“It’s like a Brotherhood”: Thematic analysis of veterans’ identity processes in substance abuse recovery homes

Abstract

This exploratory study aimed to understand how veterans’ social identity influenced their experiences living in Oxford Houses (OH)—the largest network of substance use recovery homes in the United States. We conducted three focus groups, with 20 veterans who were current or former OH residents. Thematic analysis revealed several ways in which participants’ veteran identity influenced their experiences living in OH, including: (1) thriving through OH organizational similarities with the military, (2) relationships with other OH residents, and (3) and growth and reintegration. The themes were interpreted using the Social Identity Theory and the Social Identity Model of Identity Change perspectives. Social identity processes were found to play an influential role in veterans’ experiences in their recovery homes and reintegration into civilian life. Findings highlight the importance of veterans developing a community within a culturally congruent setting to facilitate their recovery from substance use disorders and adjustment to life post-military service.

1 |. INTRODUCTION

Veterans face many challenges upon returning to civilian life. The exposure to physical and psychological trauma, as well as the chronic stress associated with military service, increases veterans’ risk of developing a mental health condition (Seal et al., 2007), especially substance use disorders (SUD) (Boden & Hoggatt, 2018; Hoggatt et al., 2017; Kelsall et al., 2015). As a result, veterans have high rates of psychiatric and substance abuse co-morbidity (Allen et al., 2016; Seal et al., 2011), with less than 1% of veterans receiving an isolated SUD diagnosis (Seal et al., 2011). The high rates of co-occurring mental health disorders lead veterans to have more severe overall symptomatology, in addition to traits associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression, which can exacerbate drug misuse and psychological distress (Seal et al., 2011).

Navigating the transition between military service and civilian life is another challenge faced by veterans with SUDs. Extensive research highlight the transformational shift in identity that occurs from serving in the military (Higate, 2001; Smith & True, 2014; Woodward & Neil Jenkings, 2011), as well as the reintegration issues that can arise from navigating two disparate cultures (military vs. civilian) (Coll et al., 2011; Demers, 2011; Lancaster et al., 2018; Nichols, 2016; Smith & True, 2014). Moreover, studies have found that identity processes play a central role in veterans’ reintegration into civilian life post-military service (Demers, 2011; Meca et al., 2020; Orazem et al., 2017).

Despite the growing body of literature on the importance of identity on veterans’ reintegration, to date, no other study has explored identity processes among veterans’ recovering from SUDs. Moreover, studies have yet to examine how identity impacts veterans’ experiences in community-based recovery support settings. The current study addresses this gap by drawing on the social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the social identity model of identity change (SIMIC; Iyer et al., 2009) to understand how veterans’ identity influences their experiences in substance abuse recovery homes called Oxford Houses (OH)—the most prevalent model of substance use recovery homes in the United States (Jason et al., 2020).

1.1 |. Veteran identity

Military veterans are a community with a distinct culture and social identity (Hall, 2011; Koenig et al., 2014) that derives from their military socialization (Harada et al., 2002). Socialization into the military culture begins at enlistment during basic training, where service members learn to adopt military norms, language, and values. Among the many values service members adopt include duty, honor, loyalty, commitment to comrades, and the nation (Demers, 2011). Service members are also further socialized to prioritize obedience, regimentation, and collectivism (Smith & True, 2014). In addition, the chain of command comprised of superior and subordinate roles is a critical element of the military organizational structure that further teaches service members about authority and responsibility.

Although veterans are diverse individuals who belong to multiple social groups and backgrounds, for many, the veteran identity is particularly salient and central to their self-concept (Adams et al., 2019; Atuel & Castro, 2018; Brunger et al., 2013; Harada et al., 2005). For instance, among 1730 veterans receiving health services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Non-VA medical healthcare centers, over 50% scored very high on a veteran identity centrality scale (Adams et al., 2019). The prominence of this identity influences veterans’ behaviors (Di Leone et al., 2016; Firmin et al., 2016; Harada et al., 2002), including how they utilize support (Gorman et al., 2018) and systems of care (Gade & Wilkins, 2012; Harada et al., 2002). For instance, one study found that women veterans with a more central veteran identity and higher positive regard for their veteran identity were more likely to utilize VA health care facilities (Di Leone et al., 2016). In addition, a study on veterans utilizing a vocational rehabilitation program through the VA found that veterans who believed that their vocational counselor shared their veteran identity reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the program compared with veterans who did not hold this belief (Gade & Wilkins, 2012). Feelings of belongingness associated with the veteran identity may be an important factor related to these positive outcomes (Di Leone et al., 2016).

1.2 |. Social identity theory and social identity model of identity change

Theories of identity provide valuable frameworks for understanding the saliency of the veteran identity and its influences on post-military behavior and outcomes. According to SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people define their sense of self based on their social group memberships instead of idiosyncratic personal characteristics (e.g., personality traits). Thus, social groups inform people’s beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors. SIT postulates that two sociocognitive processes explain social identity phenomena. The first underlying process is self-categorization, when persons similar to the self are categorized as the in-group, and persons who differ from the self are categorized as the out-group. Second, social comparison is the process in which individuals seek to achieve positive social identity by evaluating in-group members favorably relative to out-group members. Together, these processes lead to behaviors and attitudes congruent with the in-group identity, stereotypical perceptions of the in-group and out-group members, and accentuation of differences between out-group members and in-group members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Stets & Burke, 2000). The negative outcomes of self-categorization and social comparison, such as the negative biases towards out-group members and perceptions of intragroup homogeneity, can be diminished through increased contact and exposure to out-group members (Brown, 2000).

While individuals belong to many discrete social groups, some group memberships are more salient descriptors of the self (S. A. Haslam et al., 2009; Hogg et al., 1995; Jetten & Pachana, 2012; Oakes, 1987; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Sani & Bennett, 2009). Sometimes individuals can believe they exemplify a social group’s qualities, and this phenomenon is called identity fusion. Identity fusion is the visceral interconnectedness between one’s self-perception and social group (Swann & Buhrmester, 2015). There is evidence that social identification and fusion are two different constructs (Gómez & Brooks, 2011; Swann et al., 2009, 2010). The intensity of identifying with a social group leads to the development of strong, kin-like relationships with other group members (Swann et al., 2012; 2014), just like the bonds built between military members (Ahern et al., 2015). The impact of military socialization is such that an individual’s sense of self can become fused with their military identity (Hart & Lancaster, 2019; Nichols, 2016).

