Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content

Report

Lived experiences of gambling in teenage boys and young men: Qualitative research

Qualitative research to explore the lived experiences of teenage boys and young men aged 14 to 25 years.

How teenage boys and young men define gambling

Participants’ understanding of what counts as “gambling” was often fluid and subjective. Most associated the term with formal, money-based activities such as betting on sports or using casino-style apps. However, when shown a broad list of gambling and gambling-like activities as part of the research stimulus and asked whether any felt relevant to their own experiences, many also described experiences that blurred the line between gambling and everyday forms of play – including loot boxes, pack openings, fantasy football, or social media challenges involving risk and reward (such as filming physical challenges with a potential financial reward, or online games offering the chance to win real money).

Among younger participants, gambling was typically framed as something distant or adult, linked with betting shops or (online) casinos. By contrast, those aged 18 and over tended to view gambling as a typical leisure activity, embedded in sport, socialising, and entertainment.

Across ages, the perceived boundary between “gambling” and “not gambling” depended less on the activity itself and more on whether (significant amounts of) real money was at stake. Activities that felt fun, social, or low-cost were often excluded from participants’ personal definitions, even when they carried similar mechanics of chance, reward, and risk.

This flexible understanding shaped how participants described their own behaviour, and in some cases, underplayed the potential for harm.

Previous section
Strengths and limitations
Is this page useful?
Back to top