(PS6-29) Intersectional differences in intimate partner violence among sexual minority individuals: A three-way interaction of self-acceptance, gender, and sexual orientation

Abstract Text: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more prevalent among sexual minority (SM) than heterosexual populations2. Factors associated with low self-acceptance (shame, internalized homophobia, homonegativity) are frequently linked to IPV among SM populations1,5. From a cognitive-behavioral perspective, lower levels of self-acceptance may perpetuate unhealthy relationship dynamics that increase the likelihood of IPV among SMs11. Most extant studies of the relations between self-acceptance and IPV treat SMs as a singular group when, in fact, it encompasses both homosexual and bisexual identifying persons. There are meaningful differences for different gender and sexual identities in their experiences of IPV8,11, but the associations between self-acceptance and IPV is understudied among these groups. The current study addresses this gap by examining whether associations between self-acceptance and IPV varies across the intersection of gender and sexual orientation among SM young adults.

590 SM individuals (aged 18–25; Mage = 22.5, SD = 2.1) with a history of romantic relationships were recruited via MTurk (n = 447) or community outreach (n = 143) to complete an online survey. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of gender and sexual identities within the sample. Participants provided demographic information and then completed a series of measures including Acceptance of One’s Sexual Orientation Scale9 and the short form of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI-S)4. Perpetration and victimization scores from the CADRI-S were combined due to the high correlation between the scores (r=.81, p<.01)

Item level missing data was handled using expectation maximization3. Analyses included a regression model predicting IPV from (1) gender (2) sexual identity (3) sexual identity self-acceptance and their various 2- and 3-way interactions using the PROCESS macro in SPSS6. The 3-way interaction was significant (β =-5.65, CI [-9.447, -1.854], p=.00). Follow-up analyses indicated that lower self-acceptance was associated with greater IPV for gay and bisexual men (β =-7.93, CI [-9.919, -5.948], p<.01; β =-2.49, CI [-3.996, -0.807], p=.00),and bisexual women (β =-2.06, CI [-3.560, -,0.571], p=.01) - but not for lesbian women (β =-1.94, CI [-4.333, 0.439], p=.10).

Results indicate that low self-acceptance of sexual orientation is a risk factor against IPV, but not for all SM groups. Findings point to the significance of considering both gender and sexual orientations when thinking about risk for IPV. These are highly socialized identities; and a more nuanced understanding of IPV risk might examine the various socialization processes associated with both, along with broader minority stressors. This work has implications for intervention work with SM populations, specifically pointing to the importance of cognitive-behavioral interventions for promoting self-acceptance for reducing risk for IPV. This may be especially important for SM men where the role of masculinity has been shown to exacerbate variables related to IPV and identifying as an SM man could be perceived as a threat to one’s own masculinity and lower levels of self acceptance5,1