Cited by 44Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment

The Role of Social Support in the Link Between Economic Abuse and Economic Hardship

Open access
Voth Schrag, Rachel J., Ravi, Kristen E., Robinson, Sarah R.·2020·Journal of Family Violence

Abstract

More data is needed about the pathways through which intimate partner violence (IPV) impacts the economic well-being of survivors. The current study assesses the moderating influence of social support on the association between economic abuse (EA) and economic hardship. Female participants (n = 435) were recruited to participate in a web-based survey which included standardized measures of EA, other forms of IPV, domains of social support, and economic hardship. Analysis included bivariate and multivariate regression with an investigation into interaction effects.Experiencing EA was significantly correlated with economic hardship, even with extent of physical and emotional IPV controlled. Both tangible and appraisal support had significant negative association with extent of material hardship. Significant interactions between forms of social support and economic abuse were observed. For those at high levels of economic abuse, support had less influence on economic hardship. A mix of direct economic aid, advocacy, education and support could provide a blueprint for addressing the economic hardship experiences of community-dwelling survivors of economic abuse. A comprehensive response to EA requires interventions aimed directly at economically controlling and exploitative tactics, including credit building, individual economic advocacy, and education. Interventions that seek to enhance survivors' access to social support may be necessary but not sufficient to buffer the impacts of violence on survivors' economic outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10896-018-0019-8

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Voth Schrag, R. J., Ravi, K. E., & Robinson, S. R.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
Venue
Journal of Family Violence
Published
2018-11-10
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
85-93
ISSN
  • 0885-7482 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2851
OpenAlex
W2899582202
Cited by
44
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Family Violence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
New York Community Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Keywords
economic violence, intimate partner violence, economic hardship, social support, tangible support, appraisal support, material hardship, moderating effect, women survivors, economic control, credit building

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review