U.S. gamblers scored higher on a financial literacy measure than non-gamblers in a new national survey commissioned by the American Gaming Association, challenging some assumptions about the relationship between financial literacy and gambling.

Gamblers recorded an average financial literacy score of 3.93 out of five, compared with 3.72 for non-gamblers, according to research conducted for the American Gaming Association (AGA). The difference was statistically significant, the AGA said.

The survey found that 41% of gamblers met the study’s threshold for high financial literacy, compared with 27% of non-gamblers.

The findings come as researchers and policymakers continue to examine the relationship between financial knowledge, gambling behaviour and consumers’ understanding of risk.

The AGA said the study was conducted by Colin López, founder and principal of IN Research & Analytics LLC, and Jackson Sears, founder of Matrix Consulting Group of North Carolina. Both are co-founders of the Betting, Experience, and Trading in Sports Research Center and assistant professors at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The researchers surveyed 3,201 U.S. adults online through Prolific from July 15 to July 21, 2026. After data-quality screening, the final sample consisted of 3,149 participants, including sports bettors, prediction-market users, casino players, iGaming users and people who did not gamble.

The AGA said the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points at a 95% confidence level.

Among the final participants were 537 sports bettors, 574 prediction-market users, 557 casino players, 495 iGaming users and 986 non-gamblers.

The study also examined participants’ mathematical confidence and their performance on objective measures of mathematical ability.

According to the AGA, sports bettors showed the highest combination of mathematical confidence and objective performance. Prediction-market users, however, expressed levels of mathematical confidence close to those of sports bettors while performing more similarly to non-gamblers when tested.

The distinction is relevant to the broader debate over how consumers understand prediction markets and sports wagering.

The AGA said the findings raise concerns about consumers who may view prediction-market activity or sports wagering primarily as an investment or money-making strategy. It argued that consumers may underestimate risk when they believe they possess an analytical advantage.

The association also reported a relationship between financial literacy and what it calls responsible play.

Participants with moderate or high financial literacy recorded higher scores on the Positive Play Scale than participants with low financial literacy, according to the study. Casino players recorded the highest responsible-play scores among the gambling categories examined.

The AGA said the results indicate that financial education could complement responsible-gambling initiatives by helping consumers better understand risk and maintain realistic confidence in their financial and mathematical abilities.

The findings, however, differ from much of the existing academic literature on financial literacy and gambling.

A systematic review published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2025 examined nine peer-reviewed empirical studies on financial literacy and gambling behaviour.

Most of those studies found that higher financial literacy was associated with lower gambling frequency, although the researchers cautioned that the evidence base was limited and methods varied.

The review found that six of the nine studies reported a statistically significant negative association between financial literacy and gambling behaviour.

Two others found negative relationships that were not statistically significant, while one reported a positive and statistically significant relationship.

The researchers also noted that most studies measured gambling frequency rather than problem gambling specifically, limiting the conclusions that could be drawn about gambling-related harm.

A separate systematic review published in 2025 reached a broadly similar conclusion, finding that higher financial literacy was generally associated with lower rates of pathological gambling, while stressing that the relationship varied according to cultural and gambling-market conditions.

More recent research has also highlighted differences between financial confidence and actual financial knowledge.

A 2025 study of 234 help-seeking gamblers in Hong Kong found that perceived financial knowledge was associated with differences between people classified as problem and non-problem gamblers. The researchers said actual financial knowledge did not show the same distinction in their sample.

That distinction is relevant to the new U.S. research, which separately examined financial literacy, mathematical confidence and objective mathematical performance.

The AGA’s survey does not establish that higher financial literacy causes people to gamble, nor does it establish that gambling causes higher financial literacy. It identifies differences between groups measured at one point in time.

The AGA said the research has implications for consumer education and responsible-gambling initiatives, particularly as newer forms of wagering and prediction-market products attract attention in the United States.

For financial education researchers, the contrasting findings also illustrate the difficulty of drawing a single conclusion about financial literacy and gambling. Different studies use different measures of financial knowledge, gambling frequency, gambling problems and financial confidence.

The 2025 systematic review by O’Connor and Ivory concluded that more research using consistent measures and stronger study designs is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn about whether financial literacy itself reduces gambling-related risks.

The new U.S. study adds a large 2026 survey to that developing evidence base, showing that, within its sample, gamblers reported higher measured financial literacy than non-gamblers while also revealing differences in financial and mathematical confidence across gambling groups.