Women's abuse experiences in Jordan: A comparative study using rural and urban classifications

The study investigates the prevalence and patterns of economic abuse among working married women in Jordan and how these experiences differ between rural and urban areas of Amman. Economic abuse is defined as intentional control that interferes with a partner's ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources, fostering financial dependence. The paper situates economic abuse within broader gender inequality and patriarchal cultural structures in Jordan, where legal, social, and religious norms can reinforce male dominance and constrain women's economic autonomy. The research aims to: (1) determine how often women in rural and urban areas are economically abused; (2) compare rural versus urban rates of economic abuse; (3) assess relationships between economic abuse and psychological, emotional, physical abuse, and harassment; and (4) identify similarities and differences between economic abuse and other abuse types experienced by women. The study is important due to limited prior research on economic abuse in Jordan and its implications for gender equality, women's empowerment, and public health.

The literature defines economic abuse as behaviors that prevent women from acquiring resources, restrict use of existing resources, and exploit women's resources (Adams et al., 2008), including control over money, property, education, and employment. Prior work documents tactics such as withholding funds, excluding women from financial decisions, damaging property, restricting work access, and sabotaging employment (Fawole, 2008; NCADV, 2011). Consequences include poverty, reduced productivity, health deterioration, social exclusion, and intergenerational effects (Fawole, 2008; Krug et al., 2002; Women's Aid, 2019). In Jordan, despite commitments to CEDAW, gender-based discrimination persists, with high rates of intimate partner violence and low help-seeking (DOS, 2018; SIGI, 2019). Economic violence in Jordan includes husbands seizing salaries, controlling spending, depriving inheritance, coercing loans, and restricting participation (SIGI, 2019). Sociocultural models emphasize patriarchy, legal structures, educational/media narratives, and religious misinterpretations as drivers of inequality (IRCKHF, 2019). Prior studies show mixed rural-urban IPV patterns globally; some find higher urban prevalence or resources affecting patterns, while others find similar rates across locales (Ivey, 2019; Edwards, 2015; Peek-Asa et al., 2011). Economic abuse often co-occurs with psychological, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and harassment (Stylianou, 2018; Adams et al., 2008). The paper adopts 'abuse' rather than 'violence' to encompass broader non-violent coercive behaviors.

Design and approach: Quantitative descriptive comparative design to describe and compare economic abuse patterns among rural and urban working married women in Amman, Jordan. Sample and setting: Random sample of N=500 working married women aged ≥20 years, equally drawn from rural (n=250) and urban (n=250) areas of Amman. Sampling followed Department of Statistics (2019) frames in four stages: (1) randomly selected four of Amman’s nine districts (two rural, two urban); (2) selected five villages per district (20 total); (3) selected five blocks per village (100 blocks); (4) selected five families per block via systematic random sampling. Participants were informed about study aims, voluntary participation, and could withdraw; study approved by the Scientific Research Committee, Department of Sociology, University of Jordan. Measures: Economic abuse measured using the 28-item Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA; Adams et al., 2008) with two subscales: Economic Control (17 items) and Economic Exploitation (11 items). Psychological abuse measured with the 21-item Profile of Psychological Abuse of Women (PPAW; Sackett & Saunders, 1999). Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and harassment measured using the 28-item Community Composite Abuse Scale (CCAS; Loxton et al., 2013) with subscales: physical (10 items), emotional (14), harassment (4). All items rated on 0 (never) to 4 (always) Likert scale; interpretive thresholds: ≥2.67 high, 1.34–2.66 medium, ≤1.33 low. Reliability and distribution: Overall Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80 (acceptable >0.60). Skewness coefficients for all variables <1, indicating approximate normality. Data analysis: Analyses conducted in SPSS 22. Descriptive statistics summarized sample characteristics and scale distributions. Kendall’s tau-b correlations assessed associations between economic abuse and other abuse types. Independent-samples t-tests compared rural vs. urban differences in women’s income, women’s education, husbands’ employment, and abuse scales; 95% confidence intervals reported and p<0.05 considered significant.

• Prevalence and comparison by area:
  • Total economic abuse: Urban 55.2% vs Rural 44.8% (SEA means: Urban M=2.764, SD=1.1029; Rural M=2.2467, SD=1.0069). Difference=0.5173, 95% CI [0.3317, 0.7029], t(493.924)=5.477, p<0.05.
  • Economic control: Urban 55.5% vs Rural 44.5%; t(492.029)=5.962, p<0.001.
  • Economic exploitation: Urban 54.6% vs Rural 45.4%; t(498)=4.553, p<0.001.
• Other abuses (Table 3):
  • Psychological abuse: Urban 55.5% vs Rural 44.5%; t(498)=6.26, p<0.001.
  • Emotional abuse: Urban 57.3% vs Rural 42.7%; t(498)=7.448, p<0.001.
  • Physical abuse: Urban 56.4% vs Rural 43.6%; t(498)=6.211, p<0.001.
  • Harassment: Urban 50.5% vs Rural 49.5%; no significant difference, t(498)=0.399, p=0.69.
• Associations: Economic abuse was significantly associated with psychological, emotional, physical abuse, and harassment (Kendall’s tau-b), indicating that women experiencing economic abuse also tended to experience other abuse types.
• Specific patterns reported:
  • Psychological: being made to feel frustrated/neglected when requesting emotional support; rebuked for social interactions; required to do everything a specific way.
  • Emotional: partner resentment when housework not completed; being told they are not good enough; prevented from socializing with female friends.
  • Physical: partners shaking, slapping, throwing objects.
  • Harassment: repeated phone calls by partners to women’s workplaces; similar levels across rural/urban.
• Socioeconomic differences: Urban women had higher income (Urban M≈1048.68 JOD vs Rural M≈782.66 JOD; t=6.235, p<0.001) and higher education (Urban M=3.70 vs Rural M=3.148; t=6.098, p<0.001). No significant rural-urban difference in husbands’ employment status (t(498)=1.913, p=0.056). Overall, urban women faced more economic and other forms of abuse than rural women, particularly emotional and physical abuse.

Findings address the research questions by demonstrating that economic abuse is prevalent among working married women in Amman and is more pronounced in urban than rural areas. Economic abuse manifests as both economic control (restricting access to money, dictating spending, hiding financial information, forcing receipt accounting) and economic exploitation (taking money, coercing access to financial instruments, building debt, misusing shared funds). The significant co-occurrence of psychological, emotional, physical abuse, and harassment with economic abuse supports the view that perpetrators employ multiple tactics—especially emotional and physical abuse—to reinforce coercive control and maintain economic dominance. Contrary to common assumptions that rural women face higher abuse due to traditional norms, the study found slightly higher rates among urban women. Possible explanations include urban women’s higher education and income increasing perceived threat or competition to male partners, leading to intensified control tactics; broader urban stressors; and structural constraints (e.g., resource competition, housing) that may hinder urban women from leaving abusive relationships. The results align with literature that situates economic abuse within coercive control frameworks and patriarchal structures, and they underscore how Jordan’s legal, social, and cultural norms can facilitate male financial control despite formal protections. These findings are relevant to policy and practice, highlighting the necessity of recognizing economic abuse as intertwined with other abuse forms and addressing it through legal reform, economic empowerment initiatives, and culturally informed interventions.

The study provides one of the first comparative examinations of economic abuse among working married women in Jordan’s urban and rural contexts. It shows that economic abuse is common and intertwined with psychological, emotional, and physical abuse and harassment, with urban women experiencing higher levels of economic control and exploitation than rural women. These patterns reflect broader patriarchal norms and legal-social structures that limit women’s economic autonomy. The findings should inform policies and interventions aimed at preventing and responding to economic abuse, including strengthening legal protections, promoting financial independence and literacy, and challenging cultural norms that justify male financial control. Future research should expand beyond Amman to include northern and southern regions and incorporate additional variables (e.g., kinship ties, religion, sector and status of women’s employment) and measures to clarify the directionality and consequences of economic abuse.

• Geographic scope: Sample limited to rural and urban districts within Amman; excluding northern and southern regions may limit generalizability across Jordan.
• Resources: Financial constraints prevented broader sampling.
• Variables: Additional potentially relevant variables (e.g., kinship between spouses, religion, detailed employment sector/status) were not included.
• Measurement scope: While validated scales were used, the study did not include measures to establish causal directionality or detailed consequences of economic abuse relative to other abuse types.