Report
Understanding the impact of increased cost of living on gambling behaviour - Final report
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.
Contents
- Introduction
- Methodology
- How to read this report
- Summary of findings
- Personal finances and cost of living
- Financial comfort and concerns around cost of living
- Relationship with gambling
- Impact of cost of living on gambling behaviours
- Gambling has stayed the same
- Gambling because it’s fun but will make cutbacks if needed
- Gambling is an inherent part of life
- Change in gambling behaviour
- The number of occasions on which you have spent money on these gambling activities
- The amount of money spent on these gambling activities
- The amount of time spent gambling on these activities
- Typical stakes
- Motivations for gambling
- Conclusions
- Appendix A - Gambling activities
- Appendix B - Reading longitudinal tables
- Appendix C - Motivations for gambling – subgroup analysis by statement
How to read this report
Quantitative analysis
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.
Reading the longitudinal tables
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.
Limitations
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.
Previous sectionCost of living on gambling behaviour 2024: Methodology Next section
Cost of living on gambling behaviour 2024: Summary of findings
Last updated: 27 February 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.