This box is not visible in the printed version.
Gambling Commission's research report with Yonder into the behaviours and motivations of gamblers during the current period of high cost of living in Great Britain.
Published: 27 February 2024
Last updated: 27 February 2024
This version was printed or saved on: 24 March 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/report/understanding-the-impact-of-increased-cost-of-living-final-report
The Gambling Commission, in partnership with Yonder, developed and executed a mixed-methodology research approach to generate an understanding of the behaviours and motivations of gamblers during the current period of high cost of living in Great Britain. This research was designed to test three core hypotheses:
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in this research, starting with a longitudinal survey taking place over three waves between December 2022 and June 2023. This was followed by qualitative depth interviews with individuals who took part in the quantitative phase to further understand the impact of the rise in cost of living on lifestyle and gambling behaviours.
Firstly, the first wave of the quantitative phase employed a nationally representative 25 question (around 12 to 13 minute survey) online Omnibus survey to establish a baseline of key gambling behaviours and explore the impact of external triggers pre-Christmas 2022. This was followed by a 5 minute recontact survey post-Christmas period to capture changes in core gambling behaviours with a further follow-up in May after the 2023 energy price cap increase. Demographic differences and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores were considered during the analysis and integrated when the sample sized allowed for a reliable reporting.
The initial wave consisted of a nationally representative online Omnibus survey of 2,065 adults aged 18 or over conducted between 21 to 22 December 2022. Quotas were set on age interlocked with gender, region, and ethnicity and the data was weighted to a known Great Britain (GB) profile. Amongst the nationally representative sample, 973 participants (47 percent) had engaged in a gambling activity in the last four weeks.
Wave 2 of the tracking took place between 27 February to 3 March 2023. A total of 1,694 respondents took part in wave 1 and wave 2 of the survey, of which 820 (48 percent) had engaged in gambling activity in the last four weeks.
Wave 3 of tracking took place between 26 May to 2 June 2023. A total of 1,391 respondents took part in all three waves of the survey (Wave 1 to Wave 3), of which 666 (48 percent) had engaged in gambling activity in the last four weeks.
Qualitative interviews were undertaken online in August 2023 to build a more rounded impression and picture of each individual. Participants recorded videos in which they shared stories about themselves.
Participants all gambled with varying frequencies, ranging from daily to once every few months. They participated in a range of gambling activities including the National Lottery, online casinos, horse racing and sports betting (particularly football).
The qualitative phase began with a three-day digital diary pre-task, with 16 participants, to capture details about themselves and to reflect upon any concerns, and anxieties they may have now, or in the future and to identify their monthly spending habits with a particular focus on identifying any cutbacks or savings they have had to make.
Depth interviews were then conducted to further develop a knowledge base around the impact of the rise in cost of living on gambling attitudes and behaviours. This involved 16 one-hour interviews conducted online with gamblers who engage in a variety of different gambling types and with different gambling behaviours.
The following report includes quantitative analyses that have been conducted across waves of tracking data to identify change across the sample. This includes analyses amongst the total sample and gamblers while also identifying key sub-groups who are most likely to report being negatively impacted by the increase in cost of living. Please note, analysis of Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) groups has only been included where base sizes allow. The findings relating to PGSI scores should not be used to produce population-level estimates.
Z-test significance testing (adjusted for overlapping samples) has been applied as part of the analyses to determine any significant shifts on metrics between waves as well as to determine significant differences between the total sample. Additional significance testing approaches may be explored in future reporting. Additional analysis may be undertaken by the Gambling Commission at a later date.
In some cases, subgroup analysis has revealed instances where the same demographic or behavioural characteristics are more likely than other sub-groups to appear on both ends of a given metric scale. For example, parents or guardians are more likely than other sub-groups to increase or decrease their gambling behaviour (number of occasions in this instance). This suggests that while being a parent is an indicator of the likelihood of behavioural change, there may be other elements at play that are driving them to either increase or decrease their behaviour.Further investigation of such instances may be explored further by the Gambling Commission in future analysis.
This report includes analysis of how participant attitudes, behaviours, motivations, and triggers have changed over the period of tracking. Data tables have been included in this report to help illustrate these longitudinal movements. The ‘Wave 1 Total’ column in each of the longitudinal tables shows the proportionate spread of responses to a given metric in the first wave of tracking. The subsequent columns show the proportion of individuals from wave 1 who either responded the same way or differently to these metrics in wave 3.
An example of how to read this can be found in the Appendix B section of this report.
As with all high-volume re-contact studies, there was a drop-off in sample response rates with each subsequent wave of tracking. Therefore, the final total sample of individuals who took part in every wave is less than the 2,065 who took part in the initial wave. This has meant that certain sub-groups (for example, a type of gambling activity) do not have robust enough base sizes for analysis and therefore have not been included in the final report.
While respondents in the qualitative phase were recruited to be broadly reflective of key concern groups found in the quantitative phase, direct comparisons between qualitative and quantitative findings should be avoided. The qualitative findings should be treated as indicative rather than definitive representations of the full surveyed sample.
All insights gathered from this study are based on self-reported behaviour rather than observed behaviour, meaning insight is limited to what participants felt comfortable revealing to us in the research setting.
All longitudinal analysis included in this report exclusively focuses on movements between waves 1 and 3, not inclusive of wave 2. Additional analysis including wave 2 data may be undertaken by the Gambling Commission at a later date.
Qualitative investigation revealed that gamblers typically have high confidence in their ability to manage their finances and there is consistency in what is essential to prioritise spending on and what is more nice-to-have.
With regards to how the cost of living has impacted gamblers, three categories emerged: those on the lowest income who have been significantly impacted, the squeezed middle, and those with a high income who have become more aware of their spending but have made little to no changes.
The increase in cost of living has not caused all gamblers to change their behaviours. Those who mainly play on the National Lottery, or which are more occasional gamblers have not felt any need to change their behaviours. Others have made adaptations in order to keep gambling, by cutting back on other outgoings which are deemed non-essential (such as takeaways and new clothes). Then there are those who are cutting back on gambling in order to manage during the cost of living.
Initial quantitative analysis showed that a majority of surveyed respondents had signalled the need to take steps to make their income go further. However, there were several common sub-groups that consistently agreed with the statements shown in this section, showing concerns over their financial status between wave 1 and wave 3. This includes:
As established in earlier reporting, most surveyed gamblers reported that they had not made any changes to their gambling behaviour throughout the tracked period of increased cost of living. The few gamblers that did make changes were more likely to have decreased their gambling behaviour, rather than increase them.
