Sally Gainsbury

Sally Gainsbury — my story (in my own words)

I’m Sally Gainsbury, a psychologist and researcher based in The University of Sydney, where I work in the School of Psychology and within the Brain and Mind Centre. My day-to-day professional life sits right at the intersection of science, clinical care, and policy: I’m the Director of Australia’s only university-affiliated gambling treatment clinic, and my research focuses on how we can prevent and reduce gambling harm—especially as gambling becomes increasingly digital.

People often assume gambling research is only about “problem gambling.” For me, it’s broader than that. I’m interested in the psychology of risk, reward, decision-making, and behaviour change—and how those psychological processes interact with modern products and platforms. When gambling moved online, the environment changed: access became 24/7, transactions became frictionless, and products became more personalised. That shift raises hard questions: Who becomes vulnerable? What features increase risk? How can we design safer systems?

Where it started: training as both a clinician and a scientist

I trained in psychology with a strong emphasis on both research and clinical practice. I hold a PhD in Psychology and a Doctorate of Clinical Psychology, and I’ve now spent more than 20 years working in this field.

My clinical training matters to how I think. I’ve sat with people who are trying to rebuild their lives after gambling harms—people facing anxiety, depression, relationship breakdown, financial stress, and the kind of shame that can make it hard even to ask for help. That’s why my research is never just theoretical. I’m always thinking: Will this insight help someone earlier? Will it reduce harm? Will it make treatment more effective or more accessible?

Building a bridge between research and treatment

A defining part of my career has been working within a model where research is integrated with real-world treatment. Our gambling research at the Brain and Mind Centre is closely linked with the Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic, which (as the university explains) provides help to more than 1,000 people each year. That matters because it creates a rare feedback loop: clinical experiences shape research questions, and research findings can be tested back in clinical and community settings.

From my perspective, this integration is one of the most powerful ways to do applied science responsibly. It helps ensure that the research agenda isn’t driven only by what’s easy to measure, but also by what actually changes outcomes for people.

My research focus: the psychology of online gambling and technology-enabled harm

When I talk about gambling today, I often end up talking about technology. I’ve spent years studying online gambling because it’s a fundamentally different environment: you don’t need to travel to a venue, you can gamble at any hour, and the product itself can shape behaviour through design choices (timing, notifications, in-play features, payment flow, personalised offers, and more).

One of my highly cited works summarises what we know about Internet gambling and disordered gambling, including how online features may influence risk and how individual factors shape outcomes.

A related interest of mine is the value of behavioural data—not just surveys. Self-report is useful, but online systems also create “digital traces” that can help us understand patterns of risk in ways people cannot easily recall or may not want to disclose. My paper on player account-based gambling makes the case for using account data to improve research and responsible gambling strategies.

Turning insight into harm minimisation tools

I’m particularly motivated by questions like:

• How do we help people set limits before gambling escalates?
• What kinds of messages actually change behaviour (and which ones backfire)?
• How can we reduce harm without relying purely on willpower?

When technology changes the gambling environment, I want the response to be technological too—better tools, smarter safeguards, earlier identification of risk, and support that respects people’s autonomy but doesn’t pretend everyone has equal capacity to self-regulate in every moment.

What the pandemic taught us about availability, distress, and risk

COVID created a real-world “natural experiment”: land-based venues closed, sports schedules changed, and access patterns shifted. I worked on research examining how shutdowns affected gambling patterns and how these changes related to psychological distress and problem gambling risk.

What I took from that period is not a simplistic story like “less availability equals less harm” (though availability clearly matters). It’s that vulnerability is dynamic: distress, financial stress, isolation, and product substitution can all alter risk. Public health approaches need to be flexible enough to respond to these interacting pressures—not just the product, but the context people are living in.

A broader lens: gambling, gaming, and emerging technologies

My work often extends into adjacent areas where the same behavioural science issues show up—such as gaming-like mechanics, digital payments, and new consumer technologies. That’s one reason I’m frequently involved in broader discussions about how regulation keeps pace with innovation, and why harm minimisation needs to be proactive rather than reactive.

Communicating science beyond academia

I care a lot about communication—because research only reduces harm if it’s understood and used. In 2019, I was recognised with the NSW Young Tall Poppy of the Year award, which (as the university reported) acknowledges both scientific achievement and public engagement.

In that same piece, I spoke about the core question that still drives my work: when technology changes gambling risk, how do we use technology to improve protection?

More recently, I was awarded a 2024 Churchill Fellowship, reflecting ongoing interest in my work and its relevance to policy and practice.How I define “impact”

For me, impact is not only citations (though I do have a substantial citation footprint). Impact is:

• evidence used in policy decisions,
• tools adopted by operators or regulators,
• clinicians having better screening and intervention options,
• and—most importantly—people getting help earlier and more effectively.

If you want a single snapshot of my research output, my Google Scholar profile provides a live list of publications and citation metrics.

How I define “impact”

For me, impact is not only citations (though I do have a substantial citation footprint). Impact is:

• evidence used in policy decisions,
• tools adopted by operators or regulators,
• clinicians having better screening and intervention options,
• and—most importantly—people getting help earlier and more effectively.

If you want a single snapshot of my research output, my Google Scholar profile provides a live list of publications and citation metrics.

In summary, my work in gambling research has been driven by one core principle: reducing harm by understanding how people actually interact with gambling in real-world, technology-rich environments. By combining clinical practice, academic research, and collaboration with policymakers and industry stakeholders, I have aimed to move the conversation beyond individual responsibility toward a public-health perspective that recognises structural and environmental risks. As gambling continues to evolve through digital platforms and new technologies, evidence-based prevention, early intervention, and safer system design remain essential. My ongoing goal is to ensure that research translates into practical tools, informed policy, and accessible support that helps people gamble more safely—or seek help sooner when harm emerges.