Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

Executive summary

Gambling harm can be wider than it first appears. When someone’s gambling becomes harmful, the consequences are not always theirs alone. It can ripple outward into relationships, households, and communities, absorbed by the people closest to them. These people are known as affected others.

The Gambling Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) tells us that 9 percent of adults in Great Britain are identified as affected others, and that more than a quarter of those have experienced at least one severe consequence as a result. Notably, 63 percent of those affected others reported gambling themselves in the last 12 months, a finding that shaped the research questions and sample for this study. These numbers speak to the need to better understand the affected other experience – what it means for day-to-day life, how it develops over time, how the gambling environment shapes those experiences, how relationship dynamics influence the impacts felt, and why so few of those affected ever seek help.

The Commission appointed Humankind Research to conduct a qualitative study with affected others from across Great Britain, to contextualise and build on GSGB findings and contribute to the Commission’s roadmap priority of understanding the impact of gambling on people who gamble and affected others. Understanding the scale and nature of harm is central to the Commission’s role as the evidence-led regulator responsible for monitoring gambling participation and prevalence across Great Britain – it informs how the Commission interprets GSGB data, identifies evidence gaps, and fulfils its licensing objective to protect vulnerable people from harm through regulation. This work helps fill a gap in its knowledge around affected others and also provides important insight for those working within the prevention, education and treatment sectors.

Humankind Research conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 25 affected others from across Great Britain between March and April 2026. Participants spanned a range of relationship types, consequence severity levels, and backgrounds, and were recruited with the involvement of the Gambling Commission’s Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). The research was designed to sit alongside and extend the GSGB (2024) data, providing texture and lived experience that cannot be captured within a survey.

Key findings

Harm experienced by the affected other is rarely confined to a single domain – health, relationship, and financial consequences compound and reinforce each other, making single-domain responses insufficient.

Awareness of harm frequently lags behind the person gambling’s behaviour; by the time affected others recognise what’s happening, harm has already accumulated across multiple areas of their life.

The invisibility of mobile and app-based gambling removes the natural cues that once made a problem identifiable and generates sustained hypervigilance as a result.

Relationship type fundamentally shapes the experience of harm – partners often carry the most sustained harms, but parents, adult children, siblings, friends, and colleagues each describe distinct and specific forms of harm.

Where gambling was initially a shared activity between the affected other and the person gambling, harm becomes entangled with guilt and difficulty attributing consequences – a group not well understood in current data.

Safer gambling tools were encountered almost exclusively at crisis point by the affected other, and all required the person gambling to initiate and maintain them.

Fewer than 1 in 5 affected others seek support (GSGB, 2024); many do not recognise their own experience as harm, and those without a personal relationship to gambling have few natural entry points into services.

Chronic harm (the persistent consequences of lives adjusted around someone else’s gambling) is among the least visible in existing evidence and can continue for years without formal recognition.

As with all qualitative research, the findings presented here are indicative rather than statistically representative of all affected others across Great Britain. They are best read alongside the GSGB data, which provides the quantitative picture.

Implications

This research contributes to the Commission’s Evidence Gaps and Priorities across Evidence Roadmaps Themes 3, 4, 5 and 6, and points to specific opportunities to strengthen the evidence base on affected others. Many of the findings and recommendations in this report do not fall solely within the Commission’s regulatory remit, and are directed at the wider gambling support and treatment landscape, for other organisations and bodies to take forward. A companion report, to be published in the coming months, explores these implications in more depth for organisations working directly with affected others.

Introduction and background

About the research

Most people who gamble do so safely and without harm. But for some, gambling can have serious consequences; these consequences rarely stop with the person gambling. Partners, parents, siblings, children, and friends can all be affected by someone else’s gambling, yet this group remains relatively under-researched in Great Britain. Addressing this gap and understanding the impact of gambling on people who gamble and those close to them is therefore a priority within the Gambling Commission’s Evidence Gaps and Priorities, under Evidence Theme 3: Gambling-related harm and vulnerability.

People affected by someone else’s gambling are commonly referred to as 'affected others'. Research on gambling-related harm – including the framework for action established by Wardle et al. (2018) (opens in new tab) – has shown that these harms are wide-ranging, spanning financial strain, relationship detriments, and lasting damage to health and well-being.

Despite this, affected others are a group with limited visibility, few dedicated support mechanisms, and little formal recognition of their experience within the gambling landscape.

Since 2023, the Gambling Commission has included a dedicated set of questions in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) on the consequences experienced from someone else’s gambling, allowing for more detailed analysis of individuals identified as affected others. These questions cover 2 categories of adverse consequences:

1. Severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful

2. 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

Both categories span 3 domains: relationships, financial resources, and health and well-being. The full question set is available in our Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling report.

In doing so, the GSGB (2024) found that 9 percent of adults are identified as affected others, and that 26.6¹ percent of those have experienced at least one severe consequence – such as relationship breakdown, significant financial loss, or exposure to violence or abuse. The data also shows that of those 9 percent who identified themselves as affected others, 63 percent had gambled themselves in the past 12 months, a finding that shaped both the research questions and the sample for this study.

Though the GSGB data tells us how many people are affected and the consequences they report, it does not indicate how these consequences can develop over time, how their experiences may be shaped by the gambling environment and operator practices, what it actually feels like to live with the consequences of someone else’s gambling, or why so few seek formal or specialist support. This research was commissioned to address these gaps.

The Commission appointed Humankind Research to conduct a qualitative study with affected others from across Great Britain, to contextualise and build on GSGB findings and contribute to the Commission’s roadmap priority of understanding the impact of gambling on people who gamble and affected others.

This report is 1 of 2 outputs from the research. A companion report, to be published in the coming months, draws on the same qualitative interviews to explore implications for support organisations and the wider gambling ecosystem. Where this report focuses on potential areas for regulatory consideration by the Commission, the companion report is aimed at those working directly with people who experience adverse consequences due to someone's gambling, and those close to them.

A note on terminology: Throughout this report, we use the term 'person gambling' to refer to the individual whose gambling behaviour has affected the participant. In most cases, this is someone close to them, such as a partner, parent, adult child, sibling, or friend. Where a participant also gambled themselves, 'the person gambling' refers specifically to the other individual whose gambling caused harm, not to the participant’s own gambling activity. This distinction is made explicit where relevant.

Research aims and core questions

Protecting vulnerable people from harm is one of the Gambling Commission’s core licensing objectives. To support that objective, the Commission needs to understand not only the experiences of people who gamble, but also the experiences of those close to them. This research set out to:

• improve understanding and interpretation of data collected via the GSGB
• determine if there are points in the consumer pathways into, during, and after gambling where interventions or policy considerations could be beneficial, by regulators and other statutory bodies
• inform the approach to recontacting GSGB respondents who indicate that they have been affected by someone else’s gambling and provide recommendations on potential further research questions.

This research was shaped by 4 core questions:

1. What consequences do affected others experience as a result of someone else's gambling, and how do relationship dynamics influence these impacts?

2. What are affected others' own gambling behaviours, and how do these compare to those of the person they know?

3. How do affected others perceive and describe the gambling journey of the person they know?

4. How do external factors (such as gambling environments, product features, advertising, and operator practices) shape the experiences reported by affected others?

---

¹ Statistics relating to adverse consequences have been reported to one decimal place, in line with GSGB reporting.

Approach and methods

Research design

Fieldwork for this multi-stage qualitative study took place between March and April 2026. The research included 3 stages, all conducted with affected others.

Stage 1: Pre-calls

Each participant took part in a 20-minute introductory call with a researcher, conducted on Zoom or by phone according to their preference. In the calls, the researchers explained the purpose of the research, described what to expect in subsequent stages, and answered any questions the participants had.

These conversations were designed to onboard participants, build initial rapport between them and their allocated researcher, and ensure everyone taking part was clear on the purpose and context of the study before progressing.

The same researcher was used across research stages for each participant in order to build the trust needed to discuss personal and often sensitive experiences openly.

Stage 2: Pause and consider

Following the introductory call, participants were given approximately 1 week to reflect on the topics and themes that would be covered in their interview. They were provided with a list of areas to consider (see Appendix B) but were not asked to produce any written output.

This stage was designed to give participants time and space to consolidate their thinking where they may not have had the opportunity to do so, without placing any undue pressure on them ahead of the conversation.

Stage 3: In-depth interviews

60 to 75 minute individual in-depth interviews were then conducted online with each participant. The conversations explored participants’ experiences of someone else’s gambling journey, covering when they were first aware of their gambling through to the present.

We heard about the consequences they had experienced across relationships, finances, and health and well-being, their own relationship with gambling, experiences of seeking and/or accessing help and support, and experiences of external factors such as advertising and operator practices.

Researchers employed a narrative-led approach, giving participants space to share what felt most significant to them.

Data were analysed thematically, combining insights to identify consistent patterns and areas of divergence.

Lived Experience Advisory Panel

Engagement with the Gambling Commission’s Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) was central to the shaping of this research. Prior to fieldwork, LEAP members (including individuals who identify as affected others) helped to refine the research design, reviewed participant materials, and provided assurance that the approach was sensitive, accessible, and appropriate for a potentially vulnerable audience. LEAP input informed the language used throughout the research, the safeguarding plan, and supported with the recruitment of participants.

The same LEAP members were consulted again at the analysis stage to provide assurance on emerging findings and ensure participant perspectives had been sensitively reflected.

Ethics and safeguarding

This research was conducted in accordance with the Gambling Commission’s Research Governance Framework, which sets out the principles and standards for ethical, rigorous, and transparent research. Given that the study involved human participants on a sensitive topic, it underwent full ethical approval prior to fieldwork commencing. The following sections describe how the key principles of the framework – including informed consent, safeguarding, and participant confidentiality – were applied throughout the research.

The research intentionally did not include participants with very recent or acute experiences of severe harm, specifically those who had been exposed to suicide or suicidality, domestic violence or abuse, or criminal proceedings related to gambling behaviour within the past 12 months. This decision was made in close consultation with the Commission and Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), reflecting the heightened safeguarding risks of involving participants who may not be sufficiently removed from acute distress to participate meaningfully and safely.

Participants with experience of severe adverse consequences were only included where they had already received some form of support, providing a degree of distance from the most acute period of harm.

Clear information about the research, how data would be used, and participants’ right to withdraw at any point was provided at every stage. Safeguarding procedures were in place throughout, with researchers prepared to pause or end interviews where participant comfort or safety appeared compromised. Signposting to relevant support resources was provided to all participants.

Some participants described the research as a cathartic or valuable experience and reflected positively on the opportunity to share and make sense of their experiences. While this speaks to the care taken in the research design, researchers remained alert to the risk that reflecting on difficult experiences could (re)surface distress, and adapted conversations accordingly.

All participants have been given pseudonyms, and any identifying details in quotes and case studies have been changed to protect their anonymity.

Sample

25 affected others across England, Scotland, and Wales took part in the research. The sample was designed to reflect the profile of affected others identified in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) as closely as possible, while also capturing a range of relationship types and consequences in severity.

Participants were recruited through the Gambling Commission’s Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) network and Humankind’s specialist recruitment networks.

All participants were screened in advance to ensure they met the eligibility criteria, and that participation was appropriate given their current circumstances¹.

The sample included:

• severity of adverse consequences: 7 participants with experience of severe adverse consequences (experienced at least 12 months prior to fieldwork); 18 with experience of potential adverse consequences, current or mainly current
• gender: the sample skewed female, consistent with the GSGB profile of affected others; 17 of the participants were women, and 8 were men
• gambler status: 11 participants who gamble themselves; 14 non-gamblers. Among those who gamble, Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores ranged from 0 to 4. No participants scored above 4².
• geography: 16 in England; 4 in Scotland; 5 in Wales
• relationship type: a range of relationship types including partners, parents and caretakers, adult children, siblings, friends, and one business relationship
• other criteria: a spread of ages from 18 upwards (approximately 25 percent aged 25 to 34); a range of socioeconomic backgrounds; a mix of ethnicities; and participants from urban, suburban, and rural areas.

The multi-stage design and ongoing researcher presence meant that the team was well-placed to respond when participants found conversations difficult. Several interviews required extension or adaptation where strong emotions resurfaced during the conversation; in these cases, researchers paused, adjusted the pace, or redirected as appropriate. One participant withdrew from the research before the interview took place, which is revealing of how challenging it can be for people to revisit these experiences.

---

¹ 2 participants had professional or voluntary roles in gambling support services, in addition to their own lived experience as affected others.

² This was a deliberate sampling decision; affected others with higher PGSI scores were excluded due to the additional safeguarding complexity involved in recruiting participants whose own gambling behaviour may be problematic alongside their experience of someone else’s. This gap is acknowledged as a limitation of the research and is identified as a priority area for future study.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

The qualitative design of the study provided a rich, detailed understanding of how affected others experience and navigate the consequences of someone else’s gambling. In-depth interviews allowed participants to describe their experiences in their own words; this enabled nuanced understandings containing emotional texture, complexity, and personal significance in a way that cannot be captured quantitatively or at a large scale.

Engagement with Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) across stages ensured the research was grounded in lived experience from design to analysis, and that participant materials were appropriate and sensitive. LEAP’s involvement also strengthened recruitment, particularly for participants with experience of severe adverse consequences who are less likely to be recruited through the standard channels.

The three-stage approach allowed researchers to build rapport with participants while giving them meaningful preparation time to reflect on their experiences ahead of sharing them. This supported more honest and reflective accounts, particularly on topics that some participants may not have previously discussed in depth. Using the same researcher throughout all stages created a sense of continuity and trust that was especially important given the sensitivity of the subject matter.

The consistency of accounts across a diverse sample gives confidence that the themes identified here reflect meaningful patterns in how affected others experience gambling-related harm. Similar experiences were described repeatedly across interviews, indicating that data saturation was reached within the sample.

Limitations

As with all qualitative research, the findings presented here are indicative rather than statistically representative of all affected others across Great Britain. They are best read alongside the GSGB data, which provides the quantitative picture.

The sample did not include participants currently experiencing very recent or acute severe harm due to safeguarding considerations. This means the research offers limited insight into the most acute phase of crisis.

No participants in the sample scored above 4 on the PGSI, meaning the research does not capture the experiences of affected others with more problematic gambling behaviours of their own. This is a gap identified for future research (see Implications and recommendations).

There is also potential for research reactivity; for some participants, reflecting on their experiences prompted greater awareness of gambling-related harm or surfaced emotions they had not previously processed. While researchers managed this carefully, it may have shaped how some participants described their experiences.

Further, as with all qualitative research based on self-reported accounts, the findings are also subject to potential biases. Participants may have chosen to emphasise certain (elements of their) experiences over others, or to present their situation in particular ways within a research setting – a form of social desirability bias that is difficult to eliminate entirely. Non-response bias is also worth noting; those who agreed to take part may differ in meaningful ways from affected others who did not, for example being more willing to reflect on or discuss their experiences. These limitations are inherent to the method and do not undermine the value of the findings but should be kept in mind when interpreting them.

The next section of the main report can be found on the Findings page.

Findings

Who are affected others?

In this research, affected others are individuals who have experienced adverse consequences as a result of someone else’s gambling. This is most often (though not always) someone close to them. The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) distinguishes between 2 categories of adverse consequence:

1. Severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful.

2. 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.

This definition mirrors that used in the GSGB, which identifies affected others as those who know someone close to them who gambles and who have experienced at least one adverse consequence as a result of a person’s gambling in the past 12 months.

On this basis, 9 percent of adults in the GSGB are affected others. The GSGB tells us that affected others are more likely to be female (55 percent) and tend to be younger than the general GSGB sample, with the largest concentration in the 25 to 44 age group. This research was designed to illuminate the experiences of affected others beyond these broad patterns, including what their relationships look like, how they make sense of their own experiences, and why some are more affected than others.

The 25 participants in this study spanned a wide range of relationship types, ages, and circumstances. Partners and spouses made up the largest group, followed by parents of adult children, adult children of parents who gamble, siblings, close friends, and one business relationship. Relationship type is not incidental to the affected other experience, and in fact shapes almost everything about it, including how harm develops, how long it goes unrecognised, what affected others feel able to do about it, and how much responsibility they feel they carry. These dynamics are explored in depth in the sections that follow.

On the term 'affected other'

The majority of participants had not previously encountered the term 'affected other' before taking part in this research. Once explained, most accepted it readily, finding it to be appropriately broad, and useful for describing experiences they had often struggled to name. For those who had accessed support services, the term was sometimes already familiar, and they had encountered it for the first time through that process.

Where the term resonated most strongly, it did so because it named something participants felt had been overlooked. Several described it as a validating term that acknowledged the fact gambling harms extend beyond the person who gambles, and that their own experiences were real and significant.

A minority of participants raised questions about the wording. A few preferred adjacent terms such as 'concerned other', and 1 participant who worked professionally in gambling support services noted the word 'other’ could be interpreted as having a slightly pejorative undertone.

On balance, 'affected other' remains well suited to communicating with and about this group. The findings do, however, suggest that 'affected individual' may be worth considering as an alternative, given its potential to feel less distancing without sacrificing the term's core meaning.

As some participants are unfamiliar with the term 'affected other', and may not consider themselves as such, there are implications for its application in recontacting potential participants following GSGB completion, if this was to be taken forward (see Considerations for recontacting GSGB respondents identified as affected others in the Implications and Recommendations section).

Demographic and contextual factors

Gender

Consistent with the GSGB data and broader patterns in the evidence base, the majority of participants in this research were women. This influenced the type of experiences, consequences and impacts participants described.

Female affected others (particularly those who were impacted by their male partner’s gambling) frequently described taking on the role of financial manager and emotional stabiliser within their relationship, absorbing the consequences of someone else's gambling while maintaining appearances for children, wider family, or employers. It should be noted that no women affected by a female partner’s gambling were included in this sample, meaning findings on gendered dynamics for female affected others reflect different-gender relationship experiences only.

Male affected others described facing a different set of pressures, such as the difficulty of raising concerns with a female partner without feeling or appearing controlling, and the social expectation that men manage financial problems privately rather than seeking support.

Tight-knit cultural and community contexts

For some participants, cultural and community context significantly shaped both the experience of harm, and the barriers to recognising or disclosing it.

In close-knit communities (including some minority ethnic and religious communities, and some rural or small-town settings), gambling by a family member or partner carried strong associations with shame, and the expectation that difficulties were managed within the family rather than shared externally.

Several participants described actively concealing what was happening from extended family members or community networks, not only to protect the person who gambled, but to protect the family's standing. This created additional layers of isolation on top of those already generated by the gambling itself.

Socioeconomic background

Socioeconomic background appears to determine whether gambling harm becomes an immediate crisis or results in prolonged, less overt consequences. But in both cases, affected others bear substantial and often escalating consequences.

For participants on lower incomes or with limited financial resilience, even moderate financial losses had immediate and serious consequences for essential costs: struggling to afford food, bills, housing costs, and children's needs. There was also greater mention of accumulation of overdrafts, payday loans, and debt collectors (including unauthorised lenders), and selling possessions or downsizing housing. Low financial resilience meant gambling harm could quickly become more of a survival issue.

For those with more financial resource, harm manifested less overtly in the form of depleted savings, increased reliance on credit cards and family support, and the gradual erosion of financial security. It also diminished quality of life, for example resulting in taking fewer holidays, or cutting back on children’s activities. The financial buffer helped ensure that crisis was delayed, even if financial losses may be comparable to or greater than what was experienced at lower income levels.

The consequences of someone else’s gambling

The journey from awareness to harm

Affected others do not experience harm as any single event. For most participants, it was something that developed gradually, shaped by the gambling behaviour of the person gambling, the nature of their relationship, and the point at which the affected other first recognised that something was wrong. Understanding this journey is essential context for everything that follows in this section.

The accounts shared across this research followed a broadly recognisable arc, moving through 4 overlapping stages:

1. An early period marked by a lack of awareness that gambling was taking place, or being aware but largely unconcerned (whether due to lack of observable adverse consequences, or gambling being a familiar activity for the affected other due to personal experiences or upbringing).

2. A period of escalation in gambling behaviours wherein concerns begin to emerge.

3. A crisis point, whether financial, relational, or emotional.

4. A recovery phase where the person gambling changes their behaviour, or a chronic phase where the affected other accepts that the person gambling will continue (and may or may not continue to play a role in the person gambling’s life).

These observed stages were not linear. Many participants described cycling between periods of relative stability punctuated by relapse or new crises.

Crucially, affected others’ awareness of harm frequently lagged behind the person gambling’s behaviour. By the time an affected other recognised what was happening, harm had often already accumulated in ways that were difficult or impossible to undo. This lag has implications for how and when intervention is possible and is explored further in the companion report, which will be published in the coming months.

It is important to note that the journey described here is not the person gambling’s journey into and through gambling; it is the journey of gambling’s role in the relationship between the affected other and the person gambling. For some participants, gambling had always been present, for example a partner who already gambled when they met, or a parent who gambled throughout the affected other’s childhood. For others, gambling entered an existing relationship at a later point, for example, a partner, sibling, or friend who took it up years into their relationship. What the following 4 stages describe is how that dynamic evolved over time, from the affected other’s perspective, regardless of when the gambling itself began.

1: Early stage

For most participants, the early period was characterised by not knowing. Some had no awareness that the person they were close to was gambling at all; others knew about gambling but did not yet understand its scale, frequency, or financial cost. In some cases, gambling had been part of the relationship or family dynamic from the start, making it harder to identify a moment when it became harmful.

Several participants described an uncomfortable awareness that something was off in the background, alongside a reluctance to name it, either to protect the relationship or because they lacked the language to describe what they were seeing. Where the person gambling had moved from in-person to online or app-based gambling, this early period was harder to navigate still. Where land-based gambling was visible, necessitating trips out, cash withdrawn, and time away, mobile gambling was invisible, happening in shared spaces, at any time, and could look identical to normal phone use.

2: Escalation

For most participants, a period of escalation preceded any formal crisis. Gambling became more frequent or more financially significant, debts began to accumulate, and the person gambling's behaviour shifted, becoming more secretive, sometimes more defensive when challenged, and more preoccupied. Affected others described gradually taking on more financial management and emotional labour and becoming more vigilant.

Some participants described escalation as a slow creep, stretching over years. Others described a faster trajectory, accelerated by a life event (such as a redundancy, bereavement, or mental health deterioration) that seemed to tip acceptable or at least manageable gambling into something more serious.

Particularly in the case of partners (and other affected others in close financial relationships with the person gambling), escalation often only became visible at the point of a financial shock, like an unexpected debt. By then, the harm had been building for some time.

3: Crisis

Crisis took different forms across the sample but was almost always a point of revelation, constituting the moment at which the scale of gambling, debt, or associated harm became undeniable. For some participants this was a single event, taking the form of a confession, or contact from someone the person gambling owed money to. For others, it was a gradual accumulation of evidence that could no longer be explained away.

The crisis point frequently triggered an immediate and intense practical response. Participants described taking control of finances, contacting support services on the person gambling’s behalf, managing lenders, and trying to stabilise the situation, all often while absorbing their own emotional shock. This was the phase at which affected others were most likely to encounter formal tools and support services, typically through reactive searching rather than planned intervention.

For a small number of participants, crisis escalated into situations involving personal safety.

4: Chronic and/or recovery

Crisis was not the endpoint for most participants. What followed was a prolonged period (often ongoing at the time of interview) that did not fit neatly into either active crisis or recovery. For some, this meant managing the aftermath of a crisis that had technically passed: repaying debts, rebuilding trust, and managing the fear of relapse. For others, it meant continuing to live alongside gambling behaviour that had not stopped, in a state of chronic low-level harm that was less acute than crisis but no less significant.

This chronic phase was among the least visible in existing evidence. It does not register as a crisis requiring intervention, and can go unrecognised and unsupported. Participants described a sustained emotional vigilance (monitoring the person gambling’s behaviour, watching their bank accounts, bracing for the next episode) that persisted long after gambling had reduced or stopped.

Consequences

The GSGB data shows that affected others are most likely to report health consequences (73.7 percent), followed by relationship consequences (65.3 percent) and resource consequences (42.5 percent).

Affected others in this study described harm that spanned these 3 areas, rarely staying contained within any 1 domain. The most consistent finding across the sample was not the severity of any single type of consequence, but the way consequences compounded and reinforced each other over time. Financial strain created relationship tension; relationship tension generated anxiety and shame; shame and exhaustion eroded the capacity to seek help. Understanding this interconnection is as important as understanding any individual consequence.

1: Health consequences

Health consequences were the most widely reported across the sample, consistent with the GSGB findings. Stress and anxiety were near-universal, described as a sustained state of hypervigilance that marked daily life. Participants described lying awake at night, monitoring behaviour and finances, and living in a constant low-level state of alert that was exhausting to maintain.

Guilt and self-blame were consistently reported across relationship types and consequence severity levels. Participants questioned whether they had contributed to the problem, whether they had missed signs they should have seen, or whether their own responses had made things worse. For some, this guilt was acute, while for others it had calcified into a persistent self-criticism that was harder to shake.

Shame operated differently from guilt; it was directed outward, towards how others might perceive the situation, and often tied to the stigma of being associated with harmful gambling. Several participants described actively concealing what was happening from friends, colleagues, and extended family, not only to protect the person gambling but to manage how they themselves were seen.

Physical health impacts were reported less frequently but were significant where they did occur. One participant described losing a significant amount of weight during a period when she was concealing her son's gambling debts.

For participants whose experience extended over a period of years, the cumulative health impact was substantial.

2: Relationship consequences

Relationship harm was the second most commonly reported domain in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), and the most emotionally complex in participants' accounts. Trust was the central casualty not only in the person gambling’s honesty around gambling, but a broader erosion of the sense of safety and reliability that had previously defined the relationship.

The transition from partner to monitor was a theme that emerged repeatedly. Participants described checking bank statements, tracking phone usage, managing finances, and maintaining a constant background awareness of the person gambling’s whereabouts and state of mind. This was a role they had not chosen and had not anticipated.

For some participants the relationship survived but was fundamentally altered.

Where relationships ended, the harm did not stop at the point of separation. Several participants described ongoing financial entanglement, shared debt, or the continued impact of the relationship breakdown on children and wider family. The GSGB shows that relationship breakdown is the most commonly reported severe consequence (reported by 74.3 percent of those who experienced at least one severe consequence) and these accounts help explain why that is, and what it means in practice. For some affected others, the relational consequences extended outward to affect other relationships in their life.

These relational consequences sometimes resulted in altered life plans, preventing some participants from following through on pre-existing plans they had held for the future.

3: Resource consequences

Resource consequences were reported less frequently than health or relationship harms in the GSGB (42.5 percent), but featured prominently in participants' accounts, particularly among those in close financial relationships with the person gambling, and those who had been drawn into managing or absorbing debts.

The most immediate resource consequences were financial: depleted savings, undisclosed debt, reduced spending on essential items, and in more severe cases, loss of housing or significant assets. What participants described went beyond the financial figures, however. The experience of having money disappear without explanation, of discovering debts they had not known about, or of realising that savings they had believed secure were gone, carried a sense of betrayal and loss of control that was difficult to separate from the emotional consequences.

Many participants had developed informal financial management strategies in response, such as ensuring bills were paid first on payday, maintaining separate accounts, monitoring transactions closely. These strategies were improvised rather than planned, and they came at a cost.

For those in longer-term situations, resource consequences had accumulated into something more entrenched.

How consequences evolve, and why timing matters

A central finding of this research is that affected others’ harm evolves alongside the gambling behaviour of the person gambling, but frequently lags behind it. By the time an affected other recognises and names what is happening, harm has often already accumulated across multiple domains. This lag has direct implications for when intervention is possible and what form it can usefully take.

Chronic harm (the persistent, low-level consequences experienced by affected others who have adjusted their lives around the person who is gambling without ever reaching, or after moving on from, a formal crisis point) is largely invisible to current measurement. These are not people in acute crisis, but rather people who have adapted to sustain the relationship. For some participants, their accounts spanned years or decades.

Timing also shaped how consequences compounded. Early-stage harm, where it went unrecognised, allowed patterns and behaviours to become entrenched. By the time of crisis, financial, relational, and health consequences were typically so prevalent and intertwined that addressing any one of them in isolation was insufficient. This interconnection, and the non-linearity of the journey, is one of the clearest arguments for understanding affected other harm as a dynamic, cumulative process as opposed to a set of discrete, measurable events.

Relationship type and proximity

Relationship type played a role in the experience of affected others in ways that cut across all 3 consequence domains.

Partners and spouses described the most intensive and sustained harm from living alongside the person gambling, sharing finances, and carrying the daily weight of management and vigilance.

Parents and caregivers described a particular form of sustained fear, oriented around the well-being and survival of a child, alongside deep self-blame for not having seen the signs earlier.

Adult children described the added complexity of role reversal, where they saw themselves as becoming the responsible party for a parent who they felt ought to have been a source of stability.

Siblings, friends, and colleagues often described harm that was somewhat more bounded, characterised by a difficult question of how much responsibility to take on, and when to step back.

Closely related to this is the matter of (emotional and physical) proximity. Affected others who lived with the person gambling, or who were closely financially entangled, described more intensive and sustained consequences than those at greater distance. The same is true of affected others who were more emotionally invested in their relationship with the person gambling. This means that some affected others may not live with the person gambling nor be financially connected but still experience harm.

The next section of the main report can be found on the Affected others’ experiences with gambling page.

---

⁴ Sic: worse, more intense.

Affected others’ experiences with gambling

Affected others who gamble

The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB)(2024) found that 9 percent of adults are identified as affected others. Of these, 63 percent had gambled themselves in the past 12 months and over a tenth had only participated in a lottery. Given that the majority of affected others gamble themselves, understanding their relationship with gambling (and how they distinguished it from that of the person gambling) was an area of particular interest for this research. Of the 25 participants, 11 reported gambling in the last 12 months.

For most affected others who gambled in this research, their relationship with gambling felt categorically different from that of the person gambling. Most described their own participation as low-stakes, social, and bounded by self-set financial limits and specific occasions. This encapsulated activities like occasionally purchasing lottery tickets, a trip to the bingo, or making sports bets with friends. Often this kind of gambling would initially involve the person gambling too, but the latter’s behaviours would tend to outpace and escalate independently⁵.

Affected others who gambled tended not to see themselves as people with a gambling habit in any meaningful sense and drew a firm line between recreational participation and what they were witnessing in the person close to them.

This distinction that participants frequently made was not simply a factual description of their behaviour, but a way of making sense of the difference between their relationship with gambling and that of the person gambling, and of resisting any implication that their own participation made the situation more ambiguous or less serious.

Among affected others who gambled but kept their own behaviour clearly separate from the person gambling, several described actively putting friction in place to manage their own relationship with gambling. This included setting spending limits, choosing only to gamble in-person rather than online, or consciously stepping back from certain activities. This appeared to represent an awareness of risk, which had in many cases been shaped by proximity to the person gambling’s past behaviours and experiences.

This awareness also shaped how some affected others thought about the person gambling’s activities in different contexts. One participant described joining her partner on a cruise, where he gambled in the onboard casino. Although he had previously struggled with gambling, she felt more comfortable with him doing so in an in-person, contained environment with her present.

However, for a smaller number of participants, the relationship with gambling was less clearly separate. These were cases where gambling had been a shared activity between the affected other and the person gambling, something done together, at least initially, before escalating in ways that the affected other had not anticipated and did not recognise as harmful until the damage was done.

This kind of entanglement (where the affected other and person gambling took part in gambling activities together before the behaviour escalated) carries particular implications for how affected others make sense of their situation. Guilt derived from shared participation is distinct from the guilt of someone who was never involved, and it shapes both the affected other's willingness to seek help, and how they describe the situation to others. It also adds complexity to how these cases are captured in survey data, where the source of a reported consequence may be genuinely difficult to attribute to one person's gambling rather than another's.

---

⁵ It is worth noting that all participants who reported gambling themselves scored between 0 and 4 on the PGSI; the experiences of affected others with higher PGSI scores may differ and are identified as a priority area for future research.

Non-gambling affected others

Of the 25 participants in this research, 14 did not gamble at all. The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB)(2024) shows that 37 percent of affected others report not gambling themselves. Their reasons for not gambling were varied, but several themes emerged.

Some described a wariness about their own susceptibility, particularly where they had grown up around or lived alongside entrenched gambling behaviour. Others distanced themselves on moral or emotional grounds, rejecting gambling as something they now associate with harm.

Others simply described never having felt any urge to gamble, which in some cases made it harder to understand the person gambling’s behaviour. For this last group in particular, the gap between their own experience and the person gambling’s could be bewildering as well as distressing.

This group is notable from a support perspective. The GSGB (2024) shows non-gambling affected others are significantly less likely to seek support than those who gamble themselves – 7.7 percent compared to 18.3 percent. This research suggests those with no personal relationship to gambling may have fewer natural entry points into gambling-related services, and may be less likely to encounter information about support that exists for people in their position.

Gambling activities

Across the sample, affected others drew a consistent and significant distinction between in-person and online gambling as experiences with fundamentally different risk profiles and different implications for the affected other.

In-person or land-based gambling, particularly the forms most associated with social contexts (like bingo halls, bookmakers, casinos) was generally perceived as more contained. It had visible constraints, wherein someone left the house, spent a defined amount of time away, finished and then returned. Even where losses were significant, the activity had natural limits imposed by physical opening hours, in some cases the use of cash, and the social presence of other people. Several participants described in-person gambling as something that felt at least legible, even when it was harmful.

Online and app-based gambling, particularly mobile casino and slot games, was experienced in near-opposite terms. The defining features, from the affected other perspective, were invisibility, constancy, and the removal of any natural stopping point. A phone looked the same whether someone was sending a message or playing a slot game. Gambling could happen at the dinner table, in bed, in the toilet during a night out. There was nothing to see, and therefore nothing to name.

This invisibility had direct consequences for affected others. It delayed recognition of problematic behaviours, often significantly. It made monitoring both necessary and exhausting, generating the hypervigilance described throughout The consequences of someone else’s gambling section, with participants checking phones, watching bank statements, and developing an alertness to small behavioural cues that might signal gambling was happening. And it removed the possibility of casual observation as a route to early intervention, as by the time an affected other had enough evidence to name what was happening, losses had typically already occurred.

The shift from in-person or social gambling to individual mobile-based gambling was identified by many participants as the turning point, not just in the person gambling’s behaviour, but in the affected other’s ability to identify what was happening and respond to it.

Gambling advertising

Advertising was a consistent and unprompted theme across interviews. Affected others did not describe it as a peripheral concern; they described it as an inescapable feature of daily life that compounded their experience in specific and tangible ways.

The most commonly raised issue relating to advertising was volume. Participants described gambling promotions appearing across television, social media, streaming platforms, sports coverage, direct mail, and in-app environments, with many describing the sense that it was impossible to move through ordinary life without encountering it.

Advertising reached participants (and reported in reaching the person gambling) through a range of channels, including television, social media, in-app environments, and direct mail. Several described gambling promotions arriving physically at their home, addressed to the person gambling. Push notifications from apps prompting users to place bets or promoting new offers were cited as a particular source of frustration, as they maintained a constant presence even when the person gambling was trying to step back. Awareness of opt-out mechanisms was low across the sample, and no participants described successfully contacting an operator to stop marketing communications. For most, advertising felt like an unavoidable presence, and not something they felt able to act upon.

Some affected others report that the person gambling had taken direct actions to limit their exposure to advertising – turning off gambling app notifications, deleting gambling apps, and choosing to avoid land-based sites like betting shops. These measures were often introduced at the request of affected others, and often – though not always - when crisis point had been reached. Generally, affected others felt that exposure persisted despite these multiple mitigation attempts.

For affected others living with someone whose gambling was active or in recovery, the constant presence of advertising was experienced as actively undermining efforts to reduce or stop gambling. This was both because it maintained the visibility of gambling as an activity, and because specific promotions and offers were seen as direct triggers.

Several participants described the person gambling receiving targeted offers (like free bets, matched deposits, loyalty promotions) at exactly the moments when they were trying to take a step back.

Affected others who gamble rarely described taking explicit steps to reduce their own exposure to gambling marketing or environments. When they did act, it was usually indirect for example, limiting spend or frequency) rather than targeting exposure itself. This derives from various drivers. Reflections suggested they don’t see their own gambling as problematic – pointing to the psychological separation between their activity and that of the person gambling’s. Where it is viewed more problematically, their focus is on managing their behaviour, not their environment. Most significantly, the affected other’s emotional and cognitive load is often focused elsewhere – their primary concern is managing the person gambling’s behaviour and contributing consequences. In some cases, the activity is socially embedded so there is a higher tolerance for advertising.

Formal tools and operator practices

Affected others’ awareness of formal safer gambling tools tended to emerge reactively, at crisis point, through urgent searching as opposed to planned or early intervention. Common search terms described by participants (such as 'my partner won’t stop gambling' or 'how to block gambling apps') led them to tools like GAMSTOP, deposit and spending limits within gambling apps, blocking and filtering software such as Gamban, and banking or payment card restrictions including limits on withdrawals and certain transaction types.

For a smaller number, awareness came through GP appointments when their own mental health had deteriorated, or through contact with organisations such as GamCare.

The following accounts reflect how affected others experienced and understood formal tools and operator practices. Many participants had limited awareness of how the licensed gambling market operates, or of the regulatory distinctions between licensed and unlicensed operators. This itself is a significant finding, with direct implications for how information about protections reaches affected others. The rest of this section should be read in that context, rather than as accurate descriptions of how tools are designed to function⁶.

Where tools were used, affected others described a pattern of limitations. Participants understood that self-exclusion and deposit limits required the person gambling to initiate and maintain them, but also felt that they were often easy to bypass through new devices, alternative apps, different browsers, or mobile data. Limits could be increased or reset. Protections frequently applied to one app, device, or network only, rather than operating across the landscape as a whole. Affected others generally had no visibility over whether tools were active or had been bypassed, no alerts, and no mechanism for shared oversight. Among the small number who did have some visibility, the experience was often disheartening where they experienced protections as incomplete, found blocked content was only partially restricted, or that tools had been circumvented altogether.

For affected others in this position of watching someone they care about try to stop while gambling advertising continues to pop up, the experience was often one of helplessness compounded by frustration, particularly given that the tools available required the person gambling’s active engagement to work.

For affected others who also gambled themselves, these limitations introduced an additional layer of complexity. Where gambling had been a shared activity, some worried that tools designed to restrict the person gambling’s access might affect their own ability to gamble too, creating an ambivalence about whether to use them at all.

Despite the limitations described above, it is worth noting that where participants were aware of formal tools, they were generally viewed as well-intentioned and meaningful in principle. One participant acknowledged the range of options available (spending limits, self-exclusion, Gamban, GAMSTOP), noting that “there are loads of things people can do.” And in some cases, tools did work as intended; a participant described asking her husband to self-exclude and him doing so. The frustration expressed was not with these tools in principle, but with their dependence on the person gambling’s willingness to engage with them – and with unlicensed operators who continued to market to those who had self-excluded through the regulated market.

The next section of the main report can be found on the Implications and recommendations page.

---

⁶ It is worth noting that some of the limitations affected others described reflect the behaviour of illegal or unlicensed operators, who are not subject to the same consumer protections as licensed operators in Great Britain and who may actively target people who have self-excluded. Where advertising continued to reach the person gambling despite GAMSTOP registration, this is likely to reflect the activity of operators outside the licensed market rather than a failure of the scheme itself. Similarly, the requirement for tools such as self-exclusion and deposit limits to be initiated and maintained by the individual is a deliberate design feature that preserves individual agency. These distinctions were not always visible to affected others, many of whom had limited awareness of how the licensed market operates or of the regulatory boundaries between licensed and unlicensed operators. This gap in awareness is a finding in itself, with implications for how information about protections reaches affected others.

Implications and recommendations

Implications for the GSGB and future data collection

The findings from this research have implications across 3 areas: how the Gambling Commission collects and interprets data on affected others through the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB); how the Commission has strengthened its evidence base on gambling-related harm and vulnerability, which may lead to further work to inform future regulation; and what further research is needed to build on and extend what this study has found. Each is addressed in turn in this section of the report.

The qualitative findings in this report both contextualise and extend what the GSGB data tells us about affected others. They also highlight specific gaps in what the survey currently captures which, if addressed, would help to strengthen the Commission's ability to identify harms experienced by affected others.

The following recommendations are offered with an awareness of the practical constraints involved in developing and maintaining a large-scale annual survey. Survey length, respondent burden, and the risk of participant drop-out need to be taken into consideration, and the Commission will need to weigh up these factors when assessing the feasibility of any additions to the GSGB question set.

1. Further detail in the relationship type variable

The GSGB currently identifies whether a respondent knows someone close to them who gambles but cannot distinguish between granular relationship types. This research demonstrates that relationship type (whether someone is a partner, parent, adult child, sibling, friend, or colleague) shapes the nature, severity, and duration of harm in fundamental ways.

More granularity in the relationship type variable would enable targeted analysis and allow the Commission to track how harm profiles differ across this influential variable over time. In terms of implementation, this would be a relatively contained addition to the existing question set, though consideration would need to be given to how to handle respondents who are affected by more than one person’s gambling, potentially across different relationship types.

2. The addition of mental health and neurodiversity disclosure options

The GSGB currently measures well-being using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. While this captures a useful snapshot, it does not enable analysis by pre-existing mental health conditions or neurodivergent characteristics, both of which are likely to shape how an affected other and the person gambling experience and respond to harm.

While neurodiversity did not emerge as a central theme in this research, it surfaced in a small number of accounts – including participants who felt the person gambling may have had undiagnosed ADHD, and one participant who described avoiding gambling herself due to her own ADHD and concerns about addictive tendencies. These observations are tentative, but they suggest neurodivergent characteristics may be a relevant factor worth exploring further.

Adding optional disclosure options for both mental health conditions and neurodivergent characteristics to the GSGB would allow the Commission to better understand which groups within the affected other population are at heightened risk. In terms of implementation, these would need to be optional rather than required fields given the sensitivity of the topic, and the resulting sub-groups may be small, limiting statistical analysis. Further, self-identification may be limited given that some people may not recognise neurodivergence in themselves.

3. The addition of specificity around emotional harms

The GSGB captures guilt, embarrassment, and shame as a single combined item. This research found that guilt and shame function differently. Where guilt tends to be inwardly directed, relating to the affected other’s own actions or inactions, shame is outwardly directed, relating to social perception and stigma. These are distinct experiences with different implications for how affected others (and people gambling) act (or do not). Separating them in the question set would also produce more precise data and better reflect the complexity of emotional harm as affected others describe it. Providing concise definitions of all emotional harms at question level would also aid participants in accurately self-identifying.

In terms of implementation, adding granularity here would increase survey length, and careful question design would be needed to ensure items are clearly distinguishable to respondents, including those who may not have previously reflected on notions of guilt and shame in their own experience.

4. Capturing whether affected others and the ‘person gambling’ gamble together

This research found that entangled gambling (where the affected other and person gambling currently gamble or have ever gambled together) creates the conditions for a specific and distinct form of harm, including guilt, complicity, and difficulty attributing consequences clearly. Currently, the GSGB does not capture whether an affected other and the person gambling have ever gambled together.

Adding a variable to capture this would enable the Commission to identify the size of this group and understand how their experiences and support needs differ from those of non-gambling affected others. This would require careful question design to distinguish between past and current shared gambling, and the resulting sub-group may be relatively small – though the GSGB’s large sample size should provide sufficient numbers for meaningful analysis.

5. Considerations for recontacting GSGB respondents identified as affected others

The GSGB identifies individuals who are affected by someone else’s gambling, and recontacting respondents for follow-up research presents a valuable opportunity to deepen understandings of their experiences. However, the findings from this study highlight several practical and ethical considerations that should inform how any recontact approach is designed.

First, timing and emotional readiness matter significantly. Affected others exist at very different points in their journey; some are in active crisis, others in chronic situations they have been in for years, and others in recovery. A recontact approach should screen sensitively for current circumstances before inviting participation and should not assume that willingness to complete a survey translates into readiness to engage in more in-depth discussions. The introductory call used in this study proved valuable in assessing participant readiness and building initial rapport before any substantive research conversations took place. A similar staged approach is recommended for any recontact methodology.

Second, many affected others do not recognise themselves as such or may not have identified their experiences as harmful at the time of completing the GSGB. Recontact materials should use plain, accessible language that reflects the breadth of affected other experiences, avoiding terminology that may feel alienating or create a barrier to engagement. The term affected other itself, for example, was not known to a significant proportion of this study’s participants prior to the research taking place, and some affected others talked of downplaying the harms they were experiencing, potentially increasing the likelihood of self-exclusion. While labels like affected other can help make sense of one’s experiences, and see themselves as justified in receipt of support, definitions or categories are best avoided during data collection. Gathering information on participant experiences with more neutral and factual language, mitigates individuals self-excluding where they might otherwise be inclined to do so, and more open engagement.

Third, safeguarding considerations are heightened in this population. The GSGB identifies affected others by consequence severity but cannot capture current circumstances; someone who reported severe consequences at the time of the survey may be in a more acute situation by the time of recontact, or vice versa. Any recontact approach should include a clear safeguarding protocol, with researchers prepared to signpost to support and to pause or redirect where a respondent appears to be in distress. Participants with very recent or acute experiences of severe harm (including exposure to violence, suicidality, or criminal proceedings) should not be recruited for in-depth follow-up without careful consideration and appropriate support structures in place. Recontacting participants is recommended to take place in the short to medium term, while their engagement with the Commission is still relatively recent and the experiences they described remain salient. The longer the gap between the initial survey completion and recontact, the greater the likelihood that circumstances will have changed, increasing both the safeguarding complexity and the risk of recall bias. Where longitudinal engagement is the goal, seeking participants’ permission to periodically recontact them at the point of initial survey completion would be the most effective approach.

Fourth, the value of lived experience involvement in shaping the recontact approach should not be underestimated. In this study, Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) members who identified as affected others played a central role in refining participant materials and ensuring the language and framing felt appropriate and respectful. The same principle should apply to any recontact methodology – those with lived experience of being an affected other are best place to a provide a level of assurance on how a proposed approach will land with the people it is trying to reach.

Finally, incentivisation should be considered carefully. Affected others, particularly those still in difficult circumstances, may feel a degree of obligation or pressure when contacted by a trusted body such as the Gambling Commission. It should be made unambiguously clear that participation is voluntary, that declining will have no consequences, and that any incentive offered is a token of appreciation rather than a condition of engagement.

Links to evidence gaps and priorities

The Gambling Commission’s Evidence Gaps and Priorities sets out the key areas where strengthening the evidence base will best support effective regulation. This research directly contributes to 4 evidence themes:

Evidence Theme 3: Gambling-related harm and vulnerability, and the associated roadmap on people who gamble and affected others

Evidence Theme 4: The impact of operator practices, and the associated roadmaps on the direct impact of marketing and advertising on gambling harms and the effectiveness of operator-led harm prevention measures

Evidence Theme 5: Product characteristics and risk, and the associated roadmap on consumer interactions with products or features with increased risk of harm

Evidence Theme 6: Illegal gambling and crime, specifically the focus on improving knowledge of the extent and impact of the unregulated market, and understanding consumer awareness of when they are gambling with a licensed operator versus an unlicensed one.

By providing qualitative depth to complement the Gambling Survey for Great Britain's (GSGB's) population-level data, the findings help address identified evidence gaps around the nature, extent, and experience of gambling-related harm among affected others. The findings also raise potential areas for regulatory consideration, which are set out below across four areas: gambling-related harm and vulnerability; the impact of operator practices; product characteristics and risk and illegal gambling and crime.

Evidence Theme 3: Gambling-related harm and vulnerability

This research adds qualitative depth to the GSGB picture of who affected others are and what they experience. Three findings have direct relevance to how the Commission continues to deepen its understanding of gambling-related harm and vulnerability as the industry regulator.

First, the compounding and interconnected nature of harm. Affected others in this study described consequences that spanned health, relationships, and financial resources simultaneously, with each domain feeding and intensifying the others. The GSGB captures these domains separately; this research shows that the lived experience is rarely so cleanly separated. Approaches that address single dimensions of harm in isolation (whether regulatory, policy, or support-focused) are unlikely to reflect or adequately respond to the reality of affected others’ experience, where financial, relational, and health consequences typically compound and reinforce one another.

Second, the experiences of underrepresented groups. Affected others in close-knit communities (such as certain ethnic, religious, or rural groups) can face strong barriers to speaking up, including shame, stigma, and pressure to deal with problems privately within the family. Because of this, they are less likely to appear in surveys or seek support. As a result, standard estimates may underestimate how common and how severe harms are in these groups. This means the Commission may wish to consider how experiences of harm vary across communities and ensure its approach reflects these differences.

Third, the non-linearity of harm over time. Affected others' harm does not follow a simple arc from unawareness to crisis to recovery. It cycles, accumulates, and in many cases becomes chronic, persisting long after an acute crisis has passed, or continuing indefinitely, sometimes in the absence of any crisis at all. Current evidence and intervention frameworks tend to be oriented around crisis points; this research makes a strong case for attention to chronic and legacy harm as distinct and significant categories.

These findings speak directly to the Commission’s evidence roadmap priority of understanding the prevalence and impact of legacy harms on people who gamble and affected others. The accounts gathered here point to legacy harms as an area that warrants greater attention in evidence collection and intervention design.

Evidence Theme 4: Impact of operator practices

Gambling adverts felt almost impossible to avoid for affected others, showing up everywhere - on TV, social media, streaming platforms, sports coverage, and even in the post. For those living with someone trying to cut down or stop gambling, this constant exposure was seen as getting in the way of progress. It kept gambling visible and, in some cases, made it harder for them to stop. Targeted offers like free bets or bonus promotions were especially harmful, as they often appeared at moments when the person was trying to step back, making relapse more likely.

The GAMSTOP self-exclusion scheme was understood by some affected others as a meaningful safeguard, but its limitations were visible and disillusioning in practice. Advertising sometimes continued to reach the person gambling after self-exclusion, including from unlicensed companies operating illegally and who explicitly marketed themselves as outside GAMSTOP’s scope. Affected others could not tell whether those operators were licensed or unlicensed, nor find a clear recourse to redress. The experience of watching what should be a trusted protective measure be undermined without any ability to intervene, compounded the sense of helplessness that characterises much of the affected other experience.

More broadly, safer gambling tools are currently designed around the person gambling’s consent and action. Deposit limits, account restrictions, and self-exclusion all require the person gambling to initiate and maintain them. The practical work of harm prevention tends to default to the affected others themselves, through informal and improvised strategies that are burdensome, unsupported, and largely outside of the formal protection landscape. The Commission and other stakeholders, including other statutory bodies, may wish to consider what a more affected other-inclusive approach to safer gambling tools could look like, whether that is through third-party flagging mechanisms, shared account protections, or other routes that do not require the person gambling’s consent as the sole point of entry.

Evidence Theme 5: Product characteristics and risk

Online and app-based gambling, particularly mobile casino and slot games, was consistently identified by affected others as the form most strongly linked to escalation, concealment, and delayed recognition. The invisibility of mobile gambling, its constant availability, and the removal of any natural friction or stopping point were experienced as qualitatively different from in-person gambling. They were also described as direct contributors to the affected other experience of hypervigilance, mistrust, and sustained anxiety.

The shift from in-person or social gambling to individual mobile-based gambling was identified by many participants as a turning point, not just in the person gambling’s behaviour, but in the affected other's ability to see what was happening. In-person gambling was more obvious, and felt contained. App-based gambling was not legible in the same way, and the consequences of that invisibility were borne disproportionately by affected others.

Participants also described the effects of features like digital payments, free bets, promotions, and bonuses. They highlighted how these features can make it harder for both the person gambling and the affected other to accurately perceive the scale of the amount being spent.

Evidence Theme 6: Illegal gambling and crime

While this research was not designed to explore the illegal gambling market directly, participants’ accounts touched on its consequences in ways that are relevant to the Commission’s work on this theme.

The most consistent finding was participants’ inability to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed operators. On social media in particular, advertising did not indicate to audiences whether they were for operators within the regulated market. For affected others already struggling to manage the person gambling’s behaviour, this was a largely invisible distinction.

This was most evident in participants' experiences when the person gambling had self-excluded. Where the person gambling had registered with GAMSTOP, some participants described advertising continuing to reach them from operators who explicitly marketed themselves as outside GAMSTOP’s scope. It is most likely these operators are unlicensed, operating outside the regulatory framework and therefore outside the reach of the protections that apply to the licensed market. Affected others were unaware of this and did not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed operators in their accounts.

These findings point to the illegal gambling market as a complicating factor in the affected other experience, undermining the protections available within the licensed market, and extending the reach of gambling advertising beyond regulated channels.

It is also worth noting that in a small number of cases, there were links to wider gambling related crime. Two participants described the accumulation of debts with lenders connected to criminal networks, with threatening behaviour directed at the affected other and their family. These cases illustrate how gambling-related harm can draw affected others into contact with gambling-related crime, with serious consequences for their safety and wellbeing.

Recommendations for further research

Qualitative research with PGSI 8 and over affected others

No participants in this sample scored above 4 on the PGSI, meaning the experiences of affected others with more engaged gambling behaviours of their own remain unexamined. This is a significant gap. The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) data shows that affected others who gamble are 4.8 times more likely to score between 8 and 27 on the PGSI than the wider group of participants who gambled in the last 12 months. Recruiting this group requires a different framing: approaching potential participants as people who gamble, rather than as affected others, is likely to be more effective given the additional stigma and complexity involved.

Entangled gambling

This research identified a group of affected others for whom gambling was a shared activity with the person gambling, at least initially, and before the person gambling’s behaviour escalated. The guilt, complicity, and attribution complexity experienced by this group is distinct from the broader affected other experience and warrants dedicated research. This research should focus particularly on cases where both the affected other and person gambling score higher on the PGSI, where the dynamics are likely to be most complex.

Longitudinal tracking of chronic and legacy harms

The GSGB's 12-month reference window does not lend itself to the capture of the cumulative and legacy nature of affected other harm. A longitudinal study tracking affected others over time, particularly those in the chronic phase described in this research, would directly address the Commission’s evidence roadmap priority on legacy harms, and provide a more accurate picture of how harm develops, persists, and resolves.

Focused deep dives: minoritised communities, and impacts on affected children

Two areas need more focused research beyond a general sample. First, there are differences between communities. Affected others in some ethnic, religious, or close-knit groups may face extra barriers - like stigma or pressure to keep issues within the family - that are not fully captured in broader studies. Second, children living with a parent or carer who gambles harmfully have unique experiences. Their needs are different from adults, so they are likely to require different kinds of support.

A note on further research recommendations

These recommendations support the Commission’s evidence roadmap by helping build a clearer picture of how gambling affects both people who gamble and those around them. They directly address key priorities, including long-term or legacy harms, how harm develops over time, experiences of underrepresented groups, and how gambling products contribute to harm for affected others.

Research aligned to these roadmap priorities can be undertaken by a range of parties, including academics, independent researchers, and third sector organisations, and is not solely for the Commission to take forward. The Commission’s evidence roadmaps make clear that identifying the right body to lead each area of research is part of how the evidence base develops most effectively.

Lessons learnt

This research offered valuable insights into recruiting and working with affected others as a distinct participant group, and the process generated several insights that would inform future studies. The three-stage design including introductory calls, a pause and consider stage, and in-depth interviews, proved well suited to this population. As such, we recommend retaining this structure in any replication. The introductory call was especially valuable not only for rapport-building but for assessing participant readiness.

Recruiting participants with experience of severe adverse consequences required a different approach from standard recruitment channels, and earlier and deeper engagement with the Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) was critical to reaching this group. For future research, we would replicate this engagement to support efforts to find the most suitable participants. This approach also had a built-in safeguarding mitigation; participants engaged via LEAP were currently or have been recently in receipt of support services.

The exclusion of affected other participants with PGSI scores above 4 represents the most significant gap in the sample. Considering safeguarding risks and the limits of sample size, we do not see this as a shortcoming of this research. However, future research with this group should be scoped as a dedicated study rather than an addition to a general affected other sample and should be designed with specialist support structures in place from the start, especially if they are not currently or have been recently in receipt of services.

Finally, the experience of conducting emotionally intensive interviews with this group reinforced the importance of researcher well-being alongside participant well-being. Debriefing structures for researchers after difficult conversations proved beneficial in this research and should ideally be implemented in any future study of this kind.

Companion report for gambling support ecosystem

This report focuses on findings and implications relevant to the Gambling Commission's evidence roadmaps. A companion report, to be published in the coming months, draws on the same qualitative interviews to explore what the findings mean for organisations working directly with affected others, including support services, treatment providers, and the wider gambling ecosystem. Readers working in those settings are encouraged to seek out the companion report for findings on support pathways, what works, and recommendations for practice.

The next section of the main report can be found on the Conclusions page.

Conclusions

Affected others are a group that has historically been difficult to reach and difficult to study. The accounts gathered here reflect that, and the willingness of participants to speak openly about experiences many have not previously articulated gives this report much of its value.

However, what comes through most consistently is a sense of being alongside something without being able to fully see it, name it, or act on it. This quality of gradual recognition, harm absorbed over time, and consequences that spread across relationships, finances, and health, connects the different relationship types and journey stages described in this report. It also helps explain why affected others are difficult to reach through conventional channels, and why so few seek formal support.

This report and the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) data are designed to be read together. Where the survey identifies patterns, this research helps explain them. Where qualitative accounts surfaced something less visible in the data, like the particular weight of chronic harm, the dynamics of entangled gambling, or the specific consequences of mobile gambling, they point toward questions worth pursuing in future data collection and research.

The recommendations in Implications and recommendations are offered as a contribution to the Commission's ongoing work in this area, not as a definitive account. The evidence base on affected others is still developing, and this research is one step in building it. The companion report, to be published in the coming months, takes the findings further into the support and treatment landscape. Together, they offer a more complete picture of affected other experience than was previously available, and the basis for continuing to develop the evidence, tools, and frameworks this group deserves.

Appendix A - Glossary of key terms

Affected other

A person who has experienced adverse consequences as a result of someone else's gambling. This is most often, though not always, someone close to the person gambling. This definition mirrors that used in the GSGB, which identifies affected others as those who know someone close to them who gambles and who have experienced at least one adverse consequence as a result of that person's gambling in the past 12 months.

Person gambling

Throughout this report, the phrase 'person gambling' refers to the individual whose gambling behaviour has affected the participant. In most cases, this is someone close to them, such as a partner, parent, adult child, sibling, or friend. Where a participant also gambled themselves, 'the person gambling' refers specifically to the other individual whose gambling caused harm, not to the participant's own gambling activity.

Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB)

The Gambling Commission's annual survey of gambling participation, experiences, and consequences among adults aged 18 and over in Great Britain. Since 2023, the GSGB has included a dedicated set of questions on the consequences experienced as a result of someone else's gambling, allowing for analysis of affected others as a distinct group.

Adverse consequences (severe and potential)

The GSGB distinguishes between 2 categories of adverse consequence experienced as a result of someone else's gambling. Severe adverse consequences are those where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful, for example, relationship breakdown, significant financial loss, or exposure to violence or abuse. Other potential adverse consequences are those which are more likely to be harmful if experienced often, or may be harmful depending on the individual's specific circumstances, for example, reduced spending on everyday items or increased stress. These categories reflect the GSGB framework and do not necessarily indicate how distressing an experience felt to the individual.

Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)

A widely used questionnaire measuring the severity of gambling behaviour and its potential harms. Scores range from 0 (no risk) to 27 (highest severity). In this research, PGSI scores refer to affected others' own gambling behaviour where relevant. No participants in this research scored above 4. The PGSI is one measure used to assess gambling-related harm; the GSGB's adverse consequences framework was developed in part to capture harms not fully reflected by PGSI scores alone.

Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP)

The Gambling Commission's panel of individuals with lived experience of gambling-related harm, who contribute to research design, ethical oversight, and the communication of findings. LEAP members, including individuals who identify as affected others, played a central role in shaping this research, from design through to analysis.

Entangled gambling

A term used in this report to describe situations where the affected other and the person gambling gambled together, at least initially, before the person gambling's behaviour escalated. This creates a distinct form of harm for the affected other, including guilt, complicity, and difficulty attributing consequences to one person's gambling rather than the other's.

Chronic harm

Persistent harm experienced by affected others who have adjusted their lives around the person gambling's behaviour without ever reaching, or after moving on from, a formal crisis point. Chronic harm may continue for years and often goes unrecognised in current evidence frameworks, which tend to be oriented around acute crisis.

In-person and/or land-based gambling

Gambling that takes place in a physical location, such as a betting shop, bingo hall, or casino. Participants in this research frequently contrasted in-person gambling with online and app-based gambling, describing the former as more visible and bounded.

Online and app-based gambling

Gambling conducted via a website, mobile application, or digital platform. In this research, in-person to online and app-based gambling was often associated with escalation, increased concealment, and delayed recognition of harm by affected others.

Appendix B – Questions in the 'Pause and consider' stage

After completing their introductory call, participants were asked to reflect on the following questions privately ahead of the longer in-depth conversation.

1. The gambling journey of the person who gambles

You might reflect on:

• when and how their gambling began (as far as you’re aware)
• how it changed over time
• particular gambling activities that had an impact
• whether gambling was mainly online, in-person, social, or something else
• any major turning points or significant events
• notable changes in behaviour, frequency, or severity
• what you noticed at the time, compared to what you were told
• whether you ever gambled together, and what that dynamic was like.

You might also reflect on what may have influenced their gambling, for example peers, family, advertising, access to products, life transitions, stressors, or other factors.

2. The impact on you

You might consider how their gambling affected different areas of your life, either at the time or longer-term. For example:

• relationships (with them and with others)
• finances or housing
• emotional or physical health
• work or education
• home or family life
• your sense of safety, trust, or stability.

Some impacts may have overlapped or evolved over time.

3. Your own relationship with gambling

If you are comfortable doing so, you might reflect on:

• whether you gamble yourself
• what you gamble on and where
• when that started
• whether your experiences as an 'Affected Other' influenced your own gambling in any way
• whether gambling was ever something social between you.

4. Coping and support

You might think about:

• how you responded or tried to manage the situation
• whether you sought any support (formal or informal)
• any barriers you faced in accessing support
• what felt helpful (and what didn’t)
• whether you were aware of any protections or organisations offering help.

5. Looking back and looking forward

You might also reflect on:

• what might have helped earlier
• what you wish had been different
• whether there were particular points in the journey where things could have been handled differently
• what you would want decision-makers, support organisations, or the gambling industry to understand about being affected by someone else’s gambling.