Report
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
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:
Severe adverse consequences, where any experience of them is highly likely to be harmful.
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.
"I wish I had known that there was such a thing as an affected other long before... Because if I had got support years before then [my son] might not have had to have got to where he got."
- Female gambler, 59, mother of person gambling
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.
Gavin watched his partner's gambling creep from occasional casino nights out together to secret sessions on her phone, even slipping away to the toilet to play while out at dinner. Money started disappearing from their joint account, but whenever he raised it, she became defensive.
"You never want to come across as controlling… Partners can be labelled really quickly."
So, he held back, hoping things would improve. Without a way to address it, the relationship broke down.
- Male gambler, 33, former partner of person gambling
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.
"It's a cultural point of view, also a religious point of view, because I'm Muslim. It's a bit shameful doing it ... It’s something to keep a secret, more likely in a family. It’s not really a thing to say."
- Male non-gambler, 30, son of person gambling
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.
Next sectionThe consequences of someone else’s gambling
Last updated: 25 June 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.