Table 1 Major influences and effects on the older women’s past experiences of gambling-related IPV
Cohort or period effect | Socio-ecological level | Influences on older women’s experiences of gambling-related IPV | Effects of generational and contextual factors on IPV | Effects of gambling on IPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort effects | Individual and relationship influences | Gendered attitudes and behaviours amongst the women | Acceptance of traditional gender norms within the relationship led to self-blame, self-sacrifice, and acceptance of the situation, including the abuse. | Acceptance of traditional gender norms within the relationship also meant not questioning his gambling and the associated abuse. |
Gendered attitudes and behaviours amongst male partners | Acceptance of traditional gender norms within the relationship led to a perceived entitlement to control decision-making, subordinate their partner, and use violence against her. | The gambling addiction exacerbated the individualistic and controlling behaviours of male partners and provided a strong motivation for coercive control and financial abuse. | ||
Reticence to disclose the abuse to family and friends | Expectations to keep domestic problems private meant that most women kept the abuse hidden due to shame, and an expectation that family and friends would not be helpful. | Expectations to keep domestic problems private meant that most women kept the gambling problem hidden due to shame, and an expectation that family and friends would not be helpful. | ||
Cohort effects | Societal influences | Traditional gendered views of marriage | Women’s socialisation into traditional gendered norms in marriage pressured them to maintain the façade of a perfect family by tolerating and concealing the abuse. | Tolerating and concealing domestic problems also included gambling problems. |
The silence surrounding IPV | Lack of public discourse about IPV meant women often did not recognise the behaviour as abuse or saw it as a normal part of relationships. | Lack of public discourse about IPV meant women did not recognise gambling-related abuse as IPV; and women with a gambling problem could feel they deserved the abuse. | ||
Little societal recognition of problem gambling | No public discourse about problem gambling. | Gambling was seen as a normal and harmless pastime by the women, family and friends, and institutions such as the police and justice systems. | ||
Period effects | Systemic influences | Lack of IPV and gambling services | No IPV services, financial support or childcare existed to help women escape violent relationships. | No gambling help services existed for gamblers or their partners to help address the gambling problem. |
Unhelpful, enabling and gendered service responses | Little help for women experiencing IPV as service responses included victim-blaming, stereotyping women as hysterical, and a failure to take the abuse seriously. | No consideration by services of the role of gambling in the abuse. | ||
Failure to help protect the woman’s safety | Limited understanding of IPV by services could result in a failure to protect the woman’s ongoing safety. | No consideration by services of the role of gambling in the abuse. |