The UK Playing Fee has launched new data that appears into the variation of Drawback Playing Severity Index (PGSI) price outcomes.
This examine was undertaken by Professor Patrick Sturgis of Quantitative Social Science on the Division of Methodology, The London College of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Professor Sturgis conducts PGSI end result analysis
Sturgis is an skilled in analysis design, survey methodology, and statistical strategies that the UK Playing Fee has leaned on to provide the report.
The Playing Survey for Nice Britain (GSGB) and the Well being Survey for England, Scottish Well being Survey, and the Welsh Drawback Playing Survey all use the PGSI.
“The experimental nature of this analysis means we are able to draw robust causal conclusions concerning the components that result in extensive variability in playing estimates throughout completely different surveys.” – Professor Patrick Sturgis, LSE Professor of Quantitative Social Science
The index has 9 standards that may make clear a person’s involvement with playing and the way playing has impacted their life throughout twelve months.
The differing outcomes, depending on which survey and the strategy during which they’re undertaken, Professor Sturgis writes, have “discrepancies” that “created uncertainty about which mode produces extra correct figures, elevating issues for evidence-based coverage and regulatory oversight.”
The survey additionally seemed into the point out of the phrase and act of playing within the particular person stories as a potential variable.
The UK Playing Fee posed the query of “whether or not mentioning playing within the survey invitation impacts who responds, whether or not being interviewed by one other particular person suppresses self-reporting of exercise and penalties, and the affect of being introduced with an extended and up to date record of playing.”
The PGSI report seems to be on the finer particulars
Professor Patrick Sturgis stated: “The experimental nature of this analysis means we are able to draw robust causal conclusions concerning the components that result in extensive variability in playing estimates throughout completely different surveys.”
The tutorial’s examine discovered that questions requested throughout a telephone dialog had a “substantial affect” on the PGSI scores. This resulted in these people in an interview state of affairs posed questions would “under-report” situations of downside playing in comparison with an internet self-completion kind.
Ben Haden, Director of Analysis and Coverage, stated, “We recognise that it’s inconceivable to definitively measure participation and the implications of playing by way of one analysis car alone. We are going to proceed to work on refining GSGB, accessing completely different datasets and dealing with different producers of playing associated surveys to provide a rounded proof base to tell our work.”
The report didn’t see that mentioning playing or the act of playing influenced interviewees considerably. This was the identical for the up to date record of playing actions, which produced no substantive information.
“Whereas no single examine will allow us to find out the ’true’ values for key playing estimates, these findings make an vital contribution to our understanding of how completely different survey design options affect the outcomes obtained,” added Professor Sturgis.
Playing research around the globe
The UK Playing Fee is only one of many regulatory our bodies making an attempt to unravel the sources of downside playing. As we reported, the Playing Regulatory Authority of Eire (GRAI) has undertaken a examine alongside the Financial and Social Analysis Institute (ESRI).
Do you know?
In response to a latest examine there was clear proof that ‘playing presents’ entice folks to guess extra, with these prone to downside playing particularly inclined.
For extra data on the examine, go to right here: https://t.co/Piz9FA50BQ pic.twitter.com/6ueOtPnLOl
— Playing Regulatory Authority of Eire (@GambRegIRL) July 18, 2025
The outcomes did present a hyperlink between betting bonuses and downside playing, in line with the findings. Anne Marie Caulfield, CEO of the GRAI, stated, “The ESRI’s findings verify that not solely is most of the people not conscious of the risks related to inducements to guess, but additionally that the affect of those inducements goes past easy advertising by betting firms.”
In america, a latest examine by researchers from the College of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith College of Enterprise, SMU Cox College of Enterprise, and UC San Diego Rady College of Administration discovered hyperlinks between irresponsible playing charges and the push of legalized sports activities betting throughout the nation.
As ReadWrite reported, anonymized financial-transaction information was evaluated, with the authors monitoring the outcomes for greater than 700,000 gamblers throughout 11 legalized states.
The findings confirmed that legalization will increase playing spending by 369% and irresponsible playing charges by a large 372%.
UMD Smith Affiliate Professor of Advertising Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the work with SMU’s Wayne J. Taylor and UCSD’s Kenneth C. Wilbur, weighed in on the hyperlink.
He stated, “Policymakers ought to weigh the additional tax {dollars} towards the social prices and contemplate safeguards like income-based wager limits.”
Featured picture: College of Southampton
The submit UK Playing Fee examine reveals PGSI survey discrepancies affect accuracy appeared first on ReadWrite.
