Examining within-person and between-person effects of victimization and social risk on cannabis use among emerging adults in substance-use treatment.

Abstract

The goals of this study were to examine associations between within- and between-person social risk and victimization and cannabis use among emerging adults in substance use treatment. We also tested gender differences for both victimization and social risk. Participants consisted of 3,052 emerging adults (Mage = 20.0 years; SD = 2.21) entering substance use treatment in a wide range of treatment centers across the United States. Individuals were assessed on all measures at baseline 3-, 6, and 12 months. We fitted a taxonomy of multilevel growth curve models to test main effects, and interactive relations between within- and between-person social risk, victimization, and gender on cannabis use. Several significant interactions were evident. Irrespective of gender, within-person increases in social risk were associated with contemporaneous increases in cannabis use; however, the magnitude of this relation was comparatively more pronounced for men. Similar gender differences emerged between individuals. Males experiencing heightened social risk over time tended to show high levels of early cannabis use. Simple slope analyses revealed that reporting more (+1 SD) social risk than one’s own mean resulted in significant increases in cannabis use for both men and women. Cross-level simple slope analyses revealed no differences in cannabis use among individuals reporting low (−1 SD) social risk and victimization, but significant increases in cannabis use for individuals reporting high (+ 1 SD) victimization and social risk. Results demonstrate support for gender differences in social risk on cannabis use and the importance of considering within-person effects.

Victimization and Its Consequences for Well-Being: A Between- and Within-Person Analysis

“…B = −.289, p < 0.001). The between-person coefficients were generally stronger, if only marginally in some instances, than the within-person coefficients, thereby confirming results of previous research (Davis et al 2016).…”

“…An advancement of the random effects approach is the 'between-within' method (also called 'hybrid' or 'centered random effects model'), which we used in the current study. Whereas fixed effects analyses completely eliminate all time-stable individual differences and provide estimates of individual changes only, the between-within method allows for a replication of the results of fixed effects regression modeling on the within-person level and to estimate between-person effects at the same time, as well as possible moderating effects of time-stable individual differences (i.e., traits) on within-person effects (e.g., Davis et al 2016;Farmer and Kashdan 2015;Hay and Diehl 2010). This is achieved by applying random effects modeling to panel data with time points as level 1 and respondents as level 2 (Bell and Jones 2015;Firebaugh et al 2013).…”

“…In this perspective, the temporal ordering of the event of victimization and its effects is key. Recent longitudinal studies of children and adolescents found deleterious effects of victimization on psychological well-being, in particular depressive symptoms and substance use (Daigle and Hoffman 2018;Davis et al 2016; DePaolis and Williford 2018). However, this stream of research is focusing on school bullying which by definition is repeated behavior, and some of these studies were based on pre-selected samples of at-risk populations.…”

“…We use a contemporary statistical approach, random effects modeling applied to panel data, also called 'between-within modeling' (Bell et al 2019;Firebaugh et al 2013). The hierarchical ordering of panel data as time points nested within respondents, coupled with the use of mean and difference scores of independent variables, allows for the simultaneous analysis of between-person, time-stable differences as well as within-person changes over time in relation to victimization (e.g., Davis et al 2016;Russo et al 2013). Between-within modeling constitutes an advancement over fixed-effects modeling, which completely eliminates time-stable individual differences.…”

Contextual Risk Profiles and Trajectories of Adolescent Dating Violence Perpetration

“…This may have been due to the fact that, while there was significant individual variability in trajectory intercepts (i.e., levels of DV), there was little individual variability in change over time in DV that profile membership could explain. Notably, there was significant residual variability in DV at each time-point, suggesting the importance of future research that examines whether and how time-specific within-person increases in contextual risk may influence risk for DV perpetration (Davis et al, 2017).…”