Gambling Survey for Great Britain - Annual report (2023): Official statistics

Executive summary

This report contains findings from the first year of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB).

The survey aims to collect data to enable us to further understand:

• who participates in gambling
• what type of gambling activities they participate in
• experiences of and reasons for gambling
• the consequences that gambling can have on individuals and others close to them.

This survey was conducted using a push-to-web approach, with data collected from 9,742 adults aged 18 years and older living in Great Britain. Fieldwork was carried out between July 2023 and February 2024, consisting of 2 waves. The survey is commissioned by the Gambling Commission and carried out by the National Centre for Social Research in collaboration with the University of Glasgow.

Interpretation of the data

The new push-to-web methodology of this survey means that estimates presented in this report are not directly comparable with results from prior gambling or health surveys and such comparisons should not be used to assess trends over time. The GSGB data outlined in this report represents the first year of a new baseline, against which future changes can be compared.

The GSGB, like most other surveys, collects information from a sample of the population. Statistics based on surveys are estimates, rather than precise figures, and are subject to a margin of error (a 95 percent confidence interval). Generally, the larger the sample the smaller the margin of error.

Throughout this report, unless specified otherwise, findings that have been included and all differences noted between subgroups are significant at the 95 percent significance level.

Headline statistics

Gambling participation

Nearly half (48 percent) of adults aged 18 and over participated in any form of gambling in the past 4 weeks.

Gambling participation was 27 percent when those who only participated in lottery draws were excluded.

Male participants (52 percent) were more likely than female participants (44 percent) to have participated in any gambling in the past 4 weeks.

Males (30 percent) were also more likely than females (24 percent) to have gambled on something other than lottery draws alone.

Adults in the youngest and oldest age groups were least likely to participate in any form of gambling in the past 4 weeks (38 percent of those aged 18 to 24, and 41 percent of those aged 75 and over) and adults aged 45 to 64 were most likely (53 to 54 percent).

When excluding those who only participate in lottery draws, participation was highest for those aged 18 to 44 years (34 percent) and subsequently decreased with age to 13 percent for those aged 75 years and over.

The most common gambling activities that adults had participated in in the past 4 weeks were the National Lottery (31 percent), buying tickets for other charity lotteries (16 percent), and buying scratchcards (13 percent).

Participants were more likely to gamble online than gamble in person (that is to gamble at a venue or purchase lottery tickets or scratchcards from shops or other vendors) (37 percent and 29 percent respectively). However, much of this difference was accounted for by people purchasing lottery tickets online; when lottery draws are removed 18 percent of participants had gambled in person, compared with 15 percent online.

Male participants were more likely than female participants to have participated in any online gambling in the past 4 weeks (42 percent and 32 percent respectively) and to have gambled on online activities other than lottery draws (19 percent for males and 11 percent for females).

Male participants were also more likely than female participants to have taken part in gambling activities in person in the past 4 weeks (31 percent and 28 percent respectively), though when lottery draws were removed the proportions were similar (19 percent for males and 18 percent for females).

Experiences of and reasons for gambling

When asked to rate their feelings towards gambling out of 10, where 10 represented that they loved it, 0 represented that they hated it, and 5 represented the neutral mid-point:

• 41 percent of adults who gambled in the past 12 months rated the last time they gambled with a positive score of between 6 and 10
• 21 percent gave a negative score of between 0 and 4
• 37 percent gave a score of 5, expressing that they neither loved or hated it.

When participation in lottery draws was excluded, the pattern was similar with a higher proportion giving a positive score (50 percent between 6 and 10, 31 percent a neutral 5, and 19 percent a negative score between 0 and 4).

The most common reasons for adults to participate in gambling at least sometimes were:

• for the chance of winning big money (86 percent)
• because gambling is fun (70 percent)
• to make money (58 percent)
• because it was exciting (55 percent).

The most commonly reported reason for gambling was for the chance of winning big money, for both male and female participants (88 percent and 84 percent respectively).

Those aged 18 to 24 were the only age group where gambling because it was fun (83 percent) was more common than gambling to win big money (79 percent).

Consequences from own gambling

This report represents the first year of a new baseline survey against which future trends can be assessed. Direct comparisons with prior surveys to look at trends over time should therefore not be made. However, some comparisons to understand the impact of different survey methodologies is useful. For example, the proportion of people scoring 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) reported within the GSGB is higher than those reported in prior studies, which may have been impacted by the methodology used. There is uncertainty as to whether the GSGB or estimates from prior studies are closer to the truth. Whilst further work is undertaken to explore this, there is a risk that estimates presented below overstate the true level of adverse gambling consequences within the population. This executive summary on PGSI scores therefore focuses on comparative data rather than absolutes. More detail on this is included in the chapter on the consequences from gambling.

Problem Gambling Severity Index

The PGSI is used to measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling. The PGSI consists of 9 items that are rated on a 4 point-scale. Responses to the 9 PGSI questions are summed and a score ranging between 0 and 27 is computed. Scores are then grouped into these categories:

• PGSI score of 0 (a person who gambles, but does not report experiencing any of the 9 behavioural symptoms or adverse consequences asked about)
• PGSI score of 1 to 2 (low risk gambling by which a person is unlikely to have experienced any adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling)
• PGSI score of 3 to 7 (moderate risk gambling by which a person may or may not have experienced adverse consequences from gambling but may be at risk if they are heavily involved in gambling)
• PGSI score of 8 or higher (problem gambling by which a person will have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour. Involvement in gambling can be at any level, but is likely to be heavy).

The PGSI categories represent a continuum of risk, ranging from those experiencing no adverse consequences or behavioural symptoms of disorder to those experiencing both.

Among all participants, 8.3 percent had a PGSI score of 1 to 2, 3.7 percent had a PGSI score of 3 to 7, and 2.5 percent had a PGSI score of 8 or more.

Among participants who had gambled in the past 12 months, 13.7 percent of adults had a PGSI score of 1 to 2,6.0 percent had a PGSI score of 3 to 7,and 4.2 percent had a PGSI score 8 or more.

Male participants were more likely than female participants to have PGSI scores above 0. Those aged 18 to 34 had higher PGSI scores than other age groups.

The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was over 9 times higher for those who had taken part in betting on non-sports events in person relative to all people who had gambled in the past 12 months.

The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was more than 5 times higher for those who had gambled on online slots, relative to all people who had gambled in the past 12 months.

The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 8 or more was between 4 and 5 times higher than all people who had gambled in the past 12 months for several gambling activities such as football pools, online bingo, and casino games.

Adverse consequences from own gambling

The Commission has developed a new set of questions to be used in the GSGB to measure a broad range of adverse consequences from gambling. These questions, asked of those who had gambled in the past 12 months, were split into 2 types:

1. Those categorised as severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful.

2. Those categorised as other potential adverse consequences, which are more likely to be harmful if experienced often or may be harmful depending on the individual’s specific circumstances.

Severe consequences from own gambling

Among those who had gambled in the past 12 months, the most reported severe consequence experienced as a result of one’s own gambling was relationship breakdown (1.6 percent).

Males participants who had gambled in the past 12 months (3.6 percent) were more likely than female participants who had gambled in the past 12 months (2.1 percent) to experience at least one severe consequence due to their own gambling.

Experiencing at least one severe consequence was higher among younger adults who had had gambled in the past 12 months (6.0 percent for those aged 18 to 34) than older adults who had gambled in the past 12 months (0.8 percent for those aged 55 and over).

Other potential adverse consequences from own gambling

Among those who gambled in the past 12 months the most frequently reported potential adverse consequences were:

• reducing spending on everyday items (6.8 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
• lying to family (6.4 percent reported this happening at least occasionally)
• feeling isolated (5.5 percent reported this happening at least occasionally).

Suicide ideation or attempts

Participants were asked if they had thought about taking their own life or had attempted to do so in the past 12 months. Those who answered yes were then asked if this was related to their gambling.

Of the 11.4 percent of participants who had thought about or attempted taking their own life, 4.9 percent reported that this was related to their gambling either a little or a lot, with 1.1 percent reporting that this was related to their gambling a lot.

It is worth noting, in an area which is very difficult to research, that the 11.4 percent of adults who had thought about or attempted taking their own life in the past 12 months represents an estimate higher than reported in other studies.

Help seeking for own gambling

Overall, 3.2 percent of adults who had gambled in the past 12 months had sought support because of their own gambling. Similar proportions of participants sought help from each source of support; ranging from 1 percent for gambling support services to 1.9 percent for food banks.

Severe and other potential adverse consequences from someone else's gambling

Nearly half (48.1 percent) of adults reported someone close to them gambled, even if occasionally.

Around 1 in 20 (4.7 percent) adults who knew someone close to them who gambled reported experiencing at least one severe consequence from someone else’s gambling.

The most commonly reported severe consequence from someone else’s gambling was relationship breakdown (3.5 percent).

The most frequently reported potential adverse consequences of someone else’s gambling were:

• experiencing health problems, including stress and anxiety (10.6 percent of those who knew someone close to them gambled reported this happening at least occasionally)
• experiencing embarrassment, guilt or shame (9.9 percent of those who knew someone close to them gambled experienced this at least occasionally)
• experience of conflict or arguments (8.8 percent of those who knew someone close to them gambled experienced this at least occasionally).

Help seeking due to someone else’s gambling

Overall, 3 percent of participants who reported that someone close to them gambled had sought some form of support; ranging from 1.2 percent for mental health services or relationship counselling to 1.5 percent for gambling support services.

Introduction

Background

The Gambling Commission is the national regulator of most forms of gambling in Great Britain. Its aim is to permit gambling provided it is consistent with its licensing objectives, which are to:

• prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

The Commission’s work is underpinned by two main pieces of legislation: the Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab) which sets the framework for the regulation of gambling in Great Britain; and the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 which sets out the framework within which the Commission regulates the National Lottery.

Under section 26 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission has responsibility for collecting and disseminating information relating to the extent and impact of gambling in Great Britain. In order to do this, the Commission collects data on gambling behaviours via surveys of adults aged 18 years and over in Great Britain. The data is published as official statistics, that is produced in accordance with the standards set out by the Office for Statistics Regulation in the Code of Practice for Statistics (opens in new tab). Previously, a variety of data collection approaches have been used to meet this requirement: a bespoke study of gambling (British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 and 2010); by including questions on the Health Surveys for England, Scotland, and Wales¹; and a quarterly telephone survey which supplemented the Health Surveys by providing a more regular measure of participation and problem gambling prevalence. The Commission has a separate programme of research for children and young people aged 11 to 17.

In December 2020, the Commission launched a consultation Participation and prevalence research - Gambling Commission to gather views on proposals to develop a single, high quality methodology to measure gambling behaviours. The aim was to have a more efficient, cost-effective data source providing robust and timely insight and the flexibility to swiftly provide information on emerging trends. The results of the consultation were published in June 2021 Consultation on gambling participation and problem gambling prevalence research - The Gambling Commission - Citizen Space (opens in new tab).

In October 2021 the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the University of Glasgow, working with Bryson Purdon Social Research were commissioned to take on the pilot project. This involved developing and testing a new push-to-web data collection methodology. Several national surveys have taken this approach of moving to push-to-web data collection, as a result of falling response rates on face-to-face data collection methods and their cost effectiveness. Findings from the pilot were published in May 2022 and are reported in Participation and Prevalence: Pilot methodology review report. The methodology was rolled out in summer 2022 for data collection under experimental statistics², having identified its feasibility within the pilot phase.

Experimental statistics are a subset of newly developed or innovative official statistics undergoing evaluation: Experimental Statistics – Office for Statistics Regulation (opens in new tab). The experimental statistics phase involved 3 steps and was contracted to NatCen and the University of Glasgow. Step 1 tested the impact of household sample selection, with either a maximum of 2 adults invited to take part within a household or a maximum of 4 adults. Findings from this step indicated a maximum of 2 adults should be selected for the survey. Step 2 tested the use of different answer options on the newly developed questions on potentially negative consequences of gambling. Some participants were asked these questions with ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ answer options and some were asked these with ‘Often’, ‘Fairly often’, ‘Occasionally’ and ‘Never’ answer options. It was concluded that the four-point answer option should be used. Step 3 was a dress rehearsal of the new approach.

Two reports on findings from the experimental phase have been published. The first report covering steps 1 and 2 was published in April 2023 Gambling participation and the prevalence of problem gambling survey: Experimental statistics stage report and a further report, covering the final step, was published in November 2023 Gambling participation and the prevalence of problem gambling survey: Final experimental statistics stage (Step 3).

Following the success of step 3, the Commission launched the new Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), which moved to its first year of continuous official statistics data collection in July 2023. This report presents results from the first period of official statistics data collection (Year 1; July 2023 to February 2024).

The timeline of GSGB development, starting with the consultation in 2020, is tracked on the Commission’s website: Development of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain.

Aims

The aims of the GSGB are to:

• collect data on a wide range of up-to-date gambling behaviours, including participation and adverse consequences of gambling
• provide a rolling programme of data collection to give the Commission the ability to gain timely insights and respond to emerging trends
• contribute to the evidence base on gambling behaviours and impacts, and help identify gaps and priorities
• produce and publish official statistics on gambling participation and prevalence statistics in accordance with the standards set out by the Office for Statistics Regulation in the Code of Practice for Statistics (opens in new tab).

Overview of survey design

The GSGB uses what is known as a push-to-web approach, in which individuals are first encouraged to take part online, completing a web questionnaire. Those who do not initially take part online are subsequently offered an alternative means of participation. In the GSGB this alternative is a paper questionnaire, sent by post. By offering an alternative, the survey includes people who are not online or who do not feel willing or able to go online to take part. The survey design is described in more detail in the technical report.

In the first year, the survey was designed to collect data from 10,000 individuals aged 18 years and over. This is lower than future years because the collection of continuous official statistics data did not start until July 2023. In the second year, data collection moved to a calendar year basis and the aim will be to collect data from 20,000 individuals annually.

Findings in this report are not directly comparable with previous surveys used for gambling statistics, such as the Health Surveys (HS) for England (opens in new tab) and Health Surveys (HS) for Scotland (opens in new tab) and the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) series (opens in new tab) (PDF). This is because the new push-to-web methodology uses a different approach compared to the methodologies used in previous surveys. The findings in this report represent the first year of a new baseline against which future changes can be compared.

Future plans and availability of data

GSGB data is deposited at the UK Data Service (opens in new tab), within 6 months of publication of each annual report.

Interactive data will be available alongside publication of each annual report, via a Power BI dashboard (opens in new tab).

This dashboard is in Microsoft Power BI which may not fully support all accessibility needs. You can find the source data in the GSGB Annual report (2023) data tables and the GSGB Annual report (2023) supplementary region and country data tables.

Some files may not be accessible for users of assistive technology. If you require a copy of the file in an accessible format contact us with details of what you require. It would help us to know what technology you use and the required format.

---

¹These are large scale face-to-face population surveys where gambling questions are included approximately every two years.

²Now known as Official statistics in development - Office for Statistics Regulation (opens in new tab)

Response to the survey

Address-level response rates

Table A.1: Address-level response rates

Table A.1: Address-level response rates

Response of issued addresses	Total addresses (number)	Total addresses (percentage)	Total eligible (percentage)
Issued addresses	37,554	100%	Not applicable
Assumed ineligible	3,380	9%	Not applicable
Assumed eligible (residential addresses)	34,174	91%	100%
Refusal or unable to take part	47	0%	0%
No response	27,491	73%	80%
Productive addresses	6,636	18%	19%

In total, 37,554 addresses were issued. In remote surveys (that is where participants complete the survey independently without any involvement from an interviewer), no information is known about the reason for non-response in individual addresses. However, it was assumed that around 9 percent of addresses in the sample (3,380) were not residential and were therefore ineligible to complete the survey¹.

In total, 6,636 addresses were productive. The adjusted address-level response rate, that is the proportion of assumed eligible addresses where a questionnaire was completed by at least one adult, was 19 percent (slightly lower than the target of 22 percent). There was no response from 27,491 addresses and in a further 47 addresses, an individual contacted the office to say they did not wish or were unable to take part.

Table A.2 Address-level response, by country

Table A.2 Address-level response, by country

Country	Total issued addresses (number)	Total issued addresses (percentage)	Total assumed eligible addresses (number)	Total assumed eligible addresses (percentage)	Total productive addresses (number)	Household response rate (percentage)
England	32,219	86%	29,319	86%	5,714	19%
Scotland	3,468	9%	3,156	9%	599	19%
Wales	1,867	5%	1,699	5%	323	19%
All addresses	37,554	100%	34,174	100%	6,636	19%

Table A.2 Address-level response, by country shows the breakdown of the issued sample in England, Scotland and Wales and the household response rate in each country. In total, 86 percent of the issued addresses were in England, 9 percent in Scotland and 5 percent in Wales. The adjusted household response rate was 19 percent in all 3 countries.

Individual-level response rates

Following the process of removing duplicate responses², cases deemed to have completed the online questionnaire too quickly to have properly engaged with the questions and cases above the maximum 2 completions per household³, it was assumed that all responses in the dataset were from 9,742 unique individuals who had completed the questionnaire.

In total, 44 percent of the responding unweighted sample were male, and 56 percent were female, as shown in Table A.3: (Individual-level response, by age and sex). This under-representation of males is similar to that seen in the latest published results for other surveys with the same completion modes, for example, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) 2022 survey - BSA 40 Technical details (natcen.ac.uk) (opens in new tab) (PDF). In total, 44 percent of the BSA 2022 unweighted main sample were male and 56 percent female.

Those in the youngest age group were the least likely to take part: 5 percent of responding adults were aged 18 to 24, whereas this age group makes up 10 percent of the adult population of Great Britain. Conversely, 18 percent of responding adults were aged 64 to 74, whereas this group makes up 13 percent of the population as shown in Table A.3: Individual-level response, by age and sex.

Table A.3: Individual-level response, by age and sex

Table A.4: Individual-level response, by age and sex

Age group (years)	Total participants male (percentage)	Total participants female (percentage)	Total participants all (percentage)	Total Great Britain population adult males (percentage)	Total Great Britain population adult females (percentage)	Total Great Britain population adult all (percentage)
18 to 24	4%	7%	5%	11%	10%	10%
25 to 34	13%	17%	15%	17%	17%	17%
35 to 44	15%	17%	16%	16%	16%	16%
45 to 54	14%	15%	15%	17%	16%	17%
55 to 64	18%	18%	18%	16%	16%	16%
65 to 74	20%	16%	18%	13%	13%	13%
75 and over	16%	10%	13%	10%	12%	11%
All participants	44%	56%	100%	48%	52%	100%
Unweighted bases (number)	4,262	5,460	9,722	25,005,805	26,712,827	51,718,632

This age variation was particularly pronounced for males: 4 percent of responding males were aged 18 to 24, compared with 11 percent of the total male adult population of Great Britain who are in this age group. The equivalent proportions for females aged 18 to 24 were 7 percent and 10 percent. The national percentages are based on the 2022 mid-year population estimates for Great Britain: Estimates of the population for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by the Office for National Statistics (opens in new tab).

Table A.4: Individual-level response, by mode of completion and sex

Table A.4 Individual-level response, by mode of completion and sex shows response rates by mode of completion, overall and for males and females separately. Overall, 65 percent (6,296) completed the survey online and 35 percent (3,429) completed a postal questionnaire. These results are broadly in line with expectations, based on the development stages of the GSGB.

Table A.4: Individual-level response, by mode of completion and sex

Sex	Individual-level response: Online completions (percentage)	Individual-level response: Postal completions (percentage)	Individual-level response: Total completions (percentage)	Individual-level response: Total completions (number)
Male	64%	36%	44%	4,265
Female	65%	35%	56%	5,460
All participants	65%	35%	100%	9,725
Unweighted bases (number)	6,296	3,429	9,725	9,725

Table A.5: Individual-level response, by mode of completion and age

There was little difference between males and females in the mode of completion. In all age groups, except the oldest 2 (aged 65 to 74 and aged 75 and over), a higher proportion of participants completed the survey online than filled in the postal questionnaire. In total, 46 percent of those aged 65 to 74 and 33 percent of those aged 75 and over completed the survey online compared with between 58 percent and 88 percent of those in the younger age groups as shown in Table A.5: Individual-level response, by mode of completion and age.

Table A.5: Individual response, by mode of completion and age

Age group (years)	Individual-level response: Online completions (percentage)	Individual-level response: Postal completions (percentage)	Individual-level response: Total completions (number)
18 to 24	85%	15%	531
25 to 34	88%	12%	1,482
35 to 44	82%	18%	1,589
45 to 54	72%	28%	1,440
55 to 64	58%	42%	1,723
65 to 74	46%	54%	1,734
75 plus	33%	67%	1,240
All participants	65%	35%	9,742
Unweighted bases (number)	6,306	3,436	9,742

Weighting strategy

The data was weighted to take account of non-response, bias, and improve representativeness. This was done separately for each of the 2 waves and then combined into a single weight for this report. As there was no disproportionate sampling, selection weights were not required. The weighting method consisted of 2 stages⁴, repeated for Wave 1 and Wave 2:

1. A logistic regression model for number of responses within a household (run for households with more than one eligible adult).

2. A calibration to population estimates.

For the first stage, forward and backward stepwise logistic regression models were used to test which variables were predictive of the number of responses within a household. These models were run only for households with more than one eligible adult. Area-level variables (from the 2021 census for England and Wales and the 2011 census for Scotland) and household-level variables were tested. Where both a household level and area level version of a given characteristic was available, the household-level version was used. For example, if household income and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) were both predictive of number of responses, only household income was used. The final regression models included all variables that were significant in the stepwise regressions for that given wave (see the Gambling Survey for Great Britain - Year 1 (2023), wave 1 report and the Gambling Survey for Great Britain - Year 1 (2023), wave 2 report for detail of the variables included). Region of residence was also included in each model to control for any regional differences in survey response.

The predicted probabilities from these models were used to create response weights for households with more than one eligible adult. Weights were checked for outliers and trimmed if necessary. Weights for responding households with only one eligible adult were set to one.

The response weights were then calibrated to estimates of the eligible population, that is, residents of Great Britain aged 18 years and over. Calibration weighting adjusts the weights so that characteristics of the weighted achieved sample match population estimates, reducing bias. The following variables were included in the calibration for each wave: age categories by sex, region, IMD percentiles (quintiles for England and bitiles for Wales and Scotland), tenure, and ethnicity.

Estimates of the Great Britain population by age, sex, and region of residence were taken from Office for National Statistics (ONS) mid-year population estimates, which were for 2022 in England and Wales Population estimates - Office for National Statistics (opens in new tab) and for 2021 in Scotland Population estimates for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - Office for National Statistics (opens in new tab). Population estimates for IMD percentiles within each country were taken from ONS England and Wales (opens in new tab) and National Records of Scotland (opens in new tab). Population estimates for tenure and ethnicity were taken from the most recent Labour Force Survey data available, which was gathered between April and June 2023 Labour Force Survey performance and quality monitoring report: April to June 2023 (opens in new tab).

After calibration, the weights were checked for outliers and retrimmed if necessary. To create the annual weight, each wave’s weights were rescaled to sum to the same value, to ensure that each wave equally contributed to analysis. The final weight for the 9,742 productive individuals has a design effect of 1.25, an effective sample size of 7,820, and efficiency of 80 percent.

---

¹When estimating the proportion of ineligible addresses in an online survey, it is best practice to assume the same ineligibility rate as a recent face-to-face survey which uses the same sample frame and sampling approach and for which detailed outcomes are known for the entire issued sample. Ineligibility rates in Postcode Address File face-to-face surveys tend to fall between 8 percent and 10 percent. 9 percent is the rate recorded in the most recent face-to-face British Social Attitudes Survey (2019) and so has been used as an appropriate default for this survey.

²Where a single participant completed the survey a second time.

³For example, two completing the survey online and two different people completing postal questionnaires.

⁴This same method was also used to weight experimental statistics phase data, with the notable difference that highest level of education has not been included in the calibration variables for official statistics data collection. This is because the qualification questions in the GSGB are too different to those included in the Labour Force Survey (LFS) to be confident that they are measuring the same thing. Both the experimental statistics phase and GSGB Year 1 response datasets show significant divergence in education profiles compared to LFS estimates. Therefore, calibration to LFS estimates of education would not be reliable and has the potential to increase bias rather than reduce it. Alternative high-quality estimates of education levels are not available

Gambling participation

This section cross refers to information that can be found in an accompanying set of data tables, specifically Tables B.1 to B.8.

A main aim of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) is to provide data on gambling participation in Great Britain. This chapter covers gambling participation and gambling behaviours of adults aged 18 and over, focusing first on the proportion of adults who had gambled on any activities, followed by those who had gambled on specific types of activities. This chapter also looks at the total number of different activities participants had taken part in.

Participation in gambling

Participants were asked about gambling in 2 time periods: the past 12 months and the past 4 weeks. This section outlines participation in gambling activities in these 2 time periods, followed by participation in online gambling, in person gambling and individual gambling activities in the past 4 weeks only.

Definitions

Full list of gambling activities

Activity	Asked if participated in past 12 months	Asked if participated in past 4 weeks
Tickets for National Lottery draws	Yes	Yes
Tickets for National Lottery draws bought online	No	Yes
Tickets for National Lottery draws bought in person	No	Yes
Lotto	No	Yes
Euromillions	No	Yes
Thunderball	No	Yes
Lotto Hotpicks	No	Yes
Euromillions Hotpicks	No	Yes
Set for Life	No	Yes
Tickets for other charity lottery draws	Yes	Yes
Tickets for other charity lottery draws bought online	No	Yes
Tickets for other charity lottery draws bought in person	No	Yes
Health Lottery	No	Yes
Postcode Lottery	No	Yes
Other lottery tickets, including charity	No	Yes
Scratchcards	Yes	Yes
National Lottery scratchcards	Yes	Yes
Other scratchcards	Yes	Yes
Online instant win games	Yes	Yes
National Lottery online instant win games	Yes	Yes
Other online instant win games	Yes	Yes
Betting	Yes	Yes
Betting on sports and racing online or via an app	Yes	Yes
Betting on sports and racing in person	Yes	Yes
Live football	No	Yes
Live tennis	No	Yes
Live horse and/or dog racing	No	Yes
Other live sports	No	Yes
E-sports	No	Yes
Virtual games and/or races	No	Yes
Betting exchange	No	Yes
Betting on the outcome of events online or via an app	Yes	Yes
Betting on the outcome of events in person	Yes	Yes
Bingo	Yes	Yes
Bingo online or via an app	Yes	Yes
Bingo played at a venue, for example bingo hall or social club	Yes	Yes
Casino games	Yes	Yes
Casino games played online or via an app	Yes	Yes
Casino games played at a casino	Yes	Yes
Casino games played on a machine or terminal in a venue, such as a casino, bookmakers, club, or pub	Yes	Yes
Fruit and slots games	Yes	Yes
Fruit and slots games played online or via an app	Yes	Yes
Fruit and slots games played in person (on a machine)	Yes	Yes
Football pools	Yes	Yes
Private betting	Yes	Yes
Another form of gambling activity	Yes	Yes

Overall gambling participation

Past 12 months gambling participation

In the past 12 months, 61 percent of adults participated in any form of gambling, with 40 percent gambling on activities other than lottery draws alone (Table B.1).

Male participants were more likely than female participants to have gambled in the past 12 months, both overall (63 percent for males; 58 percent for females) and on activities other than lottery draws alone (42 percent and 39 percent respectively).

Gambling on any activity in the past 12 months varied by age with lower rates among those aged 18 to 24 (54 percent) and 75 and over (50 percent) and higher rates among those aged 25 to 64, where rates ranged between 62 percent and 66 percent. A different pattern by age was observed for gambling on activities other than lottery draws alone: here rates were highest among those aged 25 to 44 (52 percent for those aged 25 to 34 and 50 percent for those aged 35 to 44) and then decreased with age to 19 percent for those aged 75 and over.

Figure 1: Gambling participation in the past 12 months including and excluding lottery draws only, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,679 unweighted)

Figure 1: Gambling participation in the past 12 months including and excluding lottery draws only, by sex

Gambling participation in the past 12 months	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Any gambling participation (including lottery draws)	63%	58%
Gambling participation excluding lottery draws only	42%	39%

Past 4 weeks gambling participation

When looking at gambling participation, the default analysis in this report uses participation in the past 4 weeks.

Overall, 48 percent of adults participated in any form of gambling in the past 4 weeks, with 27 percent gambling on an activity other than lottery draws alone (Table B.2).

As with gambling participation in the past 12 months, male participants (52 percent) were more likely than female participants (44 percent) to have participated in any form of gambling in the past 4 weeks. Male participants (30 percent) were also more likely than female participants (24 percent) to have gambled on something other than lottery draws alone in the past 4 weeks.

Gambling participation in any activity in the past 4 weeks was lowest among the youngest and oldest age groups (38 percent of those aged 18 to 24, and 41 percent of those aged 75 and over) and highest among those aged 55 to 64 (54 percent). Gambling in the past 4 weeks on something other than lottery draws only was highest for those aged 18 to 44 (34 percent) and subsequently decreased with age to 13 percent of those aged 75 and over.

Figure 2: Gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,612 unweighted)

Figure 2: Gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

Gambling participation in the past four weeks	18 to 24 (percentage)	25 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 44 (percentage)	45 to 54 (percentage)	55 to 64 (percentage)	65 to 74 (percentage)	75 and over (percentage)
Any gambling participation (including lottery draws)	38%	45%	51%	53%	54%	49%	41%
Gambling participation excluding lottery draws only	34%	34%	34%	29%	24%	16%	13%

Online and in person gambling participation

Online gambling participation in the past 4 weeks

Over a third (37 percent) of adults had gambled online in the past 4 weeks. When excluding those whose only online activity was purchasing online lottery tickets, the figure reduces to 15 percent (Table B.3).

Male participants were more likely than female participants to have gambled online in the past 4 weeks (42 percent and 32 percent respectively) and to have gambled online on activities other than lottery draws in the past 4 weeks (19 percent for males; 11 percent for females).

Gambling online on any activities in the past 4 weeks was highest among those aged 45 to 54 (44 percent) and 55 to 64 (43 percent) and lowest among those aged 18 to 24 (26 percent) and 75 and over (30 percent). A different pattern by age was seen when looking at gambling online on activities other than lottery draws. Here, the rates were highest for the younger participants (20 percent for those aged 18 to 44) and decreased with age to 3 percent of those aged 75 and over.

Figure 3: Online gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,536 unweighted)

Figure 3: Online gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

Online gambling participation in the past 4 weeks	18 to 24 (percentage)	25 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 44 (percentage)	45 to 54 (percentage)	55 to 64 (percentage)	65 to 74 (percentage)	75 and over (percentage)
Any online gambling participation (including lottery draws)	26%	32%	40%	44%	43%	37%	30%
Online gambling participation excluding lottery draws only	20%	20%	20%	17%	11%	7%	3%

In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks

Overall, 29 percent of adults had gambled in person in the past 4 weeks. This included purchasing lottery tickets from a shop or vendor as well as visits to gambling venues like bingo halls, bookmakers, casinos or using fruit and slot machines. Excluding those who only bought tickets for lottery draws in person, 18 percent of participants gambled in person on some other activity (Table B.4).

In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks was higher among male participants (31 percent) than female participants (28 percent). In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks excluding lottery draws only was similar for males and females (19 percent for males; 18 percent for females).

Adults aged 55 to 64 (32 percent) were most likely to have participated in any in person gambling in the past 4 weeks and adults aged 18 to 24 (26 percent) and 75 and over (27 percent) were least likely.

As with gambling online on activities other than lottery draws, a different pattern by age was evident when lottery draws only were excluded: rates of gambling in person on activities other than lottery draws only decreased with age from 24 percent of those aged 18 to 24 to 10 percent of those aged 75 and over.

Figure 4: In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,574 unweighted)

Figure 4: In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks including and excluding lottery draws only, by age group

In person gambling participation in the past 4 weeks	18 to 24 (percentage)	25 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 44 (percentage)	45 to 54 (percentage)	55 to 64 (percentage)	65 to 74 (percentage)	75 and over (percentage)
Any in person gambling participation (including lottery draws)	26%	28%	31%	30%	32%	30%	27%
In person gambling participation excluding lottery draws only	24%	23%	23%	19%	16%	12%	10%

Individual gambling activities participation

Participation in types of gambling activities

Participants were asked about their gambling participation in the past 4 weeks for individual activities (tickets for National Lottery draws, charity lotteries, scratchcards, online instant win games, betting, bingo, casino games, fruit and slot machines, football pools, private betting and other forms of gambling activity). The full list of activities is shown and are grouped into 10 high-level categories or types of gambling activity (Table B.5).

Amongst the 10 high-level categories, the most common gambling activity undertaken in the past 4 weeks was the purchase of National Lottery tickets (either in person or online), with 31 percent of adults reporting this. This was followed by:

• tickets for other charity lotteries (16 percent)
• scratchcards (13 percent)
• any betting online or in person (9 percent).

The least reported activity was football pools, undertaken by 2 percent of all participants in the past 4 weeks.

Male participants were more likely than female participants to take part in the following activities:

• buying tickets for the National Lottery (35 percent males; 28 percent females)
• participating in any betting online or in person (15 percent males; 4 percent females)
• playing fruit and slot machines in person or playing online slots (6 percent males; 3 percent females)
• playing casino games online or in person (4 percent males; 1 percent females)
• participating in private betting (4 percent males; 2 percent females)
• participating in football pools (3 percent males; 1 percent females).

A higher proportion of female than male participants bought scratchcards (14 percent females; 13 percent males) and played bingo (either online or in person) (6 percent females; 3 percent males).

Participation in the past 4 weeks for charity lotteries and online instant win games was similar for male and female participants.

Figure 5: Gambling participation in the past 4 weeks, by type of activity and sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,610 unweighted)

i Includes both online and in person gambling

Figure 5: Gambling participation in the past 4 weeks, by type of activity and sex

Gambling activity	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Any gambling i	52%	44%
National Lottery draws i	35%	28%
Charity lottery draws i	15%	16%
Betting i	15%	4%
Scratchcards	13%	14%
Online instant win games	7%	6%
Fruit and slots machines i	6%	3%
Casino games i	4%	1%
Private betting	4%	2%
Bingo i	3%	6%
Football pools	3%	1%

Patterns of gambling participation by age varied for different types of gambling activities. Participation in National Lottery draws increased with age up to 64, from 13 percent of those aged 18 to 24 to 40 percent of those aged 55 to 64 then decreased amongst older participants (to 35 percent of those aged 65 to 74 and 29 percent among those aged 75 and over). Participation in other charity lottery draws followed a similar pattern with the highest participation among those aged 65 to 74 (22 percent compared with between 6 percent and 20 percent in the other age groups).

Younger adults were more likely than older adults to have participated in:

• any betting online or in person (14 percent for those aged 25 to 34; 2 to 6 percent for those aged 65 and over)
• bingo online or in person (7 percent for those aged 18 to 24 compared with 3 to 4 percent for those aged 45 and over)
• casino games online or in person (6 percent for those aged 18 to 24 compared with 0 or 1 percent for those aged 55 and over).

Participation peaked at age 35 to 44 for online instant win games (10 percent) and those aged 18 to 44 were also more likely to play fruit and slot games online or in person (7 percent). Purchasing of scratchcards was highest among those aged 18 to 44 (17 percent to 18 percent) before decreasing by age.

Types of lottery draw participation

Over one third (36 percent) of adults had participated in any lottery draw in the past 4 weeks, with just under one third (31 percent) purchasing tickets for National Lottery draws (Table B.6).

Lotto (22 percent) and Euromillions (21 percent) were the most popular National Lottery draws. Less than 10 percent of adults purchased tickets for each of the other National Lottery draws in the past 4 weeks: Set for Life (6 percent), Thunderball (4 percent), Lotto Hotpicks (1 percent) and Euromillions Hotpicks (1 percent).

Male participants were more likely than females to participate in:

• Lotto (24 percent males; 20 percent females)
• Euromillions (24 percent males; 17 percent females)
• Set for Life (6 percent males; 5 percent females)
• Thunderball (5 percent males; 3 percent females).

Participation in Lotto Hotpicks, Euromillions Hotpicks and other charity lottery draws was similar for male and female participants (1 percent for both in National Lottery activities, 15 percent males and 16 percent females in other charity lottery draws).

Figure 6: Lottery draw participation in the past 4 weeks, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,610 unweighted)

Figure 6: Lottery draw participation in the past 4 weeks, by sex

Type of lottery draw	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Lotto	24%	20%
Euromillions	24%	17%
Set for Life	6%	5%
Thunderball	5%	3%
Lotto Hotpicks	1%	1%
Euromillions Hotpicks	1%	1%
Other charity lottery draws	15%	16%
Any National Lottery draw	35%	28%
Any lottery draw	39%	34%

Types of betting participation

9 percent of adults had participated in any online or in person betting in the past 4 weeks (Table B.5).

Participants were asked about the types of betting they had participated in in the past 4 weeks, including different sports, virtual games, in-play betting, and betting exchanges. The type of betting with the highest participation in the past 4 weeks was live football (6 percent), followed by betting in-play on any event or sport (4 percent) and live horse or dog racing (3 percent) (Table B.7).

Participation in all types of betting was higher for male than female participants. For example, 11 percent of male participants had bet on live football matches compared with 2 percent of female participants.

Figure 7: Type of betting participation in the past 4 weeks, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,610 unweighted)

Figure 7: Type of betting participation in the past 4 weeks, by sex

Types of betting	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Live football	11%	2%
Live horse or dog racing	5%	2%
Bet in-play	7%	1%
Other live sports	2%	0%
Used a betting exchange	2%	0%
Live tennis	1%	0%
Virtual games or races	0%	0%
E-sports	0%	0%

Number of gambling activities

Analysis on number of activities was conducted for those who had participated in gambling in the past 4 weeks only. Almost half of those who had gambled in the past 4 weeks participated in one activity (47 percent). This was followed by 26 percent who had participated in 2 activities and 12 percent who participated in 3 activities. Only 1 percent of adults had participated in 10 or more activities. For those who had gambled in the past 4 weeks, the average (mean) number of activities taken part in was 2.3 (Table B.8).

On average, male participants took part in more activities than female participants (2.4 and 2.1 respectively). Among male and female participants who had gambled in the past 4 weeks, the highest proportions participated in one activity (46 percent and 48 percent respectively).

The number of activities participated in also varied by age. Participating in one activity only increased with age from 37 percent of those aged 18 to 24 to 60 percent of those aged 75 and over. Participation in 3 or more activities was highest in those aged 35 to 44 (35 percent) and 18 to 24 (36 percent), decreasing to 12 percent of those aged 75 and over. The average (mean) number of groups of activities, among those who had gambled in the past 4 weeks, also decreased with age: from 3.2 among those aged 18 to 24 to 1.6 among those aged 75 and over.

Figure 8: Number of gambling activities taken part in, in the past 4 weeks, by age

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who gambled in the past 4 weeks (4,567 unweighted)

Figure 8: Number of gambling activities taken part in, in the past 4 weeks, by age

Number of gambling activities	18 to 24 (percentage)	25 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 44 (percentage)	45 to 54 (percentage)	55 to 64 (percentage)	65 to 74 (percentage)	75 and over (percentage)
1	37%	43%	40%	44%	51%	57%	60%
2	28%	24%	24%	25%	29%	29%	29%
3	9%	12%	15%	14%	12%	7%	8%
4	8%	6%	9%	8%	5%	3%	3%
5 or more	19%	14%	11%	9%	3%	3%	1%

Experiences of and reasons for gambling

This section cross refers to information that can be found in an accompanying set of data tables, specifically Tables C.1 to C.3.

The purpose of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) is to provide a broad understanding of gambling behaviours across Great Britain. This includes understanding how gambling fits into people’s lives, the motivations and reasons why people participate in gambling and their gambling experiences. This chapter covers participation in leisure activities, feelings towards gambling, and reasons for taking part in gambling activities.

Definitions

Types of leisure activities

Over 90 percent of adults spent time with friends and family (98 percent), watched TV (95 percent), and listened to music (91 percent) in the past 4 weeks. A majority also reported shopping (80 percent), eating out at restaurants (73 percent), participating in sports or exercise (64 percent) or doing DIY or gardening (61 percent). Half had gone to pubs, bars or clubs (50 percent) (Table C.1). By comparison, 48 percent of adults had gambled on any form of gambling in the past 4 weeks (Table B.2), making gambling less popular than these activities. Furthermore, 27 percent had gambled on activities other than lottery draws alone, making engagement in other forms of gambling similar to doing arts or crafts (29 percent) or visiting museums or galleries (22 percent).

Those who had gambled on any form of activity in the past 4 weeks (both including and excluding those who gambled on lottery draws only) were just as likely as other participants to engage in these other leisure activities. Exceptions were going to pubs, bars and clubs, where those who had gambled were more likely to report this (55 percent for those who gambled on any type of activity; 60 percent for those who gambled on activities other than lottery draws only) than all participants (regardless of their gambling participation) (50 percent). Those who gambled on activities other than lottery draws only were also more likely to go to the cinema (42 percent) than all participants (regardless of their gambling participation) (37 percent) but were less likely to read for pleasure (60 percent) than all participants (regardless of their gambling participation) (68 percent). People who had gambled in the past 4 weeks (on any form of activity or on activities other than lottery draws only) were also less likely to attend a religious service in the past 4 weeks (14 percent) than all participants (regardless of their gambling participation) (19 percent). Some of these patterns may be related to the age and sex of people who had gambled in the past 4 weeks.

Figure 9: Types of leisure activities in the past 4 weeks, by gambling participation

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,690 unweighted)

Notes: Types of leisure activities were asked as multiple-choice question; more than one option may have been chosen by the same participant.

Figure 9: Types of leisure activities in the past 4 weeks, by gambling participation

Leisure activities	All participants (percentage)	All who had gambled in the past 4 weeks (percentage)	All who had gambled in the past 4 weeks (excluding lottery draws only) (percentage)
Spend time with friends and/or family	98%	98%	98%
Watch TV	95%	96%	95%
Listen to music	91%	92%	93%
Go shopping	80%	81%	81%
Eat out at restaurants	73%	74%	74%
Read for pleasure	68%	65%	60%
Do sports or exercise	64%	62%	63%
Do DIY or gardening	61%	63%	69%
Go to pubs, clubs or bars	50%	55%	60%
Go to the cinema, theatre or music concerts	37%	37%	42%
Do arts or crafts	29%	27%	27%
Visit museums or galleries	22%	20%	22%
Attend religious service or place of worship	19%	14%	14%
Play a musical instrument or make music	12%	11%	12%

Feelings towards gambling

Participants who had gambled in the past 12 months were asked about their feelings towards gambling the last time they participated. Over a third of participants (37 percent) who had gambled on any activity had a score of 5, expressing that they neither loved nor hated gambling the last time they gambled. A further 41 percent had a score between 6 and 10, expressing positive feelings towards gambling, whereas 21 percent had a score between 0 and 4 expressing more negative feelings towards gambling. Equal proportions (4 percent) had a score of 10 (the most positive feelings) and a score of 0 (the most negative feelings)(Table C.2).

Among those gambling on activities other than lottery draws only, the pattern was similar, though a slightly lower proportion had a score of 5 (31 percent) and a slightly higher proportion had a score between 6 and 10 (50 percent), representing more positive feelings about gambling.

Figure 10: Feelings towards gambling, by gambling participation in the past 12 months

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (5,527 unweighted)

Figure 10: Feelings towards gambling, by gambling participation in the past 12 months

Gambling participation in the past 12 months	0 to 4 - negative feelings (percentage)	5 - neutral (percentage)	6 to 10 - positive feelings (percentage)
All who had gambled in the past 12 months	21%	37%	41%
All who had gambled in the past 12 months (excluding lottery draws only)	19%	31%	50%

Reasons for gambling

Participants who gambled in the past 12 months were asked about 15 different reasons for participating in gambling, and asked to indicate how often they took part in gambling for each reason. Most adults reported gambling, at least sometimes, for the chance of winning big money (86 percent), because gambling is fun (70 percent), to make money (58 percent) or because it was exciting (55 percent). However, 14 percent reported never gambling to for the chance of winning big money; 30 percent reported never gambling because they think it is fun; 42 percent reported never gambling to make money and 45 percent reported never gambling because it is exciting (Table C.3).

A minority of adults who gambled endorsed one of the other reasons for gambling. This ranged from 44 percent reporting they at least sometimes gambled because of the sense of achievement when they won to 8 percent who gambled to impress other people.

These patterns of endorsement are broadly similar to those reported in the BGPS 2010 (opens in new tab) (PDF), the last time these questions were asked in a national gambling survey.

Figure 11: Reasons for gambling in the past 12 months

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the past 12 months (5,780 unweighted)

Figure 11: Reasons for gambling in the past 12 months

Reasons for gambling	All participants (percentage)
For the chance of winning big money	86%
Because it is fun	70%
To make money	58%
Because it is exciting	55%
Because of the sense of achievement	44%
Because it is something that I do with others	35%
As a hobby or pastime	27%
To be sociable	24%
To escape boredom or to fill my time	23%
To relax	22%
Because I am worried about not winning	20%
For the mental challenge or to learn	19%
Because it helps when I am feeling tense	11%
To compete with others	9%
To impress other people	8%

Notes: Percentages shown are for those who reported sometimes, often or always as a reason for gambling for each statement.

Male participants were more likely than female participants to report gambling, at least sometimes, to make money (62 percent and 54 percent respectively), as a hobby or pastime (31 percent and 23 percent respectively), and for the challenge (23 percent and 16 percent).

Compared with older adults, younger adults were more likely to gamble:

• for fun (80 to 83 percent of those aged 18 to 34; 55 to 58 percent of those aged 65 and over)
• out of boredom (30 to 34 percent of those aged 18 to 34; 11 to 12 percent of those aged 65 and over)
• to compete with others (24 percent of those aged 18 to 24; 3 to 4 percent of those aged 55 and over)
• for excitement (72 to 73 percent of those aged 18 to 34; 28 percent of those aged 75 and over)
• for the challenge (31 percent of those aged 18 to 24; 10 percent of those aged 75 and over)
• for a sense of achievement (52 to 57 percent of those aged 18 to 34; 35 percent of those aged 65 and over)
• to be sociable (43 percent of those aged 18 to 24; 12 percent of those aged 75 and over)
• to help when feeling tense (15 to 18 percent of those aged 18 to 34; 6 to 7 percent of those aged 55 and over).

Those aged 18 to 24 were the only age group where gambling because it was fun (83 percent) was more common than gambling to win big money (79 percent). In addition, 73 percent of those aged 18 to 24 who had gambled in the past 12 months had done so because it was exciting. Likewise, this was the only age group where a majority reported they at least sometimes gambled because it was something they did with family and friends (53 percent).

Consequences from gambling

This section cross refers to information that can be found in an accompanying set of data tables, specifically Tables D.1 to D.16.

Background

Gambling can lead to a range of adverse consequences. This includes the experience of gambling disorder (a recognised health condition¹) but can also include wide ranging adverse consequences² experienced either by the person who gambles or by their family, friends, and wider social networks. These consequences range in severity and include negative effects on physical and mental health, relationship discord and breakdown, and financial difficulties³.

In this chapter, data is first presented on the adverse consequences of gambling as measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (opens new tab) (PDF). This is followed by information on a wider range of adverse consequences from gambling which are not included within the PGSI (for example, conflict with family, social isolation, relationship breakdown, experience of violence and abuse).

Prior surveys, including the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) series (opens new tab) (PDF) and the Health Surveys (HS) for England (opens in new tab) and Health Surveys (HS) for Scotland (opens new tab) included the PGSI but did not include questions on the wider adverse consequences of gambling. Specifically, they did not measure the effects of gambling on people other than the person gambling. The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) is the first survey to include questions about adverse consequences arising from participants’ own gambling and someone else’s gambling.

Measuring adverse consequences from gambling in surveys

The data reported in this chapter relies on direct reporting from participants on a range of experiences. When it comes to the measurement of gambling and its associated impacts and consequences, this is a challenging task.

The GSGB uses a push-to-web survey methodology. Push-to-web surveys are increasingly becoming the norm, replacing face-to-face methods which are experiencing rising costs and declining response rates. The new push-to-web methodology means that estimates presented in this chapter are not directly comparable with results from prior gambling or health surveys and such comparisons should not be used to assess trends over time. The GSGB data reported here represents the first year of a new baseline, against which future changes can be compared.

That said, some limited comparisons are useful to assess differences between study methodologies. All surveys are subject to a range of potential biases which may affect results. The GSGB, the prior HS and the BGPS series are no different. These prior studies and the GSGB have all used the PGSI to measure problem gambling, defined by Ferris and Wynne (opens new tab) (PDF) (who created the PGSI) as “gambling behaviour that creates negative consequences for the [person who gambles], others in his or her social network, or for the community”.

The GSGB appears to produce higher estimates of problem gambling than these prior studies. There are several potential reasons for this. The first relates to the lower response rates that the push-to-web design achieves. People who gamble, and those who gamble more heavily, may be more likely to complete the GSGB than those who do not gamble. As PSGI scores are higher for those with more gambling engagement, a lower response rate would serve to increase reported PGSI scores. There is plausible evidence suggesting that this may be the case⁴.

Second, prior surveys may have underestimated PGSI scores and/or underestimated online gambling behaviours as a result of socially desirable responding. Sturgis noted that “there [were] good grounds to suggest the presence of an interviewer (as used by the BGPS and HS series) induces a downward bias on estimates of the prevalence of gambling harm”.

Third, it may be that PGSI scores have actually increased in the population over time. Online gambling is strongly associated with elevated PGSI scores and gross gambling yield from online gambling has increased substantially since 2018. These changes in the gambling market could affect the PSGI scores estimated in the survey. All these things could be true, either alone or in combination.

Whatever the true cause, the PGSI scores presented in this report are substantially higher than estimates from previous studies. There has been some research undertaken on this matter but, as Sturgis notes, the 2 studies which investigated this were unable to come to a definitive conclusion about the magnitude of the errors. Uncertainty around which estimates (the GSGB or prior studies) are closer to the truth therefore remain. Further investigation of the reasons for this difference is needed to better understand the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates. Until more and better evidence is available on this question, uncertainty will remain over which methodological approach produces estimates which are closest to the truth.

Nonetheless, the first year of GSGB data provides a new baseline against which future trends can be judged and it will allow more detailed patterns between different groups of people who gamble to be investigated, providing insight in the distribution of adverse consequences across communities. To do it, this chapter presents information on the prevalence of PGSI scores, as future GSGB surveys will seek to compare changes to this baseline. Patterns in PGSI scores between different groups of people and people who engage in different types of gambling activity is also included.

---

¹International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2018. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5th edition. 5th ed. ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

²The term adverse consequences is used by Langham et al, to describe the potential range of harms experienced from gambling and it is used by Ferris and Wynne in the Problem Gambling Severity Index’s (PGSI) description of what low risk, moderate risk and problem gambling means. The term is often used interchangeably with negative consequences (this term being used in the ICD-11 definition of gambling disorder) but because this chapter focuses on measurement according to the PGSI and other consequences mapped against various frameworks for measuring harms, including that of Langham et al, it is our preferred term for this chapter.

³ Langham et al. (2015)(opens new tab), Wardle et al. (2018)(PDF)(opens new tab), Marionneau, V., Egerer, M., & Raisamo, S. (2022)(opens new tab)

⁴Sturgis (2024)(opens new tab), Williams & Volberg (2009)(opens new tab), Gambling Commission

Problem Gambling Severity Index

This section cross refers to information that can be found in an accompanying set of data tables, specifically Tables D.1 to D.16.

Definitions

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) consists of 9 items which measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling.

The PGSI categories represent a continuum of risk, ranging from those experiencing no adverse consequences or behavioural symptoms of disorder to those experiencing both. Looking at the profile of those with a PGSI score of 1 to 2 or 3 to 7 is important as research shows that people with these scores are significantly more likely than those with a PGSI score of 0 to experience escalating adverse consequences from gambling².

Estimates in tables D.1 to D.16 are shown to one decimal place (rather than no decimal places as in other tables) due to the low prevalence of some items.

Responses to individual PGSI questions

Findings in this section are based on all participants. Overall, chasing losses (that is, going back to try to win back money you had lost) was the most common experience reported by both male and female participants (12.2 percent of males and 7.3 percent of females reported this at least sometimes). This was followed by feeling guilty about what happens when you gamble (7.7 percent of males and 4.4 percent of females reported at least sometimes) and betting more than you could afford to lose (6.9 percent of males and 4.8 percent of females reported at least sometimes)(Table D.1). For both male and female participants, borrowing money to fund gambling was the least common behaviour (2.3 percent of males and 1.7 percent of females reported this at least sometimes). Except for borrowing money to fund gambling, male participants were more likely than female participants to report experiencing each of the PGSI items.

As shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, these patterns were replicated when looking at responses to the PGSI items among those who had gambled in the past 12 months.

Figure 12: Experience of PGSI items at least sometimes among those who had gambled in the past 12 months

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,794 unweighted)

Figure 12: Experience of PGSI items at least sometimes among those who had gambled in the past 12 months

PGSI item	All participants gambled in past 12 months (percentage)
Gone back to win lost money	16.1%
Felt guilty about your gambling	10.0%
Bet more than can you afford	9.7%
Felt gambling has caused you health problems	6.6%
Gambled with large amounts of money to feel excitement	6.4%
Felt you might have a problem with gambling	6.4%
Been criticised for your betting or told you have a gambling problem	6.1%
Felt your gambling has caused financial problems	5.7%
Borrowed money or sold anything for gambling	3.3%

Figure 13: Experience of PGSI items at least sometimes, among those who had gambled in the last 12 months, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,794 unweighted)

Figure 13: Experience of PGSI items at least sometimes, among those who had gambled in the last 12 months, by sex

PGSI item	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Gone back to win lost money	19.4%	12.6%
Felt guilty about your gambling	12.3%	7.6%
Bet more than can you afford	11%	8.3%
Felt you might have a problem with gambling	8.6%	4.3%
Been criticised for your betting or told you have a gambling problem	8.6%	3.7%
Gambled with large amounts of money to feel excitement	8.3%	4.6%
Felt gambling has caused you health problems	8.0%	5.3%
Felt your gambling has caused financial problems	6.6%	4.8%
Borrowed money or sold anything for gambling	3.7%	2.9%

PGSI scores and PGSI groups: population prevalence

PGSI scores

PGSI scores range from 0 to 27. Looking first at scores among all participants including those who did not gamble (and who are assigned a PGSI score of 0), 85.6 percent of participants had a PGSI score of 0 and 14.4 percent of participants had a PGSI score of 1 or more. Where participants had a PGSI score of 1 or more, most tended to be between 1 and 3 (9.6 percent) though some people had very high PGSI scores: 0.3 percent of all participants had PGSI scores of 20 or more (Table D.2).

PGSI groups

For all participants, including those who had not gambled, 8.3 percent had a PGSI score of 1 to 2, 3.7 percent had a PGSI score of 3 to 7 and 2.5 percent had a PGSI score of 8 or more (Table D.3).

Male participants (9.5 percent) were more likely than female participants (7.1 percent) to have a PGSI score of 1 to 2. The same pattern was evident for a PGSI score of 3 to 7, where estimates were 4.9 percent for males and 2.5 percent for females. Males (3.3 percent) also were more likely than females (1.8 percent) to have a PGSI score of 8 or more.

Those aged 18 to 34 were more likely than older groups to have a PGSI score of 3 to 7 or 8 or more. Rates of having a PGSI score of 8 or more were highest among those aged 25 to 34 (5.2 percent) and declined with age to 0.2 percent of those aged 75 and over. The proportion of participants with a PGSI score of 3 to 7 was highest among those aged 18 to 24 (7.2 percent) and decreased with age to 0.9 percent of those aged 75 and over. Similar patterns were observed when only looking at those who had gambled in the past 12 months.

Both patterns, whereby PGSI scores were higher among male than female participants and higher among younger than older age groups, are in line with findings from previous studies such as the BGPS 2010.

PGSI by gambling group and activity type

Focus on population prevalence rates (as presented above) masks the strength of associations between gambling and PGSI scores because they include people who do not gamble or gamble very infrequently. It is thus important to look at PGSI scores among people who engage in different types of gambling to better understand the scope and scale of these associations (Table D.4).

Among those who had gambled on any gambling activity in the past 12 months, 13.7 percent had a PGSI score of 1 to 2, 6.0 percent had a PGSI score of 3 to 7 and 4.2 percent had a PGSI score of 8 or more. Rates were higher among those who had gambled on activities other than lottery draws alone (PGSI 1 to 2: 17.8 percent; PGSI 3 to 7: 8.4 percent, and PGSI 8 or more: 6.0 percent). For each PGSI group, that is scores 1 to 2, 3 to 7 and 8 or more, rates were higher among male than female participants, and typically were higher among those aged 18 to 34, declining with age.

Figure 14: PGSI distribution of score categories, by gambling participation

Base: Adults aged 18 and over (9,633 unweighted)

Figure 14: PGSI distribution of score categories, by gambling participation

PGSI score	All participants (percentage)	All participants who had gambled in the past 12 months (percentage)	All participants who had gambled in the past 12 months excluding lottery draw only products (percentage)
PGSI score 0	85.6%	76.1%	67.8%
PGSI score 1 or 2	8.3%	13.7%	17.8%
PGSI score 3 to 7	3.7%	6.0%	8.4%
PGSI score 8 or more	2.5%	4.2%	6.0%

Figure 15: PGSI distribution of score categories for those who gambled in the past 12 months, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,794 unweighted)

Figure 15: PGSI distribution of score categories for those who gambled in the past 12 months, by sex

PGSI score	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)	All adults (percentage)
PGSI score 0	71.8%	80.5%	76.1%
PGSI score 1 or 2	15.1%	12.1%	13.7%
PGSI score 3 to 7	7.9%	4.2%	6.0%
PGSI score 8 or more	5.2%	3.2%	4.2%

Figure 16: PGSI distribution of score categories for those who gambled in the past 12 months, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,794 unweighted)

Figure 16: PGSI distribution of score categories for those who gambled in the past 12 months, by age group

PGSI score	18 to 24 (percentage)	25 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 44 (percentage)	45 to 54 (percentage)	55 to 64 (percentage)	65 to 74 (percentage)	75 and over (percentage)
PGSI score 0	60.1%	63.2%	70.1%	76.8%	85.4%	89.6%	92.5%
PGSI score 1 or 2	17.3%	19.0%	18.3%	13.7%	10.5%	7.0%	5.3%
PGSI score 3 to 7	13.5%	9.4%	6.8%	5.9%	3.4%	2.0%	1.8%
PGSI score 8 or more>	9.1%	8.5%	4.8%	3.7%	0.8%	1.4%	0.4%

Looking at PGSI scores among those who gambled on specific activities is also informative to determine the strength of the association between higher PGSI scores and certain types of gambling products. Because PGSI scores may be over stated, rather than looking at the percent of people with a PGSI score of 8 or more by activity (for example), we instead look at whether PGSI scores by gambling activity were higher or lower than the average for all people who had gambled in the past 12 months (Table D.5).

For example, 4.2 percent of participants who had gambled on any activity in the past 12 months had a PGSI score of 8 or more. By comparison, 8.7 percent of those who had bet online on sports and racing had a PGSI score of 8 or more. Dividing 8.7 (the estimate for sports betting) by 4.2 (the average for people gambling on all activities) shows that the proportion of people with a PGSI score of 8 or more was 2 times higher among those who had bet online on sports and racing than the average for all people who had gambled in the past 12 months. Examining data this way allows additional risk associated with different products and patterns of risk across products to be examined.

Estimates in the remainder of this section are presented as relative differences only, with no prevalence figures (percentages). A relative difference of 1 means that the prevalence for that activity is the same as the average for all people who had gambled. A relative difference higher than 1 means the prevalence for that activity is higher than average and a relative difference less than 1 means the prevalence for that activity is lower than average.

Figure 17: Relative difference between activities in proportion with PGSI score of 8 or more, compared with overall proportion with PGSI score of 8 or more

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,794 unweighted)

Figure 17: Relative difference between activities in proportion with PGSI score of 8 or more, compared with overall proportion with PGSI score of 8 or more

Gambling activity in the past 12 months	All participants: Gambled in the past 12 months (relative difference ratio)
Betting on non-sports events (in-person)	9.9
Online fruit and slots	5.9
Casino games on a machine or terminal	5.5
Casino games at a casino	5.2
Online casino games	5.2
Betting on non-sports events (online)	5.1
Online bingo	4.9
Non National Lottery online instant wins	4.8
Football pools	4.5
Fruit or slots machines	3.7
Non National Lottery scratchcards	3.4
Betting on sports or races in person	3.1
Online betting on sports or races	2.1
National Lottery online instant wins	2.0
Bingo in-person	2.0
Private betting	1.9
National Lottery scratchcards	1.8
Charity lottery draws	1.1
National Lottery draws	0.9

For those buying tickets for National Lottery draws, the proportion with a PGSI score of 8 or more was similar to the average for all people who had gambled in the last 12 months.

For the following activities, the proportions of those with a PGSI score of 8 or more were 2 to 3 times higher than average: scratchcards; private betting; National Lottery online instant wins; bingo played at a venue; online betting on sports or races; betting on sports or races at a venue.

Among those playing fruit and slots machines, online bingo, betting on non-sports events online, football pools, and online casino games, casino games at a casino, casino games played on a machine or terminal and non-National Lottery online instant wins, the proportion with a PGSI score of 8 or more was between 4 to 5 times higher than average.

Finally, both online slots and betting in-person on non-sport events had substantially higher than average proportions of people with a PGSI score of 8 or more. For online slots, rates were nearly 6 times higher than average and for betting on non-sports events in person, they were over 9 times higher than average.

Patterns of relative difference among those with a PGSI score of 3 to 7 by activity were similar: people who gambled on lotteries were less likely than average to have a PGSI score of 3 to 7, whereas those playing casino games on a machine or terminal, gambling on bingo online, betting on non-sports events in person, playing online slots or online casino games were around three times more likely than average to have a PGSI score of 3 to 7.

Taking results for PGSI scores of 3 to 7 and 8 or more together shows a high relative difference ratio for people gambling on online bingo, slots and casino games, casino games played on a machine or terminal and betting on non-sports events.

---

¹These definitions broadly mirror those originally used by Ferris & Wynne. However, some adaptation is necessary because the original definitions draw on items from the broader Canadian Problem Gambling Index, of which the PGSI is a subset and the exact same questions have not been used in the prior BPGS or HS series and in the GSGB.

² Soumi et al. (2024)(opens new tab), Kruse et al. (2016) (opens new tab), Wardle et al. (2017) (opens new tab)

Additional adverse consequences from gambling

This section cross refers to information that can be found in an accompanying set of data tables, specifically Tables D.1 to D.16.

Background

Commercial gambling can generate a range of adverse consequences for individuals, families, communities, and society. Evidence shows that it is associated with financial difficulties, including debt and bankruptcy, relationship conflict and breakdown and increases risks of suicide and domestic violence¹. The Gambling Commission has developed a new set of questions covering these topics to be used in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). They were refined during the pilot and experimental statistics stages of GSGB development. Fuller details on their development can be found in Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling.

The new questions were developed to measure a broad range of adverse consequences from gambling and were split into 2 types:

1. Those categorised as severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful.

2. Those categorised as other potential adverse consequences, which are more likely to be harmful if experienced often or may be harmful depending on the individual’s specific circumstances².

In this section, the adverse consequences experienced because of one’s own gambling are considered, focusing on severe consequences first then other potential adverse consequences. In addition, questions about experience of suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts are also considered. Usage of support services are then reported. The chapter concludes with severe consequences and other potential adverse consequences experienced because of someone else’s gambling.

Definitions

Consequences from an individuals’ own gambling

The figures presented throughout the rest of this section relate to participants who had gambled in the past 12 months.

Severe consequences from own gambling

Overall, 2.8 percent of participants who had gambled in the past 12 months reported experiencing at least one severe consequence. Rates were higher among male participants (3.6 percent) than female participants (2.1 percent) and were higher among younger adults (6.0 percent for those aged 18 to 34) than older adults (0.8 percent for those aged 55 and over). The same pattern by age was repeated for each of the separate consequences, with younger adults more likely to experience each severe consequence than older adults (Table D.6).

Figure 18: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing severe consequences due to own gambling

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,797 unweighted)

Figure 18: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing severe consequences due to own gambling

Severe consequences	All participants: Gambled in the past 12 months (percentage)
Experienced relationship breakdown	1.6%
Lost something of financial value	1.4%
Experienced violence or abuse	1.2%
Committed a crime	0.8%
Experienced one or more severe consequences	2.8%

Relationship breakdown due to gambling was the most reported severe consequence: 1.6 percent of participants who had gambled in the past 12 months experienced this. This was followed by losing something of significant value (1.4 percent), experience of violence or abuse (1.2 percent), and committing a crime (0.8 percent).

Male participants were more likely than female participants to report losing something of financial value (1.9 percent compared with 0.9 percent) and to experience violence or abuse (1.6 percent compared with 0.7 percent).

Gambling and suicidality

All participants reported their experience of suicidal ideation or attempts, and whether this was related to their gambling. Overall, 11.4 percent of all participants reported that they had either thought about taking their own life or had attempted to do so in the past 12 months. These estimates are higher than those reported by the most recent Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (opens in new tab) (PDF) (APMS) in 2014³, which estimated that 5.4 percent had thought about suicide in the past 12 months and 0.7 percent had attempted suicide in the past 12 months (comparable estimates for whether someone had experienced either of these is not available within published reports). The published APMS 2014 data were based on questions asked face-to-face by the interviewer which the APMS authors state will result in lower reports than when self-completion methods are used. Therefore, whilst the GSGB data on suicidality may be over stated, comparable data from APMS may be under stated. Because there is uncertainty as to which estimate is closer to the truth, data on gambling-related suicidality is presented for those who reported past year thoughts about taking their own life or attempts only. Population prevalence estimates are not presented (Table D.7).

Of the 11.4 percent of all participants who reported thoughts about taking their own life or attempts, 4.9 percent reported that this was related to their gambling either a little or a lot. 1.1 percent reported it was related to their gambling a lot.

Other potential adverse consequences from participants’ own gambling

For each potential adverse consequence asked about, around 1 in 20 of those who had gambled in the past 12 months reported that their gambling, at least occasionally, resulted in each one. Estimates ranged from 6.8 percent for reducing or cutting back spending on everyday items to 4.0 percent for being absent from or performing poorly at work or study (Table D.8).

Figure 19: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing potential adverse consequences due to own gambling

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,795 unweighted)

Figure 19: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing potential adverse consequences due to own gambling

Potential adverse consequences	Very often (percentage)	Fairly often (percentage)	Occasionally (percentage)
Reduce spending on everyday items	1.0%	1.5%	4.3%
Lie to family	1.2%	1.3%	3.9%
Feel isolated	1.4%	1.0%	3.1%
Used savings or borrowed money	0.8%	1.5%	3.0%
Experienced conflict or arguments	0.9%	1.0%	3.2%
Absent at work	0.6%	1.2%	2.2%

Male participants were more likely than female participants to report having at least occasionally cut back spending on everyday items (7.9 percent for males; 5.6 percent for females). Male participants were also more likely to have experienced conflict (6.3 percent for males; 3.9 percent for females) and lied to family and friends to hide the extent of their gambling (8.0 percent for males; 4.9 percent for females).

Younger adults who had gambled in the past 12 months were more likely than their older counterparts to have, at least occasionally, experienced each potential adverse consequence. They were also more likely to experience each consequence fairly or very often. For example, 10.2 percent of those aged 18 to 34 reported that their gambling at least occasionally resulted in them feeling isolated from other people, compared with 1.9 percent for those aged 55 and over.

Around a third of people reporting each consequence said they experienced this either fairly or very often. Among people who had gambled in the past 12 months, estimates ranged from 1.8 percent who performed poorly or were absent from work or study, to 2.5 percent who reduced or cut back on spending on everyday items fairly or very often.

Figure 20: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing potential adverse consequences at least occasionally from own gambling, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,795 unweighted)

Figure 20: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing potential adverse consequences at least occasionally from own gambling, by age group

Potential adverse consequences	18 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 54 (percentage)	55 and over (percentage)
Lie to family	12.2%	6.5%	2.2%
Reduce spending on everyday items	12.2%	7.1%	2.7%
Used savings or borrowed money	10.6%	5.2%	1.6%
Feel isolated	10.2%	5.7%	1.9%
Experienced conflict or arguments	9.6%	5.4%	1.7%
Absent at work	8.5%	3.9%	0.9%

Help-seeking for own gambling

Participants were asked if their gambling had led them to seek support or information (by any means) from mental health services, food banks or welfare organisations, relationship counselling services or gambling support services.

Overall, 3.2 percent of people who had gambled in the past 12 months had sought support from any of these services because of their own gambling. This ranged from 1.9 percent seeking support or information from food banks or welfare organisations to 1.0 percent who sought help from gambling support services. Help-seeking estimates were mostly similar for male and female participants. The exception was use of foodbanks or welfare organisations, where use was higher among male than female participants (2.3 percent and 1.4 per cent respectively). Help-seeking estimates were consistently higher among younger adults than older adults (7.4 percent of those aged 18 to 34 had accessed any support compared with 0.9 percent of those aged 55 and over)(Table D.9).

More than half (58 percent) of those with a PGSI score of 8 or more did not report seeking support or information from any source in the past 12 months. The most common sources of help among this group were food bank or welfare organisations (28.1 percent), followed by mental health services (20.0 percent) and relationship counselling (18.8 percent). Seeking help from gambling support services was the least common source reported (15.3 percent)(Table D.10).

One in ten (10.1 percent) of those with a PGSI score of 3 to 7 reported seeking help or information from any of the sources mentioned, including 3.7 percent who sought help or information from gambling support services. Among those with a PGSI scores of 0 or 1 to 2, less than 1 percent reported that their own gambling had resulted in them seeking help or information from each individual service. Whilst these estimates are lower than those with PGSI score of 3 or more, this group represents many people who have gambled in the past 12 months and indicates the need for help services among some of them.

Figure 21: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months seeking help, support or information due to own gambling, by PGSI score

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,777 unweighted)

Figure 21: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months seeking help, support or information due to own gambling, by PGSI score

Type of help, support or information sought	PGSI score of 0 (percentage)	PGSI score of 1 or 2 (percentage)	PGSI score of 3 to 7 (percentage)	PGSI score of 8 to 27 (percentage)
Food banks or welfare organisations	0.3%	0.9%	5.9%	28.1%
Mental health services	0.3%	0.7%	3.4%	20.0%
Relationship counselling and support services	0.3%	0.2%	3.4%	18.8%
Gambling support services	0.1%	0.3%	3.7%	15.3%
Access to any support	0.8%	1.6%	10.1%	42.0%

The relationship between severe consequences and other potential adverse consequences from own gambling and PGSI scores

The experience of adverse consequences (severe or otherwise) from gambling is not restricted to those with the highest PGSI scores. As noted at the outset of this chapter, those with a PGSI score of 3 to 7 are defined as those who may experience adverse consequences from gambling whilst those with a PGSI score of 1 to 2 are unlikely to do so unless they also meet other criteria.

Looking first at severe consequences, 41.2 percent of those with a PGSI score of 8 or more reported experiencing at least one of the severe consequences asked about (Table D.11). Equivalent estimates were 8.5 percent for those with a PGSI score of 3 to 7, 1.4 percent for those with a PGSI score of 1 to 2, and 0.6 percent for those with a PGSI score of 0. This demonstrates how experience of severe consequences can be distributed across individuals with a range of PGSI scores: a PGSI score of less than 3 does not necessarily mean that no severe consequences are experienced by anyone in this group.

Figure 22: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing severe consequences due to own gambling, by PGSI score

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who had gambled in the last 12 months (5,788 unweighted)

Figure 22: Proportion who gambled in the past 12 months experiencing severe consequences due to own gambling, by PGSI score

Severe consequences	PGSI score of 0 (percentage)	PGSI score of 1 or 2 (percentage)	PGSI score of 3 to 7 (percentage)	PGSI score of 8 to 27 (percentage)
Lost something of financial value	0.2%	0.6%	3.9%	21.8%
Experienced relationship breakdown	0.1%	0.6%	5.8%	26.7%
Experienced violence or abuse	0.2%	0.6%	1.3%	20.7%
Committed a crime	0.0%	0.1%	1.6%	16.3%
Experienced one or more severe consequences	0.6%	1.4%	8.5%	41.2%

As for other potential adverse consequences, those with higher PGSI scores were more likely to report experiencing each potential adverse consequence from gambling (Table D.12). The vast majority of those with a PGSI score of 8 or more reported experiencing each, though notably around 1 in 3 said that gambling had never resulted in them being absent from or performing poorly at work or study (35.4 percent), experiencing conflict or arguments (31.3 percent) or feeling socially isolated (29.6 percent).

Among those with a PGSI score of 3 to 7, estimates ranged from 30.6 percent (at least occasionally lying to family or others to hide extent of gambling) to 12.1 percent (at least occasionally being absent from or performing poorly at work or study). Between 3.8 percent (reducing spending on everyday essentials) and 8.3 percent (lying to family or others to hide extent of gambling) reported experiencing each consequence fairly or very often.

Although it was far less common, a minority of participants with a PGSI score of 1 to 2 or of 0 reported experiencing other potential adverse consequences from gambling. For example, 1.0 percent of those with a PGSI score of 0 reported at least occasionally reducing spending on everyday items because of their gambling, with 0.3 percent doing this fairly or very often. Further, 5.1 percent of those with a PGSI score of 1 to 2 reported lying to family or others to hide the extent of their gambling at least occasionally, with 0.5 percent doing this fairly or very often. As before, this provides evidence that some people with a PGSI score of less than 3 may also experience some potential adverse consequences from gambling.

Consequences from someone else’s gambling

The GSGB included a range of questions about the impact of someone else’s gambling, an area that has previously been little studied, particularly in a British context. These questions cover the same set of severe and potential adverse consequences outlined previously in this chapter.

Close contacts who gamble

Nearly half (48.1 percent) of GSGB survey participants reported that someone close to them gambled even if only occasionally (Table D.13). This is likely to be an underestimate of the true level of gambling among close contacts, since a positive response to the question relies on the survey participant being aware of the actions of people close to them, and gambling can be easily overlooked, concealed or hidden. Nonetheless, the figure suggests that nearly half of the population are aware that someone close to them gambles. This is in line with estimates of gambling in the past 4 weeks (48 percent), but lower than estimates of gambling in the past 12 months (61 percent).

Female participants (49.3 percent) were more likely than male participants (46.6 percent) to report having a close contact who gambles. Likewise, rates were higher among younger adults (57.0 percent among those aged 18 to 34) and decreased with age (40.6 percent for those aged 55 and over).

Severe consequences due to someone else’s gambling

The figures presented in the rest of this section relate to participants who indicated that someone close to them gambled.

Of participants who knew someone close to them gambled, 4.7 percent reported experiencing at least one severe consequence from someone else’s gambling. They were most likely to report relationship breakdown (3.5 percent), followed by violence or abuse (1.6 percent), a significant financial impact (1.1 percent) and committing a crime (1.0 percent)(Table D.14).

Figure 23: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing severe consequences, due to someone else's gambling

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who knew someone who had gambled in the last 12 months (4,538 unweighted)

Figure 23: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing severe consequences, due to someone else's gambling

Severe consequences	All participants reporting someone close to them gambles (percentage)
Experienced relationship breakdown	3.5%
Experienced violence or abuse	1.6%
Committed a crime	1.0%
Lost something of financial value	1.1%
Experienced one or more severe consequences	4.7%

Male (4.6 percent) and female (4.8 percent) participants were equally likely to experience at least one of the severe consequences listed, though female participants (3.9 percent) were more likely to report relationship breakdown than male participants (3.1 percent). Conversely, male participants (1.4 percent) were more likely than female participants (0.6 percent) to report committing a crime as a result of someone else’s gambling.

Younger adults were more likely to experience at least one severe consequence: 6.6 percent of those aged 18 to 34 said they had experienced at least one of the four severe consequences, compared with 4.7 percent of those aged 35 to 54 and 2.9 percent of those aged 55 and over. This pattern was repeated for relationship breakdown, violence, and criminal activities. The only severe consequence where age was not a significant factor was experience of a significant financial loss, with the percentage of participants reporting they had lost something of financial value not differing between age groups. Young people are therefore potentially more likely to experience adverse consequences from someone else’s gambling. This group were also more likely to gamble themselves, more likely to report experiencing adverse consequences from their own gambling, and more likely to report knowing someone close to them who gambled.

Across all age groups, relationship breakdown because of someone else’s gambling was the most reported severe consequence. Notably, nearly all severe consequences experienced by those aged 55 and over were attributable to relationship breakdown (Figure 24).

For those aged 35 and over, committing a crime because of someone else’s gambling was the least commonly reported: 1.0 percent for those aged 35 to 54 and 0.4 percent for those aged 55 and over.

Figure 24: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing severe consequences due to someone else's gambling, by age group

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who knew someone who had gambled in the last 12 months (4,538 unweighted)

Figure 24: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing severe consequences due to someone else's gambling, by age group

Severe consequences	18 to 34 (percentage)	35 to 54 (percentage)	55 and over (percentage)
Experienced relationship breakdown	4.7%	3.3%	2.6%
Experienced violence or abuse	2.5%	1.4%	0.9%
Committed a crime	1.6%	1.0%	0.4%
Lost something of financial value	1.5%	1.2%	0.5%
Experienced one or more severe consequences	6.6%	4.7%	2.9%

Taken together, GSGB data suggests several participants experience severe consequences as a result of someone else’s gambling. Whilst overall there is a risk that adverse consequences within the GSGB may be overstated, when it comes to these specific questions, the data are likely to be conservative as they rely on the participant being fully aware of their close contact’s gambling and the effects of this. As previously discussed, those with a PGSI score of 8 or more were most likely to lie to family and others to hide the extent of their gambling. This group were also most likely to experience adverse consequences from gambling, which in turn, is more likely to impact those around them. Thus, an individual may experience relationship breakdown or violence, for example, but be unaware of how the gambling behaviours of others contribute to this.

Other potential adverse consequences due to someone else’s gambling

Participants who indicated that someone close to them gambled were also asked about a range of other potential adverse consequences that may have occurred because of someone else’s gambling (Table D.15).

As with the questions concerning severe consequences, these figures may be an underestimate as they rely on participant awareness of gambling leading to the negative behaviour.

The most reported potential adverse consequence of someone else’s gambling was experiencing health problems, including stress and anxiety: 7.5 percent reported this happened occasionally, with 3.1 percent saying this happened fairly or very often. This was followed by experiencing embarrassment, guilt or shame (9.9 percent experiencing this at least occasionally) and experience of conflict or arguments (8.8 percent experiencing this at least occasionally). The least reported potential adverse consequence was absence from, or poor performance at work or study, with 3.0 percent reporting that this happened at least occasionally.

Figure 25: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing potential adverse consequences due to someone else's gambling

Base: Adults aged 18 and over who knew someone who had gambled in the last 12 months (4,538 unweighted)

Figure 25: Proportion who are close to someone who gambles, experiencing potential adverse consequences due to someone else's gambling

Potential adverse consequences	Very often (percentage)	Fairly often (percentage)	Occasionally (percentage)
Experienced health problems	1.4%	1.7%	7.5%
Experienced embarrassment, guilt or shame	1.3%	1.9%	6.7%
Experienced conflict or arguments	0.7%	1.6%	6.5%
Lie to family	1.0%	1.0%	4.0%
Reduce spending on everyday items	0.8%	1.2%	2.9%
Used savings or borrowed money	0.7%	1.0%	2.5%
Feel isolated	0.7%	1.1%	2.6%
Borrowed money	0.5%	1.2%	2.0%
Absent at work	0.5%	0.8%	1.8%

There were no differences by sex in experiencing any potential adverse consequences, with the exception of someone else’s gambling leading to health problems. Here, female participants (12.5 percent) were more likely than male participants (8.6 percent) to report this happening at least occasionally.

Experiencing the following potential adverse consequences varied by age for the following items: experience of conflict, feeling isolated, and lying to family or others. The general pattern was that younger adults were more likely than older adults to report experiencing each at least occasionally. For example, 11.3 percent of those aged 18 to 34 said they, at least occasionally, experienced conflict due to someone else’s gambling, with 3.2 percent saying it had happened fairly or very often. Equivalent estimates for those aged 55 and over were 6.3 percent and 1.3 percent.

For reduced spending, use of savings, and absence from work, estimates did not vary significantly by age.

Help seeking due to someone else’s gambling

Participants who reported that someone close to them gambled were asked whether they had sought any help, support or information, either online, in-person or by telephone, because of this (Table D.16).

Three percent of these participants had sought out some form of support, with a similar proportion of participants reporting each form of support; ranging between 1.2 percent for mental health services or relationship counselling and 1.5 percent for gambling support services.

Figure 26: Proportion who are close to someone else who gambles seeking help, support or information in the last 12 months due to others gambling, by sex

Base: Adults aged 18 and over and reporting that someone close to them gambles (4,538 unweighted)

Figure 26: Proportion who are close to someone else who gambles seeking help, support or information in the last 12 months due to others gambling, by sex

Source of support	Male (percentage)	Female (percentage)
Food banks or welfare organisations	1.5%	1.2%
Gambling support services	1.2%	1.7%
Relationship counselling and support services	1.0%	1.4%
Mental health services	0.6%	1.7%
Access to any support	2.7%	3.3%

Female participants were more likely than male participants to have accessed mental health services due to someone else’s gambling (1.7 percent of females compared with 0.6 percent of males). However, differences in accessing food banks or welfare services, relationship support, or gambling support services did not vary between male and female participants.

Younger adults (4.1 percent of those aged 18 to 34) were more likely than older adults (2.7 percent of those aged 35 to 54; 2.3 percent of those aged 55 and over) to access any form of support due to someone else’s gambling in the past 12 months, though no single service appeared more commonly than others.

---

¹Slutske et al. (2022)(opens new tab), Marionneau & Nikkinen (2022)(opens new tab), Wardle et al. (2023)(opens new tab), Rintoul et al. (2023)(opens new tab), Gray et al.(2020)(opens new tab), Hing et al.(2022) (opens new tab), Dowling et al. (2018)(opens new tab), Soumi et al.(2022)(opens new tab)

²Qualitative research conducted with participants reporting each potential adverse consequence occasionally supported this whereby many participants felt minimal impacts from the occasional experience of each but others reported more serious effects.

³APMS 2014 did not include questions on gambling, though these were in the 2007 survey. APMS 2021, due to be published in 2025, includes questions on suicidality and gambling.

Authors and disclosures of interest

Funding for study

This study was funded by the Gambling Commission and awarded to a consortium of researchers from the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the University of Glasgow. The work was undertaken by the Health and Biomedical Surveys team within NatCen. Researchers within this team declare no current funding either directly or indirectly from the gambling industry, including GambleAware.

Authors

H. Wardle (HW), K. Ridout (KR), S. Tipping (ST), I. Maxineanu (IM), H. Wilson (HZW), S. Hill (SH)

Author disclosures

In the last 5 years, HW discloses grant funding for gambling-related research by the Economic and Social Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust, the Commission (including their regulatory settlement fund), Office of Health Disparities and Improvements; Public Health England; Greater London Authority; Greater Manchester Combined Authority; Blackburn with Darwen Local Authority and the Department of Digital Culture Media and Sport.

In 2018 and 2019, HW received funding from GambleAware for a project on gambling and suicide. 

HW declares consulting fees from the Institute of Public Health, Ireland and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

HW declares payment for delivery of seminars from McGill University, the University of Birmingham, John Hopkins University and from the British Broadcasting Corporation.

HW has been paid as an expert witness by Lambeth and Middlesborough Borough Councils.

HW declares travel costs paid by Gambling Regulators European Forum, the Turkish Green Crescent Society, Alberta Gambling Research Institute; the REITOX Academy (administered through the Austrian National Public Health Institute) and the University of Helsinki.

HW served as Deputy Chair of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling between 2015 and 2020, remunerated by the Commission; is a Member of the WHO panel on gambling (ongoing) and provided unpaid advice on research to GamCare for their Safer Gambling Standard (until mid-2021).

HW runs a research consultancy for public and third sector bodies only. She has not, and does not, provide consultancy services to gambling industry actors.

In researching the gambling industry and their practices, HW declares occasional attendance at events where gambling industry actors are present (including industry-sponsored conferences).

As part of her work on the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), HW is required by the Commission (the funder) to participate in events disseminating research findings to their stakeholders, which includes the industry. Her attendance at events where industry is present is independently funded and does not involve collaborations or partnerships with industry.

In the last 5 years, ST declares funding for gambling projects from the National Institute of Health Research and the Commission. In 2018 and 2019, she worked on a project funded by GambleAware.

Alongside the GSGB (funded by the Commission), NatCen authors work or have worked on projects funded by:

• NHS England (SH, KR, HZW, IM)
• Department for Health and Social Care (SH, KR, HZW)
• Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (SH, KR, HZW)
• Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (HZW)
• Department for Work and Pensions (HZW)
• Royal National Institute for Blind People (SH, IM)
• University College London (KR, IM)
• Wellcome Trust, with ESRC and NIHR (IM).

In 2017 and 2018 SH worked on 2 projects funded by the Commission: Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain 2015, and Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain 2016.

HZW has worked on the British Social Attitudes survey, which has funding from groups including the Government Equalities Office, the Nuffield Trust, and the King’s Fund. In 2021, HZW worked on Patterns of Play (funded by GambleAware).

Stakeholder engagement

Part of the research contract included conducting engagement activity with the Commission with 3 separate stakeholder groups:

• academics, policy makers and other researchers
• people with lived experience of gambling harms
• the gambling industry.

The Commission developed terms of reference for each group which are available upon request. Engagement sessions generally included an update on progress on the survey development and an opportunity to discuss key findings from the pilot and experimental stages of the study. The Commission controlled membership of these groups and hosted the sessions, with members from the NatCen or University of Glasgow consortium presenting at each one.

Expert review

The development of questions about adverse consequences from gambling were independently reviewed by Prof Robert William and Prof Rachel Volberg. The overall approach of the GSGB was reviewed by Professor Patrick Sturgis, whose report can be found here (opens in new tab). Professor Sturgis also reviewed sections within the GSGB the first annual report dealing with the impact of the changing methodology and comparison between this study and prior surveys.

Appendix A - Online questionnaire

This questionnaire was used for the wave 2 report and the annual report of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain.

Respondents were given the opportunity to complete an online or paper version of the questionnaire. Some questions were asked only on the online version of the questionnaire and where this is the case, this has been specified.

Lifestyle questions

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

Age Check

(Ask all)

This survey is for adults aged 18 years and older. Please confirm that you are aged 18 years or older.

Responses include:

1. Yes, I am aged 18 years or over
2. No, I am under the age of 18 years

Leisure Activities

(Ask all)

In the past 4 weeks, which of the following activities, if any, did you do?

1. Spent time with friends and/or family
2. Read for pleasure
3. Listen to music
4. Watch TV
5. Eat out at restaurants
6. Go to pubs and/or bars and/or clubs
7. Do DIY or gardening
8. Go shopping (to the high street or shopping centre)
9. Do sports or exercise
10. Do arts or crafts
11. Play a musical instrument or make music
12. Go to the cinema, theatre or music concerts
13. Visit museums or galleries
14. Attend religious service and/or place of worship

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

Purpose of internet usage

In the past 4 weeks have you used the internet for any of the following?

Please select all that apply

1. Communication, for example, email, instant messaging, video or telephone calls
2. Using social media
3. Watching TV or films, listening to the radio, using streaming services or watching short video clips
4. Online shopping, or online banking
5. Finding out information, including news, weather
6. Travel or navigation
7. Playing puzzle games online, for example, Suduko, Wordle
8. Playing other games online
9. Something else
10. Have not used the internet in the past 4 weeks

Gambling participation questions

(Ask all)

Gambled in the past year

Have you spent money on any of the following activities, including online and in-person, in the last 12 months?

1. Tickets for the National Lottery draws – Lotto, Euromillions, Thunderball, Hotpicks, Set for Life
2. Tickets for other charity lotteries, including the Health Lottery, Postcode Lottery and other lotteries
3. National Lottery scratchcards
4. Other scratchcards
5. National Lottery online instant win games
6. Other online instant win games
7. Betting on sports and racing online and/or via an App, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports
8. Betting on sports and racing in-person, for example at a bookmakers, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports.
9. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections online and/or via an App
10. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections in-person, for example at a bookmakers
11. Bingo played online and/or via an App
12. Bingo played at a venue for example a bingo hall, social club
13. Casino games played online and/or via an App, for example Poker, Roulette, Blackjack
14. Casino games played at a casino for example Poker, Roulette, Blackjack
15. Casino games (for example Poker, Roulette, Blackjack) played on a machine and/or terminal in a venue for example casino, bookmakers, club, pub
16. Fruit and/or slot machines played in-person
17. Fruit and/or slot machines played online and/or via an App
18. Football pools
19. Private betting with for example friends, family, colleagues
20. Another form of gambling in the last 12 months

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents did not gamble in the past year, they were routed forward to the gambling attitude questions.

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents gambled in the past year on ‘Another form of gambling’, they were required to answer the following.

Money spent on gambling activities in the past 12 months

During the past 12 months, which other gambling activities did you spend money on? (open text response)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Feelings towards gambling

Thinking about the last time you spent money on gambling (in essence, lotteries, scratchcards, betting, bingo, casino games or fruit and/or slot machines) how did you feel? Please provide a number between 0 and 10, with 0 indicating ‘hated it’ and 10 indicating ‘loved it’. (open numerical response)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Reasons for gambling

The following question lists reasons that some people have given about why they take part in the gambling activities listed earlier in the questionnaire. For each one, please state how often these are reasons why you take part in some of these activities. I take part in these activities…

1. …for the chance of winning big money
2. …because it’s fun
3. …as a hobby or a pastime
4. …to escape boredom or to fill my time
5. …because I’m worried about not winning if I do not play
6. …to compete with others (for example, bookmaker, other gamblers)
7. …because it’s exciting
8. …for the mental challenge or to learn about the game or activity
9. …because of the sense of achievement when I win
10. …to impress other people
11. …to be sociable
12. …because it helps when I’m feeling tense
13. …to make money
14. …to relax
15. …because it’s something that I do with my friends or family

Responses include:

1. Always
2. Often
3. Sometimes
4. Never

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Thinking only about the last time you took part in (a randomly selected activity that respondent has participated in is inserted here), how much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

1. I enjoyed the game and/or the gamble itself
2. I was confident I would win
3. I took part with friends and/or family
4. I was playing with 'free' money
5. It was all down to chance (not skill)
6. I had no idea if I'd win anything
7. It was a high risk gamble
8. I was competing against my friends and/or family
9. It gave me a chance for some 'me' time
10. Winning was a long shot
11. The stars aligned for me to win
12. It’s something that I enjoy doing with my friends and/or family
13. I always do it
14. I just had a feeling that I would win and/or I had a hunch
15. It was a way to prove my skill with friends and/or family
16. I usually do quite well from this activity
17. It was a very solo activity

Responses include:

1. Disagree strongly
2. Disagree slightly
3. Neither agree or disagree
4. Agree slightly
5. Agree strongly

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Binge question 1

In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you ever experienced a moment when you spent more than you’d intended while gambling, or you ignored any spending limits you usually give yourself?

1. Never
2. Once or twice
3. A few times
4. Quite often

If respondents selected ‘never’ to binge question 1, they were routed forward to the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) questions.

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

Binge question 2

In the last 12 months, would you say you’ve ever had a gambling ‘binge’?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents selected ‘no’ to binge question 2, they were required to route to the PGSI questions.

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

Binge question 3

Thinking about the last time you had a gambling ‘binge’, how did you feel about it during, and afterwards?

1. While you were gambling
2. Afterwards

Responses include:

1. Bad, I wish I hadn’t gambled as much as I did
2. Neutral
3. Good, I had a lot of fun

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents answered ‘Yes’ to binge question 2, they were required to answer the following question.

Binge question 4

Thinking about the last time you had a gambling ‘binge’, what activity or activities was it?

Please select all that apply

1. Tickets for the National Lottery draws – Lotto, Euromillions, Thunderball, Hotpicks, Set for Life
2. Tickets for other charity lotteries, including the Health Lottery, Postcode Lottery and other lotteries
3. National Lottery scratchcards
4. Other scratchcards
5. National Lottery online instant win games
6. Other online instant win games
7. Betting on sports and racing online and/or via an App, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports
8. Betting on sports and racing in-person, for example at a bookmakers, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports.
9. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections online and/or via an App
10. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections in-person, for example at a bookmakers
11. Bingo played online and/or via an App
12. Bingo played at a venue for example, a bingo hall, social club
13. Casino games played online and/or via an App for example, Poker, Roulette, Blackjack
14. Casino games played at a casino for example, Poker, Roulette, Blackjack
15. Casino games (for example, Poker, Roulette, Blackjack) played on a machine and/or terminal in a venue for example, casino, bookmakers, club, pub
16. Fruit and/or slot machines played in-person
17. Fruit and/or slot machines played online and/or via an App
18. Football pools
19. Private betting with for example, friends, family, colleagues
20. Another form of gambling in the last 12 months

Awareness of gambling management tools

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

Which, if any, of the following gambling management tools are you aware of, specifically to reduce gambling?

Please select all that apply

1. Self-excluded from gambling companies’ websites (via GAMSTOP), premises or a specific product
2. Set spend, loss or deposit limits on the amount of money spent gambling
3. Set reminders, limits or a ‘time out’ to control the time spent gambling
4. Using blocking software to stop access to gambling websites
5. Asking my bank to block payments to gambling companies
6. Taking a break from online websites without using a specific gambling management tool
7. None of the above

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Reduction of gambling

In the past 12 months, have you tried to stop, reduce or cut down on the amount of gambling you do?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents answered ‘Yes’ to the reduction of gambling question, they were required to answer the following.

Usage of gambling management tools

Which, if any, of the following did you use to help you reduce or stop your gambling?

Please select all that apply

1. Self-excluded from gambling companies’ websites (via GAMSTOP), premises or a specific product
2. Set spend, loss or deposit limits on the amount of money I spent gambling
3. Set reminders, limits, or a ‘time out’ to control the time I spent gambling
4. Used blocking software to stop me accessing gambling websites
5. Asked my bank to block payments to gambling companies
6. Took a break from online websites without using a specific gambling management tool
7. None of the above

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents did use a gambling management tool, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of gambling management tools

You said you have used a gambling management tool in the past 12 months. How has the tool or tools that you have used changed the amount of gambling you do?

Responses include:

1. I have reduced the time or money I spent gambling
2. There has been no impact on my gambling behaviour
3. I have increased the time or money spent gambling.

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Gambling treatment

In the past 12 months, how happy or unhappy have you been with the way gambling companies have treated you when you’ve gambled with them?

Responses include:

1. Very happy
2. Happy
3. Neither happy nor unhappy
4. Unhappy
5. Very unhappy

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents answered ‘Unhappy’ or ‘Very unhappy’ to the gambling treatment question, they were required to answer the following.

Gambling complaints

What action, if any, did you take?

Please select all that apply.

1. Complained directly to the gambling company (in essence, betting shop, casino, online company and so on)
2. Complained directly to the Gambling Commission
3. Complained directly to an Alternative Dispute Resolution Body (ADR)
4. Complained through a complaints handling tool such as Resolver
5. I did not take any action, but I did want to make a complaint
6. I did not need to make a complaint

Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) questions

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

PGSI

In the last 12 months, how often…

1. ...have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?
2. ...have you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money to get the same feeling of excitement?
3. ...have you gone back to try to win back the money you’d lost?
4. ...have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble?
5. ...have you felt that you might have a problem with gambling?
6. ...have you felt that gambling has caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?
7. ...have people criticised your betting, or told you that you have a gambling problem, whether or not you thought it is true?
8. ...have you felt your gambling has caused financial problems for you or your household?
9. ...have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble?

Responses include:

1. Almost always
2. Most of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Never

Impact of own gambling questions

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of own gambling questions – set 1

The next few questions are about the impact that gambling can have on some people. Please answer as honestly as you can. All of the answers you provide will be entirely confidential.

Thinking about your own gambling, how often in the last 12 months has your own gambling led you to...

1. ...reduce or cut back your spending on everyday items such as food, bills and clothing?
2. ...use savings or borrow money for example, from family and/or friends, credit cards, overdrafts and/or loans, money lenders?
3. ...experience conflict or arguments with friends, family and/or work colleagues?
4. ...feel isolated from other people, left out or feel completely alone?
5. ...lie to family, or others, to hide the extent of your gambling?
6. ...be absent or perform poorly at work or study?

Responses include:

1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Occasionally
4. Never

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of own gambling questions – set 2

In the last 12 months…

1. …have you lost something of significant financial value such as your home, business, car or been declared bankrupt because of your own gambling?
2. …has your relationship with someone close to you, such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend broken down because of your own gambling?
3. …have you experienced violence or abuse because of your own gambling?
4. …have you committed a crime in order to finance gambling or to pay gambling debts?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents gambled in the past year, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of own gambling questions – set 3

In the last 12 months, has your own gambling led you to seek to help, support or information online, in-person or by telephone from…

1. …mental health services?
2. …food banks or other welfare organisations?
3. …relationship counselling and support services?
4. …gambling support services?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation - Lottery follow-up questions

If respondents gambled in the past year on either tickets for the National Lottery draws – Lotto, Euromillions, Thunderball, Hotpicks, Set for Life or tickets for other charity lotteries, including the Health Lottery, Postcode Lottery and other lotteries, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of purchasing lottery tickets in the past 4 weeks

In the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money on any of the following activities, including online and in person?

1. Tickets for National Lottery draws – Lotto, Euromillions, Thunderball, Hotpicks, Set for Life online and/or via an App?
2. Tickets for National Lottery draws – Lotto, Euromillions, Thunderball, Hotpicks, Set for Life in person for example, at a shop, garage?
3. Tickets for other charity lotteries, including the Health Lottery, Postcode Lottery and other lotteries online and/or via an App?
4. Tickets for other charity lotteries, including the Health Lottery, Postcode Lottery and other lotteries in person for example, at a shop, garage?

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

If respondents had spent money on lottery tickets in the past 4 weeks either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week’, or ‘Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Lottery tickets purchased in the past 4 weeks

Which of the following, if any, lottery tickets did you buy in the past 4 weeks?

Please select all that apply

1. Lotto
2. Euromillions
3. Thunderball
4. Lotto Hotpicks
5. Euromillions Hotpicks
6. Set for Life
7. Health lottery
8. Postcode lottery
9. Other lottery tickets, including for charity

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents had spent money on National Lottery draw tickets online in the past 4 weeks or spent money on a charity lottery online in the past 4 weeks, they were required to answer the following.

Lottery tickets bought through an app or website or smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you buy any lottery tickets through an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation - Scratchcards and instant win games follow-up questions

If respondents gambled in the past year on either National Lottery scratchcards, Other scratchcards, National Lottery online instant win games or Other online instant wins, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of purchasing scratchcards in the past 4 weeks

In the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money on any of the following activities, including online and in person?

1. National Lottery scratchcards
2. Other scratchcards
3. National Lottery online instant win games
4. Other online instant win games

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

If respondents gambled in the past 4 weeks on National Lottery scratchcards, they were required to answer the following question.

Type of National Lottery scratchcard played in past 4 weeks

You mentioned that you have played National Lottery scratchcards in the past 4 weeks. Which of the following types of National Lottery scratchcards have you played in the past 4 weeks?

Please select all that apply

1. £1 scratchcards
2. £2 scratchcards
3. £3 scratchcards
4. £5 scratchcards
5. Do not know and/or cannot remember the value

If respondents spent money on National Lottery instant wins in the past 4 weeks, they were required to answer the following.

Type of National Lottery online instant win played in past 4 weeks

You mentioned that you have played National Lottery online instant win games in the past 4 weeks. Which of the following types of National Lottery online instant win games have you played in the past 4 weeks?

Please select all that apply

1. Online instant win games costing less than £1
2. £1 online instant win games
3. £2 online instant win games
4. £3 online instant win games
5. £5 online instant win games
6. Do not know and/or cannot remember the value

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents had spent money on National Lottery online instant wins or other online instant wins in the past 4 weeks they were required to answer the following.

Online instant win games through an app or website on a smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you play online instant win games through an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation - Betting follow-up questions

If respondents gambled in the past year on either Betting on sports and racing online and/or via an App, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports, Betting on sports and racing in-person, for example at a bookmakers, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports, Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections online and/or via an App, or Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections in-person, for example at a bookmakers, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of betting in the past 4 weeks

In the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money on any of the following activities, including online and in person?

1. Betting on sports and racing online and/or via an App, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports
2. Betting on sports and racing in-person, for example, at a bookmakers, including virtual sports and/or races and e-sports
3. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections online and/or via an App
4. Betting on the outcome of events such as TV shows, elections in-person, for example, at a bookmakers

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

If respondents spent money on betting in the past 4 weeks either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week, or 'Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether have bet in play

In the past 4 weeks, have you bet in-play when betting on sports and/or races or the outcome of events? In-play betting means betting on things that happen once the game, match or event has started for example, who will win, next goal scorer, next point, next person to be eliminated.

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered ‘No’, they were routed to the ‘whether used a betting exchange’ question.

How often bet in play

How often have you bet in-play in the past 4 weeks? If you are unsure, please estimate

1. About once
2. About once a fortnight
3. About once a week
4. A few times a week
5. Everyday

Typical number of in play bets

Thinking back over the past 4 weeks, how many in-play bets would you typically make once an individual game, match or event had started? If you are unsure, enter your best estimate

Please enter a number

If respondents spent money on betting in the past 4 weeks either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether used betting exchange

Did you use a betting exchange in the past 4 weeks?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents spent money on Betting on sports or racing online in past 4 weeks, or Betting on sports or racing in person past 4 weeks, either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week, 'Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Activities bet on in the past 4 weeks

Which of the following did you spend money betting on in the past 4 weeks?

Please select all that apply

1. Live football
2. Live tennis
3. Live horse and/or dog racing
4. Other live sports
5. E-sports
6. Virtual games and/or races
7. None of these

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents spent money on Betting on sports or racing online in past 4 weeks, or Betting on outcomes in person past 4 weeks either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether used app or website to place bets on smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you place a bet using an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation - Bingo follow-up questions

If respondents gambled in the past year on either Bingo played online and/or via an app or Bingo played at a venue, for example a bingo hall, social club, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of playing bingo in the past 4 weeks

During the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money playing bingo…

1. …online and/or via an App?
2. …at a venue, for example, a bingo hall, social club?