A sub-group analysis revealed that increases in gambling behaviours were, broadly, most likely to be reported by:
Gamblers aged 25 to 34 years were also the most likely to have consistently reported increases in their gambling behaviours between waves 1 and 3 of tracking.
A minority of gamblers (less than 1 in 10) agreed that they had used gambling to supplement their income on a regular basis, to help pay household bills, to pay for luxuries they wouldn’t normally buy, or to help offset loans and/or credit card debt. Among these individuals, ethnic minorities, those living with 4 or more people in the household, and those with at least a university degree were most likely to agree with these motivations for their gambling.
Qualitatively, the gamblers spoken to reported feeling confident in their budgeting skills. Whilst there were gamblers that recognised their impulses made them more ‘spenders’, they consistently reported having self-awareness of this and also of the impact of not being in control of their spending.
Gambleers reported using a variety of methods to help manage their finances, ranging from casual monitoring to detailed calculations. The amount of time, attention and effort given to monitoring their finances is not necessarily reflective of their income but instead due to the influence of previous experiences and personal outlooks.
"I'm quite old fashioned and so is my dad. He's got a book that he keeps for all his accounts. He would record every single thing that comes off his bank statement, so I started doing that too, rather than looking on my phone online." – Male, decreased Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score .
"We have a joint account, which we both contribute an equal amount per month, work out how much we need to spend. And then calculate how much we need to put in. So that covers our basic kind of utilities, kind of, yeah, health insurance, certain gas, electricity, TV, etc, broadband." – Male, decreased gambling activity from wave 1 to wave 3.
Regardless of approach and attitude to spending and saving, there was consistency in what gamblers were prioritising their spending on. Highest priority was given to mortgage and rent payments, and gamblers were pragmatic about the fact that outgoings related to housing and childcare are typically larger outgoings and also have the least room for negotiation in their amounts. Groceries and other household items (such as toiletries and pet food) are similarly ‘high priority’, however, there is recognition that they offer more flexibility in terms of deals and offers to save money on.
"I need to prioritise my mortgage, my spending in terms of my groceries, and my utilities - water, gas, electricity, etc. So those are my priority bills, and entertainment comes after." - Male, decreased gambling activity from Wave 1 to Wave 3.
Gamblers in the sample reported feeling the increases in cost of living across the board but the amount of impact was felt to vary depending upon income.
The day-to-day lives of these individuals have noticeably changed. They have been unable to have the heating on as much as they would like or have switched to pay-as-you-go meters. Their usage of their cars has decreased and they are now more reliant upon car shares and public transport due to the cost of fuel. They may also have had to source several means of income, both through additional waged jobs but also through selling on Vinted or e-Bay.
This group have made small adjustments and cutbacks to their day-to-day lives without any significant disruption. Examples include buying supermarket own brands rather than premium when grocery shopping, shopping at cheaper supermarkets such as Aldi and Lidl and doing more batch cooking, so that their grocery shopping stretches a bit further. Whilst they continue to eat out and get takeaways, the frequency has decreased, and they are more selective in when and where they do go.
These individuals tend to have secure and/or high incomes and whilst aware of the increases in cost of living, have not needed to make significant practical changes. Whilst they feel more aware of their spending choices and may make adjustments if they feel the urge, they are largely unaffected in their day-to-day life.
Within these three categories, those on a low income and the ‘squeezed middle’ are most impacted when it comes to unexpected outgoings and calendar events. Unexpected bills such as as car repairs and vet bills are considered to be hard to budget for, as they are not only expensive, but are also unavoidable. These types of unexpected expenses can act as a trigger to those who are most financially vulnerable to act in ways which they would not necessarily do if they weren’t under extreme stress and pressure.
As established in the previous report of quantitative findings, a majority of all respondents had voiced broad concerns about their financial comfort throughout the tracked higher cost of living period. Between 60 percent to 65 percent of respondents between the start and end of tracking agreed that they ‘had looked at ways to make their income go further’.
Further to this, only a quarter (25 percent, remaining stable from waves 1 to 3) said ‘they were not concerned about how the cost of living was impacting themselves or their families’. However, nearly half of respondents (between 46 percent and 47 percent across waves) also reported feeling that they were just about managing but feel confident that they will be okay.
Early sub-group analysis showed that, while directionally in line with all respondents, online gamblers and those scoring 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) were more likely to somewhat agree or strongly agree that they ‘had looked at ways to make their income go further’, were ‘concerned about their ability to buy everything they need for themselves or their family’, and ‘have needed to consider, or have found, additional ways to supplement their income’. This suggests that online gamblers and those scoring 8 and above on the PGSI were more likely to have felt a greater impact of increased cost of living on their financial security compared to the total.
“I have been feeling anxious about the cost of energy and petrol prices. There’s just no way of getting anything cheaper so I’m trying to cut back on what I do use.” Male, increased PGSI score.
Further sub-group analysis has revealed several other key groups who are most likely to agree with the statements that indicate concern and financial discomfort in light of the rise in cost of living. These statements include:
Amongst the most likely to agree with these statements are:
In addition to these demographic sub-groups, individuals who engaged in gambling in-person were also much more likely to agree with the outlined concern and financial discomfort statements, even more so than online gamblers. It is important to note that respondents were able to select any combination of gambling activities they have engaged in over the last 4 weeks and therefore online or in-person gambling has not been treated as mutually exclusive.
The following text summarises key longitudinal movements of all respondents between Wave 1 and Wave 3 across the four key statements that could be used to describe concern or financial discomfort.
For instructions on how to read the longitudinal tables please see the appendix for an example.
At a total level, agreement with the need to have looked at ways to make income go further (by reducing food portion size or buying second-hand goods, for example) was high across waves (from 60 percent in wave 1 and significantly increasing to 65 percent in wave 3).
| I have looked at ways I can make my income go further | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 60% | 86% | 9% | 4% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 834 | 718 | 76 | 36 | 4 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) | 19% | 45% | 34% | 21% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 265 | 118 | 91 | 55 | 1 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 20% | 24% | 19% | 56% | 1% |
| Counts | 278 | 68 | 52 | 156 | 2 |
| Don't know (percentage) | 1% | 29% | 50% | 7% | 14% |
| Counts | 14 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 2 |
Base: All respondents W1/W3 (1,391). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat/strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat/strongly disagree)
An overall analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that a majority of respondents who previously agreed with this statement, continued to agree in wave 3 (86 percent), while in the same way, a majority of those who previously disagreed with this statement continued to disagree in wave 3 (56 percent). However, those who previously responded neutrally to this statement wave 1 were most likely to move to agree with it in wave 3 (45 percent). Of those who previously said 'don’t know' in wave 1, the largest proportion went on to say that they neither agreed or disagreed in wave 3 (50 percent).
