0.013, 0.008)
Agreeableness −0.005 (−0.014, 0.004) −0.004 (−0.013, 0.005) 0.013 (−0.012, 0.038) 0.015 (−0.010, 0.039) 0.004 (−0.009, 0.016) 0.009 (−0.002, 0.019)
Openness −0.001 (−0.009, 0.006) 0.010 (0.001, 0.018) * 0.046 (0.020, 0.071) *** 0.056 (0.036, 0.076) *** 0.022 (0.009, 0.034) ** 0.020 (0.008, 0.030) ***
Open in a new tab

Bold signifies p < .05.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01

***

p<.001.

Higher scores on openness predicted helping in a variety of contexts, including giving help at the SLH (p < .05) and giving and receiving help in 12-step meetings (p < .001). In addition, openness was a significant predictor of giving (p < .001) and receiving (p < .01) help in the family/friends context. Two of the Big Five scales (neuroticism and agreeableness) did not significantly predict any of the helping measures. Higher scores on extraversion only predicted higher scores on giving help to others in 12-step meetings (p < .01). Higher scores on conscientiousness significantly predicted giving help to others in 12-step meetings (p < .05) and to family/friends (p < .01).

The final step in the analysis was to use GEE models that simultaneously assessed variables that were significant (p < .05) predictors of each of the helping scales. Using this approach, we were able to parse out the relative strengths of each significant predictor of each helping scale. Results for the simultaneous models are shown in Table 3. The table shows that nearly all of the predictors in the separate models continued to be significant predictors in the simultaneous models. These results suggest that the variables associated with helping were independent and resilient.

Table 3.

Generalized estimating equation models showing associations between the RHES and Big Five personality characteristics with helping scales (simultaneous models adjusting for time, age, sex, and race).

SLH Giving 12-step Receiving 12-step Giving Family/Friends Receiving Family/Friends Giving
RHES 0.021 (0.016, 0.027) *** 0.021 (0.007, 0.036) ** - 0.007 (0.001, 0.014) * —
Extraversion - - 0.034 (0.012, 0.055) ** - -
Conscientiousness - - 0.030 (0.008, 0.052) ** - 0.020 (0.011, 0.030) ***
Neuroticism - - - - -
Agreeableness - - - - -
Openness 0.013 (0.006, 0.021) ** 0.062 (0.041, 0.084) *** 0.060 (0.040, 0.079) *** 0.027 (0.016, 0.039) *** 0.022 (0.012, 0.033) ***
Open in a new tab

Bold signifies p < .05.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01

***

p<.001.

Simultaneous models included predictors from prior separate models that had p < .05.

Consistent with our hypothesis, we found the strength of the social model environment in the SLHs was the dominant influence on residents giving and receiving help. In the separate models, our measure of social model recovery, the RHES, predicted giving and receiving help in SLHs.

We did not run a simultaneous model for receiving help in SLHs because the only variable that was a significant predictor was the RHES. Table 3 shows other simultaneous models where the RHES predicting helping, which included receiving help in 12-step groups and receiving help from family/friends.

We hypothesized that positive personality traits (e.g., openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) as measured by the Big 5 scales would predict higher levels of helping and neuroticism would predict less helping. However, the results were mixed. Table 3 shows that our simultaneous regression models found several positive personality traits to be predictors of helping. These included extroversion and conscientiousness as predictors of giving help in 12-step meetings. In addition, conscientiousness predicted giving help to family and friends. We did not run simultaneous models for neuroticism and agreeableness because they did not predict any measures of helping in the separate regression models. The personality trait openness was by far the most important predictor of helping. In the simultaneous models, which controlled for the effects of other variables, openness showed significant associations with all of the helping scales except receiving help in SLHs (Table 3).

Discussion

Recent research studying the effects of giving and receiving help among SLH residents showed better alcohol outcomes were associated with higher levels of helping in three contexts: SLHs, 12-step groups, and family/friends (Zemore et al., under review). However, to facilitate helping, SLH service providers need additional data that identifies factors that enhance helping. The current study represented an initial investigation of the SLH social environment and resident personality factors that were associated with residents giving and receiving help in the three contexts studied.

