Abstract
Loot boxes are gambling-like products found in video games that players can buy with real-world money to obtain random rewards. A positive correlation between loot box spending and problem gambling severity has been well-replicated. Some researchers recently argued that this observed positive correlation may be due to participants incorrectly interpreting problem gambling questions as applying to their loot box expenditure because they see loot box purchasing as a form of ‘gambling.’ We experimentally tested this alternative explanation for the observed positive correlation (N = 2027) by manipulating whether all participants were given the problem gambling scale, as the previous literature generally had done (the ‘non-screening’ approach; n = 1005), or by ‘screening’ participants (n = 1022) by only giving the problem gambling scale to those reporting recent gambling expenditure. Through the latter screening process, we clarified and calibrated what ‘gambling’ means by providing an exhaustive list of activities that should be accounted for and specifically instructed participants that loot box purchasing is not to be considered a form of ‘gambling.’ Results showed positive correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling across both experimental conditions. In addition, a predicted positive correlation emerged between binary past-year gambling participation and loot box expenditure in the screening group. These experimental results confirm that the association between loot box spending and problem gambling severity is likely not due to participants misinterpreting problem gambling questions as being relevant to their loot box spending. However, problem gambling severity was inflated in the non-screening group, meaning that future research on gambling-like products should include gambling participation screening questions; better define what ‘gambling’ means; potentially exclude non-gamblers from analysis; and, importantly, provide explicit instructions on whether certain activities should not be considered a form of ‘gambling.’
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 108019 |
| Journal | Computers in Human Behavior |
| Volume | 151 |
| Early online date | 8 Nov 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 8 Nov 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The data collection funding obtained by R.J.E.J. is supported by the internal pump priming fund from the School of Psychology, University of Nottingham . L.Y.X. is supported by a PhD Fellowship funded by the IT University of Copenhagen (IT-Universitetet i København), which is publicly funded by the Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark).
Funding Information:
The data collection funding obtained by R.J.E.J. is supported by the internal pump priming fund from the School of Psychology, University of Nottingham. L.Y.X. is supported by a PhD Fellowship funded by the IT University of Copenhagen (IT-Universitetet i København), which is publicly funded by the Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark).P·W·S.N. is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling – an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain, and in 2020 was a special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee Enquiry on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. In the last 3 years P·W·S.N. has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, NSW Responsible Gambling Fund, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. P.W.S.N. has received open access fee grant income from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario.R.J.E.J. currently holds research project funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, whose funding comes from gambling regulatory settlements, and Gambling Research Exchange Ontario. R.J.E.J. has also received conferences expenses from the Swiss Government to attend and present research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
Structured keywords
- Gambling Harms