Content uploaded by Sara-Beth Plummer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sara-Beth Plummer on Jan 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jiv.sagepub.com/
Violence
Journal of Interpersonal
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/21/0886260511421669
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0886260511421669
published online 10 October 2011J Interpers Violence
and Mi Sung Kim
Judy L. Postmus, Sara-Beth Plummer, Sarah McMahon, N. Shaanta Murshid
Understanding Economic Abuse in the Lives of Survivors
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAdditional services and information for
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Oct 10, 2011Proof >>
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
XX(X) 1 –20
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260511421669
http://jiv.sagepub.com
421669JIVXXX10.1177/0886260511421669Po
stmus et al.Journal of Interpersonal Violence
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Judy L. Postmus, Center on Violence Against Women & Children, Rutgers University,
School of Social Work, 536 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Email: postmus@ssw.rutgers.edu
Understanding
Economic Abuse
in the Lives
of Survivors
Judy L. Postmus,
1
Sara-Beth Plummer,
1
Sarah McMahon,
1
N. Shaanta Murshid,
1
and Mi Sung Kim
1
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) often includes economic abuse as one tac-
tic commonly used by an abuser; unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical
understanding of economic abuse. Additionally, research is limited on the
predictors of economic self-sufficiency in the lives of women experienc-
ing IPV. This paper furthers our knowledge about economic abuse and its
relationship with economic self-sufficiency by presenting the results from
an exploratory study with IPV survivors participating in a financial literacy
program. Of the 120 individuals who participated in the first wave, 94% ex-
perienced some form of economic abuse, which also correlated highly with
other forms of IPV. Seventy-nine percent experienced some form of eco-
nomic control, 79% experienced economic exploitative behaviors, and 78%
experienced employment sabotage. MANOVA results also indicated that
economic control differed significantly based on education with those with
a high school education experiencing higher rates than those with less than
high school education or those with some college. Finally, results from the
OLS regressions indicated that experiencing any form of economic abuse as
well as economic control significantly predicted a decrease in economic self
sufficiency. Implications suggest that advocates should assess for economic
Article
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
abuse when working with survivors and should be prepared to offer financial
tools to increase survivors’ economic self-sufficiency. Policymakers should
understand the ramifications of economic abuse and create policies that
support survivors and prohibit economic abuse. Finally, more research is
needed to fully understand economic abuse and its impact on survivors and
their economic self-sufficiency.
Keywords
domestic violence, battered women, economic abuse, self-sufficiency,
intimate partner violence
Intimate partner violence (IPV) often includes economic abuse as one of the
tactics commonly used by an abuser to control his
1
partner (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998). Unfortunately, economic abuse remains largely misunder-
stood in our society, as demonstrated by a recent poll of households in the
United States where very few individuals even connected the term “economic
abuse” with IPV, linking it instead to the recent Wall Street financial crisis
(www.clicktoempower.org). Indeed, most researchers focus on physical IPV
with some attention to emotional abuse; it has only been in the past few years
that researchers have hypothesized how to measure economic abuse as a sep-
arate construct (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008; Outlaw, 2009).
In addition, research is limited on the predictors of economic self-sufficiency
in the lives of women experiencing IPV. Hence, the purpose of this article is
to present findings from an exploratory study that sought to learn more about
the prevalence and role of economic abuse in the lives of IPV survivors as
well as its relationship to psychological and physical abuse. We begin by
defining economic abuse by presenting the existing, albeit limited, literature
on the consequences of economic abuse; briefly explore economic self-sufficiency;
and discuss a rationale for addressing economic abuse. Results from this
study are then presented followed by a discussion of its implications for future
research and practice directions.
What is Economic Abuse?
For years, researchers have relied on multifaceted theories to fully grasp and
define IPV. Coercive control theory (Stark, 2007) suggests that an abuser is
one who attempts to establish power and control over his partner in a method-
ical and insidious manner using a variety of tactics to maintain such control.
These tactics may include the use of physical or sexual violence through
threats, use of force, or other physically or sexually violent acts. In addition,
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 3
an abuser often uses emotional or psychological abuse to belittle, demean,
isolate, and humiliate his partner with the goal of forcing her to become
dependent on him and him alone. Over time, according to marital dependency
theory (Vyas & Watts, 2009) and the interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van
Lange, 2003), women who become or are forced to become dependent, espe-
cially economically dependent, are at greater risk of being mistreated or
exploited and are less likely to leave the abusive relationship (Bornstein,
2006; Strube, 1988). Hence, by making his partner economically dependent,
the abuser controls her ability to become self-sufficient. This is accomplished
by maintaining complete control over her money and other economic resources
by making all financial decisions, reducing her ability to acquire, use, and
maintain money, and/or forcing her to rely on him for all of her financial needs
(Adams et al., 2008; Fawole, 2008).
Most of what is known about the prevalence of economic abuse comes
from one or two questions included in larger studies that focus on physical or
emotional IPV. For example, in one recent study that focused on identifying
nonphysical abuse experiences using a secondary analysis of the National
Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), results indicate that economic
abuse was a rare phenomenon, occurring even less than physical abuse
(Outlaw, 2009). The results also indicate that women experienced more economic
abuse and physical abuse than men; additionally, the risk of experiencing
physical abuse among those who also experienced economic abuse was 4.68
times greater than those who did not experience economic abuse. Unfortunately,
the NVAWS only had one question on economic abuse, making the results
from this study suspect.
In spite of our limited research on the prevalence of economic abuse, advo-
cates have long known about the impact of economic abuse on survivors. From
the research, most of what is known about economic controlling tactics used by
abusers that affect women’s economic self-sufficiency comes from studies with
welfare recipients, women living in poverty, those who are homeless, or women
participating support groups for IPV survivors (Brandwein & Filiano, 2000;
Brush, 2000; Moe & Bell, 2004; Raphael, 1996). Such research focused on
identifying how such abusive tactics affect survivor’s work and self-sufficiency.
For example, from several studies initiated after welfare reform, between 16%
and 59% of women reported that their partner discouraged or prevented them
from working (Allard, 1997; Sable, Libbus, Huneke, & Anger, 1999; Shepard
& Pence, 1988). For those that do work, 35% to 56% reported they were
harassed by their partners at their place of employment; 55% to 85% reported
they were late, left early, or missed work completely as a result of abuse; 44%
to 60% reported they were reprimanded at work for behaviors related to their
abuse; and 24% to 52% reported they lost their job as a result of the abuse
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
(Browne & Bassuk, 1997; Brush, 2003; General Accounting Office [GAO],
1999). Unfortunately, none of these studies were national in scope and instead,
relied on convenience samples. However, these studies and more recent ones
indicate that attempts at working and becoming self-sufficient have been cor-
related to an escalation in the intensity and frequency of abuse (Brush, 2003,
2004; Moe & Bell, 2004; Raphael, 2000; Riger, Ahrens, & Blickenstaff, 2000;
Riger & Staggs, 2005). Other economic abuse tactics identified by researchers
include running up credit or debt for the survivor, excessive gambling, or pur-
posefully ruining credit scores with the intent of keeping her solely dependent
on him for economic resources (Adams et al., 2008; Raphael, 1999; Tolman &
Rosen, 2001). Finally, an abuser may use institutional barriers to reinforce his
economic control and exploitation over his partner by relying on lower wages,
fewer economic opportunities, and social welfare policies that hinder women,
especially for those women with little to no economic security (Abramovitz,
1996; Moe & Bell, 2004; Sanders, Weaver, & Schnabel, 2007). Such experi-
ences of abuse contributed “to their financial instability, poverty, and, for many,
subjugation to the government’s ever-watchful eye under welfare” (Moe &
Bell, 2004, p. 50). It is no wonder that economic concerns are among the top
reasons survivors cite as to why leaving the abuser is so difficult (Sanders &
Schnabel, 2006; Strube, 1988; Turner & Shapiro, 1986; Zorza, 1991).
Defining Economic Self-Sufficiency
Most researchers and practitioners who study welfare reform define eco-
nomic self-sufficiency as the ability to maintain long-term employment with
wages that keep individuals out of poverty (Alfred, 2005) and off of welfare
rolls (Gowdy & Pearlmutter, 1993). This definition is viewed as restrictive
and does not include the voices of women and their experiences of feeling
economically self-sufficient (Gowdy & Pearlmutter, 1993). On the path
toward economic self-sufficiency, women may encounter many barriers
including poor labor market conditions such as a low wage market, high
unemployment, and lack of jobs (Alfred, 2005; Danziger et al., 2000). Other
barriers can be found as part of the cultural practices of workplace organiza-
tions such as the lack of employer support, inadequate training, mentoring,
and coaching, and workplace discrimination (Alfred, 2005). Race and class
can also present challenges for women seeking economic self-sufficiency
due to perceived or actual experiences of racism and lack of sustainable
living wages (Edin & Harris, 1999). Other barriers at the sociocultural level
may include inadequate or unstable housing, or problems with access to child
care or transportation (Alfred, 2005; Danziger et al., 2000; Handler, 1999).
Finally, women may face personal barriers to economic self-sufficiency
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 5
including the fear of change or failure, mental or physical health problems,
the lack of social or financial capital, substance abuse, or IPV (Alfred, 2005;
Danziger et al., 2000). While these studies cited focused primarily on welfare
recipients who were struggling to achieve economic self-sufficiency, it is
clear that economic abuse will only exacerbate these barriers, therefore mak-
ing it more difficult for survivors to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Societal gender roles may present barriers to women’s economic self-
sufficiency as well. Finances are a gendered arena in our culture, with men
typically socialized to take charge of money. Women face greater challenges
managing their finances due to social conditioning that enforces women’s
beliefs of their inability to manage money, resulting in a reliance on men to
manage such complex skills (Anthes & Most, 2000). Such conditioning may
vary depending on ethnicity or immigration or acculturation status; regard-
less, women, including those from ethnically diverse communities, are at the
greatest risk of experiencing financial challenges and poor economic self-
sufficiency (Johnson & Sherraden, 2007).
Hence IPV survivors may be at risk of experiencing economic abuse as
well as face challenges achieving economic self-sufficiency. Usually, advocates
who work with IPV survivors are only able to provide short-term, crisis-oriented
services with a focus on helping them leave dangerous relationships, offering
only limited help for restoring longer term career and educational opportunities
(Chronister & McWhirter, 2003; VonDeLinde & Correia, 2005). However,
economic advocacy is often considered a long-term service and, hence, becomes
a challenge for advocacy organizations who may not be equipped to provide
this service (VonDeLinde & Correia, 2005).
This article furthers our knowledge about economic abuse and its relation-
ship with economic self-sufficiency by presenting the results from an explor-
atory study with IPV survivors participating in a financial literacy program.
The research questions guiding this study include the following:
Research Question 1: What are the economic abuse experiences of a
diverse group of IPV survivors participating in this financial literacy
program?
Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between economic abuse
and other forms of IPV?
Research Question 3: Are there differences in experiences of economic
abuse according to demographic variables such as age, income, eth-
nicity, and education?
Research Question 4: Does economic abuse predict a decrease in eco-
nomic self-sufficiency?
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
Method
This study is part of a longitudinal, exploratory study examining the impact of a
financial literacy program with survivors of IPV. This program, entitled Moving
Ahead through Financial Management, was created by The Allstate Foundation
in partnership with the National Network to End Domestic Violence and was
implemented across the United States in a number of shelter and advocacy orga-
nizations. The purpose of this financial literacy program is to give tools to advo-
cates to help strengthen the economic self-sufficiency of survivors of violence.
The curriculum is designed to help survivors gain an understanding of economic
abuse and its impact, increase their knowledge of financial matters, enhance their
confidence in managing their finances, and obtain tools and resources to rebuild
their financial lives. Women were interviewed on three separate occasions over
a period of 11 months. This article focuses on the economic abuse experiences
of those who participated in this financial literacy program and responded to the
study during the first round of data collected during the summer of 2008.
Participants
All of the participants were recruited through flyers distributed by advocates
in domestic violence programs who facilitated groups and/or individual ses-
sions utilizing the Moving Ahead through Financial Management curricu-
lum. The 15 sites across 10 states had recently received financial support to
implement this curriculum from The Allstate Foundation. Individuals at each
site were invited to participate in the evaluation if they (a) were 18 years or
older and (b) had attended at least one individual or group session during
which the economic empowerment curriculum information had been shared.
Participants were also recipients of a variety of supportive services typically
available from domestic violence organizations including temporary shelter,
transitional living, and nonresidential services.
One hundred twenty-one survivors of IPV participated in the first wave of
this study (120 female, 1 male). The data collected from the lone male partici-
pant were removed leaving a total of 120 participants. Ages ranged from 18
years to 73, with a mean age of 39 (SD = 11.5). More than half the partici-
pants were White (55%), 20% were African American, 18% were Latina or
Hispanic, and almost 8% identified as biracial, Native American, or some
other racial identity. Almost half of the participants (49%) reported an annual
income between US$0 and US$10,000, and a little more than a quarter of the
participants (26%) earned an income between US$15,001 and US$25,000,
whereas only 4% made more than US$35,000 a year. Most respondents had
either completed high school (31%) or had some college education (38%).
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 7
Data Collection
Individuals interested in participating in the study completed an information
sheet that requested personal contact information. These sheets were then
collected by the advocates in each domestic violence agency and mailed to
the research team using a self-addressed stamped envelope. The research
team members had multiple years of experience working with survivors and
were trained on the research protocol. Based on their experience, the team
was acutely aware of the safety concerns of the survivors and took precau-
tions to ensure all contact with survivors was conducted in a safe and sensi-
tive manner. The research team called each potential participant to schedule
a face-to-face interview or relied on advocates to assist in scheduling the
interviews. Interviews lasted approximately 1hr and were conducted at vari-
ous locations including, the domestic violence agencies themselves, libraries,
and work readiness program offices. The survey was made available to the
participants in both paper and online format through Zoomerang©, a web-
based survey tool. The participants were given a choice of how they wanted
to complete the survey. They were asked if they preferred completing the
survey using a paper copy or the computer program. The majority of partici-
pants completed the survey using paper and pencil. All of the participants
signed IRB approved consent forms prior to beginning the interview. A
US$25 gift card was provided for participation in the evaluation, with addi-
tional incentives of US$35 and US$50 promised for subsequent interviews.
Measurements
The survey instrument was comprised of several validated or revised scales that
measured economic abuse and other forms of IPV, and economic self-sufficiency.
A community team comprised of representatives from The Allstate Foundation
and NNEDV reviewed the instrument prior to its implementation.
Economic abuse. The Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA; Adams et al., 2008)
identified the frequency of economic abuse the participants experienced in
their relationships. Participants were asked to rate how often a partner had
exhibited financially abusive behaviors in the last year or, if they were no
longer with the partner, within the last year of their relationship. Participants
indicated the frequency of these abusive activities using a 5-point scale with
answers ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (quite often). The SEA is separated into
two subscales to represent different types of financially abusive behaviors
including (a) the Economic Control subscale (17 items) and (b) the Economic
Exploitation subscale (11 items; Adams et al., 2008). Each subscale in this
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
study demonstrated high internal reliability (Economic Control, α = 94; and
Economic Exploitation, α = .92).
Because the SEA is a new scale and relatively untested, we determined
that an exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal axis factoring should be
conducted prior to using the two existing subscales in our analyses. From the
EFA, the 28 items were reduced to 12 items comprising three factors named
Economic Control (5 items), Employment Sabotage (4 items), and Economic
Exploitation (3 items). The combined three factors accounted for 65.79 % of
the total variance of economic abuse. Cronbach’s alpha indicated good inter-
nal consistency reliability for the 12-item SEA (α =.90) and its subscales,
Economic Control (α =.88), Employment Sabotage (α =.86); and Economic
Exploitation (α =.90).
Intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence was assessed using a
modified version of the Abusive Behavior Index (ABI; Shepard & Campbell,
1992). The original ABI includes 30 items and two subscales, Physical Abuse
(10 items) and Psychological Abuse (20 items). For the current study, one
item from the physical and four items from the psychological subscales were
eliminated by the research team and community partners to eliminate items
that were redundant and already captured in the economic abuse scale. Par-
ticipants were asked to indicate how often a partner had committed specific
abusive acts over the last year, or if they were no longer with the partner
within the last year of their relationship. The survey used a 5-point scale with
answers ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The ABI has exhibited good
reliability and construct validity in previous studies (Shepard & Campbell,
1992). Both subscales demonstrated good internal reliability in the current
sample (Physical Abuse, α = .91; and Psychological Abuse, α = .93).
Economic self-sufficiency. The Women’s Employment Network (WEN)
Economic Self-Sufficiency Survey (Gowdy & Pearlmutter, 1993) is a 15-item
scale that asks participants to indicate how often they have been able to
accomplish financially related tasks over a period of time. An example
includes “My current financial situation allows me to pay my own way with-
out borrowing from family or friends.” Participants were asked to respond to
these items based on their economic situation over the 30 days prior to the
interview. Participants rated their level of financial self-sufficiency using a
5-point scale with answers ranging from 1 (no, not at all) to 5 (yes, all of the
time) with possible scores ranging from 15 to 75. A mean composite was
determined with a higher mean indicating a higher level of economic self-
sufficiency and a greater knowledge and ability to accomplish financial tasks.
One of the items was eliminated (afford decent child care) for this study
because many respondents reported they either did not have children or did
not have to pay for this type of care. The measure has shown a high level of
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 9
reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. Internal reliability was also high
with this sample at .93.
Demographics. Several demographic questions were also included in the
interview such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of income, and education.
Data analysis
All data were imported from an Excel spreadsheet created by Zoomerang© and
imported into SPSS 16.0. The data were then cleaned and spot checked to iden-
tify any discrepancy. Missing data were reviewed using SPSS Missing Value
Analysis. Missing values were less than 3.5% across all variables. Little’s chi-
square indicated that the missing variables were Missing at Random (MAR)
and pairwise deletion was utilized. Descriptive statistics were run to determine
the prevalence of economic abuse in the sample.
Correlations were used to test the relationship between economic abuse
and other forms of IPV (psychological and physical). A MANOVA was con-
ducted to test whether economic abuse experiences varied by demographics:
age, ethnicity, income, and education. Finally, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
regressions were run to determine if economic abuse predicted a decrease in
economic self-sufficiency, controlling for age, income, ethnicity, and educa-
tion. For the regression, the SEA was converted into a categorical variable
(ever or never experienced economic abuse) along with each of its three fac-
tors (ever or never experienced control, sabotage, or exploitation). The use of
dichotomous variables for the regression analyses was decided, considering
the atypical study population recruited from domestic violence organizations.
Since variations of economic abuse experienced by this study population
may differ from those experienced by the general population, for example, it
cannot be said that one unit difference in an economic abuse scale in this
study population has the same meaning with that in the general population in
predicting outcomes. Thus the use of dichotomous economic abuse variables
would be conceptually valid in predicting economic self-efficiency for this
particular sample. A regression was run with the SEA first, and then run with
the three factors or subscales.
Results
Of the 120 individuals who participated in the study, 94.2% experienced
some form of economic abuse in their current relationship or, if no longer
with the abusive partner, within the last year of their relationship. Seventy-
nine percent experienced some form of economic control, 79% experienced
economic exploitative behaviors, and 78% experienced employment sabotage.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
Table 1. Means and Percentages for the Modified Scale of Economic Abuse
Item Mean %
Economic Exploitation
Pay bills late or not pay bills that were in your name or in both
of your names.
3.11 71.2
Spend the money you needed for rent or other bills. 2.99 69.4
Build up debt under your name by doing things like use your
credit card or run up the phone bill.
2.76 58.8
Overall mean = 2.96
Economic Control
Demand to know how money was spent. 3.68 88.3
Make important financial decisions without talking with you
about it first.
3.51 82.6
Keep financial information from you. 3.33 76.9
Make you ask him for money. 3.36 74.4
Demand that you give him receipts and/or change when you
spent money.
3.13 72.5
Overall mean = 3.39
Employment Sabotage
Do things to keep you from going to your job 2.75 68.0
Demand that you quit your job. 2.57 59.3
Threaten you to make you leave work. 2.42 59.3
Beat you up if you said you needed to get a job. 1.77 31.6
Overall mean = 2.96
Note: Scale of 1 to 5; Percentage column includes those who reported the abuse never (1),
hardly ever (2), sometimes (3), often (4), or quite often (5) occurred.
Examples of economic exploitation tactics used by abusers as reported by
participants included paying bills late (71%) or spending money needed for
rent or bills (69%). Economic controlling behaviors most often experienced
by the respondents included the following: partner demanded to know how
money was spent (88%), and partner made important financial decisions
without talking to them about it first (83%). Employment sabotage tactics
experienced the most included having a partner do things to keep them from
going to work (68%) and demanding that they quit their job (59%).
Descriptive statistics including the means and percentages for the modified
SEA are provided in Table 1.
Correlations were run to test the relationship between the entire modified
SEA and its three factors (Economic Control, Employment Sabotage,
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 11
Table 2. Correlations: Modified SEA, ABI, and Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Modified SEA
2. Economic exploitation .763
**
3. Economic control .851
**
.479
**
4. Employment sabotage .759
**
.431
**
.434
**
5. ABI overall .775
**
.461
**
.630
**
.737
**
6. ABI psychological .785
**
.483
**
.678
**
.679
**
.956
**
7. ABI physical .601
**
.343
**
.436
**
.678
**
.885
**
.710
**
Note: Modified SEA = the 12-item Scale of Economic Abuse, ABI = the Abusive Behavior Index.
**p < .01.
and Economic Exploitation) with other forms of IPV (Please see Table 2).
Correlation analysis revealed that the modified total SEA was significantly
and positively correlated with the total ABI and its subscales (physical and
psychological IPV). Correlations between the three economic abuse factors
and the other forms of IPV were also significant, ranging from .34 to .73.
Hence participants who experienced physical and psychological abuse more
frequently were also subject to more monitoring and restrictions related to the
use of financial resources. In addition, the more frequent the abuser physi-
cally and psychologically abused a participant, the more the survivor was
restricted from acquiring financial resources, by limiting opportunities.
Finally, participants who experienced more frequent rates of physical and
psychological abuse were prevented from maintaining their resources through
the economic exploitation by their partner.
Multivariate Analyses of Variance was conducted to test whether eco-
nomic abuse experiences varied by demographics, including age, ethnicity,
income, and education. A significant difference was found between eco-
nomic control based on education level, Wilks’s Lambda = .692, F(6, 92) =
3.10, p =.008, multivariate η
2
= .17. Economic control marginally but signifi-
cantly differed only minimally based on education, F(2, 60) = 3.08, p < .10.
Tukey’s post hoc comparisons of the three education groups (some college or
higher, high school, and less than high school) indicated that participants
with high school education (M = 3.61) experienced higher rates of economic
control than those with less than high school education (M = 3.45) and those
with some college or more (M = 3.25). There were no significant main effects
of income, age, and ethnicity.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
Table 3. OLS Regression for Economic Self-Sufficiency With the Modified SEA
Unstandardized B SE Standardized β
Economic abuse −.85 .39 −.20*
Age (ref. = Less than 30 years old)
31 to 40 .26 .25 .11
41 to 50 .17 .23 .08
Older than 50 .54 .31 .18
Education (ref. = Less than high school)
High school −.58 .28 −.27*
Some college/college grad −.46 .27 −.23
Income (US$) (ref. = Less than 10,000)
10,000 to 15,000 .52 .30 .17
15,001 to 25,000 .76 .22 .34**
More than 25,001 .78 .28 .27**
Race (ref. = White)
African American .08 .24 .03
Latino .10 .26 .04
Others −.26 .35 −.07
Note: R
2
= .25; Adjusted R
2
= .15; F(12, 97) = 2.62, p = .005. SEA = The Scale of Economic
Abuse; Economic Abuse refers to experience of any of the three types of economic abuse.
*p < .05. ** p < .01.
Economic Self-Sufficiency
Two Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regressions were conducted to
examine whether the modified total SEA and its factors would predict par-
ticipants’ level of economic self-sufficiency while controlling for demo-
graphic characteristics (age, race, length of service, and income). The SEA,
controlling for demographic characteristics, was found to be a significant
predictor (B = −.85, p = .032) of economic self-sufficiency. Experiencing any
form of economic abuse, compared to no economic abuse experienced, pre-
dicted .85 score decrease in economic self-sufficiency as measured by a
5-point Likert-type scale. Income and education were also significant predic-
tors of economic self-sufficiency. The overall model significantly predicted
economic self-sufficiency, F(12, 97) = 2.62, p = .005, with 16% of the vari-
ance explained by the model (adjusted R
2
= .16). The detailed results are
presented in Table 3.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 13
Table 4. OLS Regression for Economic Self-Sufficiency With the 3 Subscales of the
SEA
Unstandardized B SE Standardized β
Economic exploitation 0.26 .27 .11
Economic control −1.04 .43 −.27*
Employment sabotage −0.05 .26 −.02
Age (ref. = Less than 30 years old)
31 to 40 0.22 .26 .09
41 to 50 0.16 .23 .08
Older than 50 0.53 .31 .18
Education (ref. = Less than high school)
High school −0.53 .28 −.24
Some college/college grad −0.45 .27 −.22
Income (US$) (ref. = Less than 10,000)
10,000 to 15,000 0.58 .31 .19
15,001 to 25,000 0.76 .22 .33**
More than 25,001 0.80 .29 .27**
Race (ref. = White)
African American 0.09 .25 .04
Latino 0.09 .27 .03
Others −0.24 .35 −.06
Note: R
2
= .27; Adjusted R
2
= .16; F(14, 95) = 2.47, p = .005. SEA = The Scale of Economic
Abuse includes 3 Subscales consisting of Economic Exploitation, Economic Control, and
Employment Sabotage; Each subscale refers to ever experienced economic exploitation,
economic control, and employment sabotage, respectively.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Economic Control, controlling for the other forms of economic abuse and
demographic characteristics, was also found to be a significant predictor (B =
−1.04, p = .018) of economic self-sufficiency. Experiencing economic control,
compared to the counterpart, predicted 1.04 score decrease in the levels of
economic self-sufficiency. Income was also a significant predictor of economic
self-sufficiency. For example, compared to making less than US$10,000 annu-
ally, having an income between US$15,001 and US$25,000 was associated
with .76 score increase (B = .76, p = .001) and having an income more than
US$25,000 was associated with .80 score increase in economic self-sufficiency
levels (B = .80, p = .006). The overall model significantly predicted economic
self-sufficiency, F(14, 95) = 2.47, p = .005, adjusted R
2
= .16. The detailed
results are presented in Table 4.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
Discussion
The results from this research provides us an exploratory understanding of
economic abuse, its relationship with other forms of IPV, and its relationship
with outcomes such as economic self-sufficiency. Almost all (94%) of the
participants in this study experienced some form of economic abuse including
economic controlling and exploitative abuse as well as sabotage to their work
efforts. Such abusive tactics may propel survivors toward poverty, if not
trapped already by poverty. The combination of abuse and poverty may force
women to remain in their abusive relationships as well as keep their focus on basic
economic survival (Raphael, 2000). Hence, such an overwhelming experience
of economic abuse in this sample suggests that this abusive tactic needs to be
recognized by practitioners in the field and included during the assessment of
and response to IPV. Understanding that these behaviors are experienced by
survivors will inform advocates on how best to enhance survivors’ economic
self-sufficiency. Providing information on economic abuse and promoting
economic justice as part of their advocacy will provide survivors with a greater
understanding of how abusers control them economically. This knowledge
may be a key in the prevention of future abusive relationships and intervention
through identification in current relationships.
The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results show that there
are marginally significant group differences between participants with no
high school education, high school education, and college education in terms
of economic control, such that those with high school education reported the
highest level of economic control, and those with college education reported
the least level of economic control. This may be because individuals with no
high school education have fewer individual or family resources that can be
controlled than individuals with high school education who are more likely to
be employed, or employed at a higher pay. It is perhaps that the manifestation
of the abuse is different for those without high school education, as they may
not have a bank account, or any kind of wealth or property that can be confiscated,
stolen, or otherwise used against them. The finding that individuals with a
college education reported the least amount of economic control is aligned
with the literature that suggests that higher education is a protective factor of
domestic violence (Anderson, 1997; Gelles, 1993; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
1980); however, further research with nationally representative samples should
be conducted to verify the veracity of these findings.
The modified SEA and its three factors were found to be significantly and
positively related to the total modified ABI scale and both psychological and
physical IPV. This finding emphasizes that abusers utilize multiple forms of
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 15
abuse. By recruiting participants from domestic violence service providers,
the expectation is that this sample would experience all forms of IPV; what is
still unknown is whether survivors who have not turned to domestic violence
organizations experience similar or different forms of IPV including eco-
nomic abuse. More research is needed with additional samples of women not
from domestic violence providers, to fully establish the relationship between
these different types of abuse, including whether one type predicts another.
The study also provided information about how economic abuse relates to
economic self-sufficiency. Economic control predicted a decrease in levels of
self-sufficiency, which would be expected since having a partner control
financial decisions by preventing access and participation would indeed
decrease a survivor’s ability to reach economic self-sufficiency. The chal-
lenge then is to learn more about what specific services, materials, and resources
will best empower survivors to reclaim control over their finances and ulti-
mately reach economic self-sufficiency.
Curiously, race or ethnicity was not related to economic self-sufficiency,
a result that contradicts other findings (Edin & Harris, 1999; Johnson &
Sherraden, 2007). More research is needed to fully understand the role of
race or ethnicity and the relationship with economic self-sufficiency among
survivors of violence.
Several limitations must be considered when reviewing these results. This
was a convenience sample of survivors receiving services from domestic vio-
lence service providers and participating in a financial literacy program.
Hence, the results cannot be generalized to a larger population of survivors
but only to those who participated in the study. Regardless, the results encour-
age more attention to economic abuse and economic self-sufficiency and will
hopefully spur more research.
Implications
The experiences of these survivors provide us with an exploratory look at eco-
nomic abuse as well as more information about other forms of IPV. Based on the
strong correlations between economic abuse and other forms of IPV, advocates
should assess for such abuse when working with survivors. Educating survivors
about economic abuse tactics including those that are controlling, exploitative, or
employment sabotage activities should be part of economic advocacy efforts of
advocates. Advocates should also be prepared to offer financial tools and strate-
gies in an effort to increase survivors’ economic self-sufficiency.
There is a pressing need for greater awareness of economic abuse not only at
the service provision level but at the policy level. Problem recognition is the first
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
step toward finding a solution, and advocates and researchers should help policy
makers understand the ramifications of this problem and together form ways in
which this can be alleviated. State and federal policies designed to support sur-
vivors can be expanded to acknowledge and prohibit economic abuse as well as
allocate funding to support programs such as financial literacy curricula.
Finally, much more research is needed to fully detail our understanding of
economic abuse in the lives of survivors and how such abuse hinders their
ability to become free from further abuse. Included with this research should
be an examination of the helpfulness and impact of participating in financial
literacy programs.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge their collaboration with Rene Renick and
Kim Pentico from the National Network to End Domestic Violence and their partner-
ship with The Allstate Foundation in creating and implementing this financial literacy
curriculum.
Authors’ Note
Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily rep-
resent the official position or policies of The Allstate Foundation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by The
Allstate Foundation, Economics Against Abuse Program.
Note
1. We specifically talk about violence against women in this article since women dis-
proportionately represent survivors and males as perpetrators of physical, sexual,
and other forms of violence. Hence, we will refer to survivors as female and per-
petrators as males. This in no way diminishes the experiences of male survivors
nor absolves females of violence they might inflict on males or other females.
References
Abramovitz, M. (1996). Under attack, fighting back: Women and welfare in the
United States. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 17
Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of
the Scale of Economic Abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.
Alfred, M. V. (2005). Does Wisconsin Works work? Perspectives of participat-
ing women and their employers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26,
345-370.
Allard, M. A. (1997). In harm’s way? Domestic violence, AFDC receipt, and welfare
reform in Massachusetts. Boston: University of Massachusetts at Boston.
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of
feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
59, 655-669.
Anthes, W. L., & Most, B. W. (2000). Frozen in the headlights: The dynamics of
women and money. Journal of Financial Planning, 13(9), 10.
Bornstein, R. F. (2006). The complex relationship between dependency and domestic
violence. American Psychologist, 61, 595-606.
Brandwein, R. A., & Filiano, D. M. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The voices
of battered women. Affilia, 15, 224-243.
Browne, A., & Bassuk, S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poor
housed women: Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 261-278.
Brush, L. D. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. Vio-
lence Against Women, 6, 1039-1065.
Brush, L. D. (2003). Effects of work on hitting and hurting. Violence Against Women,
9, 1213-1230.
Brush, L. D. (2004). Battering and the poverty trap. Journal of Poverty, 8(3), 23-43.
Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2003). Applying Social Cognitive Career The-
ory to the empowerment of battered women. Journal of Counseling & Development,
81, 418-425.
Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Heflin, C., Kalil, A., Levine, J., . . . Tolman, R.
(2000). Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients In R. Cherry & W. Rodgers
(Eds.), The impact of tight labor markets on Black employment problems (pp. 245-278).
New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Edin, K., & Harris, K. M. (1999). Getting off and staying off: Racial differences in the
work route off welfare. In I. Browne (Ed.), Latinas and African American women
at work (pp. 270-301). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Fawole, O. I. (2008). Economic violence to women and girls: Is it receiving the neces-
sary attention? Trauma Violence Abuse, 9(3), 167-177.
General Accounting Office. (1999). Domestic violence: Prevalence and implications
for employment among welfare recipients (No. HEHS-99-12). Washington, DC:
U.S. General Accounting Office.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
Gelles, R. J. (1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence.
In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence
(pp. 31-46). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Gowdy, E. A., & Pearlmutter, S. (1993). Economic self-sufficiency: It’s not just
money. Affilia, 8, 368-387.
Handler, J. F. (1999). Low-wage work “As we know it”: What’s wrong/what can be
done. In J. F. Handler & L. White (Eds.), Hard labor: Women and work in the
post-welfare era (pp. 3-23). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Johnson, E., & Sherraden, M. S. (2007). From financial literacy to financial capability
among youth. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 34(3), 119-146.
Moe, A. M., & Bell, M. P. (2004). Abject economics: The effects of battering and
violence on women’s work and employability. Violence Against Women, 10(1),
29-55.
Outlaw, M. (2009). No one type of intimate partner abuse: Exploring physical and
non-physical abuse among intimate partners. Journal of Family Violence, 24,
263-272.
Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence and welfare receipt. Chicago,
IL: Taylor Institute.
Raphael, J. (1999). Keeping women poor: How domestic violence prevents women
from leaving welfare and entering the world of work. In R. A. Brandwein (Ed.),
Battered women, children and welfare reform: The ties that bind (1st ed.,
pp. 31-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Raphael, J. (2000). Saving Bernice: Battered women, welfare, and poverty. Boston,
MA: Northeastern University Press.
Riger, S., Ahrens, C. E., & Blickenstaff, A. (2000). Measuring interference with
employment and education reported by women with abusive partners: Prelimi-
nary data. Violence and Victims, 15, 161-172.
Riger, S., & Staggs, S. (2005). Effects of intimate partner violence on low-income
women’s health and employment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
36(1/2), 133-145.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and rela-
tionships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.
Sable, M. R., Libbus, M. K., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999). Domestic violence
among AFDC recipients: Implications for welfare-to-work programs. Affilia, 14,
199-216.
Sanders, C. K., & Schnabel, M. (2006). Organizing for economic empowerment of
battered women: Women’s savings accounts. Journal of Community Practice,
14(3), 47-68.
Sanders, C. K., Weaver, T. L., & Schnabel, M. (2007). Economic education for bat-
tered women: An evaluation of outcomes. Affilia, 22, 240-254.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Postmus et al. 19
Shepard, M., & Campbell, J. A. (1992). The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A measure
of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 291-305.
Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on the employment status of
women. Affilia, 3(2), 55-61.
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in
the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Empirical evidence
and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 236-250.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of vio-
lence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving
welfare: Mental health, substance dependency and economic well-being. Violence
Against Women, 7, 141-158.
Turner, S. F., & Shapiro, C. H. (1986). Battered women: Mourning the death of a
relationship. Social Work, 31, 372-376.
VonDeLinde, K. C., & Correia, A. (2005). Economic education programs for battered
women: Lessons learned from two settings. Building Comprehensive Solutions to
Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/
BCS18_EP.pdf
Vyas, S., & Watts, C. (2009). How does economic empowerment affect women’s risk
of intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries? A systematic
review of published evidence. Journal of International Development, 21, 577-602.
Zorza, J. (1991). Woman battering: A major cause of homelessness. Clearinghouse
Review, 25, 421-429.
Bios
Judy L. Postmus (PhD, SUNY–Albany, 2002; MSW, Barry University, 1990) is an
assistant professor at the School of Social Work, Rutgers University. Her research is
on victimization experiences of women and their interactions with welfare, child
welfare, and criminal justice systems. Her previous research includes an exploration
of battered women’s histories of survival throughout their life span, a project funded
by the National Institute of Justice. Her current research, funded by the Allstate
Foundation, examines how an economic empowerment curriculum improves fiscal
and mental health functioning of battered women. Her research has been published in
a number of peer-reviewed journals including Violence Against Women, Affilia, and
Families in Society. She also founded the Center on Violence Against Women &
Children (VAWC) whose mission is to strive to eliminate physical, sexual, and other
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)
forms of violence against women and children and the power imbalances that permit
these forms of violence. This mission will be accomplished through the use of a col-
laborative approach that focuses on multidisciplinary research, education, and training
that affects communities and policy in New Jersey, the United States, and throughout
the world. She has also given many local, national, and international presentations
and trainings on the impact of policies and interventions on survivors of violence. She
teaches graduate-level courses on topics including family violence, women’s issues,
personnel management, social welfare policy, and international policy. Her work is
strongly influenced from her 20 years as a practitioner and administrator, working in
the nonprofit sector.
Sara-Beth Plummer, PhD, MSW, is a project coordinator and instructor at the Center
on Violence against Women & Children (VAWC) at the School of Social Work,
Rutgers University. Her practice experience includes being both a social worker and
an assistant director at Barrier Free Living, Inc., an agency that provided services to
individuals with disabilities who were survivors of domestic violence. She has pre-
sented to multiple social service agencies, law enforcement personnel, and medical
settings on the prevalence of abuse of individuals with disabilities. While a doctoral
student at Virginia Commonwealth University, she was a research evaluator at the
Partnership for People with Disabilities. Her research interests include domestic vio-
lence, the criminal justice system, and empowerment.
Sarah McMahon is an assistant professor at the Rutgers University School of Social
Work, where she also serves as associate director of the Center on Violence Against
Women and Children. Previously, she was on the staff at the Rutgers Department of
Sexual Assault Services & Crime Victim Assistance. Her research and teaching inter-
ests include the etiology, prevention, and measurement of gender-based violence. She
has provided numerous presentations locally and nationally on sexual violence pre-
vention. She is part of the New Jersey State Sexual Violence Prevention Team, where
she serves as cochair of the Evaluation Standards Workgroup. She also serves on the
New Jersey Domestic Violence Fatality and Near Fatality Review Board. She earned
her PhD and MSW degrees from Rutgers University School of Social Work and her
BA from the University of Notre Dame and is a licensed social worker in the State of
New Jersey.
N. Shaanta Murshid, is a doctoral candidates in the PhD program at Rutgers, School
of Social Work.
Mi Sung Kim, is a doctoral candidates in the PhD program at Rutgers, School of
Social Work.
at RUTGERS UNIV on November 26, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
