Our previous research surfaced low levels of awareness of the terms economic abuse and coerced debt among the UK adult population, with 62% of people stating that they had never heard of the term economic abuse, and 68% stating that they had never heard of the term coerced debt.xxv
However, when presented with a hypothetical scenario involving coerced debt and the question of who should be responsible for the debts, the majority (67%) did not think the victim-survivor should be responsible for repaying the debts that had been accrued in their name.xxvi
In our second round of national polling, we asked victim-survivors directly – as opposed to the population at large – how they felt about their perpetrators’ behaviour, and whether they viewed it as wrong at the time.
The findings (Fig. 11) show that over half (49%) of those who had experienced coerced debt did not immediately recognise the behaviour they experienced as wrong, highlighting how coercive and controlling behaviour can be difficult to identify as such at the time. This is consistent with our understanding of domestic abuse perception more generally.
Two-fifths of respondents (42%) said they did not believe the behaviour was wrong at the time, but now recognise that it was.
Again, this chimes with what we already know from domestic abuse research. The subtle and gradual nature of control or pressure, where behaviour can be normalised or obscured until viewed in hindsight, prevents victim-survivors from identifying themselves as such which, in turn, makes it less likely that they will disclose. But it suggests that for many individuals, the impact of the behaviour only became clear once financial or emotional consequences have already taken hold.
Men were slightly more likely than women to fall into this group (45% compared with 39%), while levels were similar among those with additional vulnerabilities (40%).
7% said they did not believe the behaviour was wrong at the time and still do not. While this group represents a relatively small proportion of respondents, it underscores how deeply normalised or misunderstood certain behaviours can be, particularly when they occur within close or trusted relationships.
Fig. 11: Perceptions of perpetrator behaviour
| |
All |
Male |
Female |
Additional vulnerability |
| I believed their behaviour was wrong at the time |
44% |
42% |
47% |
46% |
| I didn’t believe their behaviour was wrong at the time, but I do now |
42% |
45% |
39% |
40% |
| I didn’t believe their behaviour was wrong at the time, and I still don’t |
7% |
8% |
6% |
7% |
| Don't know |
4% |
1% |
7% |
5% |
| Prefer not to say |
2% |
3% |
1% |
2% |
This data, coupled with the data regarding support-seeking behaviour, has worrying implications on awareness and disclosure. While most victim-survivors eventually recognised the behaviour as wrong, in a significant number of cases, they didn’t realise this initially which, in turn, either delayed or prevented them from seeking help.
The cost of delaying seeking support is steep.