The following analysis focuses on the wave 1 to wave 3 response shift to NET: Agree, as well as sub-group analysis around these key agreement groups.
As stated earlier, the rate in which respondents agreed with this statement remained high across tracking, with over 8 in 10 (86 percent) of those who had reported this in wave 1 maintaining their agreement in wave 3. This group of individuals who agreed with this statement in waves 1 and 3 are demographically and behaviourally most similar to those previously identified as being most likely to report having financial concerns related to the rise in cost of living.
Just under half (45 percent) of those who had previously reported to neither agree or disagree with the statement in wave 1 moved to agree by wave 3. These respondents were more likely to be 18 to 24 years of age (18 percent) and self-employed (15 percent), while also sharing similar traits with those who have agreed consistently (those with children under 18, renters and homeowners with mortgages, households with 5 or more people, and those scoring 8 and above on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI).
A smaller proportion of those who had either disagreed with or didn’t know about how they felt about the statement of needing to look at ways to economise in wave 1 later agreed with this statement in wave 3 (24 percent and 29 percent, respectively).
Overall, 2 in 5 (40 percent) of respondents agreed that they were concerned about their ability to buy necessities in wave 1 and remained stable in wave 3 (41 percent).
| I am concerned about my ability to buy everything I need for myself and/or my family | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
40% | 75% | 15% | 9% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 562 | 423 | 85 | 52 | 2 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
21% | 31% | 41% | 27% | 1% |
| Counts | 296 | 93 | 121 | 79 | 3 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
37% | 10% | 11% | 78% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 521 | 54 | 58 | 408 | 1 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
1% | 25% | 50% | 17% | 8% |
| Counts | 12 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 |
Base: All respondents W1/W3 (1,391). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat/strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat/strongly disagree).
An investigation into the longitudinal movements of respondents reveals that most who previously agreed with this statement, continued to agree in wave 3 (75 percent). Similarly, the largest proportion of those who previously responded neutrally to this statement continued to do so in wave 3 (41 percent), while a majority of those who previously disagreed with this statement continued to disagree in wave 3 (78 percent). Of those who previously said 'don’t know' in wave 1, the largest proportion went on to say that they neither agreed or disagreed in wave 3 (50 percent).
The following analysis focuses on the wave 1 to wave 3 response shift to NET: Agree, as well as sub-group analysis around these key agreement groups.
Similar to the previous statement, a majority of those who agreed with this statement in wave 1 continued to agree with it wave 3 (75 percent). Individuals who consistently agreed with this statement in waves 1 and 3 are demographically and behaviourally most similar to those previously identified as being most likely to report having financial concerns related to the rise in cost of living.
A third (31 percent) of those who previously neither agreed or disagreed moved to agreement in wave 3. These respondents were more likely to be self-employed (13 percent) or parents or guardians of children between 11 and 15 years old (11 percent).
Only 1 in 10 (10 percent) of those who previously disagreed in wave 1 went on to agree that they were concerned about being able to afford necessities in wave 3 (specifically, those with a household income of £55,000 or more, 7 percent) and a quarter (25 percent) of those who said ‘don’t know’ in wave 1 agreed with the statement in wave 3.
Amongst all respondents, agreement with finding it difficult to manage financially was relatively low and remained stable across tracking (31 percent from wave 1 to wave 3).
| At the moment I am finding it difficult to manage financially | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
31% | 71% | 20% | 8% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 431 | 308 | 86 | 36 | 1 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
22% | 26% | 44% | 29% | 1% |
| Counts | 309 | 38 | 84 | 518 | 1 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
46% | 6% | 13% | 81% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 641 | 38 | 84 | 518 | 1 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
1% | 40% | 20% | 20% | 20% |
| Counts | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Base: All respondents W1/W3 (1,391). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat/strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat/strongly disagree).
An analysis of longitudinal movements shows that a majority of respondents who previously agreed with this statement, continued to agree in wave 3 (71 percent). In the same way, the greatest proportion of those who previously neither agree or disagreed continued to neither agree or disagree in wave 3 (44 percent) and those who disagreed with this statement in wave 1 were most likely to continue to disagree in wave 3 (81 percent). Of those who previously said 'don’t know' in wave 1, the largest proportion went on to say that they agreed in wave 3 (40 percent).
The following analysis focuses on the wave 1 to wave 3 response shift to NET: Agree, as well as sub-group analysis around these key agreement groups.
However, 7 in 10 (71 percent) of those who had previously agreed with this statement in wave 1 continued to agree in wave 3. Similar to the statements covered above, individuals who agreed with this statement in both waves 1 and 3 belong to the same key groups previously identified as being likely to have concerns about their finances.
Just over a fifth (26 percent) of those who previously neither agreed or disagreed moved to agree with the statement in wave 3. Of the 26 percent who responded neutrally in wave 1 and moved to agree in wave 3, they were most likely to be between the ages of 25 to 33 (11 percent) or those with a longstanding condition or disability (8 percent).
Only 6 percent of those who previously disagreed went on to agree with the statement in wave 3.
Two fifths (40 percent) of those who previously said ‘don’t know’ moved to agree that they were finding it difficult to manage financially in wave 3.
Finally, at a total level, while only 31 percent of respondents agreed that they have needed to consider, or have found, additional ways to supplement their income in wave 1, agreement increased significantly in wave 3 to 35 percent.
| I have needed to consider, or have found, additional ways to supplement my income | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
31% | 71% | 14% | 15% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 427 | 303 | 59 | 63 | 3 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
23% | 27% | 37% | 34% | 2% |
| Counts | 315 | 86 | 115 | 108 | 6 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
45% | 14% | 13% | 71% | 1% |
| Counts | 626 | 90 | 82 | 447 | 7 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
2% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 13% |
| Counts | 26 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 3 |
An overall analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that a majority of respondents who previously agreed with this statement, continued to agree in wave 3 (71 percent). Similarly, a plurality of those who previously responded neutrally to the statement continued to do so in wave 3 (37 percent) while a majority of those who disagreed with this statement in wave 1 continued to disagree in wave 3 (71 percent). Of those who previously said 'don’t know' in wave 1, around a third went on to say that they neither agreed or disagreed in wave 3 (35 percent).