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents playing bingo online either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether played bingo through an app or website on a smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you play bingo using an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation – Casino follow-up questions

If respondents have gambled in the past year on either Casino games played online and/or via an App for example, Poker, Roulette, Blackjack, Casino games played at a casino for example Poker, Roulette, Blackjack or Casino games (for example Poker, Roulette, Blackjack) played on a machine and/or terminal in a venue for example casino, bookmakers, club, pub, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of casino games in the past 4 weeks

During the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money playing casino games for example, poker, roulette, blackjack…

1. …online and/or via an App?
2. …in-person at a casino?
3. …on a machine and/or terminal in a venue, for example, casino, bookmakers, club, pub?

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents spent money on casino games online either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week, 'Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Live Dealer

When playing casino games for example, Poker, Roulette, Blackjack in past 4 weeks online and/or via an App, did you play with a live dealer?

1. Yes, always
2. Yes, but not always
3. No, never

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents spent money on casino games online either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether played casino through an app or website on a smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you play casino using an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling participation – Fruit and/or slots follow-up questions

If respondents gambled in the past year on either Fruit and/or slot machines in-person or Fruit and/or slot machines played online and/or via an app, they were required to answer the following questions.

Frequency of fruit and/or slots in the past 4 weeks

During the past 4 weeks, how often, if at all, have you spent money playing fruit or slot based games…

1. …online and/or via an App?
2. …on a fruit or slot machine?

Responses include:

1. Not in the past 4 weeks
2. About once
3. About once a fortnight
4. About once a week
5. A few times a week
6. Everyday

If respondents spent money on fruit or slot machines either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ 'Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Where played fruit and/or slot games on machines

In the past 4 weeks, where did you play fruit or slot machines?

Please select all that apply

1. Pub, bar or club
2. Gaming centre or arcade
3. Casino
4. Bingo hall or social club
5. Bookmakers
6. Other, please specify

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents spent money on fruit and/or slots online in the past 4 weeks either ‘About once’, ‘About once a fortnight’, ‘About once a week’, ‘A few times a week,’ 'Everyday’, they were required to answer the following.

Whether played fruit and/or slot using an app or website or smartphone

During the past 4 weeks, did you play online fruit and/or slot games using an App or website on a smartphone?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents gambled in the past year on either football pools, private betting with for example friends, family, colleagues or another form of gambling, they were required to answer the following questions.

Football pools, private betting or another form of gambling in the past 4 weeks

In the past 4 weeks, have you spent money on any of these activities, including online?

1. Football pools
2. Private betting with for example, friends, family colleagues
3. Another form of gambling in the past 4 weeks

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents spent money on football pools, private betting or another form of gambling in the past 4 weeks and spent money on another form of gambling in the past 4 weeks, respondents were required to answer the following question.

Money spent on other gambling activities in the past 4 weeks

During the past 4 weeks, which other gambling activities did you spend money on? (open text response)

Gambling Prize Draws

In the last 4 weeks have you spent any money to enter an online draw or competition for the chance to win a substantial prize such as a luxury house?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

Gambling attitudes questions

(Ask all)

The next few questions are about gambling advertisements and attitudes.

Gambling adverts

In the last month, have you seen or heard gambling being promoted in the following ways?

1. Adverts on television
2. Adverts on radio
3. Sponsorship of sports people, teams or events by gambling companies
4. Sponsorship of other TV programmes by gambling companies
5. Adverts for gambling on social media such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media
6. Pop-up adverts online for gambling companies
7. Adverts and promotions from gambling apps
8. Famous people or influencers promoting gambling companies via social media (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and so on)

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

(Ask all)

National Lottery views

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the National Lottery? Today I think that the National Lottery…

1. ...is honest and trustworthy
2. ...is well run
3. ...contributes to causes that benefit the whole nation
4. ...encourages people to play its games responsibly
5. ...is innovative

Responses include:

1. Agree strongly
2. Agree slightly
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree slightly
5. Disagree strongly
6. Do not know

Gambling website questions – set 1

It is a requirement that all gambling websites accessed by consumers in Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission. Before today, were you aware that gambling websites should be licensed by the Gambling Commission?

Responses include:

1. Yes, I was aware, and I do check websites I use have a licence from the Gambling Commission
2. Yes, I was aware, but I have never checked the websites that I have used have a license from the Gambling Commission
3. No, I was unaware gambling websites should be licensed by the Gambling Commission and have therefore, never checked
4. Don’t know

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

(Ask all)

Gambling website questions – set 2

Would you ever gamble on a website that you knew to be unlicensed by the Gambling Commission?

Responses include:

1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, maybe
3. No, definitely not
4. Don’t know

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

If respondents answered ‘Yes, definitely’ or ‘Yes, maybe’ to the Gambling website questions – set 2, they were required to answer the following.

Gambling website questions – set 3

Please explain why you would gamble on a website you knew not to have a licence from the Gambling Commission. Please give as much detail as possible.

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

(Ask all)

Fairness of gambling

How far do you agree or disagree that in this country, gambling is conducted fairly and can be trusted?

Responses include:

1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree

Impact of someone else’s gambling questions

(Ask all)

Knowing people who gamble question

Does anyone you are close to gamble, even if only occasionally? By gambling we mean spending money on activities such as lotteries, betting, casino and so on.
Please select all that apply

1. No
2. Yes, a partner or spouse
3. Yes, another family member (that is not your partner or spouse)
4. Yes, a friend
5. Yes, someone else

If respondents answered yes to knowing someone who gambles, they were required to answer the following.

Living with someone who gambles

And do you live with this person and/or any of these people?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered ‘No’ or no answer to knowing someone who gambles, they were routed to the General Health questions.

Impact of someone else’s gambling – set 1

The next few questions are about the impact that someone else’s gambling may have had on you, whether you live with them or not. Please answer as honestly as you can.

Thinking about someone else’s gambling, in the last 12 months…

1. …have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money because of someone else’s gambling?
2. …have you felt that someone else’s gambling has caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?
3. …have you felt that someone else’s gambling has made you feel embarrassment, guilt or shame?

Responses include:

1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Occasionally
4. Never

If respondents answered 'Yes' to knowing someone who gambles, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of someone else’s gambling – set 2

In the last 12 months, how often has someone else’s gambling led you to…

1. …reduce or cut back your spending on everyday items such as food, bills and clothing?
2. …use your savings or increase your use of credit, such as credit cards, overdrafts and loans?
3. …experience conflict or arguments with friends, family and/or work colleagues?
4. …feel isolated from other people, left out or feel completely alone?
5. …lie to family, or others, to hide the extent of someone else’s gambling?
6. …be absent or perform poorly at work or study?

Responses include:

1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Occasionally
4. Never

If respondents answered 'Yes' to knowing someone who gambles, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of someone else’s gambling – set 3

In the last 12 months…

1. ...has your relationship with someone close to you such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend broken down because of someone else’s gambling?
2. ...have you lost something of significant financial value such as your home, business, car or been declared bankrupt because of someone else’s gambling?
3. ...have you experienced violence or abuse because of someone else’s gambling?
4. …have you committed a crime in order to finance someone else’s gambling or to pay their gambling debts?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered 'Yes' to knowing someone who gambles, they were required to answer the following.

Impact of someone else’s gambling – set 4

In the last 12 months, has someone else’s gambling led you to seek help, support or information online, in-person or by telephone from…

1. …mental health services?
2. …food banks or other welfare organisations?
3. …relationship counselling and support services?
4. …gambling support services?

Responses include:

1. Yes
2. No

Health and wellbeing questions

(Ask all)

General Health

How would you say your health was in general?

1. Very good
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Bad
5. Very bad

(Ask all)

Smoking status

Do you smoke cigarettes at all nowadays?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents did not smoke, they were routed to the drinking frequency question.

Smoking frequency

On average, about how many cigarettes a day do you usually smoke?

(Please enter a number)

(Ask all)

Drinking frequency

How often did you have a drink containing alcohol in the past year?

1. Never
2. Monthly or less
3. Two to four times a month
4. Two to four times a week
5. Four or more times a week

If respondents answered ‘Never’, to the drinking frequency question, they were routed to the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS)

Number of drinks

How many drinks did you have on a typical day when you were drinking in the past year?

1. None, I do not drink
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. 5 or 6
5. 7 to 9
6. 10 or more

If respondents answered ‘None, I do not drink’, they were routed to the SWEMWBS.

Drinking 6 or more alcohol drinks

How often did you have six or more drinks on one occasion in the past year?

1. Never
2. Less than monthly
3. Monthly
4. Weekly
5. Daily or almost daily

(Ask all)

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS)

Below are some statements about feelings and thoughts.

Please select one answer per statement that best describes your experience of each over the last 2 weeks.

1. I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future
2. I’ve been feeling useful
3. I’ve been feeling relaxed
4. I’ve been dealing with problems well
5. I’ve been thinking clearly
6. I’ve been feeling close to other people
7. I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things

Responses include:

1. None of the time
2. Rarely
3. Some of the time
4. Often
5. All of the time

Scale used: Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) © NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh, 2008, all rights reserved.

(ASK ALL)

Self harm – question 1

In the last 12 months have you ever thought about taking your own life, even though you would not actually do it?

1. Yes
2. No

(Ask all)

Self harm – question 2

In the last 12 months, have you made an attempt to take your life, by taking an overdose of tablets or in some other way?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered ‘No’ to both self harm question 1 and 2, respondents were routed to the Sex question.

Self harm - question 3

To what extent, if at all, was this related to your gambling?

1. Not at all
2. A little
3. A lot

Demographic questions

(Ask all)

Sex

What is your sex?

A question about gender identity will follow.

1. Male
2. Female

(Ask all)

Gender

Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?

1. Yes
2. No, write in gender identity:

(Ask all)

Date of Birth

What is your date of birth?

Please enter day, month, year

‘This survey is for individuals aged 18 years and older. Please check the date of birth you have entered.’

If respondents did not provide an answer for the year, they were required to answer the following.

Age at last birthday

What was your age last birthday?

(Enter number in years)

(Ask all)

Ethnic Group

Choose one option that best describes your ethnic group or background

White

1. English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British
2. Irish
3. Gypsy or Irish Traveller
4. Any other White background, please describe:

Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups

5. White and Black Caribbean
6. White and Black African
7. White and Asian
8. Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background, please describe:

Asian or Asian British

9. Indian
10. Pakistani
11. Bangladeshi
12. Chinese
13. Any other Asian background, please describe:

Black or African or Caribbean or Black British

14. African
15. Caribbean
16. Any other Black, African or Caribbean background, please describe:

Other ethnic group

17. Arab
18. Any other ethnic group, please describe:

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

(Ask all)

Sexual Orientation

Which of the following options best describes how you think of yourself?

1. Heterosexual or Straight
2. Gay or Lesbian
3. Bisexual
4. Other
5. Prefer not to say

(Ask all)

(The following question was asked only on the online version)

Religion

What is your religion?

1. No religion
2. Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)
3. Buddhist
4. Hindu
5. Jewish
6. Muslim
7. Sikh
8. Any other religion, please describe:

(Ask all)

Number of adults in household

Including you, how many adults aged 18 or over are currently living in your household?

(Ask all)

Number of children in household

And how many children aged under 18 currently live in your household? If ‘none’, write in ‘0’.

(Ask all)

Current relationship status

What is your legal marital or registered civil partnership status?

1. Never married and never registered in a civil partnership
2. Married
3. In a registered civil partnership
4. Separated, but still legally married
5. Separated, but still legally in a civil partnership
6. Divorced
7. Formerly in a civil partnership which is now legally dissolved
8. Widowed
9. Surviving partner from a registered civil partnership

(Ask all)

Income

Thinking of the income of your household as a whole, which of the groups on this list represents the total income of the whole household before deduction for income tax, National Insurance, and so on?

Please note that this includes income from benefits and savings.

1. Monthly income before tax: £0 to £949 or annual income before tax: £0 to £11,399.
2. Monthly income before tax: £950 to £1,349 or annual income before tax: £11,400 to £16,199.
3. Monthly income before tax: £1,350 to £1,799 or annual income before tax: £16,200 to £21,599.
4. Monthly income before tax: £1,800 to £2,249 or annual income before tax: £21,600 to £26,999.
5. Monthly income before tax: £2,250 to £2,799 or annual income before tax: £27,000 to £33,599.
6. Monthly income before tax: £2,800 to £3,349 or annual income before tax: £33,600 to £40,199
7. Monthly income before tax: £3,350 to £3,999 or annual income before tax: £40,200 to £47,999
8. Monthly income before tax: £4,000 to £4,999 or annual income before tax: £48,000 to £59,999
9. Monthly income before tax: £5,000 to £6,599 or annual income before tax: £60,000 to £79,199.
10. Monthly income before tax: £6,600 or more or annual income before tax: £79,200 or more.

(Ask all)

Tenure

In which of these ways is your accommodation occupied?

1. Own it outright
2. Buying it with the help of a mortgage and/or loan
3. Part own and part rent (shared ownership)
4. Rent it from a housing association or local council
5. Rent it from another type of landlord
6. Live here rent-free
7. Squatting

(Ask all)

Respondent educational background

Do you have any educational qualifications for which you received a certificate?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered ‘No’, they were required to answer the following question.

Respondent professional, vocational or other work related qualifications

Do you have any professional, vocational or other work-related qualifications for which you received a certificate?

1. Yes
2. No

If respondents answered ‘Yes’ to having any educational qualifications for which they received a certificate or having any professional, vocational or other work-related qualifications for which they received a certificate, they were required to answer the following question.

Respondent highest qualifications at degree level or other

Was your highest qualification:

1. At degree level or above
2. Or another kind of qualification?

(Ask all)

Employment status last week

In the past 7 days, were you doing any of the following? Include casual or temporary work, even if only for one hour. Tick one option below.

1. Working as an employee
2. Self-employed or freelancer
3. Temporarily away from work ill, or on holiday or temporally laid off
4. On maternity or paternity leave
5. Doing any other kind of paid work
6. None of the above

If respondents answered, ‘None of the above’, they were required to answer the following.

Activity in the last week

Which of the following described what you were doing in the last seven days?

Tick one option below.

1. Retired (whether receiving a pension or not)
2. Studying
3. Looking after home or family
4. Long-term sick or disabled
5. Other

(Ask all)

Cost of Living

in the past 4 weeks, have you spent more or less on the following activities than you normally would?

1. Supermarket shopping
2. Non-essential spending with other retailers in essence, clothes, shoes and so on
3. Leisure activities in essence, hobbies, gym membership, cinema and so on
4. Going to restaurants and bars
5. Home entertainment and subscriptions in essence, Netflix, Sky and so on.
6. Lottery tickets and/or scratchcards
7. Other gambling activities (not including those above)
8. Other charitable donations
9. Home improvements and/or DIY

Responses include:

1. More or increased spend
2. Stayed the same
3. Less or decreased spend
4. Do not know

Appendix B - Postal questionnaire

This pdf file is provided for context only and may not be fully accessible for all viewers. Full details of the questions asked in the postal questionnaire are listed within GSGB Appendix A - Online questionnaire.

This questionnaire was used for wave 1 and wave 2 of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain.