(PS12-C64) Proximal Associations Between Cannabis Use and Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Among College Students

Annually, 44%-55% of college students perpetrate cyber intimate partner violence (C-IPV; harassing, monitoring, or otherwise abusing a partner via technology), with comparable annual prevalence across men and women (Brem et al., 2021). Investigators recently suggested that cannabis use may increase risk for C-IPV perpetration, and that those victimized by C-IPV may be at risk for using cannabis (Crane et al., 2021; Seewald et al., 2022; Zweig et al., 2014). Problematically, examinations of C-IPV in relation to cannabis use are limited by cross-sectional data which hinder our understanding of whether cannabis use should be targeted as a proximal correlate. The present study collected data from college students for 60 consecutive days to test the hypothesis that (H1) C-IPV perpetration and victimization odds would be greater on cannabis use days relative to non-cannabis-use days, and (H2) C-IPV would associate with greater odds of next-day cannabis use (relative to no C-IPV).

For 60 consecutive days, college students with a history of illicit substance use (N = 105; 77.9% women; 1.0% transgender/non-binary; 74.0% heterosexual; M age = 20.13 [SD = 2.20]) completed self-reports of cannabis use (2 items scored yes/no asking if they used cannabis) and C-IPV perpetration and victimization (6 items each scored yes/no). Multilevel modeling was conducted using HLM 8.2. For H1, C-IPV perpetration and victimization were examined as separate outcomes. For H2, next-day cannabis use was examined as a dichotomous (yes/no) outcome variable. Average cannabis use and sex were included as a level-2 covariates in all analyses.

C-IPV perpetration was more likely to occur on a cannabis use day relative to a non-cannabis-use day (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.20-2.98, p = .01). Cannabis use may be more common after, rather than before, C-IPV perpetration (i.e., cannabis was used after C-IPV perpetration on 76% of the days that involved both cannabis use and C-IPV perpetration). C-IPV victimization was no more likely to occur on a cannabis use day relative to a non-cannabis-use day (aOR = 1.28, 95% CI .28-5.96, ns), but higher average cannabis use (i.e., the between-person effect) related to greater odds of C-IPV victimization (aOR = 3.23, 95% CI 1.05-9.95, p = .04). Neither C-IPV perpetration nor victimization associated with next-day cannabis use odds.

Future research should examine the function of cannabis use after C-IPV perpetration and consider the risk C-IPV perpetration poses for cannabis use. This area would benefit from couple-level data on C-IPV and cannabis use.