Report
Insights into affected others from the GSGB
Insights into affected others from the GSGB
Discussion
Many affected others are also gambling themselves
The aim of this research was to better understand the characteristics of people who are affected by someone else’s gambling. The findings show that a relatively small proportion of participants in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) sample could be identified as affected others (9 percent). Among those who were affected by another person’s gambling, more than half also reported gambling themselves – 63 percent in the past 12 months and 54 percent in the past 4 weeks. This is higher than the gambling participation rate observed across the overall GSGB sample.
Affected others were more likely to be female and in mid-adulthood – a pattern consistent with what we see among affected others who also gamble.
When taking a closer look at affected others who also gambled in the past 12 months, the findings showed that they had higher participation rates across all gambling activities (except the National Lottery and charity lotteries). The largest differences between affected others and for those who gamble were found in activities associated with a higher risk of harm – those that previous GSGB studies have shown to carry higher PGSI scores and experiences of problem gambling as determined by a relative risk ratio. Affected others who gamble were more likely to engage in these higher-risk activities: betting on event outcomes in person (3.7 times higher) or online (2.6 times higher) and playing casino games in a casino (2.7 times higher) or on a terminal (2.5 times higher).
Affected others who gamble were also 4.8 times more likely to have a PGSI score of 8 to 27 than for the wider group of participants who gambled. Their responses to PGSI items showed higher reports of experiencing financial problems due to gambling, and of borrowing money or selling anything to fund gambling. This may reflect the compounding financial impact when multiple people in the same household or relationship gamble. They were also more likely to report being criticised for betting or being told they had a problem with gambling, which may again stem from the dynamics of multiple people who gamble within a household or same social group.
However, we should also consider the reasons why people gamble and for affected others who have also gambled they were more likely to state that they gamble to be sociable (40 percent compared to 25 percent of all participants who have gambled) or because it is something they do with friends or family (52 percent compared to 35 percent).
Overall, these findings show that affected others are not always passive observers; many are engaged in gambling themselves. This overlap has implications for recognising the complexity of gambling-related consequences.
Complexities of gambling-related adverse consequences
Adverse consequences experienced due to someone else’s gambling
Using the gambling-related harm framework developed by Wardle and others (2018) (opens in new tab), which groups harms into resources, relationships and health – and which are covered by the adverse consequences questions – we observe that the most commonly reported consequences experienced due to someone else’s gambling relates to health. More than half of affected others reported that someone else’s gambling had caused them health problems including stress or anxiety, or feelings of embarrassment, guilt or shame.
Consequences affecting resources were reported more by affected others who also participate in gambling compared with those who do not. This pattern suggests that consequences related to finances could be more likely to occur in household where multiple people gamble, potentially increasing pressure on shared financial resources.
Affected others who gamble were also more likely than affected others who didn’t gamble to report consequences relating to relationships, suggesting that when multiple people experience gambling consequences within the same network – such as a family or household – this may place additional strain on interpersonal relationships.
Additionally, affected others who gamble were more likely to report experiencing abuse or violence, or committing a crime related to someone else’s gambling.
Overall, such findings suggest that when more than one person in a household or social network gambles – and consequences are already present – that situation appears to exacerbate both the breadth and severity of consequences experienced. Affected others who gamble report higher levels of consequences across resource related, relationship related, and severe consequence items.
Adverse consequences experienced from one’s own gambling
Around one-third (30.1 percent) of people affected by someone else’s gambling also reported adverse or potentially adverse consequences from their own gambling – equivalent to nearly half (47.2 percent) of affected others who gamble.
The likelihood of experiencing these consequences increased with PGSI score. As discussed in the Methods section, 3 of the consequences that we examine are derived from the PGSI and hence count towards both of these outcomes, therefore some relationship here was expected. All affected others with a PGSI score of 8 to 27 had experienced at least 1 potential or severe consequence due to their own gambling, with health, relationship and resource consequences reported at a similar rate.
Overlaps between adverse consequences experienced from own and other’s gambling
For affected others who gamble, differences between consequences attributed to one’s own gambling and those attributed to someone else’s suggest a pattern in how they distinguish the source of consequence. Resource related consequences showed the smallest difference, indicating that people tend to attribute financial strain to both themselves and the person whose gambling affects them. In contrast, relationship consequences showed the largest differences with severe consequences – such as breakdown of a close relationship – reported 2.7 times more often caused by someone else’s gambling. This suggests that interpersonal harm is more likely to be perceived as arising from the behaviour of the other person rather than one’s own.
Overall, affected others who gamble experience a compounded form of consequences, shaped by both their own gambling and the gambling of others within their network, with patterns differing across consequence types.
For participants who both gamble and are affected by someone else’s gambling, it is not always possible to determine the source of a reported consequence. Although affected others who gamble are generally more likely to report experiencing consequences due to someone else’s gambling, this relationship may be more complex and vary by individual circumstance. Further research is needed to fully understand these dynamics.
Affected others who don’t gamble are less likely to seek support
Less than 1 in 5 of affected others sought support in the past year (14.5 percent), and those who did used a range of services – including mental health, welfare, relationship support, and gambling services at similar rates.
A clear distinction emerged between affected others who gamble and those who do not. Seeking support was more than twice as common among affected others who also gamble (18.3 percent) compared with affected others who don’t gamble (7.7 percent). This pattern was consistent across all support types, with those who gambled reporting higher help seeking behaviours (around 9 to 10 percent) than those who didn’t gamble (2 to 4 percent). This suggests that affected others who do not gamble may be less likely to seek support, despite being impacted by someone else’s gambling.
Previous sectionAffected others - Findings Next section
Affected others - Next steps
Last updated: 14 May 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.