The SIMIC (Iyer et al., 2009; Jetten et al., 2009) is concerned with understanding how social identity processes influence responses and adjustments to life changes and how these processes influence well-being (Haslam et al., 2021). This theoretical framework centers on the phenomena that life changes are often characterized by changes to one’s group memberships that often result in changes to one’s social identity. SIMIC posits that a person’s ability to adapt to life changes successfully depends on the extent that (1) they had multiple group memberships before their life transition, (2) can maintain pre-existing group memberships to support their social identity continuity, (3) can form new group memberships and corresponding social identities, and (4) their new and pre-existing group memberships are compatible (Haslam et al., 2021). The inability to adapt to the life transitions that bring about identity changes can result in diminished social support, belonging, purpose, and, ultimately, diminished well-being (Haslam et al., 2021; Jetten et al., 2009). Applications of SIMIC have been tested across various types of life transitions, including education (Iyer et al., 2009), migration (Smeekes et al., 2017), parenthood (Seymour-Smith et al., 2017), and addiction recovery (Dingle et al., 2019). According to SIMIC, veterans’ ability to successfully navigate the transition from military to civilian life is enhanced by the extent that they remain connected to the social groups they acquired during the military and before enlistment, as well as the extent that they can develop new and compatible group memberships (Haslam et al., 2021).

1.3 |. Veteran identity and reintegration

Research exploring veterans’ adjustment to civilian life has found that identity impacts veterans’ reintegration experiences. Many veterans report feeling like their veteran identity is in direct conflict with civilian culture, causing difficulties in their reintegration process (Demers, 2011; Lancaster et al., 2018; Nichols, 2016; Smith & True, 2014). For example, a study exploring how deployment affects veterans’ social relationships and their post-deployment experiences found that veterans experience a “crisis of identity” in which they feel a tension between their military and civilian cultures (Demers, 2011). This cultural tension leads veterans to feel out of place in civilian society and contributes to their inability to relate to civilians and to feel misunderstood. Similarly, Smith and True (2014) found that Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) service members and veterans had difficulties reconciling their veteran identity within a civilian context, and this identity conflict manifested as mental distress and reintegration difficulties. Reintegration difficulties included the inability to relate to civilians, including friends and family, and struggling with a new sense of autonomy that contrasts military values of obedience and regimentation. A thematic analysis of identity adjustment issues among OEF/OIF veterans found that prevalent difficulties included feeling like one does not belong in civilian society, missing the military’s culture and structure, holding unfavorable views of civilian society, feeling left behind by the civilian world after leaving for military service, and difficulty finding meaning in a civilian society (Orazem et al., 2017). Given that previous studies highlight the importance of veterans’ identity during reintegration, it is reasonable to expect identity to influence the experiences of veterans with SUDs residing in OH. The current research is an exploratory study seeking to examine how veterans’ social identity can influence veterans’ recovery from SUDs and experience in OH.

1.4 |. OH

OH is the largest network of substance use recovery homes, with over 3,000 homes across the United States and over 20,000 residents (Oxford House, 2020). What differentiates OHs from most other recovery homes is that they are entirely self-run, self-financed, and have no limitations on residents’ duration of stay. Houses function without any professional staff; instead, members are in charge of all house operations. The homes follow a democratic decision-making model and a peer leadership structure. Residents vote new members into the house, decide on new house rules, and elect members into leadership positions (e.g., president, chore coordinator, treasurer, secretary, comptroller, and coordinator). Those in leadership positions are not given any greater voting power or privileges than other residents and are re-elected every 6 months to ensure everyone has the opportunity to serve. Overall, the OH philosophy centers on recognizing that a socially supportive environment composed of peers and involvement in organizational leadership are crucial for a successful recovery from SUDs.

While each OH can create unique rules if they are voted on unanimously by all house residents, all OHs and their residents must abide by the rules and regulations outlined in the OH manual. Three main rules outlined in the manual are: maintain abstinence from any alcohol and drug use, pay their fair share of the rent, and follow house rules regarding conduct and complete assigned tasks/responsibilities. Additionally, OHs located in the same area form chapters; these chapters provide further oversight to ensure compliance with OH rules. The chapters also provide additional opportunities for residents to engage in leadership positions at a higher level within the OH organization.

Studies have demonstrated the OH model’s effectiveness, particularly among those who stay in OH 6 months or more (Aase et al., 2009; Jason et al., 2006, 2007). Additionally, individuals residing in OHs have better outcomes when compared with those in traditional recovery homes and those receiving other types of community-based aftercare services (Jason et al., 2006, 2007, 2015). OHs also work well for different subpopulations, including individuals with psychiatric comorbidities, previously homeless individuals, and individuals with criminal justice histories (Jason et al., 2015; Majer et al., 2008).

An estimated 18% of OH residents are veterans (Oxford House, 2015), yet not much is known about their experiences living in these homes. Research investigating the association between social identities, abstinence social support, and self-efficacy among OH residents found that veterans had difficulties relating to other residents despite sharing a recovery identity (Majer et al., 2002). In a study by Guerrero and Jason (2020) on veterans’ social networks in OH, veterans residing with other veterans had more cohesive social networks than veterans living with only civilian residents. Theoretically, these findings indicate that social identity processes influence veterans’ experiences in OH. For instance, the veteran identity appears to be more salient for veterans than their recovery identity, demonstrated by veterans’ difficulties relating to other OH residents and their ability to form more cohesive networks in OHs with multiple veteran peers. Findings suggest that veterans perceive other OH residents as out-group members despite the shared commonality of being in recovery. Moreover, it appears that veterans’ ability to navigate life transitions, such as integrating into OH, is affected by how congruent they perceive their new environment to be with their military background.

1.5 |. Current study

Research suggests that identity plays a vital role in veterans’ transition to life post-military service. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that identity will influence veterans’ experiences in the recovery home setting. While a few studies suggest that identity influences veterans’ experiences in OH, there is still a need to understand how their identity influences their experiences in OH. The present study provides a qualitative exploration of how identity influences veterans’ experiences within OH. Focus group interviews with veterans who were former or current OH residents were thematically analyzed, and findings were interpreted using the SIT and SIMIC perspectives. Findings can help elucidate the strengths and challenges veterans encounter in recovery homes, furthering our understanding of how OHs and other community-based settings can best support veterans, thereby highlighting ways to optimize their recovery outcomes.

2 |. METHOD

2.1 |. Participants and recruitment

Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. Purposive sampling is a type of non-probability sampling technique that involves selecting participants who are particularly knowledgeable about a phenomenon of interest given personal qualities and experiences (Patton, 1990). Veterans who were former or current residents of OH were recruited at the 2018 OH convention in Kansas City, Missouri, an annual meeting that takes place over 4 days, where current residents, alumni, and other OH representatives attend workshops and panels regarding recovery and attend events for networking and socializing.

Before data collection, information about the study was advertised on the OH national Facebook page 2 weeks before the convention. The Facebook page included a description of the study, information regarding eligibility, and how to sign up to participate. Over the first 2 days of the convention, a vendor table was set up by two researchers to recruit participants. In addition to the Facebook post, researchers verbally approached people at the convention to increase recruitment efforts. Veterans who met the eligibility criteria and were interested in participating in focus group discussions were randomly assigned to one of three focus groups held on the third day of the convention.

The study included a total of 20 veterans who participated in three focus groups (N = 11, N = 6, N = 3). The majority of participants were male (N = 19) and one was female. Most participants were current residents of OH (N = 17) and a few were OH alumni (N = 3). The majority were White (N = 17) and the rest identified as Black. Most participants served in OIF/OEF. Not all participants disclosed their ages but their era of service were disclosed: OEF/OIF (N = 14), Gulf War (N = 5), and Vietnam War (N = 1).

2.2 |. Procedure

Three focus groups were conducted in private conference rooms at the Sheraton hotel where the 2018 OH Convention was held. Focus groups was selected as our methodology as a way to obtain information about individuals with similar lived experiences while using group interactions as a way of generating ideas that might not be revealed in individual interviews (Morgan et al., 1998). Two out of three focus groups had one study facilitator, and one of the groups had two facilitators present who guided the discussions.

At the start of the focus group discussions, facilitators provided an overview of informed consent, the purpose of the research, and the risks and benefits associated with participation. Participants were informed of the potential breaches of confidentiality inherent when conducting focus groups because of the inability to guarantee that information discussed would be kept confidential by other participants. However, the facilitators highlighted the importance of confidentiality, and participants were asked not to share any information shared during the focus groups with non-participants. All participants provided written consent. Facilitators reviewed the focus group ground rules (e.g., speaking one at a time, not answering a question if they do not want to answer it) before beginning discussions. Focus groups lasted between 75 and 90 min and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were not compensated for their participation.

2.3 |. Focus group protocol

A semi-structured focus group protocol developed by the lead author was used to elicit discussions regarding veterans’ experiences in OH (see Table 1). Participants were asked questions about their transition and adjustment to OH, how connected they are/were with other OH residents, and lastly, areas of strengths and improvements for the OH model.

TABLE 1.

Semi-structured focus group protocol questions

1. How would you describe your experience when you first moved into Oxford House?

Probe: Are there any positive and/or negative experiences that stand out in your mind when you first moved into Oxford House? Describe them.

2. How would you describe your experience later on in your residency in Oxford House?

Probe: Are there any positive and/or negative experiences that stand out in your mind when you first moved into Oxford House? Describe them.

3. How would you describe your relationships with other OH residents?

Probe: Were you able to form bonds with other residents living in the house? Why or why not?

4. How would you say being a veteran influenced your interactions with others living in the house?

5. How do you feel living in Oxford House helped you?

6. How can Oxford House better meet your needs?

7. Would you recommend Oxford House to other veterans? Why or why not?

2.4 |. Analytic approach

Data were inductively analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify, organize, and analyze recurring patterns within the focus group data. First, the lead author and the transcribers engaged in multiple readings of the focus group transcripts to immerse themselves with the data. During this process, the research team took notes on their thoughts and ideas, per transcript, as recommended by the literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Next, during the coding phase, the researchers individually labeled recurring ideas in the data; these recurring ideas are referred to as codes (Boyatzis, 1998). The application of codes was discussed and compared during team meetings. The coding phase was an iterative process in which codes were applied and redefined, as needed until no new codes emerged.

A research question was defined based on the identity codes that emerged from the data. Participants were asked how being a veteran influenced their interactions with other house residents but not how it influenced other aspects of their experiences. Instead, the conversations came up organically. The codes that were relevant to the research question were grouped into broader repeating themes. When considering themes, we accounted for the prevalence and consistent representation across each focus group transcript (Watson et al., 2008). Ultimately, these themes were defined and organized into “superordinate themes” and “sub-themes” that resulted in a coding framework.

The coding framework was entered into Dedoose, a cloud-based software program for coding and analyzing qualitative data. Six researchers were paired into teams of two who were assigned to code a focus group transcript based on the coding framework. The researchers coded independently and compared their coding with their teammates. Kappa scores (McHugh, 2012) and percent agreement values were used to calculate interrater reliability. Kappa scores range from −1.00 to +1.00, with a score of +1.00 representing full consensus. Pairs of coders discussed any discrepancies in coding and reached a consensus on how to resolve these disagreements. A third researcher settled any unresolved disagreements. Disagreements were also discussed during weekly research meetings with all coders present. κ scores were calculated after coding disagreements were resolved by a third researcher or after weekly meetings. Only themes that appeared in at least two focus groups were kept for the analysis. Analyst triangulation, or the use of multiple analysts to review findings, was used to diminish biases and blind spots in the qualitative analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Coding concluded once coders reached 100% consensus.

3 |. RESULTS

Analyses of focus group discussions revealed three main themes in relation to how participants’ veteran identity influenced their experiences living in OH (Table 1). Veterans across the three focus groups described how their veteran identity had positively and negatively impacted their experiences in OH. The themes identified were: (1) thriving through OH organizational similarities with the military, (2) relationships with other OH residents, and (3) and growth and reintegration. Subthemes related to each of the three main themes are discussed below. The three themes and subthemes encompassed different social identity processes and outcomes that were noted in veterans’ descriptions of their experiences in OH.

3.1 |. Thriving because of OH organizational similarities with the military

Focus group participants universally indicated that their veteran identity allowed them to thrive in the OH setting because of the organizational similarities between OH and the military. This finding is consistent with the identity compatibility hypothesis within SIMIC, which predicts that veterans would more easily adapt to the OH to the extent that they perceive the OH to be similar to the military. Veterans described two kinds of organizational similarities between OH and the military that helped them adjust to OH: (1) structural similarities and (2) leadership similarities.

3.1.1 |. Structural similarities

Participants discussed how their veteran identity allowed them to adjust and thrive in OH due to the structural similarities between OH and the military. The structural similarities between OH and the military described by veterans generally were related to the communal living arrangements and the rules and regulations. Like in the military, residents of OH cohabitate with others who share a similar mission—in the case of OH—this involves maintaining their recovery. Additionally, both the military and OH have a code of conduct that outline the expectations set forth by both institutions. Whereas military members abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in OH, the code of conduct is detailed in the OH manual. While abiding by rules may be initially challenging for non-veteran residents in OH, veterans in our study expressed that having served in the military helped them adjust to OH.

Veterans felt that the OH structure, including the collective living arrangement and the organized environment, makes OH feel like it is tailored specifically for veterans. These structural similarities are what attracted this veteran to the OH model:

…. we [veterans] know how to live together and it kicks in…to me the Oxford House is setup on a veterans mind… [Veterans] know how to clean… nobody leaves no dishes in the sink ya know? You make your bed. I’ve cleaned some of my roommate’s room because, I don’t have what they call it OCD or whatever, but I’m always thinking about the sergeant coming through.

For many, the perceived structural similarities between OH and the military helped ease their transition into OH. While describing what it was like when he first moved to OH, one veteran expressed that his military experience prepared him to live in OH:

Not at all [difficult] cause being in the military we had to adjust to collective living…you know, in barracks…in tents or whatever. So…yeah that part was fine…It was just something else that I just come from community living to something smaller

Additionally, veterans described how they felt immediately comfortable in OH, given the structured environment:

I think my first experience was when they told me that I had to do chores, when I saw how clean the house was, I felt comfortable. That made me comfortable, I mean really comfortable…just kinda transitioning from one trailer house to a different house, going into that clean, it looked orderly, you know. Being in the military, everything is orderly, everything is straight, everything … just seemed orderly to me.

For some veterans, the OH structure provided them with a sense of purpose that they felt they had lost once they left the military. When explaining how vital the OH structure was to them, one veteran said the following:

[the military] forced me into early retirement, and so Oxford gave me a purpose again, it gave me structure that I needed, it gave me, you know, goals to set, it gave me everything that I really desired and needed again in my life. I think it’d be beneficial to every single veteran and—I think oxford could also use veterans. I think they could benefit from veterans as well….[OH] is built for us.

Overall, many veterans expressed feeling immediately at ease when moving into his OH, given the military similarities. The delegation of chores and orderliness of the house generated feelings of familiarity and comfort, allowing them to thrive.

3.1.2 |. Leadership roles similarities

Participants described how their veteran identity allowed them to adjust and thrive in OH due to the opportunities for leadership roles in OH as in the military. Both the military and OH assigns members roles and responsibilities. In the military, members hold ranks with specific duties. Similarly, each OH elects members to different officer positions, such as house president, treasurer, and chore coordinator. Many participants expressed enjoying having a delegated role in ensuring the house operates well. For some, having the opportunity to fulfill a leadership role is why they chose the OH:

I needed….to be involved. I have to be responsible for something. I have to do things for other people. I just I have to do things. I have to have heavy stuff on my shoulders you know I- I overload myself…I’ve always been like a team leader…I’ve got leadership qualities….I found that Oxford House is a place I can go.

Veterans attributed their ability to be an effective leader within their OH due to their previous military training. For instance, one veteran stated, “So being a vet to me is a good thing….I think [veterans] are more in leadership…….because we understand what it takes.” Another veteran described his transition into a leadership role in OH by saying, “I’m finding that it’s a leadership role that happens organically, I mean it just happens…and like within days, you holding people accountable.” According to him, veterans are often appointed to leadership positions in OH, not necessarily because they ask to be elected into these roles but because other house residents recognize that veterans have good leadership traits. After listening to other focus group participants talk about their experiences in leadership roles, one participant gave the following reflection:

Some of the things we learn in the service, we apply in our houses and our guys pick up on it….[they] pick up on how we [veterans] are….Some of the leadership roles I think that we acquire are partly because they want that structure that been drilled into us…They want to push it off on someone who will do it, and they know we will do it.

Veterans also mentioned how OH reignited a spark in them, reminding them how much they enjoyed being in a leadership role and spurred them to find additional opportunities to give back to society. One veteran became involved in OH alumni associations, one became a substance abuse educator, and some voluntarily got involved with higher-level positions in the national OH organization. These roles would allow them to apply the leadership skills they had learned in the military and to perform behaviors that are congruent with their military identities. A female veteran summarized how she found a purposeful and fulfilling leadership role after being involved with OH:

You can start mentoring, you can start guiding, you can start learning [about] yourself from other people and you’re more receptive to it and it’s that level of comfortability that you have- the unity, the comradery, and everything like that. And you know it’s not just inner workings with the house like I’m involved all the way through the state…I’m you know I’m back in that sergeant mode, I’m back in that leadership role.

Overall, veterans expressed that their military experiences helped them thrive in OH due to the similarities between both settings. The parallels between the military and OH revolved around structural (e.g., collective living, regulations) and leadership roles. For many participants, these perceived similarities helped them transition into OH by providing them with a sense of comfort. Veterans also discussed how being elected into leadership positions within OH happened organically given their military training because veterans both sought these leadership opportunities, and other residents often selected them to fulfill such roles. Ultimately, the social identity compatibility between being a veteran and being an OH resident played a role in veterans’ ability to thrive in the OH setting.

3.2 |. Relationships with OH residents

The majority of focus group participants described how their veteran identity influenced their relationships with other OH residents. Participants described four ways in which they felt their veteran identity had influenced their relationships in OH: (1) Forming a brotherhood akin to the military, (2) difficulties relating to civilians, (3) mental health acceptance and stigmatization, and (4) tensions over the enforcement of rules.

3.2.1 |. Forming a brotherhood akin to the military

The majority of participants expressed that their veteran identity allowed them to form relationships with other OH residents comparable to the bonds they formed while in the military. This finding speaks to how intergroup attitudes can change through increased contact with outgroup members. When describing the bonds he formed with his housemates, this veteran said:

But it’s like a brotherhood in that house, we all stick up for one another. I mean, none of them really understand anything that I’m going through, like cause I still have a lot of problems with night terrors and I’m waking up screaming in the middle of the night, but my brothers in the house…have really come to help me a lot…they can’t fully understand but …they are very understanding to the point that they, you know, they haven’t thrown me out (laughs).

Although he states that his housemates will never fully understand what he is going through, they have been supportive and patient, most notably when he experiences night terrors. In one focus group, participants talked about how OH gave them a family that they felt they had lost when they left the military:

P4: I would recommend the Oxford House to any veteran because honestly—

P2: most definitely

P4: We get out of the military and, we feel like we lost our. family.

P2: Feel alone

P4: and Oxford gave me a family again, cause I don’t have a biological family. I was kicked out of my house at 14 years old. That’s why I joined the military, cause I didn’t have anything.

Another veteran expressed that his bond with his housemates was crucial for his recovery. He also expressed being surprised by his ability to form such a strong bond with civilians:

…building bonds in the house was crucial for me, in my recovery…it’s that old adage man you got your bunkmate, man, to watch your six and I found one and he was a civilian so that was crazy to me……you got that one guy that y’know that’s got you no matter what…that’s a bond that’s been built and we done a lot of things together in Oxford House.

This veteran compared his relationship with his housemate to the relationships he had in the military. Similarly to the military where he had a bunkmate to “watch his six,” he found someone to look out for him in OH. Another veteran mentioned that despite any problematic experiences he has had in OH, having people in the house to count on made everything worthwhile:

…the tough times are real tough though. And having that house around, having somebody to lean on. I mean…that’s a miracle right there in itself…just the fellowship you get out of the house sometimes. Even if it’s a guy that’s there for a day, a month, six months. That doesn’t matter, that moment you have with them, that sober moment, that good talk, the open heartedness, that’s an experience in itself. Whether they go back out, they move on to better things, or whatever happens, that moment, those little things, that conversation still stays with me. And that just completely exonerates the bad. I dig that stuff. It’s just, it builds me up, puts fuel in my tank.

Other participants emphasized the immense support they received from their OH housemates through more specific anecdotes. For instance, a veteran described a moment where his housemates raised enough money to help send his daughter to a university. Another veteran recounted the time he was told about his son’s sudden death and opted to grieve with his housemates rather than his family:

…I remember my sister and my brother… my brother’s wife, my wife and my children, they all came to tell me that my son passed away that night, [the OH housemates] had a spring fling dance and I said… that’s where I’m going, I’m going to hang out with the Oxford House guys. That was a super turning point in my recovery…going through the death of your first born son after he did two tours, and come back and died in a car crash, so that bond?… I mean, I didn’t allude to it earlier, but I felt… that’s where I needed to be with those guys.

Another veteran recounted how his housemates were there for him when he had a heart attack and he felt like giving up in life:

…bout 5 months ago, I had a second major heart attack and… still dealing with the consequences of my drug use… I was about ready to give up…The doctor’s telling me that, they did a bypass surgery, and told me that it may last a year. It may last 20 years. So, in my mind, I’m thinking, “I’ve got a year to live!” And I mean, I’m ready to just give up and, fuck it. And all my housemates from the one that’s been there the longest to the one that’s got there 2 weeks before, came together… they all came together and pulled me right up out of it and I’m glad they did… because… I know my future’s looking good now.

Veterans also felt an especially strong bond with house members who were also veterans. Participants expressed an openness to discussing sensitive topics related to their mental and physical health with other veteran housemates. Veterans expressed that residing alongside others who shared their veteran identity helped them build trusting relationships in the house. One veteran spoke about living in two different OHs. His first time in OH did not go well, but the second time around was a better experience because there was another veteran in the house:

…. health services came in, kicks everybody out but me. They put me in kind of role…the one everyone comes to. I had to read the books and learn how the Oxford Houses ran…What I really was doing was fixing everybody else’s problem but wasn’t looking at my own. I did that for six months… relapsed, went back out and [sighs disappointedly] when I came back to Oxford House I got with a group of guys and there was another veteran in the house who understood…what I was going through and…he helped me focus on my problems first…Now I go every month and speak at the VA hospital…and help introduce [veterans] to the Oxford House and I been there four years now… and I love everything about the Oxford House.

Another veteran discussed being fortunate to have lived in an OH where all residents were veterans:

… I was blessed I moved in with another veteran like at the same time and we cleaned that house out and turned it around…and so we literally built a whole house of veterans…and I never been in a house that was just boom boom boom, everything fell into place. Meetings were literally ten minutes and we would cover everything, ya know?…Then we would go eat all of us together, shoot the shit, watch a movie, something like that and we had music in the house. It was an amazing house….the really great thing was it gave me this really wonderful experience at Oxford early on so that’s what carried with me and that’s why I try to get the guys that move in these days to do…It just fell together. Boom! There were no problems, there were no issues. Everything was clear cut and it worked really well.

A veteran who lives with two other veterans in OH described why veterans can more easily bond with each other in these homes due to their shared military identity:

Veterans have a tendency that I think we bond immediately because you might be one to save my life. …Because I just met them and I put my life in their hands but I do not put my life in my own family’s hands. …So being a vet to me is a good thing.

The majority of the participants compared their camaraderie with their housemates to be akin to the brotherhood they had formed while in the military. Although they generally had less in common with civilians, most veterans were able to connect with civilians on some level after spending some time in the house. This finding aligns with the SIT contact hypothesis that predicts that intergroup biases can change via increased contact. Further, participants expressed being able to form bonds with other veterans in OH more easily given their similar experiences and understanding of the military culture. Connections made between the veterans in OH, regardless of past military affiliation, allowed many veterans to process their emotions, learn to ask for help and create healthy habits of self-expression.

3.2.2 |. Difficulties relating to civilians

Despite the brotherhood and camaraderie participants often felt they had with other OH residents, many expressed that their veteran identity prevented them from relating to civilians in the house. This finding provides an example of relational difficulties that occur between in-group (e.g., veterans) and out-group (e.g., civilians) members. For instance, a female veteran expressed an inability to relate to or be understood by her housemates:

I get we’re addicts and everything…people are just really hard to connect with period. They don’t understand, and then none of these girls understand anything that we are going through…they’re like “oh you’re military, that’s it,” and I’m like no it’s not just that there’s a lot of things that are ingrained and there’s a lot of demons that I go to sleep with at nighttime that you guys will never understand, nor be able to relate…So there’s just a level of connection we’re just never going to have….They want to have that connection… it’s just not feasible, it’s not going to happen.

While she acknowledges that she shares a recovery identity with her housemates, she feels that they will never fully be able to understand her given her military experiences. Although her housemates try to connect with her, she feels that it is not entirely feasible because they will never fully comprehend her experiences or challenges as a veteran. Similarly, other participants expressed difficulties with their housemates due to differing communication styles or due to their perceptions of civilians as highly sensitive:

P8: …Relationships is hard for me. You know, I don’t have time for drama! Majority of veterans do not like drama.

P3: Do y’all find. like you fought a lot with the emotions. Like, you would just…you react from your gut, and your intentions are the best intentions, but you fail to realize that [civilians] are just a lot more fragile than we are.

[Group laughter]

P4: that happens on a normal basis for me

Overall, veterans expressed challenges relating to other housemates given their out-group membership status as nonmilitary affiliated individuals. Despite sharing an addiction recovery identity with other residents, participants’ veteran identity was sometimes seen as a barrier to forming connections with other OH residents. Further, the above quote illustrates a biased perception veterans had towards their civilian housemates as sensitive and fragile, which made it difficult to communicate with them. This finding speaks to the saliency of the veteran identity for participants, and their perceptions of other OH residents as out-group members despite having identity commonalities.

3.2.3 |. Mental health stigmatization and acceptance

In many instances, veterans reported that their mental health issues were a result of their military experience and had influenced their relationships with other OH residents. For instance, some participants expressed experiencing mental health stigma from other residents and that these stigmatizing experiences made them feel like an outsider. Specifically, veterans discussed being viewed in stereotypical ways. When asked what it is like being a veteran in OH, one participant noted that he was perceived as dangerous by other residents because of his PTSD: “he’s got PTSD, is he going to flip out? Stab me in my sleep?” Similarly, one veteran described how he faced stigma from other residents when he first moved to OH due to his PTSD:

My experience first in the OH wasn’t good….When I got to the first Oxford House…they didn’t understand what I was going through. You know, I’ve seen combat, they didn’t understand PTSD and they were talking “well maybe you need more than what we offer.”

Here, this veteran described his negative experience when he first moved to OH, given the stigma he faced from other residents, even being told that they might not be able to help him. These narratives suggest that veterans are given an outgroup status by others in the OH which subjects them to biases and stereotypes.

Despite feeling stigmatized due to mental illness when they first moved into OH, some veterans eventually felt accepted by other house residents. For example, a veteran recounted how one of his housemates initially feared his PTSD episodes, even going so far as to demand him to move out of the home. However, they eventually worked out their issues and now have grown close. The housemate became observant of the participant’s pensive and distant moods and offered much-needed support: “each time I could talk up to a certain point, he knows that my eyes get glazed over and go off… he’ll catch me, say “you’re eyes are doing that again, get out of there.” But, that takes the sting off it a little, you know, just being able to talk about little things, like okay we’ll go watch a movie and turn the TV off on me.”

A veteran who struggles with comorbid psychiatric issues noted how his house members supported him in his mental health journey:

And I don’t say that I trust everybody in my house but I got certain people that I can go to so that helps. Because if not… I wouldn’t go to [therapy]. I’d go to therapy everyday but I’d eventually stop. I got somebody at 9 o’clock in the morning tapping on my door “Hey, you alright what time you headin?” you know, I need the structure because me going up in my head—pause—I can come up with a lot of stuff.

Another veteran found that he was able to educate his housemates about veteran mental health issues, and after they became more informed, they were able to help him avoid his PTSD triggers:

…Talking with my housemates about my experiences in Iraq, I mean, you’re never going to tell anybody all of it. But, tell ‘em what you can handle and just helping them understand what you go through, what causes it, and giving them some idea of what it looks like when you’re going through this. They better understand and they are more willing to help instead of just pushing you away. Because, I mean, I told my housemates with my PTSD what my triggers were and what I tend to do when I have one of those triggers, and they will see it and they’ll pull me closer instead of pushing you away. And it helps.

In sum, while veterans with mental health illnesses may have felt initially stigmatized within OH, through increased contact with other residents, they grew to feel accepted. This finding demonstrates how intergroup attitudes can change over time through exposure, especially when sharing a common goal such as recovery.

3.2.4 |. Tensions over the enforcement of rules

Participants discussed how their need for orderliness and structure was strongly tied to their veteran identity. Some veterans had disagreements with other residents regarding the enforcement and adherence of the house rules. Veterans described feeling like other residents were dismissive of their needs and desire for structure:

… we’re veterans…we know how to look after ourselves. How many civilians just put the cups and shit in the sink, they must be waiting for a wife to come and clean em because they just sit there for days, you know? And what I use to do with people is I sit and say ‘come here, watch.’ And I just do the dishes, do them with them and say ‘every time you use something, that’s what you do.’ You know? ‘Oh fuck off with your Army shit’ and I’m saying, no this is Oxford House shit. This isn’t Army shit.’ You know? We’re not marching up to war.

Similarly, another veteran stated:

They throw that in my face all the time … And it’s just like, dude this is not the military, this is life. Regardless of the way I’m talking to you, the way I do things, this is life, this is your responsibility.

3.3 |. Growth and reintegration

Many participants reflected on how their veteran identity informed their personal growth during their time in OH and how OH aided their reintegration to post-military life. Veterans discussed undergoing many personal changes that resulted from gaining a new group membership in OH. Specifically, veterans discussed experiencing improvements in several areas that included emotional, communication, and belongingness.

When discussing why he would recommend OH to other veterans, one participant stated:

…It’s been a really big part of my reintegration to being a civilian. I think it’s important that we learn how to be surrounded by other people, and not be the majority, because you know we’re not the majority in real life….It’s kind of a microcosm of our communities, you know, in that house. I am the outsider. When I do go to into the community, I am different, you know? If I was around a house full of veterans, yeah I mean, we would excel and our house would be tip top everything like that but it wouldn’t be realistic…I like the ratio of 8 to 1 or 8 to 2…and Oxford is definitely…an asset and resource…It teaches you how to integrate into being a normal productive member of society.

Similarly, another veteran said:

I think it’s better for us to be around people who are not veterans to help us learn, because we’re going to have to work with people like that. So, at least in Oxford House we have the opportunity where we got some identification, you know, because we’re drunks and drug addicts, at least we’ve got that. We might not like everything else they do, but when I go for a job, I’m gonna have to work with people that I don’t like and that aren’t military. And I think that Oxford House and the rules is a very good place to learn how to live with society. So Oxford House definitely gives me that opportunity to practice skills I am gonna need.

There were times when veterans had conflicts with other house residents due to differences in communication styles when discussing the house rules. For example, many veterans continued to utilize the same communication style that they had adopted in the military, without considering the emotions or impact it may have on others. As a result, civilian housemates were often offended by veterans’ comments. Seven participants mentioned how veterans have a communication style that is more goal-oriented and forthright compared to civilian communication styles. For instance, some veterans discussed how their delivery could be too abrasive, angry, or vulgar. Eventually, veterans learned to acclimate to civilians’ expectations and styles of communication. Over time, the repeated interactions between veterans and civilians taught veterans how to find common ground, listen, and communicate more effectively overall. Living in shared spaces with civilians gave veterans repeated opportunities to practice empathetic communication unfamiliar to them after being entrenched in the military culture. A female veteran discussed how she has learned to communicate better in OH:

It was hard though, women are different. Men sometimes too though, I ain’t gonna lie, like I’m a little too abrasive …I have to learn how to be more tactful, because in the military, as you know a sergeant and stuff like that…I didn’t care. Now I have to care and acknowledge that people have feelings, and acknowledge that I can’t just say you have to do this and that’s what you’re going to do because I outrank you.

A veteran who was deployed twice, discussed how being in the OH helped him empathize with people from different backgrounds, despite any differences:

Especially with a guy, you know, that’s right around my age right now who’s… real antiauthority and…it helps me accept people for who they are, and it helps me integrate back with civilians because … these are-this is the people that I live with, I have to, and I want to.… understand where they’re coming from and… that people are different, and not everybody’s on the same mental… mindset as I am, you know, everybody thinks different, you know, we’re all from different uh backgrounds… so it’s been good.

For individuals who felt particularly lost after leaving their military communities, OH showed them how to integrate into a new community and how to build a family for themselves:

[OH] gives you the ability to work, to bring back the structure of your life, to restore stuff whether you’ve had a family, lost a family, never had a family or ready to build a family. You can restore some life or create a new life for yourself by starting off and getting the structure back.

In many ways, integrating into OH facilitated veterans’ opportunities for personal growth, which ultimately led to a positive transition into civilian life for veterans in recovery. This finding highlights the importance of developing new group memberships after experiencing major life transitions such as leaving the military and entering recovery. Assimilation into the OH provided veterans with the experiential platform and social resources that supported their ability to more easily adapt to civilian life.

4 |. DISCUSSION

The current study offers the first in-depth exploration of how social identity influences veterans’ experiences in recovery home settings. Previous research suggests that identity plays a vital role in veterans’ adaptation to civilian society (Bulmer & Eichler, 2017; Demers, 2011; Koenig et al., 2014; Orazem et al., 2017; Smith & True, 2014). Our research contributes to the burgeoning literature on the veteran identity by examining identity processes and outcomes among a sample of veterans recovering from SUDs. This is an important endeavor given that veterans in recovery have to navigate multiple life transitions that involve changes to their identity, such as exiting the military (Meca et al., 2020) and transitioning from addiction to recovery (Best et al., 2016). The current study investigated identity-specific experiences to elucidate how recovering veterans navigate these significant life changes within a community setting. Overall, interpretation of our findings using the SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and SIMIC (Iyer et al., 2009; Jetten et al., 2009) as guiding frameworks revealed the saliency of social identity processes within veterans’ narratives and how these processes influenced multiple aspects of their experiences, including their assimilation into a new environment, social relationships, personal growth, and adjustment to civilian society.

4.1 |. Implications for theory, research, and practice

Findings indicated that veterans perceive the OH structure as compatible with the military culture, which facilitated veterans’ integration into the homes and their ability to thrive in this setting. This finding is consistent with the SIMIC framework’s identity compatibility hypothesis, which predicts that individuals who acquire group memberships compatible with their pre-existing social identities can more easily adapt to a life transition (Haslam et al., 2021; Iyer et al., 2009). Conversely, the incompatibility between an individual’s identity and their new social environment can result in identity disruption—a reconfiguration in one’s sense of self that can cause difficulties in establishing identity continuity (Bauer & McAdams, 2004; Habermas & Köber, 2015). Furthermore, identity disruption is associated with lower social support, mental health issues, and reintegration difficulties among veterans (Mitchell et al., 2020). Thus, it is promising that the OH provides veterans with a sense of identity congruency that can help mitigate any potential negative effects that result from undergoing major life changes, such as entering a new environment and recovering from SUDs.

Social bonding, goal direction, and structure are a few mechanisms by which mutual-help communities like recovery homes help individuals successfully initiate and sustain recovery from addiction (Moos, 2008). Strong bonds with others committed to recovery can motivate veterans to refrain from substance use while helping direct their behavior towards recovery congruent goals. However, a veteran’s ability to benefit from the recovery conducive mechanisms found in such settings is contingent upon their level of identification with the setting (Beasley & Jason, 2015; Cable & DeRue, 2002). Individuals are more likely to identify with a respective setting if they believe the setting’s organizational values match their own and when they share in-group identities with other members of the setting (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Interestingly, despite veterans in our study reporting identification issues with their civilian house residents, they conveyed a high identification with the OH setting. Future quantitative investigations can contribute to this line of research by studying the person-environment fit (Moos, 1987) of veterans in community settings to understand how their identity congruence with their environment influences their behavioral and psychological outcomes related to recovery.

Veterans also regained a sense of purpose as OH members that they felt they lost when they left the military. This is important given that veterans commonly experience a lack of structure and a loss of their sense of purpose after exiting the military that can impede their reintegration into civilian life (Ahern et al., 2015; Braxton, 2011; Hinojosa & Hinojosa, 2011; Koenig et al., 2014). Further, our finding that veterans perceived OH to be culturally compatible with their military socialization is promising since many veterans struggle with the military and civilian cultural divide (Coll et al., 2011; Koenig et al., 2014) and desire an environment that resembles the military context (Nichols, 2016). For instance, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2015, common difficulties faced by veterans reintegrating to life post-military service include creating structure within an environment which has more ambiguity, joining or creating a social community which is not affiliated to the military, and transitioning from a military culture that values collectivism to a civilian culture that values individualism. Thus, identifying settings that help veterans develop a community that culturally compliments veterans’ military socialization can help diminish these difficulties.

The relational difficulties veterans had with other residents are consistent with intergroup outcomes, such as the accentuation of differences between in-group and out-group members and the negative biases towards out- group members (Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). For instance, while veterans and other residents shared an identity related to their recovery, veterans still struggled to identify and relate to them. Veterans also expressed stereotypical perceptions of civilians as lacking discipline, which resulted in tensions over the enforcement of the house rules. Additionally, veterans discussed being on the receiving end of out-group biases such as experiencing mental health stigmatization from other residents who sometimes viewed them as dangerous due to their mental illness, a common stigma veterans with PTSD face (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019). Overall, our findings align with previous research on veterans’ inability to relate to civilians or feeling misunderstood by them (Ahlin & Douds, 2016; Hinojosa & Hinojosa, 2011; Kiernan et al., 2018; Sayer et al., 2010). Results also highlight ways OH and other community settings can better support veterans by increasing mental health awareness and education for residents to reduce the stigma that veterans encounter.

Despite veterans’ identification issues with civilian housemates, they expressed building strong bonds with other house residents, which in some ways paralleled the camaraderie and brotherhood they had in the military. This is an important finding since many veterans struggle to develop connections with others who have never served in the military (Ahern et al., 2015) but still wish to develop this type of camaraderie in their civilian life. Consistent with previous research (Gorman et al., 2018; Jain et al., 2016; Laffaye et al., 2008), veterans reported that their relational bonds were strongest with other veterans in OH. This provides additional support for the veteran identity as particularly central to veterans’ self-conceptualization (Hart & Lancaster, 2019; Nichols, 2016). Our finding further suggests that having a peer in the house with multiple commonalities through a shared military and a recovery identity can be particularly helpful for veterans. This is important given previous research that found that veterans with substance abuse problems were less likely to access support than fellow veterans with no substance use issues (Ahern et al., 2015). Thus, having another veteran in OH can help diminish veterans’ barriers to accessing peer support—a critical resource for individuals in recovery from SUDs (Moos, 2008)—which can be otherwise difficult to attain.

Interestingly, veterans expressed seemingly contradictory experiences with their relationships with other OH residents—difficulties relating to them due to their civilian out-group identity while also forming a brotherhood despite their perceived in-group and out-group differences. This finding aligns with what Castro et al. (2015) call the Combat Veteran Paradox, which is contradictory attitudes, emotions, and behaviors resulting from navigating the transition from military to civilian life. The intimacy paradox refers to veterans’ desire to form strong bonds like those they had while in the military, yet they struggle to establish intimacy with others. However, given that this study had a cross-sectional design, we cannot determine if these seemingly contradictory experiences coincide or reflect a natural progression in their relationships over time. Perhaps this finding reflects changes in intergroup attitudes that can occur through increased positive exposure between in-group and out-group members within optimal conditions (Paluck et al., 2019; Paolini & McIntyre, 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Future research would benefit from a longitudinal design to examine how intergroup relationships change over time for veterans in OH and similar settings.

Despite any challenges that veterans faced in OH, the overwhelming majority of participants felt that OH helped them reintegrate into civilian life. Ultimately, veterans felt that OH provided them with the opportunity to acquire skills that helped them acclimatize to life outside of the military. Upon discharge from the military, veterans receive limited to no training on how to adjust to civilian life (Koenig et al., 2014); consequently, many veterans experience difficulties reintegration into civilian society, including isolation, mental health difficulties, interpersonal problems, and identity conflict (Beder et al., 2011; Demers, 2011; Koenig et al., 2014; Sayer et al., 2010). Thus, the finding that veterans learned how to reintegrate to civilian life in OH is promising, suggesting that OH can function as an intervention that helps veterans recover from substance addiction and adjust to civilian life.

Our study provides insights into veterans residing in recovery homes, a widely understudied population. Exploring veterans’ experiences in recovery homes is critically important given their high rates of SUDs and barriers to treatment utilization (Boden & Hoggatt, 2018; Decker et al., 2017; Kraemer et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2016; Teeters et al., 2017). Additionally, the concentration of veterans living in rural locations (~41%) leaves many veterans who have SUDs with limited health services and care options (Teeters et al., 2017). While several studies have indicated that mental health issues are prominent among active military personnel and veterans, less than half of those individuals seek or plan to seek treatment; often, veterans report stigmatization as a primary reason for not seeking treatment (Kulesza et al., 2015). Between the difficulties in accessing and utilizing informal and formal support systems and the high rates of psychiatric comorbidity, veterans with SUDs must have treatment and support congruent with their cultural needs.

4.2 |. Limitations, strengths, and future directions

The findings should be considered in light of several study limitations. The sample size is modest; therefore, results should be generalized with caution. Additionally, only one woman participated in the study, which did not allow for gender comparisons. Nevertheless, the percentage of women veterans has significantly increased in the last few decades, so has the rates of women veterans with SUDs (Teeters et al., 2017). Women veterans report unique reintegration issues compared to their male counterparts (Street et al., 2009), warranting additional research on their experiences in OH. Further, participants were recruited from the OH convention indicating a sampling bias given that veterans who had unsuccessful experiences in OH were unlikely to attend the convention.

The study had several strengths worth highlighting. Focus groups allowed us to obtain information about veterans with similar lived experiences while using group interactions to elicit more discussions or ideas that would otherwise not have surfaced in individual interviews. Further, this study offers the first investigation on how identity influences the experiences of veterans with SUDs in a community-based recovery setting. This study also highlights the need for future research to understand further how identity influences veterans’ experiences in recovery homes and other community settings. Finally, future studies would benefit from employing mixed-method research that includes a measure of veteran identity centrality (see Adams et al., 2019) to augment further what is learned from qualitative accounts. Future investigations should also examine how the veteran identity interplays with other identities (e.g., racial/ethnicity, gender) to impact veterans’ integration into OH. Future studies should also test out the multiple components of the SIMIC framework to determine how access to multiple identities, identity continuity and gain, and identity compatibility influence reintegration and recovery outcomes among this population undergoing multiple life transitions.

5 |. CONCLUSION

This study provided insights into how social identity processes influence veterans’ experiences within community settings and how identity impacts their recovery from SUDs and adjustment to post-military life. We found significant advantages of utilizing the SIT and SIMIC framework for understanding how veterans navigate life transitions. In addition to contributing to the social identity literature, our findings have practical value for community settings interested in ensuring that veterans’ transition into their environment and overall adjustment to civilian society is successful.