Social model effects on helping

The hypothesis that the RHES would be associated with giving and receiving help in SLHs was confirmed. The RHES was the only variable associated with receiving help in the houses and one of two variables (the other being openness) associated with giving help in that context. These findings support the contention of social model advocates that factors measured on the RHES, such as peer support, resident participation in house operations, and practicing a 12-step recovery program, help create a social environment that is conducive to helping (Polcin, Mahoney, et al., 2023). Within the context of SLHs, helping appears to happen when you set the stage for it,

Although one of the study aims was to show how social model (as measured by the RHES) was associated with giving and receiving help in SLHs, we also hypothesized that the RHES would predict helping in 12-step and family/friend contexts. We felt there might be effects in these other contexts based on previous findings that showed the frequency of giving and receiving help in one context was associated with the frequency of giving and receiving help in other contexts (Polcin, Mahoney, et al., 2023). Findings from the current study supported this hypothesis by showing that the RHES was associated with receiving help in 12-step and family/friends contexts. However, confirmation of study hypotheses was mixed because the RHES did not predict giving help in these contexts.

One way to understand how helping might be generated across different contexts is to consider that residents of SLHs learn skills relevant to accepting and providing help that are transferable to other contexts, such as 12-step meetings and interactions with family/friends. This would represent a type of “spillover” effect from the SLH context to other contexts. However, it is also possible that increased giving and receiving help occurs first in 12-step meetings or in interactions with family/friends and those experiences prepare the person for helping in the SLH. Additional research is needed to understand the sequencing of giving and receiving help across different contexts and factors beyond those in the current study that facilitate and hinder helping.

Big five personality traits

Separate regression models assessing each personality scale as a predictor of each type of helping showed limited effects. Two of the five scales (neuroticism, and agreeableness) did not predict any of the six helping scales. The other Big 5 scales predicted a few types of helping. Extraversion predicted giving help in 12-step meetings; conscientiousness predicted giving help to others in 12-step and family/friend contexts.

The findings for the personality trait openness were different. Openness was associated with giving help in SLHs as well as with giving and receiving help in 12-step meetings and with family/friends. In these contexts, characteristics of openness, such as curiosity about other people, eagerness to learn new things, creativity, and insight might function as interpersonal assets that readily lead to supportive interactions such as helping. During the time residents live in the houses the impacts of individual characteristics on helping, such as personality traits, might be mitigated by the saliency and strength of the social model recovery environment.

Implications for SLH providers

Previous studies have shown that giving and receiving help among SLH residents is associated with better outcomes (Zemore et al., under review). However, we are largely uncertain about the best ways to facilitate helping. Findings in the current study show the RHES is a strong predictor of helping. Thus, one way SLH service providers might increase helping among residents is to maximize social model dynamics in their homes. Moreover, they should bear in mind that social model dynamics in their houses are also associated with receiving help in other contexts, including family/friends and 12-step meetings. Practice oriented publications have described how social model characteristics in SLHs can be enhanced by the actions of house managers and residents (D. Polcin et al., 2014). Strategies include : 1) requiring attendance at 12-step groups, 2) involving residents in house operations and governance, 3) encouraging residents to share personal recovery experiences, 4) using the tools of 12-step recovery to address issues such as losses, relapse and other personal crises, and 5) encouraging senior peers to role model emotional and instrumental helping.

Working to enhance the social model recovery environment might be especially helpful to residents who lack personality characteristics associated helping, primarily openness. Persons who are low on openness might require more time and attention in order to integrate into the household and engage in helping behaviors. Residents who are motivated to try new experiences, curious about meeting new people, and eager to learn from new experiences (i.e., high on openness) might be able to interact with new residents and others who lack these assets in ways that facilitate their helping potential. The challenge for providers is to encourage these interactions within the structure of house operations (e.g., “buddy systems” for orienting new residents, resident interactions during regular house meetings, and informal daily interactions in the house).

There is a need for research addressing the extent to which personality traits can be modified in favorable directions. Overall, personality traits such as those measured by the Big Five scales are relatively stable over adulthood (Roberts et al., 2006). Nevertheless, Hengartner et al. (2016) identified studies using treatment samples that found psychological (Barlow et al., 2014) and pharmacological (Soskin et al., 2012) interventions able to impact personality characteristics. Studies of alcohol and drug treatment (e.g., Piedmont, 2001) show some Big Five traits may be modifiable in beneficial ways that are associated with less drinking. However, the limited number of studies addressing how treatment can affect Big Five personality traits have not included studies of peer operated recovery residences, so it is unclear whether these settings are able to facilitate desirable personality traits associated with increased helping. An important next step to increase helping in peer operated recovery homes is to identify specific resident interactions, management strategies, and house operations that enhance personality characteristics associated with helping, particularly openness.

Limitations

There are a number of caveats that should be noted. First, the study took place in Los Angeles and houses in other geographic locations might show different findings. Second, we studied one type of recovery residence, SLH’s, and other types of residences (e.g., Oxford Houses and residential treatment programs) may have different factors associated with helping. Third, the Big Five scales only measure personality traits, so the associations between psychiatric disorders and helping are unclear. Fourth, the measure used to assess the social environment (the RHES) consisted of a single score assessing the strength of social model characteristics. Other aspects of the social environment were not assessed. Finally, the study assessed the Big Five and RHES scales at one time point. It is not clear how these scales or their associations with helping might change over time.

Funding

This article was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [Grant Number AA028252]. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Appendix A. Recovery Home Environment Scale

  1. To what extent do residents provide emotional support to one another?

  2. To what extent do residents socialize together?

  3. To what extent do residents support each other to address practical problems, such as where to find needed services, how to find employment, and transportation?

  4. To what extent do residents go to 12-step meeting together?

  5. How effective are house meetings in terms of resolving problems and conflicts?

  6. To what extent are residents involved in decisions that affect the house?

  7. To what extent do residents work a 12-step recovery program on a daily basis within the SLH environment? This would include things like using 12-step principles to address conflicts and other

  8. To what extent do residents point out potential harm that could result from relapse or not continuing to work a strong recovery program?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes: Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES) items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) Not at all, (2) A little, (3) Somewhat, (4) Quite a bit, (5) A lot. Scale items were originally reported in D. L. Polcin et al. (2021).

Footnotes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association, D. S. M. T. F., & American Psychiatric Association, D. S. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5(5). [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow DH, Sauer-Zavala S, Carl JR, Bullis JR, & Ellard KK (2014). The nature, diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(3), 344–365. 10.1177/2167702613505532 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borkman TJ, Kaskutas LA, Room J, Bryan K, & Barrows D. (1998). An historical and developmental analysis of social model programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(1). 10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00244-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goldberg LR, & Rosolack TK (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hengartner MP, Kawohl W, Haker H, Rössler W, & Ajdacic-Gross V. (2016). Big Five personality traits may inform public health policy and preventive medicine: Evidence from a cross-sectional and a prospective longitudinal epidemiologic study in a Swiss Community. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 84, 44–51. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaskutas LA, Ammon LN, Oberste E, & Polcin DL (2007). A brief scale for measuring helping activities in recovery: The brief helper therapy scale. Substance Use & Misuse, 42(11), 1767–1781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lui PP, Chmielewski M, Trujillo M, Morris J, & Pigott TD (2022). Linking big five personality domains and facets to alcohol (mis) use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 57(1), 58–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mahoney E, Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Mericle AA, Patterson D, Polcin DL, Subbaraman M, & Witbrodt J. (2023). Do neighborhood characteristics of sober living houses impact recovery outcomes? A multilevel analysis of observational data from Los Angeles County. Health & Place, 79, 102951. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mahoney E, Witbrodt J, Mericle AA, & Polcin DL (2021). Resident and house manager perceptions of social environments in sober living houses: Associations with length of stay. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(7), 2959–2971. 10.1002/jcop.22620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mericle AA, Mahoney E, Korcha R, Delucchi K, & Polcin DL (2019). Sober living house characteristics: A multilevel analyses of factors associated with improved outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 98, 28–38. 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Moos RH (1997). Evaluating treatment environments: The quality of psychiatric and substance abuse programs (2nd ed.). Transaction. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pagano ME, Phillips KA, Stout RL, Menard W, & Piliavin JA (2007). Impact of helping behaviors on the course of substance-use disorders in individuals with body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 291–295. 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pagano ME, Zemore SE, Onder CC, & Stout RL (2009). Predictors of initial AA-related helping: Findings from project MATCH. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(1), 117–125. 10.15288/jsad.2009.70.117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Piedmont RL (2001). Cracking the plaster cast: Big five personality change during intensive outpatient counseling. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 500–520. [Google Scholar]
  15. Polcin DL, & Korcha R. (2017). Housing status, psychiatric symptoms, and substance abuse outcomes among sober living house residents over 18 months. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 16(3), 138–150. 10.1097/ADT.0000000000000105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Polcin DL, Korcha R, Bond J, & Galloway GP (2010). Sober living houses for alcohol and drug dependence: 18-month outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(4), 356–365. 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Polcin DL, Korcha R, Witbrodt J, Mericle AA, & Mahoney E. (2018). Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) for persons on probation or parole entering sober living houses. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 45(11), 1634–1659. 10.1177/0093854818784099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Polcin DL, Mahoney E, & Mericle AA (2021). Psychometric properties of the recovery home environment scale. Substance Use & Misuse, 56(8), 1161–1168. 10.1080/10826084.2021.1910710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Polcin DL, Mahoney E, Subbaraman M, & Mericle AA (2023). Giving and receiving help among persons entering sober living houses. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 41(4), 488–503. 10.1080/07347324.2023.2242801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Polcin DL, Mericle AA, Braucht GS, & Wittman FD (2023). Moving social model recovery forward: Recent research on sober living houses. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 41(2), 173–186. 10.1080/07347324.2023.2167528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Polcin D, Mericle A, Howell J, Sheridan D, & Christensen J. (2014). Maximizing social model principles in residential recovery settings. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 46(5), 436–443. 10.1080/02791072.2014.960112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Roberts BW, Walton KE, & Viechtbauer W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Schwartz C, Meisenhelder JB, Ma Y, & Reed G. (2003). Altruistic social interest behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 778–785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Soskin DP, Carl JR, Alpert J, & Fava M. (2012). Antidepressant effects on emotional temperament: Toward a biobehavioral research paradigm for major depressive disorder. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 18(6), 441–451. 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2012.00318.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wittman FD, & Polcin D. (2014). The evolution of peer run sober housing as a recovery resource for California communities. International Journal of Self Help & Self Care, 8(2), 157–187. 10.2190/SH.8.2.c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zemore S. (2007). Helping as healing among recovering alcoholics. Southern Medical Journal, 100(4), 447–450. 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31803175da [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zemore SE, & Kaskutas LA (2008). 12-step involvement and peer helping in day hospital and residential programs. Substance Use & Misuse, 43(12–13), 1882–1903. 10.1080/10826080802297534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zemore SE, Mahoney E, Mericle AA, Subbaraman M, & Polcin DL (under review). Benefits of helping in three contexts for maintaining recovery among sober living house residents. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zemore SE, & Pagano ME (2008). Kickbacks from helping others: Health and recovery. In Galanter M, Kaskutas LA, Borkman T, Zemore SE, & Tonigan JS (Eds.), Recent developments in alcoholism, volume 18: Research on Alcoholics Anonymous and spirituality inaddiction recovery (pp. 141–166). Springer. 10.1007/978-0-387-77725-2_9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES