Economic Abuse as an Invisible Form of Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Review

Introduction

The fact that intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant social concern affecting a substantial number of women and children is now undeniable, making it a gendered problem. In most international jurisdictions, the importance of understanding the needs of and responding to IPV victims is clearly understood. Establishing the prevalence of all forms of violence against women (VAW) has been a priority since the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, ¹ adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly (Articles 12 and 19). Most recently, the 2011 Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating VAW and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention, ² further details the importance of research intended to move beyond prevalence in order to better understand the dynamics of VAW in Europe (including IPV; Article 11). As a direct result of the number of international conventions and treaties, research on VAW, including IPV has been prioritized in many jurisdictions ensuring a growing global evidence base.

Despite prioritizing research in this area, the predominant focus of international and national studies to date has been on establishing the prevalence of physical violence and/or threat. While surely unintended, the seriousness of the effects of IPV is most often assessed by the extent and nature of any physical injury. This perception of IPV as primarily constituting physical violence still dominates, particularly in media reports of IPV, regardless of reports from practitioners and victims substantiating multiple forms of abuse. Such forms include sexual violence and various forms of psychological and emotional abuse. In an effort to better understand the dynamics of these latter two manifestations of IPV, many researchers argue that the context in which violence and abuse occur in intimate partnerships—frequently referred to as contexts of “coercive control” (Stark, 2007), is critical. This is where abusers use a variety of tactics to maintain control over their partners by forcing physical, emotional, and financial dependency and producing a continual fear which prevents women from challenging their actions. Women forced into such dependency are at greater risk, according to the marital dependency theory (Vyas & Watts, 2008) and the interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), of being trapped in the relationship. This explains why women report that economic concerns are one of their top reasons why leaving the abuser is so difficult (Sanders & Schnabel, 2006; Strube, 1988). It is precisely the relational and gendered context of IPV that makes these tactics hard to detect because the “means and effects…are easily confused with the range of sacrifices women are expected to make in their roles as homemakers, parents and sexual partners” (Stark, 2007, p. 230).

One frequently hidden or “invisible” form of abuse perpetrated within intimate partner relationships is economic or financial abuse. Practitioners and emerging qualitative research have for some time recognized that IPV contributes to “poverty, financial risk and financial insecurity for women, sometimes long after the relationship has ended” (Braaf & Barrett Meyering, 2010, p. 5). From this perspective, economic insecurity is framed as a likely consequence of IPV for women leaving a violent relationship at the time of separation and in its aftermath. Although identified early on by practitioners in the IPV field as a fundamental underpinning of coercive control, only relatively recently has economic abuse been conceptualized as separate from emotional and psychological abuse—albeit with some overlap (Stylianou, Postmus, & McMahon, 2013). Corrie and McGuire (2013) suggest that we are yet to fully establish the prevalence of economic abuse, in part, because victims may have difficulty distinguishing economically abusive patterns from the economic insecurity they experience as women.

Economic insecurity is, without doubt, a gendered issue with factors such as the gendered nature of care, the undervaluing of women’s paid and unpaid work, and workforce discrimination all contributing to women consistently experiencing poorer social and economic outcomes throughout their life course. Given that existing prevalence data provide evidence of gender asymmetry in victimization and perpetration of IPV, it is not a surprise that economic abuse is compounded by the context of women’s economic insecurity more generally. It is also possible that victims do not always understand the ongoing consequences and extent of the damage caused by economic abuse prior to leaving the relationship and so may fail to recognize economic abuse as a form of IPV during the relationship.

While the links between gendered economic insecurity and economic abuse are emergent at best (Corrie, 2016), there remains a lack of consistency about definitions within the United States and globally, as there is no agreed index with which to measure economic abuse, underscoring the purpose of this article. As with all measures of social concerns, definitions do matter and it is here that the research can lack precision. The choice of different terms defined in slightly different ways, and the interchange of terms at other times has had the unintended effect of diluting the evidence base. The lack of definitional clarity also means it is difficult to measure whether service and policy responses are dealing appropriately with the issue, if at all. As such, the purpose of this article is to determine how the peer-reviewed global literature defines and measures economic or financial abuse to then highlight implications based on an analysis of the literature. The questions framing this study include (1) how do researchers define economic/financial abuse? and (2) how do researchers measure economic/financial abuse?

Existing Definitions of Economic Abuse and Financial Abuse

Economic abuse has been defined as a deliberate pattern of control in which individuals interfere with their partner’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008; Postmus, Plummer, McMahon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012). Academics have sought to categorize the different forms that economic abuse can take. For instance, Postmus, Plummer, and Stylianou (2016) suggest that economic abuse involves behaviors that control, exploit, or sabotage an individual’s economic resources including employment.

Economic abuse and financial abuse are frequently used interchangeably in the literature (Sharp-Jeffs, 2015b). Alternatively, abuse may be described as affecting the economic or financial security of victims of IPV or causing economic or financial insecurity. Sharp-Jeffs (2015a) adapted the definition of economic abuse, proposing to use the term “financial abuse” instead of economic abuse. The distinction made here between economic and financial abuse is that financial abuse is part of economic abuse and involves similar behaviors; however, financial abuse focuses specifically on individual money and finances and not economic resources (e.g., transportation, a place to live, employment, and education; Sharp-Jeffs, 2015a). Yount, Krause, and VanderEnde (2016) recently used the term “economic coercion” to describe the same economic abusive behaviors identified by others (Adams et al., 2008; Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou, 2016) in which an abuser attempts to control the partner’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain resources.

It is important to note that much of the available literature describes a range of controlling behaviors or tactics which may keep victims of IPV financially dependent and socially isolated, often, in place of a definition. Some of the tactics of economic abuse include reduced access to savings and assets (Braaf & Barrett Meyering, 2010), deliberately causing housing insecurity by damaging property or not making rent or mortgage payments (Valentine & Breckenridge, 2016), and malicious interference with workforce and educational participation (Breckenridge, Walden, & Flax, 2014).

Measuring Economic Abuse

The measures used in studies on IPV may include items that ask about forms of economic or financial abuse; however, without identifying such abuse as a focus of the work, they fail to reliably capture the scope, complexity, or magnitude of the abuse. For example, Outlaw (2009) included one question about economic abuse as part of the National Violence Against Women Survey and then concluded that economic abuse was a rare phenomenon, occurring less than physical abuse.

Other studies have included more than one question on economic abuse but again, fail to identify the term as a focus of the work. Instead, the questions are frequently integrated into emotional or psychological abuse scales or subscales. For example, the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI; Shepard & Campbell, 1992) has two subscales—Physical and Psychological—in which a few questions on economic abuse are part of the Psychological Abuse subscale. Similarly, the Index of Spouse Abuse Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) had physical and Non-Physical Abuse subscales in which the Non-Physical Abuse subscale included two questions on economic abuse; however, the term was never mentioned in the reporting of the results. The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989) has five questions on economic abuse as part of the long form; however, the short form only retained one question.

Other researchers included questions on economic abuse without recognizing they had done so. For example, Lloyd (1997) used an expanded version of the Conflict Tactics Scale to include questions around work sabotage efforts, which is a form of economic abuse. Although not naming economic abuse, the qualitative portion of this study provided illustrations of what could be understood as employment sabotage, economic exploitation, and economic control. Similarly, Tolman and Wang (2005) focused on employment sabotage efforts that abusers use against victims in their literature review; unfortunately, they failed to mention or include questions on economic or financial abuse in their measure of abuse.

Finally, Weaver, Sanders, Campbell, and Schnabel (2009) created the Domestic Violence–Related Financial Issues Scale (DV-FI) that included a subscale on economic abuse as part of their evaluation of a financial literacy program. This subscale only included five questions, of which three focused on credit card debt and credit rating and failed to capture a wider view of the phenomenon.

Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, and Greeson (2008) created the first Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA) from several sources such as existing research and from interviews with advocates and IPV survivors. The researchers started with a 120-item scale covering several concepts of economic abuse including preventing women’s resource acquisition, preventing women’s use of resources, and exploiting women’s resources. After further testing, the final scale included 28 questions and two subscales including economic exploitation and economic control.

Postmus et al. (2016) further tested the SEA and reduced the items to 12 questions, naming it the SEA-12. From their analyses, they found three conceptual categories of economic abuse—economic control, economic exploitation, and employment sabotage. Further testing of the SEA-12 with a new sample of survivors found that the SEA-12 was a reliable and valid measure of economic abuse and that such abuse is distinctly different from physical, emotional, and sexual abuse (Stylianou et al., 2013). Additionally, the testing found that the three constructs were also uniquely different from each other and from other forms of abuse.

While it is clear from a preliminary review of the literature that economic abuse may be reported by victims of IPV, research to date subsumes economic abuse into the categories of emotional or psychological abuse, fails to report the findings as economic abuse, or does not report the results of the limited number of survey questions at all. Additionally, the recent publications of a scale for economic abuse has had limited testing with varied samples of survivors; they were also only tested with samples in the United States. Hence, the measurement of economic abuse in IPV is limited. Additionally, there have been no studies which have attempted to systematically review the ways in which it has been measured internationally.

Method

The purpose of this study was to provide greater clarity on how the peer-reviewed global literature defines and measures economic or financial abuse and then to provide implications based on an analysis of this literature. The questions framing this study include (1) how do researchers define economic/financial abuse? and (2) how do researchers measure economic/financial abuse?

Results

The 46 peer-reviewed articles that met all inclusion criteria for analysis came from a range of countries across six continents. The majority of articles (17) came from research conducted in the United States. Four articles came from South Africa. Three articles came from research in Canada or Palestine. Two articles came from the UK, Ivory Coast, and the Philippines. One article from each of the following countries was also included: Australia, Germany, Iran, Japan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Korea, Tanzania, Trinidad, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. One article was derived from a multicountry study conducted in Asia and the Pacific.

Overall, 18 studies examined economic abuse with victims. Thirteen of the studies included samples of female victims who were recruited using various methods from community settings, domestic violence agencies and shelters, health-care settings, or an Individual Development Account savings program for IPV victims. One study focused on gay and bisexual male victims from HIV agencies serving men of color. One study included a random sample of both male and female victims from a nationally representative survey. One study compared the experiences of a sample of female perpetrators of abuse (as victims) in an offenders’ program with a sample of female victims in a shelter setting. Two studies compared the experiences (as victims and perpetrators of abuse) of convenience samples of female survivors staying in women’s shelters, male and female college students, and male prisoners.

There were 26 studies that recruited participants from the general population of women and/or men. This included 20 studies that examined the construct with a general sample of women. These women were recruited from the community using various methods, from health-care settings, from microfinance programs, or by using a random sample of women from nonrepresentative samples or from nationally or geographically representative samples. One study examined the construct with a sample of men (as potential perpetrators) that was representative of each of nine site samples across multiple countries. Five studies examined the construct with both men and women using a convenience sample from the community, or using a random sample obtained from a nationally representative survey, from a military management system, or from a college campus.

Overall, two studies examined the concept with service providers. One of these studies included a sample of lawyers and advocates working in the field. The other study surveyed medical students who would potentially treat patients who had experienced IPV. Please refer to Table 1 for a description of the articles.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Description of Articles.

Country of Origin
United States	17
South Africa	4
Canada and Palestine	3 Each
UK, Ivory Coast, and Philippines	2 Each
Australia, Germany, Iran, Japan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Korea, Tanzania, Trinidad, Turkey,  and Zimbabwe	1 Each
Multicountry (Asia and the Pacific)	1
Sample
Victims—female	13
Victims—gay and bisexual male victims	1
Victims—male and female	1
Victims and perpetrators—female and male	3
General sample of women from the community	20
General sample of men from the community	1
General sample of women and men from the community	5
Service providers (lawyers, advocates, or medical students)	2
Definitions of economic and financial abuse
Included a clear definition	20
Named or described all three constructs (i.e., economic control, economic exploitation, and employment sabotage)	14
Named or described two of the three constructs	4
Named or described one of the three constructs (i.e., economic control)	2
How economic or financial abuse is measured
Used a validated tool to measure economic abuse (SEA or the SEA-12)	4
Used a validated tool (SEA-12) alongside a general IPV measurement tool (ABI)	1
Used general IPV measurement tools that included economic abuse items (i.e., ABI, CCB, DV-FI, CTS, Abuse Assessment Screen Questionnaire, CBS)	9
Used series of items about economic abuse, ranging  from 1 to 5 questions
Used one question	5
Used two questions	9
Used three questions	6
Used four questions	4
Used five questions	1
Did not use questions but described characteristics of economic abuse	3
Presented an unclear picture of how economic abuse was measured	4

Note. n = 46. ABI = Abusive Behavior Inventory; CCB = Checklist of Controlling Behaviors; DV-FI = Domestic Violence–Related Financial Issues Scale; CBS = Controlling Behaviors Scale; SEA = Scale of Economic Abuse; SEA-12 = Scale of Economic Abuse-12; CTS = Conflict Tactics Scale.

How Economic/Financial Abuse Is Defined

Table 2 provides information on how economic abuse was defined and measured in the 46 articles. Each citation includes a brief description and whether: (1) economic abuse was clearly defined or not, (2) economic abusive tactics were included or not, and (3) which constructs were captured in the definition/tactics.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

How Economic Abuse Is Measured and Defined in the Global Peer-Reviewed Literature.

Study	Country	Sample (Location, Gender, Type)	How Economic Abuse Is Measured	How Economic Abuse Is Defined
Adams, A. E., Beeble, M. L., and Gregory, K. A. (2015)	United States	DV and sexual assault agency 93 Female IPV Victims Convenience sample	Scale of Economic Abuse (Adams et al., 2008) 28-item, validated measure of economic abuse. The 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from never (0) to quite often (4). Two subscales measuring economic exploitation (financial ways abusers take advantage of survivors’) and economic control (abusers’ efforts to dictate women’s access to and use of money). Constructs captured—EC EE ES (ES items captured under EC subscale)	Set of tactics used to obtain power and control in an abusive relationship, involving controlling a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, thus threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency. Tactics included: regulation of access to money and financial information, stealing money, refusing to work, generating debt in their partner’s name, blaming woman for spending money on family needs, controlling her earnings, wasting money, direct and indirect interference with employment, and coerced debt Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., and Greeson, M. R. (2008)	United States	DV agencies 103 Female IPV victims Convenience sample	Scale of Economic Abuse, 28-item measure of economic abuse developed and validated in this study. The 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to quite often (5), and also including not applicable (8) and prefer not to answer (9). Two subscales measuring economic exploitation and economic control Constructs captured—EC EE ES (ES items captured under EC subscale)	Part of the pattern of behaviors used by batterers to maintain power and control over their partners. This involves behaviors that control a woman’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources, thus threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC
Antai, D., Antai, J., and Anthony, D. S. (2014)	Philippines	Households 8,478 Women Nationally representative sample	Four items chosen by authors. Response options included: no, often, sometimes, not at all, and yes. No and not at all were dichotomized to no, and all other answers were dichotomized to yes. Items included: (1) disallowed respondent to engage in legitimate work, (2) controlled respondent’s money or forced her to work, (3) destroyed personal property/pet or threatened to harm pet, and (4) whether respondent had ever lost their job/source of income because of their husband. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Form of DV and family violence involving behaviors that negatively affect a person financially, undermining efforts to become financially independent. Behaviors that control the ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources. Tactics included: prevent from obtaining/maintaining employment outside the home, cause her to lose her job or miss work, show up at work place, harass her at work, harass coworkers—with motive to interfere with woman’s ability to acquire resources by preventing her from maintaining employment, monitoring how existing resources are used, strictly limiting access to household resources, denying access to money for essentials hiding jointly earned money, denying access to bank accounts, withholding financial information, destroying property, turning off utilities, credit card debt, refusing to make payments on bills Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Antai, D., Oke, A., Braithwaite, P., and Lopez, G. B. (2014)	Philippines	Households 8,478 Women Stratified, clustered, probability sample	Four items chosen by authors. Response options included: no, often, sometimes, not at all, and yes. No and not at all were dichotomized to no, and all other answers were dichotomized to yes. Items included: (1) disallowed respondent to engage in legitimate work, (2) controlled respondent’s money or forced her to work, (3) destroyed personal property/pet or threatened to harm pet, and (4) whether respondent had ever lost their job/source of income because of their husband. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Control of a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, threatening economic security, potential for self-sufficiency, and economic independence. Coercive behavior making victim economically dependent on partner and increasing risk of continued abuse. Tactics included: take control of resources by preventing employment outside home, cause job absence or loss by showing up at work, prevent use of existing resources by controlling distribution and use, deny access to joint bank accounts or financial information, exploit a woman’s resources by stealing money, creating costs, generating debt Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Awwad, J., Ghazeeri, G, Nassar, A. H., Bazi, T., and Fakih, A. (2014)	Lebanon	Health clinic 91 Women Convenience sample	One item chosen by authors: “Does your partner control home expenditure denying you access to money?” Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Falb, K. L., Annan, J., Kpebo, D., Cole, H., Willie, T., Xuan, Z., Raj, A., and Gupta, J. (2015)	Ivory Coast	Rural villages 682 Female IPV victims w/o microfinance experience Community sample	Three items chosen by authors. If participant responded “yes” to any item, they were coded as experiencing that form of violence. Items included: (1) asked the woman if her partner refused to give her money for household necessities even if there was money available, (2) took money against her will, and (3) obliged her to give him all or part of the money she earned. Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Fawole, O. I., van Wyk, J., and Adejimi, A. (2013)	Nigeria	Medical school setting 109 Medical students (women and men) Convenience sample	No information on specific measure or semistructured interview questions asked to capture and then quantify economic abuse. Constructs captured—Unclear	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Fulu, E., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., and Garcia-Moreno, C. (2013)	Multicountry—Asia and Pacific	Households 10,178 Men Cluster sample representative of each of nine sites (multicountry)	Four items chosen by authors. Measured as part of emotional abuse perpetration using an economic abuse subscale. Items included: (1) prohibited a partner from getting a job, going to work, trading, or earning money, (2) taken a partner’s earnings against her will, (3) thrown a partner out of the house, and (4) kept money from your earnings for alcohol, tobacco, or other things for yourself when you knew your partner was finding it hard to afford the household expenses. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Gaffoor, Z., Wand, H., Street, R. A., Abbai, N., and Ramjee, G. (2016)	South Africa	Public spaces (health clinics, malls, churches, taxi stands, community venues) 1,456 Sexually active, HIV-negative women Convenience sample	One item chosen by authors: “Sometimes in relationships women are abused by their partners. The abuse can be physical, like hitting or slapping, emotional like yelling, name-calling or threatening the children, or economic like taking away or not giving money. We would like to know if any of these things are happening to the women we speak to.” Response was categorized into economic, emotional, and/or physical abuse. Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Graham-Kevan, N., and Archer, J. (2008)	UK	DV shelter setting 43 Female IPV victims College setting 113 College students (women and men) Prison 108 Male prisoners All convenience samples	Four items from the Controlling Behavior Scale (CBS; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003) but did not specify item details. Five-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (0) to always (4) to indicate if and how often any of the behaviors listed were used to influence their partners. Constructs captured—unclear in this article (EC and ES captured in CBS (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003)	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Graham-Kevan, N., and Archer, J. (2003)	UK	DV shelter setting 43 Female IPV victims College setting 113 College students (women and men) Prison 108 Male prisoners All convenience samples	Five items from the Controlling Behaviors Scale (CBS) developed for this particular study. Respondents indicated whether they had used any of the behaviors listed, and then whether their partner had used any. Five-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (0) to always (4) to indicate the occurrence and frequency of controlling acts. Items included: (1) did you/your partner disapprove of the other working or studying? (2) if yes, did you/your partner try to prevent or make difficult the other working or studying? (3) did you/your partner feel it was necessary to have control of the other’s money (e.g., wage, benefit)? (4) if yes, did you/your partner give the other an allowance/require other to ask for money? (5) did you/your partner have knowledge of the family income? Constructs captured—EC ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Gupta, J., Falb, K. L., Lehmann, H., Kpebo, D., Xuan, Z., Hossain, M., Zimmerman, C., Watts, C., and Annan, J. (2013)	Ivory Coast	Rural villages 934 Women with partners Purposive sample	Three items chosen by authors. Dichotomized to binary summary score, “yes” to any or “no” to all over past year. Items included: (1) taken money against her will, (2) refused money for household necessities, and (3) obliged the woman to give him all or part of the money she earned Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1999)	Palestine	Households 2,410 Married women Randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Part of a 32-item instrument developed specifically for this survey to measure psychological, physical, sexual, and economic abuse. Classical item test theory was used to create the scales used after data collection. Items included: (1) prevented you from using the family’s money as you see fit and (2) tried to control your behavior or force you to do what he wants, while misusing the family’s income and other resources to do so Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000a)	Palestine	Households 1,334 Married women Randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Part of a 32-item instrument developed specifically for this survey to measure psychological, physical, sexual, and economic abuse. Classical item test theory was used to create the scales used after data collection Items included: (1) prevented you from using the family’s money as you see fit and (2) tried to control your behavior or force you to do what he wants, while misusing the family’s income and other resources to do so Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000b)	Palestine	Households 2,410 Married women Randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Part of a 32-item instrument developed specifically for this survey to measure psychological, physical, sexual, and economic abuse. Classical item test theory was used to create the scales used after data collection Items included: (1) prevented you from using the family’s money as you see fit and (2) tried to control your behavior or force you to do what he wants, while misusing the family’s income and other resources to do so Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Harned, M. S. (2001)	USA	Campus setting 874 Female and male college students Randomly selected sample	ABI-12 (Shepard & Campbell, 1992) Unspecified items from validated, 12-item psychological abuse subscale of a general abuse measure. Examples referenced included: (1) restriction of financial resources and (2) has a dating partner prevented you from having money for your own use? Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Huang, C-C., Postmus, J. L., Vikse, J. H., and Wang, L-R. (2013)	USA	Hospital setting 2,107 mothers Subsample from stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Measured (never, sometimes, or often) over past 12 months. Coded “yes” if a woman had experienced either of the two abuse items “often” or “sometimes.” Coded “no” if a woman reported “never” for both items. Items included: (1) he tried to prevent you from going to work and/or school and (2) he withheld money, made you ask for money, or took your money Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Defined as including “employment sabotage, economic control and economic exploitation.” Defined as distinct from normal patterns of financial decision-making in relationships due to nature of control involved. One partner does not allow the other any say in financial decisions, controls her work activities and use of income, ruins credit as means to increase financial dependence Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Huang, C-C., Vikse, J. H., Lu, S., and Yi, S. (2015)	USA	Hospital setting 2,410 Mothers Subsample from stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Frequency that father had committed these types of behaviors measured (never, sometimes, or often) over past 12 months. Coded “yes” if a woman had experienced either of the two abuse items “often” or “sometimes.” Coded “no” if a woman reported “never” for both items. Items included: (1) he tried to prevent you from going to work and/or school and (2) he withheld money, made you ask for money, or took your money Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Jewkes, R., Penn-Kekana, L., Levin, J., Ratsaka, M., and Schrieber, M. (2000)	South Africa	Households 1,306 Women Stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Three items chosen by authors, measured as part of emotional abuse in past year. Items included: (1) prevented from working, (2) partner has not provided money to run the home or look after children but has money for other things, and (3) eviction from home. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Jewkes, R. K., Levin, J. B., and Penn-Kekana, L. A. (2003)	South Africa	Households 1,164 Women Stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Items included: (1) having not been given money to run the home when her partner had money for other things and (2) having her earnings taken by her partner Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Joyner, K., and Mash, R. J. (2011)	South Africa	Rural health clinics 168 Female IPV victims Convenience sample from purposefully selected sites	Three items chosen by authors. Items included: (1) withholding money, (2) controlling decisions, or (3) taking money Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No mention of tactics No constructs captured
Kapiga, S., Harvey, S., Muhammad, A. K., Stockl, H., Mshana, G., Hashim, R., Hansen, C., Lees, S., and Watts, C. (2017)	Tanzania	Microfinance/loan groups 1,049 Women Convenience sample	Three items chosen by authors. Severity determined based on number of “yes” answers. Items included: (1) refuses to give you enough money for household expenses, even when he has money for other things, (2) takes money that you have earned away from you, and (3) makes important financial decisions without consulting you Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No mention of tactics No constructs captured
Kutin, J., Russell, R., and Reid, M. (2017)	Australia	Community 13,307 Women and 3,743 Men Randomly selected sample	Five items chosen by authors. Lifetime abuse measured with dichotomous yes/no response options. Items included: (1) partner stopped or tried to stop you knowing about or having access to her/his money, (2) partner stopped or tried to stop you from working or earning money or studying, (3) partner deprived you of basic needs (e.g., food, shelter, sleep, assistive aids), (4) Partner damaged, destroyed or stole any of your property, and (5) partner stopped or tried to stop you from using the telephone, Internet or family car. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Form of IPV involving behaviors aimed at manipulating a person’s access to finances, assets, and decision-making to foster dependence and control. Economic control, economic exploitation, and employment sabotage identified as three dimensions comprising the overall construct Clearly defined No tactics mentioned Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Lehmann, P., Simmons, C. A., and Pillai, V. K. (2012)	USA	Shelter setting 2,135 Female IPV victims Convenience sample	Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB) tool used to assess for coercive control in violent relationships developed and validated in this study. Seven-item subscale measuring economic abuse. The 5-point Likert-type response style scale ranging from never (1) to very frequently (5). Items included: (1) did not allow me equal access to family money; (2) told me or acted as if it was his money, his house, his car, and so on, (3) threatened to withhold money from me, (4) made me ask for money for basic necessities; (5) used my fear of not having access to money to control my behavior, (6) made me account for the money I spent, and (7) tried to keep me dependent on him for money Constructs captured—EC EE	Refers to “withholding money” as routine barrier used to entrap, isolate, and control a survivor. Economic coercion and threats to withhold financial means for food or household expense referenced Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE
Littwin, A. (2012)	USA	Personal contacts/DV e-mail lists/coalitions 55 DV lawyers/advocates Snowball sample	Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Murray Straus et al., 1996). Two items from validated measure of abuse addressing economic abuse. Items included: (1) vandalize your property or destroy something you loved, causing you to be frightened or fear bodily harm and (2) stand outside your home, school, or workplace Constructs captured—EE ES	Financial control, employment sabotage, control over family finances, restricted access to knowledge about finances. Tactics used as foundation that allows for coerced debt to occur, where victim has decreased ability to prevent transactions to which she does not consent. This includes credit fraud and theft as well as intimidation/threats/violence that keep victim from confronting abuser with issues of credit fraud or other forms of coerced debt Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Merrill, G. S., and Wolfe, V. (2000)	USA	DV and HIV agencies serving men of color 52 gay/bisexual male IPV victims Convenience sample	Unclear set of items created by authors. Not all items detailed. Those described are as follows: (1) damaging property which belonged to respondent, (2) harassing respondent at work or school, (3) causing respondent to miss work or school, (4) calling and visiting respondent at work or school excessively, (5) making respondent feel he was entitled to respondents’ financial support, (6) refusing to contribute to his portion of expenses, and (7) significantly interrupting work, education and/or career development Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Forcing economic dependence, preventing the victim from accessing financial resources, destroying property, restricting partners from attending school, working, accessing any source of independent income, damaging or stealing property, using superior wealth as a weapon Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Nagassar, R. P., Rawlins, J. M., Sampson, N. R., Zackerali, J., Chankadyal, K., Ramasir, C., and Boodram, R. (2010)	Trinidad	Households 290 Women Stratified, randomly selected sample	No measurement information included Unclear set of items created by authors Not validated Constructs captured—unclear	The withholding or deprivation of funds for essential needs, gambling away the housekeeping money, purposely building debts and selling of necessary household items. Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE
Outlaw, M. (2009)	USA	Phone survey 11,291 Women and men with partners Subsample of nationally representative, randomly selected sample	One item chosen by authors. Dichotomous yes/no as to whether respondents’ current partner prevents him/her from knowing about or having access to family income, even when s/he asks. Question on survey about prohibiting work outside the home was not included in analysis as author states this could be representative of either economic or social abuse. Constructs captured—EC	Imposed economic dependence of the abused by the abuser, possible outright stealing by abuser. Abuser decides when and if survivor gets money even if she earns it and how much she gets. Inadequate amount of money given, survivor has to ask for more, steal or borrow from others to meet basic needs Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE
Poole, C., and Rietschlin, J. (2012)	Canada	Phone survey Unspecified number of female and male IPV victims over age 60 Nationally representative, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by authors. Items included: (1) partner damages or destroys your possessions or property, and (2) prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income, even if you ask. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Postmus, J. L., Huang, C. C., Stylianou, A. M. (2012)	USA	Hospital setting 2,305 Mothers involved with fathers of their children 1-year post baseline Subsample from stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by author. Items included: (1) He withheld money, made you ask for money or took your money, and (2) He tried to prevent you from going to work and/or school. Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Includes employment sabotage, economic control, and economic exploitation Clearly defined No tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S., McMahon, S., Murshid, N. S., and Kim, M-S. (2012)	USA	DV agencies 120 female IPV victims Convenience sample	Scale of Economic Abuse-12 (SEA-12; Postmus et al., 2016). Validated revision of the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA; Adams et al., 2008). Five-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to quite often (5). Twelve items comprising three factors named economic control (5 items), employment sabotage (4 items), and economic exploitation (3 items) Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Defined as efforts of abuser to make partner economically dependent, controling her ability to become self-sufficient, accomplished by maintaining complete control over money and other economic resources by making all financial decisions, reducing ability to acquire, use, and maintain money, and/or by forcing her to rely on abuser for all of financial needs. Tactics identified include forms of employment sabotage, coerced debt, institutional barriers to reinforce economic control and exploitation Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S. B., and Stylianou, A. M. (2016)	USA	DV agencies 120 female IPV victims Convenience sample	Scale of Economic Abuse-12 (SEA-12) developed and validated in this study. Revision of the Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA; Adams et al., 2008). Five-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to quite often (5). Exploratory factor analysis resulted in the 28-item SEA being reduced to 12 items comprising three factors named economic control (5 items), employment sabotage (4 items), and economic exploitation (3 items) Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Strategies including economic exploitation, economic control and employment sabotage that hinder economic self-sufficiency and damage economic self-efficacy. Tactics preventing women’s resource acquisition, preventing women’s resource use, and exploiting women’s resources Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Rabbani, F., Qureshi, F., and Rizvi, N. (2008)	Pakistan	Community-based health and development program 108 female IPV victims Convenience sample	No information on specific measure or semistructured interview questions used. In results, economic abuse is referred to as economic control including: withholding money from victim, refusing to meet household expenses, stealing valuable assets such as personal jewelry, land, and so on. Unclear whether these were predetermined categories or if they were qualitative responses that were quantified Constructs captured—unclear	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Romans, S. Forte, T., Cohen, M. M., Du Mont, J., and Hyman, I. (2007)	Canada	Phone survey 17,005 women and men with current or ex-partner Nationally representative, randomly selected sample	One item chosen by authors. Dichotomous yes/no response options. Measured using the following item: “Has your partner prevented you from knowing about or having access to the family income, even if you asked?” Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Sahraian, A., Ghanizadeh, A., Hashemi, S. H., Mohammadi, M. R., and Ahmadzadeh, L. (2015)	Iran	Psychiatric inpatient program 209 women married to psychiatric patients Convenience sample	Four items chosen by authors. Five-point Likert style scale, ranging from never to always. Items included: (1) not giving money for the expenses to the wife, (2) constant control over her expenses, (3) not telling her about his income, and 4) opposing to her having a job Constructs captured—EC ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Sanders, C. K. (2014)	USA	Matched savings program for IPV survivors 125 female IPV victims Convenience sample	Unclear set of items created by authors. Methods state that “history of economic abuse” was gathered from shelter intake. No further details on measurement of construct or questions used Constructs captured—unclear	Variety of tactics that negatively affect women financially and undermine efforts to become financially independent, including behaviors that restrict woman’s ability to pursue education or gain or maintain employment. Abuser also restricts, monitors, or completely controls access to financial resources Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC ES
Selek, S., Vural, M., and Cakmak, I. (2012)	Turkey	University teaching hospital setting 96 female IPV victims employed as nurses Convenience sample	Modified Abuse Assessment Screen Questionnaire. No specific details provided regarding measurement questions in screening tool related to economic abuse Constructs captured—unclear	Described as “prevention of working, making money, buying, selling or seizure of revenues of someone.” Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., and Collier-Tenison, S. (2008)	USA	Offenders program 77 female IPV perpetrators Convenience sample DV shelter setting 2,135 female IPV victims Convenience sample	Seven items from economic abuse subscale in Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB; Lehmann, 1998). Validated 84-item measure used to assess for coercive control in violent relationships. Five-point Likert style scale ranging from never (1) to very frequently (5). Items included: (1) did not allow me equal access to family money, (2) told me or acted as if it was his money, his house, his car, and so on, (3) threatened to withhold money from me, (4) made me ask for money for basic necessities, (5) used my fear of not having access to money to control my behavior, (6) made me account for the money I spent, and (7) tried to keep me dependent on him for money Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Stockl, H., and Penhale, B. (2015)	Germany	Community registration lists 10,263 women Nationally representative, randomly selected sample	Three items from validated 33-question tool that also addressed emotional abuse and controlling behavior. Items included: (1) partner controls exactly how much money I spend on what, (2) makes me feel that I am financially dependent on him, and (3) does not let me decide about money or things I want to buy by myself Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Stylianou, A. M., Postmus, J. L., and McMahon, S. (2013)	USA	DV agencies 457 female IPV victims Convenience sample	SEA-12 (Postmus, Plummer, & Stylianou, 2016) measuring economic abuse. Three subscales named Economic Control (5 items—monitoring/restricting woman’s ability to freely use resources), Employment Sabotage (4 items—blocking employment or restricting ability to obtain resources via employment), and Economic Exploitation (3 items—depletion of funds and/or creation of debt or ruining of credit) Two economic abuse questions from psychological abuse subscale of validated Abusive Behavior Index (ABI; Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Items included: (1) prevented you from having money for your own use and (2) put you on an allowance Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Using means to control survivor that hinder her economic self-sufficiency and damage her economic self-efficacy. Description includes preventing her from working, harassing her at work, ruining her credit score, demanding that she account for all expenses, making unilateral decisions. These actions result in women becoming economically dependent on partner Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Um, M. Y., Kim, H. J., and Palinkas, L. A. (2016)	South Korea	Households 180 ever-married refugee women Snowball sample	Three items in a validated, Modified Conflict Tactics Scale. Dichotomized yes/no response options. Items included: (1) my partner deprived me of money to buy necessities, (2) my partner disposed of property without my consent, and (3) my partner took full control of income and expenses Constructs captured—EC EE	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Voth Schrag, R. J. (2015)	USA	Hospital setting 2,777 mothers who were also IPV victims Subsample from stratified, multistage, randomly selected sample	Two items chosen by author. Measured dichotomously, with “sometimes” and “often” as “yes.” Items included: (1) How often did/does partner try to keep you from going to work or school? and (2) How often did/does partner withhold money, make you ask for money or take your money? Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Tactics used to create barriers to economic security including destroying credit, stealing financial resources, limiting participation in economic decision-making. Additional tactics described include sabotaging employment; making economic threats; limiting, destroying, and controlling woman’s access to economic resources; preventing her participation in economic life and decisions of the family; deliberate sabotaging of resources; destroying credit; preventing ability to obtain and maintain employment or credentials, and stealing money or property Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Watts, C., Keogh, E., Ndlovu, M., and Kwaramba, R. (1998)	Zimbabwe	Households 966 women Nationally representative, randomly selected sample	Unclear set of items created by authors. Described on questionnaire as “being prevented from going to work, thrown out of the home, not given available support money.” No clear information about specific items used to measure construct Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Weaver, T., Sanders, C. K., Campbell, C. L., and Schnabel, M. (2009)	USA	DV shelter setting 113 female IPV victims Convenience sample	Domestic Violence–Related Financial Issues Scale (DV-FI) developed and validated in this study. Economic Abuse subscale included the following items: (1) credit card debt has played a role in my previous experiences of partner violence, (2) my partner prevented me from having access to money, (3) my partner negatively affected my credit rating, (4) my partner negatively affected my credit card debt, (5) my partner prevented me from obtaining necessary skills or education to obtain adequate employment Constructs captured—EC EE ES	Tactics that negatively affect women financially and undermine their efforts to become economically independent. Tactics included: restricting access to money, controlling or limiting ability to pursue education, or gain and maintain employment, exploiting financial resources that is, debt, stealing money Clearly defined Tactics included Constructs captured—EC EE ES
Yoshihama, M. (1994)	Japan	Mail survey distributed via women’s groups, social service providers, attorneys, local and national newspaper ads 796 women Convenience sample	One item chosen by authors under emotional abuse that addresses economic neglect: “Partner failing to provide financially when he was able to do so.” Constructs captured—EC	Not clearly defined No tactics included No constructs captured
Zamorski, M. A., and Wiens-Kinkaid, M. E. (2013)	Canada	Canadian Armed Forces management system 1,745 Partnered female and male military personnel with a partner Randomly selected sample	Unclear set of items, potentially including (1) Preventing knowledge of access to family income and (2) Damaged or destroyed possessions or property Constructs captured—EC EE	“Preventing access to family income” given as example of economic abuse Clearly defined Tactics mentioned EC

Overall, 20 articles included a clear definition of economic/financial abuse and/or listed more than one tactic used by perpetrators to illustrate the construct in the introduction or background section of the manuscript. Upon analysis, these tactics were thematically captured under the three constructs identified in theoretical and measurement development literature including economic control, economic exploitation, and employment sabotage. Of the 20 articles with a clear definition and/or description of abusive tactics, 14 articles covered tactics that could fall under all three constructs of economic abuse. Three articles included tactics that would fall under the categories of economic control and economic exploitation. Two articles included tactics that only covered economic control. One article included tactics that are categorized as economic control and employment sabotage. The remaining 26 articles contained no clear definition of economic abuse or tactics used.

Overall, the construct of economic control received the most attention in definitions, as every article with a clear definition either named the construct or included tactics that illustrate this construct in its definition of economic abuse (n = 20). Such economic control tactics included: restricting access to finances, refusing to contribute financially for necessities or other items, restricting access to financial information or involvement with financial decision-making, and controlling the household spending. This was followed by economic exploitation (n = 17) and employment sabotage (n = 15). Economic exploitation included tactics such as misusing family finances; damaging property; stealing property, money, or identities; going into debt through coercion or in secret; kicking the victim out of the living situation; using wealth as a weapon or as a threat; selling necessary household or personal items; restricting access to health care or insurance; and denying or restricting access to transportation. Employment sabotage tactics included anything related to interfering with or preventing a partner from work.

Discussion

This global review of the literature provides answers to our research questions as to how researchers define and measure economic or financial abuse when examining IPV. The review resulted in a large number of peer-reviewed articles coming from countries representing almost all of the continents (excluding Antarctica). However, the number of articles identified (n = 46) is considerably small in comparison to the number of articles that would likely be identified in a global review focused on physical or sexual violence.

Our review suggests there is growing clarity and consistency of terminologies being used in these articles, as well as evidence that economic abuse can be conceptualized as a separate category from emotional abuse. However, further clarity is needed as to whether economic abuse and financial abuse are the same phenomenon and are therefore interchangeable or if they are different but related concepts in the context of IPV. Most of the articles focused on the same aspects of economic abuse including economic exploitation, economic control, and employment sabotage. Yet it is reasonable to question whether there are other aspects of economic or financial abuse that are yet to be included in measures of these forms of abuse. Indeed, further research is needed that is guided by the marital dependence theory (Vyas & Watts, 2008) and the interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) which suggest that a survivor’s increased financial dependence on an partner increases her risk for experiencing abuse. Thus, to better understand how and to what extent survivors’ increased access to economic resources might lead to increased independence from abusive relationships, we might also need to learn about the modes of financial entrapment that are used to restrict economic resources beyond those included as part of any measurement used. The limited number of specific questions addressing economic or financial abuse included in large-scale surveys may well influence our understanding of perpetrator strategies simply because we ask respondents to identify a limited range of abusive behaviors.

Additionally, our analysis identified studies that primarily, but not exclusively, focused on females as victims of economic abuse. A few studies included heterosexual, gay, and bisexual male victims from different settings including college campuses, prisons, general communities, HIV agencies, and domestic violence agencies. More research is needed to determine whether economic abuse, like other forms of IPV, is a gendered phenomenon as well as to determine the prevalence of economic abuse with a wide range of samples that include both genders and different sexual orientations as victims and perpetrators.

Our review also identified some consistency in the use of validated measures including the SEA with 28 items or the shortened SEA-12 version with 12 items (see Appendix A for these two measures). Although used more frequently in studies in the United States, questions remain as to the use of these scales in other countries or in other languages. It is also of interest as to whether other distinct questions measuring economic or financial abuse would be more culturally relevant in Hong Kong, for example, than those found to measure the construct in the United States. It is clear that gender does matter when considering cultural differences in the definition and manifestation of economic abuse. For example, in a Chinese population study of sociodemographic factors in domestic violence, Cao, Yang, Wang, and Zhang (2014) stressed the importance of cultural context, pointing to the sharp division of gender roles and responsibility for financial matters being the province of male family members based on Confucian philosophy. Hence, this cultural context fundamentally contributes to gender inequality and particular behavioral forms of IPV. Further testing is needed to determine the impact of cultural and linguistic nuances, particularly in the administration of surveys where there is no opportunity to clarify or reframe a question. For example, the SEA-12 is currently being administered in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand to test its cultural utility.

Additionally, conceptual clarity is needed when considering use of the terms financial and economic abuse with other specific population groups such as older people. We purposefully removed articles about economic exploitation or abuse among the elderly in nonintimate relationships since such abuse is not entirely the same as IPV. Conceptually, it is important to distinguish between IPV with older couples and elder abuse where the perpetrator is not the survivor’s partner. This is pertinent as some research has suggested that the “patterning” of abuse may change over the length of the relationship, with physical abuse decreasing and emotional, financial, and sexual abuse increasing with age over time (Bows, 2015). Such abuse by an intimate partner would be a fundamentally different phenomenon to abuse occurring in older age from a family member or caregiver. Further exploration is needed to better understand the intersection between economic abuse that is perpetrated within an intimate relationship and age, as well as potential differences when perpetrated by extended family members and caregivers.

This review, while thorough in its efforts to unearth as many articles as possible, was narrowly focused on the measurement of economic and financial abuse. This review may also not have found all articles due to differences in terminology. Additionally, this review only captured English language articles; there may be research on economic or financial abuse published in other languages (e.g., Spanish or Mandarin). We only included peer-reviewed articles with full or partial quantitative focus; additional work is needed to examine the gray literature, conceptual articles, and qualitative articles. Australia is an example of a country where the work on economic abuse and economic security is primarily funded by government and subsequently appears in the gray literature as opposed to peer-reviewed publications.

Finally, it would be useful to establish at what point and in which contexts the gendered division of the management of financial resources and economic opportunities in intimate relationships actually becomes financial control and abuse. There is literature (mostly in the financial realm) about the difference between financial management (i.e., paying bills and managing households) and financial control (i.e., making decisions around how money is spent). However, less is known about this difference in the context of IPV, or in varied cultural contexts where gender role expectations may directly influence what is understood as economic or financial abuse, or not.

Implications

This review of the peer-reviewed literature provides a framework that IPV researchers should consider when studying, naming, and measuring economic or financial abuse. Since this research is in its “infancy,” there are some key strategies for developing knowledge and evidence in the future. The emerging framework presented includes three main categories of tactics; in furthering research in this area, it is worth considering whether there are tactics of economic abuse that we have yet to identify. For example, the development of digital technologies has increased the types of surveillance tactics that perpetrators now employ as part of their coercive control; there may be economic abuse tactics that are yet to be identified as such. To strengthen the research, we need to have stronger collaborative efforts to use similar measures and terminology. Part of that collaborative effort is to consider how language and cultural differences may play a part in our understanding of economic or financial abuse. There is also a need to collect prevalence data and to study the impact of economic abuse in the short term AND long term for victims. Research is also needed to better understand how perpetrators use economic or financial abuse as part of their overall strategy to control partners (Table 3)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Implications.

For research	Further clarity and refinement is needed to determine whether economic abuse and financial abuse are the same phenomenon and therefore are interchangeable or if they are different but related concepts in the context of IPV
	Further testing of measurements are needed to determine if all aspects of economic or financial abuse are included in current measures
	Further testing of the SEA or the SEA-12 is needed to determine if relevant for use in other countries and cultural contexts
	Further clarity is needed to determine the impact that gender and gender roles around financial management play in our understanding of economic abuse
	Greater clarity is needed when considering use of the terms financial and economic abuse with other specific population groups such as older people
	Need stronger collaborative efforts to use similar measures and terminology
	Need prevalence data
	Need to determine the patterns of impact of economic abuse in the short term and long term for victims
	Need to better understand how perpetrators use economic or financial abuse as part of their overall strategy to control partners during the relationship and after separation
For practice	Greater focus on economic abuse and its continuing consequences for victims
	Greater awareness of economic abuse is needed as victims may not always identify their experiences of financial control and abuse
	Interventions are needed to address economic abuse and improve economic security
	Practitioners and advocates in specialist IPV and mainstream human services should have knowledge and skills to assess and respond to economic abuse
	Financial institutions and other relevant organizations be encouraged to continue to develop policies and practices that take account of women’s circumstances of economic abuse when they are seeking credit or paying for debts incurred
	Jurisdictions should include economic or financial abuse in the legal definitions of IPV

Additionally, there is a need to focus on economic or financial abuse in practice settings. Such focus should include ensuring that practitioners have the relevant knowledge and skills for assessing and responding to economic abuse, developing and testing interventions that address economic or financial abuse, and improving survivors’ economic security. There is evidence suggesting that women may not always identify their experiences of financial control and abuse or distinguish these from their experience of gendered financial management. Hence, it is crucial that advocates are clear of these distinctions and work with women to make transparent the perpetrator’s use of strategies and tactics of economic and financial abuse. Several studies exist that evaluate economic empowerment programs or financial literacy programs (Postmus, Hetling, & Hoge, 2015; Sanders, Weaver, & Schnabel, 2007); however, these studies are limited to the United States and are limited in their scope of program materials. Further research is needed to determine whether improving ones financial knowledge decreases the impact of experiencing economic or financial abuse as it does on improving survivors’ access to resources, economic self-efficacy, or economic self-sufficiency.

Finally, economic abuse can cause severe material deprivation for women and can prevent them from becoming economically secure and independent (Corrie, 2016). Economic abuse most often results in a lack of financial resources making it difficult to leave a violent relationship and providing the impetus for some women to feel they have no choice but to return to that relationship (McLaren, 2013). The theories of marital dependency and interdependence (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003; Vyas & Watts, 2008) could provide greater understanding into how economic abuse is used by abusers to trap their partners in the relationship. As with all manifestations of IPV, economic abuse affects women from all socioeconomic groups and geographic locations. However, there is no doubt that intersections of vulnerability include disability, older people, indigeneity, and certain cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds.