The Question Gambling Operators Have Been Missing
Talk is cheap, especially when it comes to conversations between the staff of a gambling operation and its players. So when the Gambling Satisfaction Scale (GSS) enters the picture, it can open up a window to those who are experiencing gambling harm. Noted researcher Dr. Sally Gainsbury explains why.
If someone chooses to gamble, it should be a fun, enjoyable, and balanced part of their entertainment. For many it is, however, at times, some people bet more than they can comfortably afford to lose. Gambling-related harms are most often low or moderate rather than severe, for example, feeling stressed, guilty, annoyed, ashamed, not being able to enjoy other activities, more arguments, lies, and being distraction at work or with others. Harms may subtly increase over time yet impact many aspects of someone’s life.
Most operators do not want their customers to experience harm from their gambling. This is not just a compliance issue; it is bad for business, reputation, and the individuals involved. When customers are no longer having fun, this impacts staff, and other customers around them.
Despite significant investment into developing responsible gambling programs, staff training, and risk-detection technology, when it comes to actually talking to a customer about their gambling, operators have limited options.
Customer-facing staff are not counsellors. The validated tools available to assess gambling problems were developed for research and clinical use. The briefest validated measures have two or three items and focus on the more severe issues like whether someone has lied, is in financial difficulty, has severely damaged relationships or are psychologically distressed.
These are important questions in a clinical or research context. In a customer interaction, they are not easy to ask or answer.
Validated problem gambling screens are developed to identify people who are experiencing high levels of harm. They are silent on the early and moderate risk levels where intervention would make the most difference.
The questions are “closed”—customers reply only “yes” or “no” with no further conversation or elaboration. The questions make it obvious what is being assessed making it easy to respond in a way to avoid further interaction.
After one exposure, a screening tool becomes a test to pass rather than a genuine reflection. The questions are likely uncomfortable to answer, particularly in person rather than in an anonymous survey or a safe clinical space.
The result is that operators who are talking to customers for whom risky behaviours have been observed conduct screenings that generate minimal useful information over time and do not identify the people most likely to benefit from a longer conversation.
There is a Better Way.
A single question that opens a door.
In research published this year in Acta Psychologica, my team at the University of Sydney tested a different approach. We asked over 1,800 gambling customers across land-based venues and online wagering platforms one simple question:
“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your gambling on average, on a scale of one to ten?”
This single question was specifically designed to be asked in a neutral manner with no implied accusation, no clinical language, nor an obvious response.
The strength of the results was unexpected. Gambling satisfaction scores were strongly negatively correlated with problem gambling severity across all three of our samples. Customers experiencing gambling harm consistently rated their satisfaction lower. The scale distinguished moderate-risk and high-risk gamblers with good accuracy (i.e., performing well as a screening measure). Accuracy was improved further when combined with a brief life satisfaction question and a financial wellbeing measure. Seven questions in total, all of which prompt customer reflection.
More importantly, customers could answer it honestly without feeling like they are engaged in a clinical interview. There is no socially desirable response to a numerical satisfaction question. A customer who reports that their satisfaction is a three out of ten is telling you something real. A customer who reports an eight out of ten for satisfaction and then tells you why is giving you something even more valuable.
What this Means in Practice
The Gambling Satisfaction Scale (GSS) is not a diagnostic instrument. It does not classify customers according to clinical risk, it opens a conversation.
For customer-facing staff, this changes the nature of the interaction entirely. Instead of administering a checklist that feels like an audit, a staff member can ask a single neutral question and then listen. What makes it a four for you? What would a six look like?
Employees who are trained to ask these kinds of open follow-up questions, drawn from motivational interviewing practice, can invite customers to reflect on their own gambling without being told what to think about it.
This approach has already been adopted by gambling operators in Australia. The early indications are that customers respond well to it because it feels like customer service, not compliance. Staff training helped them become comfortable with how to ask the question, listen to responses, and follow-up later.
For digital platforms, the same principle applies. A satisfaction prompt embedded in a customer account alongside existing responsible gambling tools might give customers a way to check in with themselves. Not because the operator is concerned about them, but because the operator is interested in their experience. That reframe matters.
The Win is Mutual
There is a version of this strategy that works for everyone. A customer who reflects on their gambling and decides to adjust their limits can remain active, at a level that is sustainable for them. An operator who has that conversation with a customer proactively is building a long-term relationship rather than managing a liability. Regulators who want operators to demonstrate genuine engagement with customer wellbeing now have evidence of those efforts.
The research behind the Gambling Satisfaction Scale was developed in Australia, at one of the world’s leading gambling research institutions, with industry cooperation and independent oversight. It is evidence-based, practically grounded, and ready to be applied.
The Ask is Simple
Ask your customers how satisfied they are with their gambling. Track the number. Use it to start a conversation rather than close one down.
I am actively seeking research partnerships with operators who want to implement and evaluate this approach. If you are building something that takes customer wellbeing seriously—and want the evidence to show for it—I would like to hear from you.
Professor Sally Gainsbury leads the Gambling Research and Policy Unit at the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Centre. She can be contacted at [email protected]
The full article can be found at:Chandrakumar, D., Santos, T., & Gainsbury, S. M. (2026). Defining and measuring gambling satisfaction as an indicator of gambling problems: Consumer perspectives, predictors, and scale utility. Acta Psychologica, 265, 106741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106741
Research summary can be seen here: https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/brain-and-mind-centre/research-summary—gambling-satisfaction.pdf
