Microtransaction spending and problematic gambling of UK university call of duty gamers

Abstract

Increased implementation of loot boxes within computer games has received widespread concern for the wellbeing of gamers, especially given the increased engagement during COVID-19 restrictions. Loot boxes share similarities with traditional gambling mechanisms that influence addiction-like behaviours and the amount of money spent on in-game items. The present study investigated loot box expenditure alongside peer engagement, perceptions of gaming value, self-worth, and problematic gambling behaviours of 130 Call of Duty players.Results identified significantly higher Risky Loot Box Index and visual authority scores for high-risk and medium-risk problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers. High-risk problem gamblers were also found to have higher purchase intention and validation seeking scores than non-problem gamblers. However, problem gambling risk and all but three self-worth and perceived value subscale behaviours were not associated with loot box expenditure, contrasting previous findings. Concerning peer influence, non-problem gamblers were significantly less likely to play any Call of Duty game with friends whilst having all or most friends purchase loot boxes were also found to be associated with higher RLBI scores. The findings continue to support the associations between loot box engagement and problematic gambling and suggests the need to continue to explore individual in-game motivations for engaging with microtransactions.

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses

“…The most frequently used standard has been typical or previous monthly spend. Alternatively, the RLI, a tool which measures risky or problematic engagement with loot boxes, has also been used in several studies [ 29 , 37 , 44 , 45 ]. While expenditure is a self-report measure of financial costs, the RLI is a conceptualization of ‘over-involvement’, capturing how people feel about their engagement—i.e.…”

“…Our primary outcome variable was not loot box expenditure, but instead the 'risky loot box index' (RLI). This has been used in several previous studies, shown to have significant relationships with both loot box purchasing and problematic gambling, and may represent a more direct measure of 'risky' or problematic engagement with loot boxes [29,37,[44][45][46].…”

“…The most frequently used standard has been typical or previous monthly spend. Alternatively, the RLI, a tool which measures risky or problematic engagement with loot boxes, has also been used in several studies [29,37,44,45]. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsos R. Soc.…”

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

“…These effects were found both with self-reported loot box spend and a validated measure of risky loot box engagement—the RLI [ 14 ]. This validated measure captures how gamers feel about their engagement, for example by asking them to rate their agreement with statements including ‘once I open a loot box, I often feel compelled to open another’—and has been used in several previous studies [ 14 , 16 , 20 , 21 ]. This measure therefore contrasts with self-reported loot box spend, in that it may be a more direct measure of risky behaviour.…”