Loot boxes (LBs) are video game-related purchases with a chance-based outcome. Due to similarities with gambling, they have come under increasing scrutiny from media, academics and policymakers alike. Initial evidence suggested that LB engagement might be associated with both problem gambling (PG) and problem video gaming (PVG). We therefore conducted a systematic review of the evidence for associations between LB purchasing, PG and PVG. For LB/PG, 12 of 13 publications reported a positive relationship, with a moderately sized mean effect of r = .27. For LB/PVG, the mean effect was r = .40, although this finding was drawn from only six surveys in total. For PG/PVG, the mean effect was r = .21, with only 11 of 20 studies reporting significant effects. While further evidence is required to determine the direction of causality, the strength of relationships suggests that policy action on LBs may have benefits for harm minimisation.
Introduction Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers. Methods We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations. Results The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5 % of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = .34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = .02, p = .10. Conclusion Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes.
Background and Aims: Loot boxes are purchasable randomised rewards in video games that share structural and psychological similarities with gambling. Systematic review evidence has established reproducible associations between loot box purchasing and both problem gambling and problem video gaming. We aimed to measure the association between loot box engagement and socioeconomic correlates. Design:The study was a cross-sectional online survey using the recruitment platform, Prolific.
Excessive engagement with (increasingly prevalent) loot boxes within games has consistently been linked with disordered gambling and/or gaming. The importance of recognising and managing potential risks associated with loot box involvement means understanding contributing factors is a pressing research priority. Given that motivations for gaming and gambling have been informative in understanding risky engagement with those behaviours, this qualitative study investigated motivations for buying loot boxes, through in-depth interviews with 28 gamers from across the UK. A reflexive thematic analysis categorised reasons for buying into seven “themes”; opening experience; value of box contents; game-related elements; social influences; emotive/impulsive influences; fear of missing out; triggers/facilitators. These themes are described in detail and discussed in relation to the existing literature and motivation theories. This study contributes to understanding ways in which digital items within loot boxes can be highly valued by purchasers, informing the debate around parallels with gambling. Findings that certain motivations were disproportionately endorsed by participants with symptoms of problematic gambling has potential implications for policy and warrants further study.
In the UK, the first ‘lockdown’ of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift to online learning and digital technologies in Higher Education (HE). While the situation was unprecedented, extant literature on online learning suggested there would be challenges, opportunities, and benefits to this transition, and we sought to understand these via a case study of one UK HEI department at this time. To draw out in-depth and nuanced accounts of this (at time of investigation–unstudied) scenario, qualitative data were collected via semi-structured online interview or written reflection. To explore, identify and understand the experiences from both sides, and with a diverse sample, we purposively recruited both staff (n = 10) and students (n = 12), from various roles and backgrounds, including those with additional learning and/or mental health needs. The ‘bricolage’ data were analysed inductively, utilising a latent reflexive approach, and organised into a framework around five core themes: ‘methods and means of engagement’; ‘learning maintenance, destruction and construction’; ‘remote education and resource accessibility and literacy’; ‘support and communication’; and ‘life and learning: responses, adaptations and impacts’. Within these, a range of challenges, successes and, most importantly, future learning and innovation outcomes were identified by staff and students, particularly relevant to working with and supporting students with additional needs in the online learning forum. These discoveries informed a set of practical recommendations, provided here in Box 1, for (rapid implementation of) online learning (in times of stress).
For over two decades, there has been a progressive emergence of Shakespeare-focussed, performance-based programmes intended for use as criminal rehabilitation in the USA. Prison based criminal retribution, though historically prevalent, remains controversial. Although it is still used as a common method for rehabilitation, evidence demonstrates that alternative sentences have a consistently more positive impact on reducing rates of recidivism. Some criminal justice organisations and institutions in the United States of America have invested in enabling Shakespeare courses to become supplements or, in some juvenile cases, alternatives to incarceration. In particular, some state judiciary courts have introduced a series of Shakespeare courses to serve as alternative sentences for juvenile crime. The Shakespeare focussed alternative programme considered in this research is celebrating its seventeenth anniversary in 2017. This article considers the specific programme practices and reported outcomes of one now well established, yet widely underreported, Shakespeare-based alternative programme for juveniles in the USA, exploring the juvenile perspectives of the outcomes of activities that are designed for them by adults working in performing arts and/or juvenile criminal services. Key outcomes from participants related specifically to programme content, the selection and use of Shakespeare, skills acquisition and personal development culminating in overall behavioural change.
Qualitative studies have identified a diverse array of motivations for purchasing items within video games through chance-based mechanisms (i.e., “loot boxes”). Given that some individuals—particularly those at risk of disordered gaming and/or gambling—are prone to over-involvement with loot box purchasing, it is important to have a reliable, valid means of measuring the role of different motivations in driving purchasing behaviour. Building on prior qualitative research, this paper reports the development and validation of the “RAFFLE” scale, to measure the Reasons and Facilitators for Loot box Engagement. A 23-item, seven-factor scale was developed through cognitive interviews (n = 25) followed by two surveys of UK-based gamers who purchase loot boxes; analysed via exploratory (n = 503) and confirmatory (n = 1495) factor analysis, respectively. Subscales encompassed “enhancement’; “progression’; “social pressure’; “distraction/compulsion’; “altruism’; “fear of missing out’; and “resale”. The scale showed good criterion and construct validity (correlating well with measures of loot box engagement; the risky loot box index (r = 0.63) and monthly self-reported spend (r = 0.38)), and good internal validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84). Parallels with, and divergence from, motivations for related activities of gaming and gambling, and alignment with broader theoretical models of motivation, are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.