Report
Exploring gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
The Gambling Commission’s report on the attitudes and opinions of online gamblers regarding the proposals for financial vulnerability and financial risk checks.
3 - Overall response to the proposals
This section covers overall levels of support for, and the perceived effectiveness and disruptiveness of, both proposals as a package, and individually.
In the quantitative phase, respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 4 statements (listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2) regarding the package of proposals. In order to maximise engagement, gamblers were provided with a mixture of positive and negative statements.
Looking first at the positive statements (Table 3.1), just under 8 in 10 (78 percent) gamblers agreed that the package is necessary to protect people from gambling harm, compared to 6 percent who disagreed. While over 7 in 10 (74 percent) agreed that the package is something they would support being implemented, compared to 7 percent who disagreed.
Table 3.1 Agreement with key statements about the package of proposals (all gamblers) – positive statements 1
| Gambler response | Is necessary to protect people from gambling harm (percentage) | Is something I would support being implemented (percentage) |
|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree | 78% | 74% |
| Neither agree or disagree | 13% | 16% |
| NET: Disagree | 6% | 7% |
| Do not know | 2% | 3% |
Turning to the negative statements (Table 3.2), results suggest that over 4 in 10 (46 percent) agreed with the sentiment that the package of proposals is a proportionate response to the challenge of protecting people from gambling harm. This compares to around 2 in 10 (21 percent) who disagreed with this sentiment. Furthermore, results suggest that 6 in 10 (61 percent) agreed with the sentiment that the package is clear in its aim and/or purpose, compared to 16 percent who disagreed. While the largest share of gamblers in the survey agreed that the package is a proportionate response, or that it is clear in its aim and purpose, the proportion who do not (between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10) highlight a clear need for future communication around the proposals to address these concerns in order to build understanding and support among the gambler population.
Table 3.2 Agreement with key statements about the package of proposals (all gamblers) – negative statements 2
| Gambler response | Is a disproportionate response to the challenge of protecting people from gambling harm (percentage) | Is unclear in its aim and/or purpose of protecting people from gambling harm (percentage) |
|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree | 21% | 16% |
| Neither agree or disagree | 26% | 20% |
| NET: Disagree | 46% | 61% |
| Do not know | 6% | 3% |
On the whole, however, results suggest there was widespread agreement that the package of proposals is necessary. Clear majorities agreed that the package is necessary to protect people from gambling harm, and that the package was something they would support being implemented. Meanwhile, a further clear majority agreed that the package was clear in its aim or purpose, and the largest share of respondents agreed that the package was a proportionate response.
Subgroup analysis has revealed statistically significant differences related to gambling behaviour, with more engaged or active gamblers displaying lower levels of support compared to the overall sample. Those who have a higher number of active online gambling accounts (4 or more accounts), as shown in table 3.3, or who score highest (8 or more) on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), as shown in table 3.4, have more negative opinions of the proposals package overall, compared to the total sample. Conversely, those who have fewer active accounts (3 or less), or who score lowest (0) on the PGSI, have more positive opinions overall compared to the total.
It is important to note, however, that although the respondents that reported more active accounts and scored higher on the PGSI were less likely to be positive about the policies, there was still greater than 50 percent support amongst those groups. Therefore, the majority (more than half) in each case agrees that the package is something they would support being implemented.
Table 3.3 Agreement with key statements about the package of proposals (by all online gamblers and number of active accounts) 3
Table 3.3.1 Statement: 'Is necessary to protect people from gambling harm' (positive statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | 1 to 3 active accounts (percentage) | 4 or more active accounts (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 78% | 82% | 65% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 13% | 10% | 24% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 6% | 6% | 8% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 2% | 2% | 3% |
Table 3.3.2 Statement: 'Is something I would support being implemented' (positive statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | 1 to 3 active accounts (percentage) | 4 or more active accounts (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 74% | 78% | 59% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 16% | 13% | 27% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 7% | 6% | 12% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 3% | 2% | 2% |
Table 3.3.3 Statement: 'Is a disproportionate response to the challenge of protecting people from gambling harm' (negative statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | 1 to 3 active accounts (percentage) | 4 or more active accounts (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 21% | 19% | 33% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 26% | 25% | 29% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 46% | 51% | 33% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 6% | 6% | 5% |
Table 3.3.4 Statement: 'Is unclear in its aim and/or purpose of protecting people from gambling harm' (negative statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | 1 to 3 active accounts (percentage) | 4 or more active accounts (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 16% | 14% | 26% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 20% | 20% | 21% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 61% | 64% | 52% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 3% | 2% | 2% |
Table 3.4 Agreement with key statements about the package of proposals (by all gamblers and PGSI score) 4
Table 3.4.1 Statement: 'Is necessary to protect people from gambling harm' (positive statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | PGSI score 0 (percentage) | PGSI score 8 or more (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 78% | 81% | 70% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 13% | 10% | 22% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 6% | 6% | 7% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 2% | 2% | 1% |
Table 3.4.2 Statement: 'Is something I would support being implemented' (positive statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | PGSI score 0 (percentage) | PGSI score 8 or more (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 74% | 77% | 64% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 16% | 13% | 26% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 7% | 7% | 8% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 3% | 3% | 2% |
Table 3.4.3 Statement: 'Is a disproportionate response to the challenge of protecting people from gambling harm' (negative statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | PGSI score 0 (percentage) | PGSI score 8 or more (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 21% | 14% | 42% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 26% | 24% | 29% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 46% | 56% | 24% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 6% | 7% | 4% |
Table 3.4.4 Statement: 'Is unclear in its aim and/or purpose of protecting people from gambling harm' (negative statement)
| Gambler response | All gamblers (percentage) | PGSI score 0 (percentage) | PGSI score 8 or more (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NET: Agree (percentage) | 16% | 9% | 34% |
| Neither agree nor disagree (percentage) | 20% | 17% | 26% |
| NET: Disagree (percentage) | 61% | 71% | 39% |
| Do not know (percentage) | 3% | 3% | 2% |
These levels of overall support were reflected in the qualitative phase, where responses to the proposals were consistent across customer types and levels of gambling activity, including those depositing upwards of £500 monthly and experiencing a £500 or more single occasion net loss within the past 12 months. Indeed, even in the minority of cases where there was an initial negative stance against financial checks, due to a perceived intrusion of privacy, many quickly accepted the idea of some level of protection once at-risk online gamblers, and the financial position in which they can find themselves, was considered. It was also clear that many online gamblers, especially those aged 39 years old and under, are accustomed to some kind of credit check to access services, financial or otherwise.
“I understand people can get into trouble, you can chase your losses and you can lose control, I’ll admit I’ve got into some situations and chased my tail in the past and you do need some help in those moments. I might not have appreciated it at the time because I thought the next bet would win, but looking back I wish something was there to snap me out of it and limit the damage.”
Frequent gambler, £500 or more monthly deposit amount
"At our age we're used to getting checked for everything… phone contracts, mortgages, credit cards"
18 to 24 years old, range of gambling activity from daily to monthly, range of deposit amounts from £10 to £100 or more a month
Alongside support for the use of financial checks to protect financially vulnerable gamblers, there was limited belief that gamblers would be personally subject to the checks. A majority of gamblers in the quantitative survey did not perceive the package of proposals as being ‘relevant to [them] and [their] gambling activity’ (as shown in table 3.5, 57 percent). Whilst it is true that most gamblers would not exceed the proposed thresholds associated with the Financial Risk Assessment, greater numbers (although still in the minority, estimated at 20 percent of accounts) would exceed the lower proposed thresholds associated with the Financial Vulnerability Check. It would therefore be important to make clear that possibility to gamblers from the outset, in order to prevent possible frustration that may occur if gamblers are subject to checks they do not believe are relevant to them.
Table 3.5 Agreement with key statements about the package of proposals (all gamblers) – perceived relevance of the package of proposals 5
| Gambler response | Is relevant to me and my gambling activity (percentage) |
|---|---|
| NET: Agree | 22% |
| Neither agree or disagree | 19% |
| NET: Disagree | 57% |
| Do not know | 2% |
Results from both quantitative and qualitative phases reveal that there are high levels of overall support for the package of proposals, with only a minority feeling that the package does not constitute a proportionate response and could have greater clarity around its aim and purpose. As such, results suggest gamblers strongly agree with the principle of protecting gamblers from gambling-related financial harm with financial checks, even if they do not believe that the proposed checks would apply to or benefit themselves.
References
1 'Knowing what you now know about each of the proposals (both the Financial Vulnerability Check and the Financial Risk Assessment), how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?' Base: All gamblers (1000) Figures rounded to whole numbers
2 'Knowing what you now know about each of the proposals (both the Financial Vulnerability Check and the Financial Risk Assessment), how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?' Base: All gamblers (1000)
3 'Knowing what you now know about each of the proposals (both the Financial Vulnerability Check and the Financial Risk Assessment), how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?' Base: All respondents (1000), Active accounts: 1 to 3 (741), Active accounts: 4 or more (206), PGSI: 0 (481), PGSI 8 or more (181)
4 'Knowing what you now know about each of the proposals (both the Financial Vulnerability Check and the Financial Risk Assessment), how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?' Base: All respondents (1000), PGSI: 0 (481), PGSI 8 or more (181)
5 'Knowing what you now know about each of the proposals (both the Financial Vulnerability Check and the Financial Risk Assessment), how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?' Base: All gamblers (1000)
The Financial Check context - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals Next section
Financial Vulnerability Check - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.