The following analysis focuses on the wave 1 to wave 3 response shift to NET: Agree, as well as sub-group analysis around these key agreement groups.
Of those who had originally agreed in wave 1, a majority (71 percent) continued to agree with this statement in wave 3. The profile of individuals who were most likely agree with this statement across waves aligns with the key sub-groups identified to be mostly likely to agree with all four financial concern statements overall.
Around a quarter (27 percent) of respondents who previously responded neutrally to this statement had said they agreed with the statement in wave 3. Among the 27 percent who were most likely to have responded neutrally in wave 1 and agree in wave 3 were those aged between 25 to 34 years (10 percent), have a longstanding mental health condition (11 percent), be self-employed (12 percent), and those who have played free-to-play games within the last 4 weeks (10 percent, each wave).
14 percent of those who disagreed with this statement in wave 1 had said that they agreed with the statement in wave 3. Amongst the 14 percent who were most likely to have disagreed in wave 1 and agree in wave 3 were those aged 25 to 35 years (11 percent), those with a household income of £21,000 to £28,000 (9 percent), or be a house person (15 percent).
Similar to earlier statements, a quarter (25 percent) of those who said ‘don’t know’ in wave 1 moved on to agree that they had needed to consider, or find ways to supplement their income in wave 3.
This research showed great consistency with previous work conducted by the Commission. In line with the Path to Play1 and the impact of passive influences, participants tended to have a long standing and deep-seated relationship with gambling which typically stemmed from exposure at a young age.
Within this sample, there was greatest representation amongst those:
Awareness of the risk of gambling harm is high. Exposure is driven both passively through public campaigns (such as "when the fun stops, stop") and actively through personal experience. These experiences ranged from experience of losing more than they could afford and chasing losses through to accumulating gambling related debts. In correlation with this awareness of risk of gambling harms was a high awareness of safer gambling tools available.
Participants were spontaneously able to recall the options to use spending caps on specific websites, bank card blockers and self-exclusion, time out tools. However, participant usage with these more ‘formal tools’ was limited due to preferring more informal approaches to self-manage their gambling. These tactics included:
“I've started to unsubscribe and turn off subscriptions to some of these sites. And also because you can manage your adverts on Facebook so a lot of times, I’ve cancelled them as I don’t use them anymore” – Male, decreased gambling.
“I would transfer money from my current account into my Paddy Power account. And then I would have it in my betting account so that I can bet from that. But now I'm transferring much less money into my gambling accounts." – Female, decreased gambling
“I have on occasion used the time outs especially if I know that that month I’ve got more important things to use money on and it's not really spare as such. It stops the temptation of I know that I can’t spend it.” Female, Unchanged PGSI
1 Understanding Consumer Journeys: Introducing the Path to Play (opens a new tab)
These gamblers have not changed the frequency or amount they spend on gambling. These gamblers were typically National Lottery or EuroMillions players who felt there had been no impetus to change their gambling habits, due to their regular spend being such a minimal amount. Whilst they recognised that they may occasionally spend more if there was a significant roll over, overall, they were unlikely to increase the amount of time and money they spend gambling or explore other types.
“I don’t think [my gambling] has really changed. Mentally, there's more motivation to buy tickets but I don't think actually in reality, because I don't often think about it unless I see an ad to. I'd say it's not changed.” – Female, Unchanged gambling behaviour from wave 1 to wave 3.
Frances is 63, is married with two grown up children and lives in the South West. She has been retired for a few years and has a very stable income due to an excellent pension fund. She is very confident with her money and considers herself to be very savvy. She is an active switcher of utilities and manages her budgets carefully.
She currently feels very pessimistic about the future. This is largely because of how the country is being impacted by the cost of living and how much harder it is for her children to rent or get on the property ladder.
Personally, she does not feel that the increases have affected her. She is trying to be more careful but her behaviour has not changed as a result of the increases.
She does not consider herself much of a ‘gambler’. She has been known to place bets on the horses and football in the past but that was when her children were young and it was a fun thing for them to all to do. Now the only gambling she does with any regularity is the National Lottery. She tops up her account so that there is always £10 in there but does not give it much attention otherwise. She has not changed her gambling at all as a result of the increase in cost of living.
She considers playing the National Lottery to ultimately be a positive thing (as it’s going towards good causes) and whilst she would love to win the money as it would transform her children’s lives, she has no expectations that this will happen.
“I feel very pessimistic about the country and economics and price rises and everything. But my personal circumstances are such that I haven't really been affected by it.”
“I just think well, if you're not in it, you're not going to win it. So I buy a ticket so I'm in it. But I guess realistically, I think I'm not going to win anyway. So I'm not going to waste lots of money buying lots of tickets.”
“It's not part of like a life plan that I'm going to buy a lottery ticket to win [my children] money. I've got a plan of how we can help them but that doesn't actually include gambling, that's much more of an ad hoc thing.”
1 Names and identifying information have been changed.
These gamblers will cut back on their gambling to prioritise essential expenses but won’t necessarily stop gambling. Whilst cutting back on other ‘nice to have’ expenses they are also reducing their gambling activity. Despite seeing gambling as a being fun activity which is also a way of socialising with friends, they are prepared to make cut backs to prioritise other essentials.
“I get a lot of joy out of gambling, joy in the sense that it was it is a fun thing to do, it is entertainment. It's something to discuss with your friends. It's something to do as a group” – Male, decreased gambling activity from wave 1 to wave 3.
Liam is 41, divorced with no children. He lives in South East London in a shared ownership property and works full time as a property manager.
Currently, he is feeling apprehensive about his financial situation and not positive about the future. He checks his balance regularly through his banking app. Any additional money that he has he tries to put into savings for a big purchase but will occasionally treat himself. Due to the impact of the increase in cost of living, he has had to cut off his non-essential spending (for example entertainment) to prioritise his needs such as his mortgage and bills. He is pessimistic and is feeling the cost of living’s impact on his life.
He started gambling on the National Lottery with friends and later sports betting with colleagues. He loves the social aspect of gambling and the excitement of betting whilst watching sports. He used to bet 5 times per week with high frequency on the weekends, mostly on football, horses, and cricket. He had a budget of £400 per month across 5 accounts on different platforms.
He has cut his gambling budget and prefers gambling in person as it still has a social aspect, but he finds he can control and limit his spending more effectively.
He is missing the social aspect of gambling with friends, and hopes to recover from the increases in cost of living in order to get back to gambling with the frequency he was betting at before.
“I am spending less on clothing, socialising, occasions and takeaways. Just because of cost pressures. But if it’s choice between getting a takeaway at the end of the week or betting on the football that weekend, I would definitely rather place a couple of bets.”
“I don’t do online gambling as much because I think it’s easier to spend more than what you want to.”
1 Names and identifying information have been changed.
This audience is most likely to score 8 and above on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scale. Gambling is an intrinsic part of their day-to-day lives. They love to gamble for fun and for the buzz and excitement, because they think it might solve all of their problems but also because it has become a staple part of their day.
“I know that I need more money. So I think Well, how else am I going to get it other than getting a much higher paid job, or some form of extra income, there's always a thing in the back of my mind thinking, wow, I might just win a load of money.” – Female, Changed PGSI
Lucy is a single mum who lives in Derby with her 13 year old son and works for the NHS. She has never had much financial freedom but was able to buy a house during coronavirus (COVID-19). However, since mortgage rates have increased she finds herself relying more and more on credit cards. Working for the NHS she doesn’t earn a high salary and so she resells clothing on Vinted as a side hustle income to cover extra expenses.
Currently, she is feeling very pessimistic about her finances and the future. The increases in cost of living and coronavirus forced her to make cuts on food shopping and entertainment, and is relying more on her side incomes.
During the last year, she has noticed her gambling activities have increased and that she has started to rely more on betting as a source of additional income. She has increased her spending on online bets and the number of tickets bought for competitions and the Irish lottery.
She recently had an experience where a family friend won a car in a competition. This therefore led to Lucy thinking she would be more likely to win on this type of competition compared to the National Lottery and so she started to gamble more on competitions. She is feeling anxious about money and is not feeling fully in control of her gambling, however she is not using any tools to control her spending activities.
“I would like it to come down because realistically, like I was just saying, you know regarding the mortgage payments and things like I've still got things that are pending going up, and I haven't actually got any more income coming in.”
For those gamblers who are rated 8 and above on the PGSI scale, the triggers to gamble or to experience gambling related harm are felt to have been exacerbated as a result of the increase in cost of living.
These gamblers tend to have an emotionally charged relationship with gambling whereby gambling is an outlet for their feelings and a pinnacle of hope (for example, that if they win big, all their problems will be solved). When they are feeling heightened emotions, such as stress or excitement they can project this onto their gambling and intensify their hope and belief that they could get a big win.
This period during the increased period of cost of living is causing emotions and stress to be heightened. Triggers, such as a big win, a big loss, an unexpected bill are especially impactful and can lead to more gambling or potentially harmful gambling both in an attempt to compensate financially, but also to cope emotionally.
“There's never been more serious times in the last sort of year and going forward with the cost of living and, and the way society's at the minute that we all need more money. And I think that people like me are being drawn into, you know, gambling and playing in all these competitions and stuff. Because people feel, I need more money, I need an extra source of income, I need more money, to live. And the funny thing is, even if you want money, you’ll probably be mainly paying off debts.” Female, Changed PGSI.
“June is a difficult time for me personally so I spent a bit more that way just to check out and distract myself from how I’m feeling. It's not all about the money it's a bit of a diversion. Something to do and to give me a buzz.” Male, Changed PGSI.
1 Names and identifying information have been changed.
Of those who reported an increase at least once across the three waves of tracking, 1 in 10 gamblers (12 percent) reported to have increased their number of occasions on which they have spent money on gambling activities; 2 in 5 (42 percent) of those who reported a decrease at least once during tracking.
Sub-groups that reported to be more likely to have increased the number of occasions on which they spend money on gambling activities over the course of tracking include:
There were no differences found between those that gamble in-person, online or any other form of gambling activity.
Sub-groups that reported to be more likely to have decreased the number of occasions on which they spend money on gambling activities over the course of tracking include: those with a physical health condition or disability, along with those with children aged 18 years or under.
There were no differences found between those that gamble in-person, online or any other form of tracked gambling activity as described in Appendix A.
Our analysis explored spending patterns on gambling activities among sub-groups with similar behaviour and demographics. Of those who reported an increase at least once, 1 in 10 (12 percent) gamblers reported to have increased the money spent on gambling, and 2 in 5 (41 percent) reported to have decreased the money spent on gambling at least once.
Sub-group analysis revealed several groups who were most likely to have increased the money spent on a gambling activity. Among those sub-groups were:
Individuals holding a university degree, and those with a mental health condition also stood out among those increasing their spend on gambling activities. There were no significant differences among those that gambled online or in-person.
Further sub-group analysis among those who were most likely to have decreased the money spent on a gambling activity highlighted the following groups:
Several sub-groups based on demographic and behavioural metrics have also been observed to be more likely to have increased or decreased the time spent on gambling activities. Across the three waves of tracking, less than 1 in 10 (12 percent) gamblers reported to have increased the time spent on gambling at least once, and close to 2 in 5 (38 percent) reported to have decreased the time spent on gambling at least once.
Individuals who reported an increase in the amount of time spent in gambling on any gambling activity were more likely to be those aged between 25 and 34 years old, and those with an income of £55,000. Those with children under the age of 18, along with non-white people, also demonstrated this behaviour. Furthermore, those with a university degree, a mental health condition, those that worked, or people who were single or had more than 5 people in the household, also showed an increase in time spent gambling.
Those that reported a decrease in the amount of time spent in gambling on any gambling activity were more like to have children between the ages of 5 and 18. Non-white individuals and people with a physical condition also showed a decrease in this behaviour.
Finally, several sub-groups based on demographic and behavioural metrics have also been observed to be more likely to have increased or decreased the typical stake spent on gambling activities. Across the three waves of tracking, around 1 in 10 (9 percent) of gamblers reported to have increased their typical stake on gambling at least once. A third (34 percent) reported to have decreased their typical stake on gambling at least once during the course of tracking.
Sub-group analysis of those that reported an increase on their typical stake when gambling showed the following:
In a review of individuals who reported to decrease their typical stake in gambling activities, the following demographic groups stood out:
In this section, we detail the longitudinal movements of respondents related to key gambling behaviours in between wave 1 and wave 3.
Demographic analysis was not executed for this section due to low base size
For instructions on how to read the longitudinal tables please refer to Appendix B of this report.
Previous trend analysis amongst gamblers showed that less than 1 in 10 in wave 1 (8 percent) and wave 3 (6 percent) report an increase on occasions on which they have spent money on gambling activities.
| The number of occasions on which you have spent money on these gambling activities | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Increased |
Wave 3 Stayed the same |
Wave 3 NET: Decreased |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Increased (percentage) |
8% | 36% | 45% | 18% | 0% |
| Counts | 44 | 16 | 20 | 8 | 0 |
| Stayed the same (percentage) |
66% | 3% | 73% | 23% | 1% |
| Counts | 369 | 10 | 270 | 86 | 3 |
| NET: Decreased (percentage) |
23% | 5% | 37% | 58% | 1% |
| Counts | 126 | 6 | 46 | 73 | 1 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
4% | 0% | 65% | 20% | 15% |
| Counts | 20 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 3 |
Statement: The number of occasions on which you have spent money on these gambling activities
Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Increased (Increased a little/ Increased a lot), NET: Decreased (Decreased a little/ Decreased a lot).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously reported an increase in this behaviour in wave 1, a plurality moved on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3 (45 percent). Those who previously responded that their behaviour had stayed the same on this statement in wave 1 were most likely to continue answering ‘stayed the same’ in wave 3 (73 percent), similar to the majority of those who reported a decrease in this behaviour in wave 1 who continued to report a decreased in this behaviour in wave 3 (58 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3 (65 percent).
More than a third (36 percent) that had said they increased their number of occasions in wave 1 report the same in wave 3.
Only 3 percent of those that said their number of occasions had stayed the same in wave 1, went on to increase a little or a lot in wave 3.
Similarly, 5 percent of those that previously said they had decreased their number of gambling occasions moved on to say they had increased in wave 3.
None (0 percent) of those that had responded ‘Don’t know’ in wave 1 went on to say they increased in wave 3.
Initial reporting on changes to the amount of money spent on gambling activities amongst all gamblers showed that less than 1 in 10 in wave 1 (8 percent) and in wave 3 (6 percent) reported an increase in spend.
| The amount of money spent on these gambling activities | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Increased |
Wave 3 Stayed the same |
Wave 3 NET: Decreased |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Increased (percentage) |
8% | 40% | 47% | 14% | 0% |
| Counts | 43 | 17 | 20 | 6 | 0 |
| Stayed the same (percentage) |
66% | 4% | 74% | 23% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 367 | 13 | 270 | 83 | 1 |
| NET: Decreased (percentage) |
23% | 5% | 34% | 59% | 2% |
| Counts | 128 | 6 | 44 | 76 | 2 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
4% | 5% | 57% | 29% | 10% |
| Counts | 21 | 1 | 12 | 6 | 2 |
Statement: The amount of money spent on these gambling activities. Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Increased (Increased a little, Increased a lot), NET: Decreased (Decreased a little, Decreased a lot).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously reported an increase in this statement in wave 1, 47 percent moved to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3. Those who previously responded that their behaviour had stayed the same on this statement in wave 1 were also most likely to answer the same in wave 3 (74 percent), similar to the majority of those who reported a decrease on wave 1 who continued to report a decrease in wave 3 (59 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3 (57 percent).
Two fifths (40 percent) of respondents that had previously reported an increase, continued to report the same in wave 3.
Only 4 percent of respondents that had selected ‘Stayed the same’ in wave 1, went on to say that they have increased the amount of money spent on gambling on wave 3.
Similarly, 5 percent that said they had decreased the amount of money spent went on to say they increased on wave 3.
And 5 percent previously responding ‘Don’t know’ changed their response to an increase on wave 3.
Previous trend analysis at a total level showed that 7 percent of gamblers in wave 1 and 6 percent in wave 3 reported an increase when asked if there were any changes to the amount of time spent on gambling.
| The amount of time spent gambling on these activities | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Increased |
Wave 3 Stayed the same |
Wave 3 NET: Decreased |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Increased (percentage) |
7% | 39% | 44% | 17% | 0% |
| Counts | 41 | 16 | 18 | 7 | 0 |
| Stayed the same (percentage) |
68% | 3% | 77% | 19% | 1% |
| Counts | 379 | 11 | 290 | 73 | 5 |
| NET: Decreased (percentage) |
22% | 6% | 39% | 55% | 1% |
| Counts | 121 | 7 | 47 | 66 | 1 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
3% | 0% | 67% | 11% | 22% |
| Counts | 18 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 4 |
Statement: The amount of time spent gambling on these activities Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Increased (Increased a little, Increased a lot), NET: Decreased (Decreased a little, Decreased a lot).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously reported an increase in this statement in Wave 1, 44 percent went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3. Those who previously responded that their behaviour had stayed the same on this statement in wave 1 were most likely to answer the same in wave 3 (77 percent), similar to the majority of those who reported a decrease in wave 1 and continued to report a decrease in wave 3 (55 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3 (67 percent).
Over a third (39 percent) of people continued to report an increase on wave 3.
Only 3 percent that had said previously that their time spent in gambling stayed the same, changed their mind and reported an increase in wave 3.
For those that first reported a decrease in wave 1, 6 percent have changed their response on wave 3 to say it has increased.
None (0 percent) of those who previously said ‘Don’t know’ moved on to say they had increased the amount of time spend on gambling activities in wave 3.
