![\"Professor](\"https:\/\/readwrite.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/UK-Gambling-Commission-study-reveals-PGSI-survey-discrepancies-impact-accuracy-300x200.png\")
<\/div>\nThe UK Gambling Commission has released new information that looks into the variation of Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) rate results.<\/p>\n
This study was undertaken by Professor Patrick Sturgis of Quantitative Social Science at the Department of Methodology, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).<\/p>\n
Professor Sturgis conducts PGSI result research<\/span><\/h2>\nSturgis is an expert in research design, survey methodology, and statistical methods that the UK Gambling Commission has leaned on to produce the report<\/a>.<\/p>\nThe Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) and the Health Survey for England, Scottish Health Survey, and the Welsh Problem Gambling Survey all use the PGSI.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe experimental nature of this research means we can draw strong causal conclusions about the factors that lead to wide variability in gambling estimates across different surveys.” – Professor Patrick Sturgis, LSE Professor of Quantitative Social Science<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The index has nine criteria that can shed light on an individual\u2019s involvement with gambling and how gambling has impacted their life across twelve months.<\/p>\n
The differing results, dependent on which survey and the method in which they are undertaken, Professor Sturgis writes, have \u201cdiscrepancies\u201d that \u201ccreated uncertainty about which mode produces more accurate figures, raising concerns for evidence-based policy and regulatory oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n
The survey also looked into the mention of the word and act of gambling in the individual reports as a possible variable.<\/p>\n
The UK Gambling Commission posed the question of \u201cwhether mentioning gambling in the survey invitation affects who responds, whether being interviewed by another person suppresses self-reporting of activity and consequences, and the impact of being presented with a longer and updated list of gambling.\u201d<\/p>\n
The PGSI report looks at the finer details<\/span><\/h2>\nProfessor Patrick Sturgis said<\/a>: \u201cThe experimental nature of this research means we can draw strong causal conclusions about the factors that lead to wide variability in gambling estimates across different surveys.”<\/p>\nThe academic\u2019s study found that questions asked across a phone conversation had a \u201csubstantial impact\u201d on the PGSI scores. This resulted in those individuals in an interview scenario posed questions would \u201cunder-report\u201d instances of problem gambling compared to an online self-completion form.<\/p>\n
Ben Haden, Director of Research and Policy, said, \u201cWe recognise that it is impossible to definitively measure participation and the consequences of gambling through one research vehicle alone. We will continue to work on refining GSGB, accessing different datasets and working with other producers of gambling related surveys to produce a rounded evidence base to inform our work.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report did not see that mentioning gambling or the act of gambling influenced interviewees substantially. This was the same for the updated list of gambling activities, which produced no substantive data.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile no single study will enable us to determine the \u2019true\u2019 values for key gambling estimates, these findings make an important contribution to our understanding of how different survey design features influence the results obtained,\u201d added Professor Sturgis.<\/p>\n
Gambling studies around the world<\/span><\/h2>\nThe UK Gambling Commission is just one of many regulatory bodies attempting to unravel the sources of problem gambling. As we reported, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (GRAI) has undertaken a study alongside the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).<\/p>\n
\nDid you know? <\/p>\n
According to a recent study there was clear evidence that \u2018gambling offers\u2019 entice people to bet more, with those at risk of problem gambling especially susceptible. <\/p>\n
For more information on the study, visit here: https:\/\/t.co\/Piz9FA50BQ<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/6ueOtPnLOl<\/a><\/p>\n— Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (@GambRegIRL) July 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe results did show a link between betting bonuses and problem gambling<\/a>, according to the findings. Anne Marie Caulfield, CEO of the GRAI, said, \u201cThe ESRI\u2019s findings confirm that not only is the general public not aware of the dangers associated with inducements to bet, but also that the impact of these inducements goes beyond simple marketing by betting companies.\u201d<\/p>\nIn the United States, a recent study by researchers from the University of Maryland\u2019s Robert H. Smith School of Business, SMU Cox School of Business, and UC San Diego Rady School of Management found links between irresponsible gambling rates and the rush of legalized sports betting<\/a> across the nation.<\/p>\nAs ReadWrite reported, anonymized financial-transaction data was evaluated, with the authors tracking the outcomes for more than 700,000 gamblers across 11 legalized states.<\/p>\n
The findings showed that legalization increases gambling spending by 369% and irresponsible gambling rates by a massive 372%.<\/p>\n
UMD Smith Associate Professor of Marketing Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the work with SMU\u2019s Wayne J. Taylor and UCSD\u2019s Kenneth C. Wilbur, weighed in on the link.<\/p>\n
He said, \u201cPolicymakers should weigh the extra tax dollars against the social costs and consider safeguards like income-based wager limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Featured image: University of Southampton<\/a><\/em><\/p>\nThe post UK Gambling Commission study reveals PGSI survey discrepancies impact accuracy<\/a> appeared first on ReadWrite<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) and the Health Survey for England, Scottish Health Survey, and the Welsh Problem Gambling Survey all use the PGSI.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe experimental nature of this research means we can draw strong causal conclusions about the factors that lead to wide variability in gambling estimates across different surveys.” – Professor Patrick Sturgis, LSE Professor of Quantitative Social Science<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The index has nine criteria that can shed light on an individual\u2019s involvement with gambling and how gambling has impacted their life across twelve months.<\/p>\n
The differing results, dependent on which survey and the method in which they are undertaken, Professor Sturgis writes, have \u201cdiscrepancies\u201d that \u201ccreated uncertainty about which mode produces more accurate figures, raising concerns for evidence-based policy and regulatory oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n
The survey also looked into the mention of the word and act of gambling in the individual reports as a possible variable.<\/p>\n
The UK Gambling Commission posed the question of \u201cwhether mentioning gambling in the survey invitation affects who responds, whether being interviewed by another person suppresses self-reporting of activity and consequences, and the impact of being presented with a longer and updated list of gambling.\u201d<\/p>\n
The PGSI report looks at the finer details<\/span><\/h2>\nProfessor Patrick Sturgis said<\/a>: \u201cThe experimental nature of this research means we can draw strong causal conclusions about the factors that lead to wide variability in gambling estimates across different surveys.”<\/p>\nThe academic\u2019s study found that questions asked across a phone conversation had a \u201csubstantial impact\u201d on the PGSI scores. This resulted in those individuals in an interview scenario posed questions would \u201cunder-report\u201d instances of problem gambling compared to an online self-completion form.<\/p>\n
Ben Haden, Director of Research and Policy, said, \u201cWe recognise that it is impossible to definitively measure participation and the consequences of gambling through one research vehicle alone. We will continue to work on refining GSGB, accessing different datasets and working with other producers of gambling related surveys to produce a rounded evidence base to inform our work.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report did not see that mentioning gambling or the act of gambling influenced interviewees substantially. This was the same for the updated list of gambling activities, which produced no substantive data.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile no single study will enable us to determine the \u2019true\u2019 values for key gambling estimates, these findings make an important contribution to our understanding of how different survey design features influence the results obtained,\u201d added Professor Sturgis.<\/p>\n
Gambling studies around the world<\/span><\/h2>\nThe UK Gambling Commission is just one of many regulatory bodies attempting to unravel the sources of problem gambling. As we reported, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (GRAI) has undertaken a study alongside the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).<\/p>\n
\nDid you know? <\/p>\n
According to a recent study there was clear evidence that \u2018gambling offers\u2019 entice people to bet more, with those at risk of problem gambling especially susceptible. <\/p>\n
For more information on the study, visit here: https:\/\/t.co\/Piz9FA50BQ<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/6ueOtPnLOl<\/a><\/p>\n— Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (@GambRegIRL) July 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe results did show a link between betting bonuses and problem gambling<\/a>, according to the findings. Anne Marie Caulfield, CEO of the GRAI, said, \u201cThe ESRI\u2019s findings confirm that not only is the general public not aware of the dangers associated with inducements to bet, but also that the impact of these inducements goes beyond simple marketing by betting companies.\u201d<\/p>\nIn the United States, a recent study by researchers from the University of Maryland\u2019s Robert H. Smith School of Business, SMU Cox School of Business, and UC San Diego Rady School of Management found links between irresponsible gambling rates and the rush of legalized sports betting<\/a> across the nation.<\/p>\nAs ReadWrite reported, anonymized financial-transaction data was evaluated, with the authors tracking the outcomes for more than 700,000 gamblers across 11 legalized states.<\/p>\n
The findings showed that legalization increases gambling spending by 369% and irresponsible gambling rates by a massive 372%.<\/p>\n
UMD Smith Associate Professor of Marketing Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the work with SMU\u2019s Wayne J. Taylor and UCSD\u2019s Kenneth C. Wilbur, weighed in on the link.<\/p>\n
He said, \u201cPolicymakers should weigh the extra tax dollars against the social costs and consider safeguards like income-based wager limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Featured image: University of Southampton<\/a><\/em><\/p>\nThe post UK Gambling Commission study reveals PGSI survey discrepancies impact accuracy<\/a> appeared first on ReadWrite<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The academic\u2019s study found that questions asked across a phone conversation had a \u201csubstantial impact\u201d on the PGSI scores. This resulted in those individuals in an interview scenario posed questions would \u201cunder-report\u201d instances of problem gambling compared to an online self-completion form.<\/p>\n
Ben Haden, Director of Research and Policy, said, \u201cWe recognise that it is impossible to definitively measure participation and the consequences of gambling through one research vehicle alone. We will continue to work on refining GSGB, accessing different datasets and working with other producers of gambling related surveys to produce a rounded evidence base to inform our work.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report did not see that mentioning gambling or the act of gambling influenced interviewees substantially. This was the same for the updated list of gambling activities, which produced no substantive data.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile no single study will enable us to determine the \u2019true\u2019 values for key gambling estimates, these findings make an important contribution to our understanding of how different survey design features influence the results obtained,\u201d added Professor Sturgis.<\/p>\n
Gambling studies around the world<\/span><\/h2>\nThe UK Gambling Commission is just one of many regulatory bodies attempting to unravel the sources of problem gambling. As we reported, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (GRAI) has undertaken a study alongside the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).<\/p>\n
\nDid you know? <\/p>\n
According to a recent study there was clear evidence that \u2018gambling offers\u2019 entice people to bet more, with those at risk of problem gambling especially susceptible. <\/p>\n
For more information on the study, visit here: https:\/\/t.co\/Piz9FA50BQ<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/6ueOtPnLOl<\/a><\/p>\n— Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (@GambRegIRL) July 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe results did show a link between betting bonuses and problem gambling<\/a>, according to the findings. Anne Marie Caulfield, CEO of the GRAI, said, \u201cThe ESRI\u2019s findings confirm that not only is the general public not aware of the dangers associated with inducements to bet, but also that the impact of these inducements goes beyond simple marketing by betting companies.\u201d<\/p>\nIn the United States, a recent study by researchers from the University of Maryland\u2019s Robert H. Smith School of Business, SMU Cox School of Business, and UC San Diego Rady School of Management found links between irresponsible gambling rates and the rush of legalized sports betting<\/a> across the nation.<\/p>\nAs ReadWrite reported, anonymized financial-transaction data was evaluated, with the authors tracking the outcomes for more than 700,000 gamblers across 11 legalized states.<\/p>\n
The findings showed that legalization increases gambling spending by 369% and irresponsible gambling rates by a massive 372%.<\/p>\n
UMD Smith Associate Professor of Marketing Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the work with SMU\u2019s Wayne J. Taylor and UCSD\u2019s Kenneth C. Wilbur, weighed in on the link.<\/p>\n
He said, \u201cPolicymakers should weigh the extra tax dollars against the social costs and consider safeguards like income-based wager limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Featured image: University of Southampton<\/a><\/em><\/p>\nThe post UK Gambling Commission study reveals PGSI survey discrepancies impact accuracy<\/a> appeared first on ReadWrite<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Did you know? <\/p>\n
According to a recent study there was clear evidence that \u2018gambling offers\u2019 entice people to bet more, with those at risk of problem gambling especially susceptible. <\/p>\n
For more information on the study, visit here: https:\/\/t.co\/Piz9FA50BQ<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/6ueOtPnLOl<\/a><\/p>\n — Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (@GambRegIRL) July 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The results did show a link between betting bonuses and problem gambling<\/a>, according to the findings. Anne Marie Caulfield, CEO of the GRAI, said, \u201cThe ESRI\u2019s findings confirm that not only is the general public not aware of the dangers associated with inducements to bet, but also that the impact of these inducements goes beyond simple marketing by betting companies.\u201d<\/p>\n In the United States, a recent study by researchers from the University of Maryland\u2019s Robert H. Smith School of Business, SMU Cox School of Business, and UC San Diego Rady School of Management found links between irresponsible gambling rates and the rush of legalized sports betting<\/a> across the nation.<\/p>\n As ReadWrite reported, anonymized financial-transaction data was evaluated, with the authors tracking the outcomes for more than 700,000 gamblers across 11 legalized states.<\/p>\n The findings showed that legalization increases gambling spending by 369% and irresponsible gambling rates by a massive 372%.<\/p>\n UMD Smith Associate Professor of Marketing Daniel McCarthy, who co-authored the work with SMU\u2019s Wayne J. Taylor and UCSD\u2019s Kenneth C. Wilbur, weighed in on the link.<\/p>\n He said, \u201cPolicymakers should weigh the extra tax dollars against the social costs and consider safeguards like income-based wager limits.\u201d<\/p>\n Featured image: University of Southampton<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n The post UK Gambling Commission study reveals PGSI survey discrepancies impact accuracy<\/a> appeared first on ReadWrite<\/a>.<\/p>\n