Impulsivity and loot box engagement

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 2: exploratory analyses of complex relationships

“…Such a pathway would be consistent with previously well-established links between impulsivity and disordered gaming [ 51 ], and it is therefore possible that bivariate links between impulsivity and loot box engagement are an artefact of impulsivity's strong relationship with problem video gaming. However, a recent publication (after our own data collection window) highlighted the potential limitation in measuring impulsivity as a unidimensional construct [ 13 ]. This study found evidence of a relationship between loot box purchasing, and both positive urgency and sensation seeking, but no relationship with negative urgency and lack of premeditation—measures that are known to be linked with problem gambling score.…”

“…Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses has established robust associations between loot box engagement, and measures of both problem gambling and problem video gaming [4][5][6][7][8]. Similarly, associations have also been investigated between loot box engagement and a range of psychological variables, including impulsivity (where results are equivocal [9][10][11][12][13]), gambling cognitions (evidence is limited [14]), and psychological distress and wellbeing (results again equivocal [15][16][17]). Other variables, such as game-related experiences of 'flow' remain unstudied in the context of loot boxes, but have been linked with problematic video gaming [18].…”

Beyond gambling: the dangers of analogistic reasoning in addiction science, and how loot box psychology should create its own unique theory

“…In this think piece article I argued that while gambling research has some time ago achieved this separation from substance-based addictions, that this time must now come for loot boxes to become distinct from gambling. While loot box expenditure correlates robustly with disordered gambling 12 severity (Garea et al, 2021;Xiao et al, 2023), it does not correlate strongly with impulsivity (Garrett et al, 2023;Spicer et al, 2022;Wardle & Zendle, 2021;Xiao et al, 2023;Xiao, Fraser, & Newall, 2022;Zendle et al, 2019), a key driver of disordered gambling symptomology (Alessi & Petry, 2003;Blaszczynski et al, 1997;Ioannidis et al, 2019).…”

“…However, research has so far failed to conceptually replicate the strong association between gambling-related harm and impulsivity. Studies have found either weak positive correlations (Garrett et al, 2023;Wardle & Zendle, 2021;Xiao, Fraser, & Newall, 2022), no association (Spicer et al, 2022;Zendle et al, 2019), or even a weak negative correlation (Xiao et al, 2023) between impulsivity and loot box expenditure. While further research may overturn this conclusion, as more findings accumulate and are subjected to meta-analyses, there does not at the moment appear to much evidence to support a strong association between loot box expenditure and impulsivity.…”

Loot boxes, gambling-related risk factors, and mental health in Mainland China: A large-scale survey

“…The traditional gambling literature has identified many risk factors for developing problem gambling, which should be less sensitive to differences in commercial gambling availability, including sensation seeking [37] and, in particular, impulsivity [38] . Previous loot box studies have also identified impulsivity [22,39,cf 40] , sensation seeking [39] , and problem videogaming [15] as potential risk factors for potentially problematic loot box purchasing, although findings have been mixed. The traditional gambling literature has also recently innovated with measures of gambling-related harm that are distinct from, and yet partially overlap with, problem gambling constructs [41,42] .…”