What Matters When Examining Attitudes of Economic Abuse? Gender and Student Status as Predictors of Blaming, Minimizing, and Excusing Economic Abuse

Extensive research has been conducted regarding attitudes toward various types and patterns of violence against intimate partners, but there is a lack of research on attitudes toward economic abuse in general. In the current study, we examined attitudes toward economic abuse by examining how participants blamed the victim, minimized the economic abuse, and excused the perpetrator in hypothetical scenarios. We also examined two characteristics of participants: binary gender differences (i.e., woman, man) and differences between students and non-students. Participants (N = 239) were recruited via the SONA system of a private university (n = 120) and via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (n = 119). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two hypothetical scenarios to evaluate how scenario condition (i.e., victim employed, victim unemployed), participant gender, and participant student status predicted attitudes toward economic abuse involving blaming, minimizing, and excusing. Moreover, we also examined ambivalent sexism and gender role ideology as predictors. A 2 (scenario condition: job, no job) × 2 (participant gender: woman, man) × 2 (student status: college student, non-college student) MANOVA indicated main effects of both participant gender and participant student status. Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that men were more likely to blame victims, minimize the economic abuse, and excuse perpetrators compared to women. Additionally, students were less likely to minimize the economic abuse compared to non-students. Moreover, both hostile sexism and traditional gender role ideology were significant predictors. Implications of the findings and future directions for researchers are discussed.