Finally, when asked about how the typical stake placed had changed, previous trend analysis at a total level revealed that 5 percent of gamblers, on average across waves, reported an increase in their typical stake.
| The typical stake that you place when gambling on these activities (gamblers) | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Increased |
Wave 3 Stayed the same |
Wave 3 NET: Decreased |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Increased (percentage) |
5% | 37% | 43% | 20% | 0% |
| Counts | 30 | 11 | 13 | 6 | 0 |
| Stayed the same (percentage) |
72% | 3% | 79% | 17% | 1% |
| Counts | 405 | 12 | 320 | 70 | 3 |
| NET: Decreased (percentage) |
19% | 7% | 39% | 52% | 2% |
| Counts | 104 | 7 | 47 | 54 | 2 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
4% | 5% | 55% | 20% | 20% |
| Counts | 20 | 1 | 11 | 4 | 4 |
Statement: The typical stake that you place when gambling on these activities Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Increased (Increased a little, Increased a lot), NET: Decreased (Decreased a little, Decreased a lot).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously reported an increase in this statement in Wave 1, 43 percent went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3. Those who previously responded that their behaviour had stayed the same on this statement in wave 1 were also most likely to give the same response in wave 3 (79 percent). This is similar to the majority of those who reported a decrease in wave 1 and continued to report a decrease in wave 3 (55 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to report that their behaviour had stayed the same in wave 3 (55 percent).
An analysis of those who report and increase in wave 3 revealed the following shifts:
Gamblers were presented with a list of statements that could be used to describe possible motivations for gambling. They were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that each statement describes their motivation(s) to gamble. The surveyed statements included using gambling to supplement income to:
Overall, less than 10 percent of gamblers in both waves 1 and 3 of tracking agreed with any of the motivations statements. There were also no significant shifts between waves for each statement. A sub-group analysis of those who were most likely to agree with at least one of three statements (out of the four surveyed in total) was carried out. These statements were:
Gamblers who agreed with at least one of these three statements, they were most likely to be:
Sub-group analysis of individual motivations includes small sample sizes of those who ‘agree’ with each of the statements and should be viewed as indicative only. This can be found in Appendix C.
The following text summarises key longitudinal movements of all respondents between Wave 1 and Wave 3 across four statements that were used to describe possible motivations for gambling. Demographic analysis was not possible for this section due to low base size.
For instructions on how to read the longitudinal tables please refer to Appendix B.
Previous trend analysis showed that 8 percent of respondents in wave 1 and 9 percent of respondents in wave 3 agreed that they were using gambling to supplement their income.
| I use gambling to supplement my income on a regular basis | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
8% | 52% | 22% | 26% | 0% |
| Counts | 46 | 24 | 10 | 12 | 0 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
7% | 24% | 24% | 51% | 0% |
| Counts | 37 | 9 | 9 | 19 | 0 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
84% | 4% | 5% | 91% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 471 | 19 | 22 | 429 | 1 |
| Don't know | 1% | 20% | 0% | 80% | 0% |
| Counts | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
Statement: I use gambling to supplement my income on a regular basis Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat or strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat or strongly disagree).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously agreed with this statement in Wave 1, most continued to agree with it in wave 3 (52 percent). Similarly, of those who previously responded that they disagreed with this statement in wave 1, a large majority was likely to continue to disagree in wave 3 (91 percent). Among those who previously responded neutrally to this statement, a majority went on to disagree in wave 3 (51 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to disagree with the statement in wave 3 (80 percent).
An analysis of those who report agreeing with this statement in wave 3 revealed the following shifts:
A little over half (52 percent) of respondents consistently said they agree with this statement from wave 1 to wave 3
Around a quarter (24 percent) of people that had previously responded neither agree or disagree in wave 1 to moved to agree in wave 3.
Only 4 percent of those who previously disagreed with this statement moved on to say they agree in wave 3.
A fifth (20 percent) that had previously responded ‘Don’t know’ moved on to say they agreed in wave 3.
Trend analysis showed that 5 percent in wave 1 and 7 percent in wave 3 agreed that they use gambling as a way to pay household bills.
| I use gambling to help pay household bills | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
5% | 58% | 19% | 26% | 0% |
| Counts | 26 | 15 | 5 | 6 | 0 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
5% | 19% | 31% | 50% | 0% |
| Counts | 26 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 0 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
89% | 4% | 4% | 92% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 500 | 21 | 18 | 460 | 1 |
| Don't know | 1% | 14% | 14% | 71% | 0% |
| Counts | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
Statement: I use gambling to help pay household bills Base: All those who have engaged in a gambling activity in the last 4 weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat or strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat or strongly disagree).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously agreed with this statement in Wave 1, a majority continued to agree with it in wave 3 (58 percent). Similarly, of those who previously disagreed with this statement in wave 1, a large majority continued to disagree in wave 3 (92 percent). Among those who previously responded neutrally to this statement, a majority went on to disagree in wave 3 (50 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to disagree with the statement in wave 3 (71 percent).
An analysis of those who report agreeing with this statement in wave 3 revealed the following shifts:
| I use gambling to pay for luxuries I wouldn't normally buy | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
9% | 42% | 27% | 31% | 0% |
| Counts | 52 | 22 | 14 | 16 | 0 |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
9% | 18% | 25% | 57% | 0% |
| Counts | 51 | 9 | 13 | 29 | 0 |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
80% | 4% | 9% | 87% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 449 | 16 | 40 | 392 | 1 |
| Don't know (percentage) |
1% | 43% | 0% | 57% | 0% |
| Counts | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
Statement: I use gambling to pay for luxuries I wouldn't normally buy Base: All respondents last four weeks W1/W3 (559). NETs include the following: NET: Agree (somewhat or strongly agree), NET: Disagree (somewhat or strongly disagree).
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously agreed with this statement in Wave 1, a plurality continued to agree with it in wave 3 (42 percent). Similarly, of those who previously responded that they disagreed with this in wave 1, a large majority continued to disagree in wave 3 (87 percent). Along with those who reported a decrease on wave 1 also reporting the same in wave 3 (52 percent). Among those who previously responded neutrally to this statement, a majority went on to disagree in wave 3 (57 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ also went on to disagree with the statement in wave 3 (57 percent).
Around two fifths (42 percent) have maintained agreement with this statement between waves 1 and 3.
A fifth (18 percent) of those that previously selected neither agree or disagree went on to say they agreed with this statement in wave 3.
Only 4 percent that disagreed with this statement in wave 1 had changed their answer to agree in wave 3.
43 percent that had responded ‘Don’t know’ in wave 1 moved on to say they agreed in wave 3.
Finally, when asked about how the typical stake placed had changed, previous trend analysis at a total level revealed that 5 percent of gamblers, on average across waves, reported an increase in their typical stake.
| I use gambling to help offset loans and/or credit card debt | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 (percentage) NET: Agree |
Wave 3 (percentage) Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 (percentage) NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 (percentage) Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree | 4% | 48% | 26% | 26% | 0% |
| Counts | 23 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Neither agree or disagree | 6% | 19% | 22% | 58% | 0% |
| Counts | 36 | 7 | 8 | 21 | 0 |
| NET: Disagree | 89% | 2% | 3% | 95% | less than 0% |
| Counts | 495 | 10 | 14 | 470 | 1 |
| Don't know | 1% | 0% | 20% | 80% | 0% |
| Counts | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
An analysis of longitudinal movements reveals that of the respondents who previously agreed with this statement in Wave 1, the largest proportion of individuals continued to agree in wave 3 (48 percent). Similarly, of those who previously disagreed with his statement in wave 1, most continued to disagree in wave 3 (95 percent). Among those who previously responded neutrally to this statement, a majority went on to disagree in wave 3 (58 percent). The greatest proportion of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ also went on to disagree with the statement in wave 3 (80 percent).
Nearly half (48 percent) of those who previously agreed that they use gambling to help offset debt continued to agree with the statement in wave 3.
A fifth (19 percent) who neither agreed or disagreed in wave 1 went on to agree with the statement in wave 3.
Amongst those who previously disagreed, just 2 percent had changed their response in wave 3 to say that they agreed.
None (0 percent) of those who previously reported ‘don’t know’ went on to say that they agreed with the statement in wave 3.
Overall, both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that gamblers have felt the need to make degrees of financial adjustments in response to the rise in cost of living. Responses range between a heightened awareness of spending but with little to no changes, to actively making cuts to essential and non-essential spending. However, the resulting impact of increased cost of living is felt across a wide range of sub-groups. Broadly speaking, these same sub-groups have been consistent in their reporting of impact throughout tracking.
Qualitatively, there is evidence to suggest that the rise in cost of living has impacted consumer gambling behaviour, if their finances were already unstable and they had a strong reliance upon gambling. Those consumers which had stable incomes and for whom gambling was an occasional past time have not been impacted by the rises in cost of living. Those who prioritise gambling more within their lives may have found themselves gambling more as a means of escape and as a source of pleasure. However, it is not possible to directly connect this increase to the rises in cost of living due to the many other factors which may have led to them relying more upon gambling.
Initial quantitative evidence showed that the rise in cost of living has had little to no influence on most gamblers’ gambling behaviours, with most behaviours staying the same as they were 12 months ago when asked in each wave of tracking. However, a minority of gamblers reported either decreasing or increasing their gambling behaviours. Those who were more likely to have increased their behaviours, the smallest proportion of gamblers, were generally of working age, with a higher household income, and reported to have a longstanding mental health condition. This suggests that while those who are more likely to have increased their gambling behaviours over time might be in a financial position to do so, they may also have a heightened vulnerability to the potential impacts of gambling however further investigation is needed to reliably confirm whether this is the case.
While there was low agreement with the surveyed statements about motivations for gambling, a slim minority of gamblers agreed that they had used gambling to either supplement their income on a regular basis, to help pay household bills, or to help offset loans and/or credit card debt. While a few demographic sub-groups were more likely to agree with these motivations for gambling than others, online gamblers and those with Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores of 8 and above were the most likely to agree. As established in previous reporting, these two groups were also most likely to point to increased cost of living for their changes in behaviours.
The Gambling Commission will further explore the data collected from this study for future releases.
The following is a list of gambling activities asked about in the survey to determine gambler status in each wave of tracking:
The following is an example on how to read the longitudinal tables include in this report.
| Example statement | Total Wave 1 |
Wave 3 NET: Agree |
Wave 3 Neither agree or disagree |
Wave 3 NET: Disagree |
Wave 3 Don't know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) |
60% | 86% | 9% | 4% | 0% |
| Neither agree or disagree (percentage) |
19% | 45% | 34% | 21% | 0% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) |
20% | 24% | 19% | 56% | 1% |
| Don't know | 1% | 29% | 50% | 7% | 14% |
The first column in table 1.1 in the ‘Financial Comfort and Concerns around Cost of Living’ section shows that:
The following analysis describes key sub-groups who are more likely to agree or disagree on their motivations for gambling over time for the four statements used on Wave 1 and Wave 3.
Please note, subgroup analysis for those agreeing with these statements should be interpreted directionally due to low base size.
Between waves 1 and 3, several demographic and behavioural sub-groups have been observed to be more likely to agree or disagree with the statement “I use gambling to supplement my income on a regular basis”. Among those who agreed in either wave of tracking, around 1 in 10 (12 percent) gamblers reported to agree with the statement. Conversely, among those who disagreed in either wave, 9 in 10 (88 percent) reported disagreeing.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to agree with this statement, the following stood out: -non-white individuals
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to disagree with this statement, the following stood out:
These groups all displayed a tendency to disagree with the idea of using gambling as a means to supplement their income.
Between wave 1 and wave 3, several sub-groups based on demographic and behavioural metrics have been observed to be more likely to agree or disagree with the statement “I use gambling to help pay household bills”. Among those who agreed in either wave, around 1 in 10 (8 percent) gamblers reported to agree with the statement whilst 9 in 10 (91 percent) of those who disagreed in either wave reported disagreeing.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to agree with this statement, the following stood out:
All these sub-groups stand out as groups showing agreement with using gambling as a financial resource for household bills.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to disagree with this statement the following stood out:
Between wave 1 and wave 3 several sub-groups based on demographic and behavioural metrics have been observed to be more likely to agree or disagree with the statement “I use gambling to pay for luxuries I wouldn't normally buy”. On average, across the three waves of tracking, around 1 in 10 gamblers reported (13 percent) to agree with the statement whilst 8 in 10 (86 percent) reported disagreeing.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to agree with this statement, the following stood out:
These all stand out as groups expressing agreement with using gambling to fund luxuries.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to disagree with this statement, the following stood out:
Between wave 1 and wave 3 several sub-groups based on demographic and behavioural metrics have been observed to be more likely to agree or disagree with the statement “I use gambling to help offset loans and/or credit card debt”. On average, across the three waves of tracking, a little less than 1 in 10 gamblers reported (7 percent) to agree with the statement whilst around 9 in 10 (92 percent) reported disagreeing.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to agree with this statement, the following stood out:
These all showed a tendency to agree with using gambling to offset financial obligations.
Of the sub-groups analysed that were most likely to disagree with this statement, the following stood out: