The Gambling Survey is considered the most important data collection on gambling participation in Germany. The Institute for Interdisciplinary Addiction and Drug Research (ISD) and the Gambling Research Unit at the University of Bremen have been in charge since 2021. Compared to the last survey conducted by the previously responsible Federal Center for Health Education (BZgA), the figures shot up by an astonishing 550 percent practically overnight! Many people then asked themselves: Can this be right? Apparently not, as a new Forsa study now suggests. The result should give those responsible for the gambling survey a real stomach ache.

The Gambling Survey has been providing insights into the gambling behavior of Germans for years - but there has been a dispute over the figures since 2021. The Federal Center for Health Education conducted the study until 2019, when the Institute for Interdisciplinary Addiction and Drug Research and the University of Bremen took over.

With the change came a new methodology - which caused the number of problem gamblers to explode from around 200,000 to 1.3 million. The industry was skeptical, as were external experts: could this dramatic increase really be real or was the new survey approach possibly to blame for the immense excesses?

Now a Forsa study has brought a breath of fresh air to the debate. It used the previous methodology - and lo and behold: the alleged wave of gambling addiction is shrinking dramatically. In fact, there has even been a downward trend since 2019. For the advocates of the original survey, this should be quite a hangover moment.

What is Forsa?

Forsa is one of the best-known opinion and social research institutes in Germany. It has been providing sound data on political, economic and social issues since 1984. Forsa is particularly well known for its election surveys, but the institute also conducts studies on consumer behavior, social trends and scientific issues. The name regularly appears in news and other reports - because when it comes to reliable figures and public sentiment, Forsa is often the first port of call.

Much criticism in recent years - and now?

There has been criticism from the outset, but little has changed. One of the harshest voices in the debate was statistician Katherina Schüller. In the trade press, she had nothing good to say about the 2021 Gambling Survey:

"It gives its readers a certainty of data and knowledge that is simply not given and is scientifically questionable."

This was not just a harsh judgment - it was a downright dismantling. Schüller's report, in which she warned of various fundamental weaknesses in the 2021 gambling survey, caused quite a stir: "no scientific basis", "serious methodological errors", "lack of scientific transparency" and similar words were used in this context (including in the press). But despite the damning assessment, the methodology was not adjusted.

When the 2023 survey was published, the expected outcry followed - this time particularly loudly from the industry. The German Vending Machine Industry (DAW) and the German Sports Betting Association (DSWV) made their voices heard. DAW spokesman Georg Stecker put it in a nutshell:

"Unfortunately, even despite massive scientific criticism, the survey design was retained and the limited informative value of the survey was not made known in today's presentation of the results of the current survey." And further: "Unfortunately, the 2023 survey therefore also fails to achieve its goal of drawing reliable conclusions about aspects of gambling disorders."

In short: the errors remained, the methodology was still on shaky ground. The DSWV called for a thorough review, but nothing happened. Until now. Because the new Forsa study could turn the tide after all.

Forsa uncovers: Gambling crisis or numbers magic?

Now it's getting exciting: the renowned opinion research institute Forsa has conducted a new study on behalf of the German Vending Machine Industry Association (VDAI) - using exactly the same criteria that were standard under the BZgA until 2019. The result: a real reality shock for all those who relied on the previous figures.

As a reminder: before the change in methodology, the number of pathological gamblers in Germany was around 200,000. After the study was handed over to the ITS and the University of Bremen, it exploded to over 1.3 million - a figure that also made headlines in connection with the Gambling Atlas 2023.

According to the new survey by Forsa, 95.53 percent of respondents belong to the unproblematic group - i.e. either people who do not gamble at all or those who do not show any abnormalities according to the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) classification. 0.37 percent are considered problem gamblers, while only 0.28 percent are classified as probably pathological.

This means that the figures are even slightly lower than those of the last BZgA study from 2019 (0.39% and 0.34% at the time). By way of comparison, the 2023 gambling survey assumed a whopping 2.4% of problem gamblers - a difference of an incredible 550%!

New methodology? Sure - but with reliable results, please!

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with revising methods. After all, science thrives on progress. But at the latest when a new survey approach suddenly multiplies the number of problem gamblers, alarm bells should ring - not because of the alleged gambling addiction wave, but because of the data basis.

The Gambling Survey 2021 came to the conclusion that 2.3 percent of 18 to 70-year-olds have a gambling disorder and 5.7 percent exhibit risky gambling behavior. Sounds dramatic? It absolutely would be! What is tricky, however, is that the figure has more than tripled compared to the last BZgA study from 2019, which only recorded 0.73% problem gamblers. The fact that there was no independent quality control for such a drastic change still raises questions.

Four major criticisms of the methodology

Statistical expert Katherina Schüller took a close look at the matter and identified four central problems:

  1. No true representativeness: surveys by telephone and online surveys have a catch - many people refuse to answer. This distorts the picture. Schüller suspects that there are actually far fewer problem gamblers than stated.
  2. Technical errors: The study used weighting methods that are unsuitable for providing realistic figures. Random fluctuations were also not sufficiently taken into account.
  3. No perspective on developments: The results only provide a snapshot - without any predictions about how gaming behavior might change in the future.
  4. Zero transparency: exactly what data was collected, how the survey was conducted and what calculations ultimately led to the drastic figures? All of this remains a mystery. Even when asked, Schüller received no clear answers - a clear violation of scientific standards.

Misleading overall picture

The problem with these shortcomings: Most people who read the results will not question how they were arrived at. According to Schüller, this leads to a distorted picture that makes gambling in Germany appear more dangerous than it actually is. The consequence: the public is - consciously or unconsciously - being misled. And all of this is based on a study that is hardly scientifically tenable.

It could well be that Schüller's criticism will now be revisited.

Conclusion: a turning point for the gambling survey?

Of course, it should be borne in mind that the Forsa survey was commissioned by the industry - a certain critical attitude towards the gambling survey is therefore natural. However, this is unlikely to influence the results, as Forsa is not just any old data analyst, but an established player with clear principles of neutrality. If even the suspicion were to arise that research was carried out for the sake of convenience, this would not only be legally sensitive, but would also ruin the institute's excellent reputation.

It is precisely this reputation of Forsa that could now make a decisive contribution to the current research approach of the survey being questioned more closely. Although Forsa merely adopted the BZgA's old method, this alone has a certain signal effect: "If they do it this way, it should be sound." If - as has now happened - completely different figures come out than in the gambling survey, the basis of the previous studies is shaky.

Incidentally, in the summer of 2024, the Bremen FDP questioned whether the gambling survey itself might not be completely independent and might even be influenced by certain players in the gambling industry.

Source of the image: Screenshot from https://newsletter.forsa.de/file/0/1909/forsa_glucksspielverhalten_und_glucksspielsucht_2024_zentrale_befunde

Central text sources: https://newsletter.forsa.de/file/0/1909/forsa_glucksspielverhalten_und_glucksspielsucht_2024_zentrale_befunde, https://gamesundbusiness.de/forsa-befragung-alarmzahlen-widerlegt, https://gamesundbusiness.de/faz-greift-kritik-am-gluecksspiel-survey-auf

What do you think of the article?

0 Comments to: Forsa refutes alarm figures on gambling problems in Germany

write a comment

Our community thrives on your feedback - so let us know what you think!

Would you like to write comments on GambleJoe yourself? Then just create a GambleJoe User Account.

  • upload your own winning pictures or videos
  • rate online casinos and slot machines
  • write comments and take part in our forum
  • take part in the monthly GJ Coin lottery
  • and much more