Loot box engagement: A scoping review of primary studies on prevalence and association with problematic gaming and gambling

Montiel, Irene; Basterra-González, Aránzazu; Machimbarrena, Juan Manuel; Ortega-Barón, Jéssica; González-Cabrera, Joaquín

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263177

Cited by 26 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, there was no correlation between purchasing loot boxes in the last 4 weeks and age, indicating that younger adolescents may be no less likely to engage in this activity. Previous studies have found higher annual prevalence of loot box purchasing amongst adult gamers compared to adolescent gamers, but the reverse finding in general population studies ( Montiel et al, 2022 ). Our results suggest that adolescents aged 12–17 years may be similar in their level of loot box engagement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Of key concern is the link between loot box purchasing and problem gambling. All 16 studies reviewed in a recent scoping study corroborated this relationship ( Montiel, Basterra-González, Machimbarrena, Ortega-Barón, & González-Cabrera, 2022 ). Two meta-analyses of 13 studies ( Spicer et al, 2021 ) and 15 studies ( Garea, Drummond, Sauer, Hall, & Williams, 2021 ) found significant small-to-moderate, but clinically relevant, positive correlations of 0.27 and 0.26, respectively, between loot box spending and problem gambling symptomatology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Loot box purchasing is linked to problem gambling in adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling participation

Hing

Rockloff

Russell

et al. 2022

JBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Purchasing loot boxes in digital games is akin to gambling as it involves risking money for a chance-based reward of uncertain value. Research has linked buying loot boxes to problem gambling amongst adolescents, but has not examined co-occurring gambling participation. This study examined links between loot box purchasing and problem gambling amongst adolescents while controlling for monetary gambling participation. Methods Two survey samples of Australians aged 12–17 years were recruited through advertisements (n = 843) and online panels (n = 826). They included n = 421 and n = 128 adolescents, respectively, who met criteria for problem gambling. Results Past-month loot box purchasing was significantly related to gambling problems in bivariate analyses. When including age, gender and past-month monetary gambling, loot box purchases were still associated with at-risk and problem gambling in both samples. As expected, these other predictors attenuated the predictive value of recent loot box purchases in relation to gambling problems. The odds-ratios, nevertheless, were still in the predicted direction and remained significant. When controlling for monetary gambling, age and gender, recent loot box purchasing increased the odds of problem gambling 3.7 to 6.0 times, and at-risk gambling 2.8 to 4.3 times. Discussion and conclusions While causal relationships between loot box purchasing and problem gambling remain unclear, the results indicate that loot boxes disproportionately attract adolescents experiencing gambling problems, adding to the financial stress already caused by gambling. Consumer protection measures, youth and parental education, and age restrictions on loot box games are needed to protect young people.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Loot box purchasing is linked to problem gambling in adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling participation

Hing

Rockloff

Russell

et al. 2022

JBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, loot box expenditure has been found to be positively correlated with self-reported problem gambling severity in many cross-sectional studies across various Western countries, including the USA [37], Spain [38], Denmark [39] and Australia [40], amongst both adult and adolescent player samples [41]. Reviews and meta-analyses of these studies have been conducted elsewhere [42••]; [43][44][45]. However, the causal direction (if any) of this positive correlation is not known [46], and there is debate as to how the current evidence base should be interpreted.…”

Section: Differing Interpretations Of the Loot Box 'Harm' Evidence Ba...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Loot boxes are gambling-like monetisation mechanics in video games that are purchased for opportunities to obtain randomised in-game rewards. Gambling regulation is increasingly being informed by insights from public health. Despite conceptual similarities between loot boxes and gambling, there is much less international consensus on loot box regulation. Various approaches to regulating loot boxes are reviewed via a public health framework that highlights various trade-offs between individual liberties and harm prevention. Recent Findings Many countries have considered regulation, but as yet only a few countries have taken tangible actions. Existing regulatory approaches vary greatly. More restrictively, Belgium has effectively ‘banned’ paid loot boxes and prohibits their sale to both children and adults. In contrast, more liberally, China only requires disclosure of the probabilities of obtaining potential rewards to provide transparency and perhaps help players to make more informed purchasing decisions. Most other countries (e.g., the UK) have adopted a ‘wait-and-watch’ approach by neither regulating loot box sales nor providing any dedicated consumer protection response. Industry self-regulation has also been adopted, although this appears to elicit lower rates of compliance than comparable national legal regulation. Summary Many potential public health approaches to loot box regulation, such as expenditure limits or harm-reducing modifications to loot box design (e.g., fairer reward structures), deserve further attention. The compliance and clinical benefits of existing interventions (including varying degrees of regulation, as adopted by different countries, and industry self-regulation) should be further assessed. The current international variation in loot box regulation presents opportunities to compare the merits of different approaches over time.

show abstract

“…In many Western countries, loot box expenditure has been repeatedly found to be positively correlated with problem gambling severity (Garea et al 2021;Spicer et al 2021;Yokomitsu et al 2021;Montiel et al 2022). This relationship has been relied upon by policymakers to evince the potential harms of loot boxes(Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons (UK) 2019, paras82-86; Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry of the House of Lords (UK) 2020, paras432-436).…”

Section: The Oft-cited Positive Correlation: Has Loot Box 'Harm' Trul...mentioning

confidence: 99%

[Abandoned] Loot boxes are good (or at least not that bad)...? Arguing against a ban

Xiao¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loot boxes are gambling-like products in videogame offering randomised rewards. Previous research has highlighted their potential harms. This essay emphasises instead the economic ‘benefits’ that loot boxes provide to players: specifically, that the monetisation model enhances the financial accessibility of videogames by making them cheaper (and, often, free) for a majority of players. Previous research has not reliably detected the prevalence of ‘loot box harms’ by identifying a positive correlation between self-reported loot box purchasing and problem gambling severity. Many players do not buy loot boxes, and loot box spending even by supposedly vulnerable players classified as problem gamblers is relatively low (US$40 per month). The vast majority of players likely engage with loot boxes without experiencing any harm. Finally, what are the players’ opinions on loot boxes? Emerging player research suggests that the majority would likely appreciate how they benefit from the loot box monetisation model and prefer a non-restrictive regulatory approach. Broader population-based interventions targeting the design of loot boxes, rather than forcibly removing the mechanic entirely, will better balance the potentially competing interests of different groups of players (access to cheaper forms of entertainment vis-a-vis the need for consumer protection) and the commercial interests of videogame companies.

show abstract

Loot box engagement: A scoping review of primary studies on prevalence and association with problematic gaming and gambling

Cited by 26 publications

References 53 publications

Loot box purchasing is linked to problem gambling in adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling participation

Loot box purchasing is linked to problem gambling in adolescents when controlling for monetary gambling participation

Regulating Gambling-Like Video Game Loot Boxes: a Public Health Framework Comparing Industry Self-Regulation, Existing National Legal Approaches, and Other Potential Approaches

[Abandoned] Loot boxes are good (or at least not that bad)...? Arguing against a ban

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About