- Email: [email protected]
Loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent gamers: Findings from a national survey
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Addictive Behaviors journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addictbeh
Loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent gamers: Findings from a national survey
T
⁎
Søren Kristiansena, , Majbritt Christine Severinb a b
Department of Sociology & Social Work, Aalborg University, Denmark Department of Political Science, Aalborg University, Denmark
H I GH L IG H T S
than half of the young gamers have engaged with loot boxes during the last 12 months. • More box users are predominantly male. • Loot • Loot box engagement is linked to problem gambling.
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Loot box Loot box engagement patterns Adolescents Gambling Problem gambling
Loot boxes represent a form of microtransaction in many video games that have some resemblance with gambling. Research on this subject is still in its infancy, and particular there are few studies involving young people. Using cross-sectional survey data from a representative sample of 1,137 participants aged 12–16 years, this study examined loot box engagement patterns and links with problem gambling severity. Nearly half (45.6%) of the participants that were involved in gaming in the past year engaged in loot box activities at some level, and loot box users were predominantly male. The vast majority of the males (93%) had earned, bought, or sold items from a loot box whereas 15% of the females reported engagement with loot boxes. There was a significant positive correlation between loot box engagement and problem gambling severity when controlling for core demo-graphic factors. Compared to participants with no engagement or participants who solely obtained a loot box, the proportions of at-risk and problem gamblers were higher among those, who had purchased or sold items from a loot box. The findings provide new insights into the links between loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent populations. Specifically, the study provides new knowledge on different engagement patterns among loot box users and their implications. On this basis, different measures to reduce loot box purchases and reduce marketplace structures are discussed.
1. Introduction During recent years, technological innovations and increased access to internet mediated gambling and gaming have blurred the lines between monetary gambling and gaming activities (Derevensky & Gainsbury, 2016; Gainsbury, 2019: Griffiths, 2018; King, Gainsbury, Delfabbro, Hing, & Abarbanel, 2015; Teichert, Gainsbury, & Muhlbach, 2017). One particular aspect of this development is the integration of in-game purchases and gambling-like elements in video gaming (Gainsbury, King, Russell, & Delfabbro, 2016). In-game purchases can be defined as fees paid to obtain virtual goods within a specific game, typically for small amounts of money often described as ‘microtransactions’ (Kim, Hollingshead, & Wohl, 2017). Such
⁎
microtransactions constitute a significant stream of revenue for the global video game industry (Li, Mills, & Nower, 2019). One specific type of microtransaction is termed ‘loot boxes’. Loot boxes can be defined as ‘virtual items in video games that can contain randomized contents but can be paid for with real-world money’ (Zendle & Cairns, 2018:1) or simply as ‘randomized rewards with potential real-world value’ (McCaffrey, 2019:483). When purchasing a loot box, the player makes a payment and a chance-based mechanism generates a selection of an object to the buyer (von Meduna, Steinmetz, Ante, Reynolds, & Fielder, 2019). The reward scheme underlying loot boxes seem to bear some resemblance to variable ratio reinforcement schedules that are found in gambling activities. This may foster cognitive distortions (King,
Corresponding author at: Department of Sociology & Social Work, Kroghstraede 7, 9220 Aalborg Oest, Denmark E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Kristiansen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106254 Received 14 August 2019; Received in revised form 6 December 2019; Accepted 7 December 2019 Available online 20 December 2019 0306-4603/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
adolescents aged 16–18, Zendle, Meyer, and Over (2019) found a significant association between loot box purchasing and problem gambling. Compared to participants who did not spend money on loot boxes in the previous month, participants who had done so, scored two times higher on the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (CAGI). Clearly, more research from various jurisdictions is needed to replicate the emerging findings in the field and to understand loot box engagement among young people. In particular, research based on representative samples is necessary in order to build a robust and generalizable knowledge base. Knowledge of young loot box users and the associations between loot boxes and problem gambling among young people constitute an important basis for identifying potential at-risk groups and therefore for developing policies and interventions that can prevent and mitigate risks related to loot box engagement in youth populations. Loot boxes constitute an under-researched area within the gambling-gaming nexus, and recently an editorial called for research to understand the financial nature of this phenomenon and the relationship to problematic gaming (King & Delfabbro, 2018). Against this backdrop, the current study aimed at (1) exploring loot box engagement patterns among young gamers, and (2) examining whether different levels and forms of engagement in loot boxing is associated with problem gambling. The study contributes to the current literature in three regards: Firs, it is only the second study to focus on youth. Second, it is based on a relatively large sample and third is uses data from a nationally representative survey.
Delfabbro, & Griffiths, 2010) and stimulate persistent behaviors driven by the hope of receiving a reward (Drummond & Sauer, 2018). Therefore loot boxes have been characterized as ‘gamblification of gaming’ (Brooks & Clark, 2019:26), and as ‘predatory monetization schemes’ that disguise long-term costs and ‘entraps’ the player in a belief that repeated spending of money is justified as it increases the likelihood of obtaining valuable items (King & Delfabbro, 2018:1967). Clearly, such schemes may pose a risk to young people, who may not fully understand the underlying mechanisms and reward systems. On this basis, there is a need for further understanding the links between loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent populations. Specifically, it is important to build new knowledge on the loot box users as well as the specific ways players engage with loot boxes. 2. Review of literature Research on loot boxes is still in its infancy, and the majority of studies have used online surveys among adult or young adult video gamers recruited via posts on online bulletin boards, Internet-based research panels or alternatively undergraduates recruited from universities. A large proportion of these studies have examined associations between loot boxes and problem gambling (see Abarbanel, 2018; Brooks & Clark, 2019; Macey and Hamari, 2018, 2019, Li et al., 2019; Zendle & Cairns 2018; 2019). Taken together, this research has established that loot box purchasing is associated with increased scores on gambling severity scales, and that expenditure on loot boxes is positively correlated with problem gambling severity. Furthermore, it is a general observation, that the majority of loot box purchasers are male. Thus, among a sample of 1508 Pay2win users [users of games with options to make in-game purchases to obtain benefits in the game], Meduna et al. (2019) found that 38.9% purchased loot boxes, and close to half of this sample (45.9%) met the criteria for problem gambling according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Additionally, more than half of the loot box users were male (55.3%). Although existing studies have used cross-sectional designs, and therefore have some limitations in terms of establishing causality between loot purchasing and problematic gambling, the current knowledge seem to suggest that loot box engagement catalyze monetary gambling and gambling problems among video gamers. Some studies have examined the characteristics of those game users who spend money on loot boxes. In a recent study based on a sample of 577 adult video game users, Anthony and Nower (2019) investigated the characteristics of video game users who purchase loot boxes and the links of loot box purchase to Internet gambling, problem video gaming, and problem gambling. They found that the participants, who bought loot boxes, reported significantly higher levels of video problem gambling and gambling severity compared to those who never bought loot boxes. In video games, players can earn loot boxes as a reward for completing tasks in the game, they can purchase loot boxes directly, or they can purchase keys to open loot boxes. While loot boxes vary across different games, they typically contain items with in-game value that enhance game experience by increasing progression in the game, provides a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other players. or by adding cosmetic features to the player’s character. In some games, items from loot boxes can be sold for real money via the platform that distributes the game or via third-party websites (Drummond & Sauer, 2018). Currently, there are some indications, that among adult video gamers, the majority have obtained and opened a loot box, close to half have bought a loot box and between a quarter and fourty percent have sold a loot box or loot box items (Brooks & Clark, 2019). To date, however there is no evidence of how such different modes of loot box engagement relates to gambling problems among adults or adolescents. The vast majority of research on the role of loot boxes in problematic gambling and gaming behaviors have used adult samples. To date, one empirical study using an adolescent sample recruited via an online bulletin board has been published. Among a sample of 1115
3. Methods 3.1. Data and participants This study used data from a survey among a representative gross sample of 5000 Danish adolescents (12–16 yrs.) drawn randomly from the Danish Civil Registration System. As the survey instrument, data collection methods, and the representativeness of data have been described in detail elsewhere (see Kristiansen & Severin, 2019), only the main features will be outlined here. The survey was conducted through self-administration of a web survey sent, mainly digitally, to a selected parent of the participant, and the final sample had a total of 1137 completed questionnaires. This corresponds to a response rate close to 23%. Despite the relatively high nonresponse rate, the net sample deviated only marginally from population figures on the core demographic variables gender and age. The questionnaire included sections on monetary gambling involvement, simulated gambling involvement, self-evaluated exposure from gambling advertisements, and a subsection on gambling related gaming including loot boxes. In the survey instrument, participants were introduced to the following definition of a loot box: ‘In many games for PC or video game consoles (e.g. CS:GO, Fortnite, Overwatch, FIFA 17 Ultimate Team), you can purchase or obtain a loot box. Loot boxes are treasure chests or card packs, and when you open them, you earn a reward for use in the game. For example, the reward may be new weapons, skins, or cards, and sometimes you can be lucky enough to win rare items’. Consistent with current studies on loot box engagement (see e.g. Brooks & Clark, 2019; Li, Mills & Nower 2018), this study focused on adolescents who played on a PC or video game console in a 12-month period prior to the survey (n = 995, 88.5% of net sample), here referred to as ‘gamers’. As displayed in Table 1, this subsample included a small majority of males. Additionally, the subsample consists of more adolescents in the youngest age group (12–13 yrs.) which may be a result of a marginally lower average age in the net sample compared with population figures (mean difference, 95% CI: −0.22 to −0.06 yrs., p < 0.001).
2
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
Table 1 Gender and age distribution in sample and target population.
Gender Female Male Total Age 12–13 14–15 16+ Total
Table 2 Forms of loot box engagement among adolescent gamers.
Sample
Population
Z test for difference
Engaged in one or more loot box activities
% of gamers(valid n = 939)
n
50.6% (5 7 5) 49.5% (5 6 2) 100% (1137)
48.8% (164,850) 51.2% (172,673) 100% (337,523)
p = 0.232
Forms of engagement
% of engaged (valid n = 428)
n
Involvement patterns across different forms of engagement
% of engaged (valid n = 407)
n
Not engaged in any form Engaged in one or more activities Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Obtained loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Bought loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Sold items from loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Obtained and bought loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Obtained and sold items from loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Bought and sold items from loot box Engaged in all 3 activities
54.4% 45.6% 93.2% 44.4% 23.8% 48.2% 2.0% 2.7% 25.3%
511 428 399 190 102 196 8 11 103
4.2%
17
1.0%
4
16.7%
68
43.7% (4 9 2) 41.0% (4 6 2) 15.4% (1 7 3) 100% (1127)
40.2% (135,628) 39.9% (134,610) 19.9% (67,285) 100% (337,523)
p = 0.012 p = 0.447 p < 0.001
Source: Population figures were retrieved from Statistics Denmark, FOLK1A, 4th quarter 2018. Note: A few respondents who were 16 years at the sampling time turned 17 during the data collection period.
3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Loot box engagement In alignment with recent research (Brooks & Clark, 2019; Nielsen & Grabarczyk, 2018), this study distinguished between different forms of loot box engagement and accordingly, the survey instrument included three items measuring loot box engagement. All items were dichotomous, and participants were asked to indicate whether or not they engaged in the following activities within a 12-month period prior to the study: (1) obtaining a loot box, (2) purchasing a loot box or a key to unlock a loot box, and (3) selling virtual items that were originally obtained from a loot box. Participants were classified in four groups: (1) no engagement, (2) earned loot box (did not purchase or sell items from loot box), (3) purchased loot box or key to unlock loot box (did not sell items from loot box), and (4) sold items from loot box. The groups are characterized by increasing levels of loot box engagement with (4) meeting definitions of gambling as winnings from exchanges determined by chance is disbursed.
Note: Respondents who did not provide valid answers on all three questions about loot box engagement were recoded to missing when determining the respondents’ involvement patterns across different forms of engagement. n = 939–965.
participants reporting different levels of loot box engagement. To support and validate results, this bivariate analysis was controlled for gender and age, and partial and local gamma values were calculated to test for spurious associations and interaction effects. 4. Results 4.1. Loot box engagement among adolescent gamers
3.2.2. Problem gambling severity The South Oaks Gambling Screen – Revised for Adolescents (SOGSRA) (Winters, Stinchfield, & Fulkerson, 1993a,b) was used to estimate levels of problem gambling. SOGS-RA is a validated and widely used 12-item screening tool assessing the experience of specific behaviors and feelings in relation to monetary gambling in adolescent samples. Based on total scores, participants were classified in three groups: Nonproblem gamblers (score 0–1), at-risk gamblers (score 2–3), and problem gamblers (score 4 or higher).
The data showed that more than half of the gamers (56.1%) did engage with loot boxes at some level. Furthermore, gamers’ engagement in loot box activities varied greatly across different levels of engagement. As displayed in Table 2, 42.5% of the gamers reported experience with obtaining a loot box in the past 12 months, 19.8% indicated experience with purchasing a loot box or a key to unlock a loot box, and merely 10.6% reported experience with selling virtual goods obtained from a loot box. The marked differences indicate that obtaining a loot box is relatively common among adolescent gamers, whereas selling virtual items from loot boxes requires greater engagement and is less common among this particular group.
3.2.3. Demographic profile Demographic variables on gender and age were included to examine different engagement patterns among groups of gamers. In order to check for spurious associations, these variables were also used as control variables in the examination of possible links between loot box engagement and problem gambling.
4.2. Demographic profile of gamers involved in loot boxing When including demographic variables in the analysis, different engagement patterns appeared across groups of gamers. Within gender and age groups, the level of engagement was negatively correlated with the numbers of participants involved. The greater the level of engagement, the fewer participants were involved. However, when comparing engagement across demographic groups, significant gender differences were observed. As displayed in Table 3, male gamers were markedly more engaged in loot boxing than female gamers (p < 0.001). Furthermore, older adolescents were more involved than the youngest age group, but this difference was not, however, statistically significant.
3.3. Data analysis As adolescent loot box engagement is still an emerging research topic, descriptive analyses were used to profile loot box engagement patterns. Data analyses were carried out in three main steps. In the first step, frequency distributions of adolescents’ engagement in different types of loot box activities (obtained, purchased, or sold items from loot box) were calculated. In the following step, bivariate analyses (gamma correlation tests) were conducted to examine whether gender and age groups of gamers were characterized by different engagement patterns. In the third step, a bivariate analysis (gamma correlation test) was conducted to examine differences in problem gambling severity across
4.3. Loot box engagement and problem gambling The vast majority of adolescent gamers belonged to the ‘non-problem gambler’ group irrespective of their loot box engagement. 3
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
Table 3 Demographic characteristics of adolescent gamers involved in different forms of loot box activities. %, n, and χ2. Not engaged in any form
Obtained loot box
Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box
Sold items from loot box
Gender
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
Age
% of age group (n)
% of age group (n)
% of age group
% of age group (n)
Male Female
31.0% (163) 84.3% (348)
64.8% (340) 14.3% (59)
32.9% (175) 3.5% (15)
18.0% (96) 1.4% (6)
χ2 12–13 yrs. 14–15 yrs. 16–17 yrs.
χ2 = 264.7, p < 0.001 52.8% (224) 55.6% (209) 55.2% (74)
χ2 = 241.7, p < 0.001 44.3% (187) 40.7% (154) 42.5% (57)
χ2 = 128.7, p < 0.001 20.5% (88) 17.8% (69) 23.5% (32)
χ2 = 70.1, p < 0.001 7.6% (33) 12.3% (48) 15.3% (21)
χ2
χ2 = 0.665, p = 0.717
χ2 = 1.0, p = 0.594
χ2 = 2.3, p = 0.314
χ2 = 8.5, p = 0.014
n = 939–965. Table 4 Forms of loot box engagement and frequency of gambling participation. %, n, and χ2.
Not engaged in any form Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box
Less than once a month
At least once a month
At least once a week
One or more times a day
Total
96.3% 93.2% 89.3% 84.4%
2.6% 5.0% 7.3% 9.4%
0.4% 1.3% 2.3% 5.2%
0.6% 0.5% 1.1% 1.0%
100% 100% 100% 100%
(475) (357) (158) (81)
(13) (19) (13) (9)
(2) (5) (4) (5)
(3) (2) (2) (1)
χ2
(493) (383) (177) (96)
χ2 χ2 χ2 χ2
= = = =
6.8, p = 0.078 4.2, p = 0.238 13.9, p = 0.003 31.5, p < 0.001
Note: Frequency of gambling participation was recoded to four categories: ‘Less than once a month’, ‘At least once a month’, ‘At least once a week’, and ‘One or more times a day’. n = 904–930. Table 5 Forms of loot box engagement and problem gambling. %, n, and χ2.
Not engaged in any form Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box
Non-problem gambler
At-risk gambler
Problem gambler
Total
98.6% 95.2% 92.6% 87.3%
0.8% 3.0% 3.7% 7.8%
0.6% 1.8% 3.7% 4.9%
100% 100% 100% 100%
(504) (380) (176) (89)
(4) (12) (7) (8)
(3) (7) (7) (5)
χ2 (511) (399) (190) (102)
χ2 χ2 χ2 χ2
= = = =
12.2, p = 0.002 4.7, p = 0.097 17.9, p < 0.001 33.6, p < 0.001
n = 939–965.
box engagement and monetary problem gambling was still significant, and the analysis thus indicated a possible link between the two. Furthermore, our data showed that this link is dependent of the level of engagement. The more engaged in loot box activities and the more these activities resemble gambling, the stronger the link.
However, examination of gambling behaviors revealed differences between groups of gamers with different levels of loot box engagement. As displayed in Table 4, gamers, who did not engage in loot boxing in the past 12 months, had lower SOGS scores compared to respondents, who were involved in loot box activities at some level. In addition to this, the more engaged gamers were, the more they engaged in problem gambling. As displayed in Table 4, the smallest proportion of at-risk and problem gamblers were identified among participants, who only obtained a loot boxes, whereas a relatively large proportion of the participants that engaged in selling items from loot boxes were at-risk or engaged in problem gambling (13%).Table 5 Our data showed that loot box engagement patterns varied markedly across demographic groups of gamers, and for this reason, analyses controlled for demographic factors were conducted to eliminate possible age and gender effects. When controlling for gender and age, the strength of the association did not change markedly. However, some statistically significant interaction effects were found. The association between loot box engagement and problem gambling was markedly stronger for females than males (females: local γ = 0.777, p = 0.043, males: local γ = 0.541, p < 0.01). The reason for this may be that females in general are less engaged in loot box activities than males, thus, it requires more determination. Similarly, interaction effects were identified among age groups. The association was stronger for the two older groups (12–13 yrs.: local γ = 0.294, p = 0.322, 14–15 yrs.: local γ = 0.779, p < 0.01, 16–17 yrs.: local γ = 0.565, p < 0.1). When controlling for core demographic factors, the association between loot
5. Discussion In this study, the call made by King and Delfabbro (2018) to examine empirically the associations between loot boxes and problem gambling was addressed, specifically here, among young people. The current study has provided evidence on the link between loot box engagement and problem gambling as well as generated insights into the use and users of loot boxes. First, it was found that a large proportion of the gamers in our sample (56.1%) engage in loot box activities at some level. This finding corresponds with studies among adult gamers. In their examination of loot box purchasing among adult gamers, Anthony and Nower (2019) found that almost half of the sample (47%) had ever purchased loot boxes in video games. Second, it was found that young loot box users are predominantly male. Close to 70% of the males in the subsample of gamers had earned, bought, or sold items from a loot box whereas 85% of the female gamers in the sample reported no engagement with loot boxes. This gender pattern is echoing studies using adult samples (Meduna et al., 2019) suggesting that loot box engagement is predominantly a male activity. Third, our data showed that among those, 4
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
statistically significant link between loot box engagement and problem gambling, our data do not allow conclusions as to whether loot box engagement promotes problematic gambling or if problematic gambling leads to gambling-like loot box behavior in gaming. Clearly, longitudinal studies are needed to examine such possible causal links. A second limitation concerns data granularity. In this study, participants were asked whether or not they had earned, purchased, or sold loot box items within a 12-month period prior to the study. However, no data were obtained concerning the frequency of this behavior which limits explorations of nuances and temporalities of loot box engagement.
who were engaged with gaming in the past 12 months, more than fourty percent had earned a loot box, twenty percent had purchased a loot box, and ten percent had sold items from a loot box. This same pattern, however with higher percentages, have been identified in studies among adult gamers (Brooks & Clark, 2019). Fourth, there was a significant positive correlation between loot box engagement and problem gambling severity even when controlling for core demographic factors. Compared to participants with no engagement or who had obtained a loot box, the proportions of at-risk and problem gamblers were higher among those who had purchased or sold items from a loot box. Following logically from this, the largest proportions of problem gamblers (4.9%) and at-risk gamblers (7.8%) were found among those participants who had sold items from a loot box. Again, these findings correspond with studies that have demonstrated correlation between loot box engagement and problematic gambling behavior among adult gamers (Li et al., 2019). While studies among adult gamers (e.g. Brooks & Clark, 2019; Zendle & Cairns, 2018) have demonstrated a link between loot box behavior and problem gambling based on expenditure, this study provided evidence of the link based on the level of loot box engagement. Interestingly, a group of participants (10.6%) reported to have sold items from loot boxes. This type of loot box engagement shares traits from gambling, as a monetary reward follows from a stake on a chance-based activity. Clearly, more research is needed to clarify in more detail the links between earning, purchasing, or selling items from loot boxes and other gaming and gambling behaviors. Specifically, it would be of interest to examine, whether games with sellable objects or marketplace structures that enables selling of loot box items, increase loot box engagement and gambling problems among young gamers. The findings presented here have some implications for policy and consumer protection. First, it provides input to the ongoing national debates on the classification of loot boxes on the gaming-gaming continuum. Recently, some jurisdictions have classified some types of loot boxes as gambling activities. Thus, Belgian authorities have declared that loot boxes purchased for real money is considered a form of gambling while in Denmark and the Netherlands only loot boxes that can be cashed out are considered gambling (Zendle & Cairns, 2018; The Danish Gambling Authority (2017), 2017). In the US, bills have been passed in Washington state requiring the state gambling commission to examine loot boxes in order to determine whether they should be considered gambling (Orland, 2018). Clearly, the question of whether loot boxes should be considered gambling holds significant implications in terms of protection of specific consumer groups such as children and young people who are more vulnerable to gambling problems from gaming activities that may involve financial risks. Our data suggest, that purchasing as well as selling items from loot boxes are linked to problematic gambling behavior, and therefore measures should be taken to: (1) reduce loot box purchases, and (2) reduce marketplace structures. Measures to reduce loot box purchases should involve a number of different initiatives such as the introduction of pre-commitment spending limits involving users to specify, before the beginning of the game, the maximum they will be willing to spend (Drummond, Sauer, & Hall, 2019) or loot box self-exclusion options (Brooks & Clark, 2019). A reduction of marketplace structures to reduce selling of loot box items would involve dialogues between industry and national authorities and/or involve legislation that prohibits such features in video games. However, as has recently been pointed out, no single regulatory control (such as limit setting that may have other, unintended consequences) should be chosen on behalf of other potential measures and therefore the production of a comprehensive list of potential countermeasures and consumer advice relating to in-game purchasing should be considered (King & Delfabbro, 2019). This study has several limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, while the cross-sectional design enabled examinations of factors associated with loot box engagement among young people, it did not allow conclusions regarding the causal relationship between loot box engagement and problem gambling. Thus, while establishing a
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding This study was funded by a grant from the Spar Nord Foundation. The Spar Nord Foundation had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. References Abarbanel, B. (2018). Gambling vs. gaming: A commentary on the role of regulatory, industry, and community stakeholders in the loot box debate. Gaming Law Review, 22(4), 231–234. Anthony, W. L. & Nower, L. (2019). Loot box: A nexus of Internet gambling and video gaming. Paper presented at 17th International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Las Vegas, May 29. Danish Gambling Authority (2017). Statement about loot boxes / loot crates. https:// spillemyndigheden.dk/en/news/statement-about-loot-boxes-loot-crates. Retrieved July 4 2019. Brooks, G. A., & Clark, L. (2019). Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gam-bling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 26–34. Derevensky, J., & Gainsbury, S. (2016). Social casino gaming and adolescents: Should we be con-cerned and is regulation in sight? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 44, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.025. Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D., & Hall, L. C. (2019). Loot box limit-setting: A potential policy to protect video game users with gambling problems? Addiction, 114, 935–936. Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 530–532. Gainsbury, S., King, D., Russell, A., & Delfabbro, P. (2016). Who pays to play freemium games? The profiles and motivations of players who make purchases within social casino games. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10. 1556/2006.5.2016.031. Gainsbury, S. (2019). Gaming-gambling convergence: Research, regulation, and reactions. Gaming Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2019.2323. Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Is the buying of loot boxes in video games a form of gambling or gaming? Gaming Law Review, 22(1), 52–54. Kim, H. S., Hollingshead, S., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2017). who spends money to play for free? Identifying who makes micro-transactions on social casino games (and why). Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9626-6. King, D., Gainsbury, S., Delfabbro, P., Hing, N., & Abarbanel, B. (2015). Distinguishing between gaming and gambling activities in addiction research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.045. King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Lott box limit-setting is not sufficient on its own to prevent players from overspending: A reply to Drummond, Sauer & Hall. Addiction, 114, 1324–1325. King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2018). Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction, 113(11), 1967–1969. King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4. Kristiansen, S., & Severin, M. Christine (2019). Exploring groups of simulated gambling behaviour: a typological study among Danish adolescents. International Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2019.1697344 In press. Li, W., Mills, D., & Nower, L. (2019). The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 97(2019), 27–34. Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). eSports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20–41. McCaffrey, M. (2019). The macro problem of microtransactions. The self-regulatory challenges of game loot boxes. Business Horizons, 62(4), 483–495. Nielsen, R. K. L. & Grabarczyk, P. (2018). Are Loot Boxes Gambling? Random reward mechanisms in video games. Proceedings of DiGRA 2018, Torino, Italy. https://pure.
5
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
025. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, K. (1993a). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling problem severity scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 63–84. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, K. (1993b). Patterns and characteristics of adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 371–386. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., & Over, H. (2019). Adolescents and loot boxes: Links with problem gambling and motivations for purchase. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 190049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190049. Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLoS One, 13(11), 1–12. Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2019). Video game loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replications study. PLoS One, 14(3), 3–7.
itu.dk/portal/files/83333144/DIGRA_2018_Are_loot_boxes_gambling_pre_print_21. 05.2018.pdf. Retrieved August 31 2019. Orland, K. (2018). The legislative fight over loot boxes expands to Washington state. Ars Technica, 25 January. Retrieved from: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/01/ the-legislative-fight-over-loot-boxes-expands-to-washington-state/. Accessed 4 July 2019. von Meduna, M., Steinmetz, F., Ante, L., Reynolds, J., & Fielder, I. (2019). Loot Boxes – A Game Changer? Universität Hamburg Gambling Research Division, Work Paper Series, 2, 1–14. Teichert, T., Gainsbury, S., & Muhlbach, C. (2017). Positioning of online gambling and gaming products from a consumer perspective: A blurring of perceived boundaries. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.
6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Addictive Behaviors journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addictbeh
Loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent gamers: Findings from a national survey
T
⁎
Søren Kristiansena, , Majbritt Christine Severinb a b
Department of Sociology & Social Work, Aalborg University, Denmark Department of Political Science, Aalborg University, Denmark
H I GH L IG H T S
than half of the young gamers have engaged with loot boxes during the last 12 months. • More box users are predominantly male. • Loot • Loot box engagement is linked to problem gambling.
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Loot box Loot box engagement patterns Adolescents Gambling Problem gambling
Loot boxes represent a form of microtransaction in many video games that have some resemblance with gambling. Research on this subject is still in its infancy, and particular there are few studies involving young people. Using cross-sectional survey data from a representative sample of 1,137 participants aged 12–16 years, this study examined loot box engagement patterns and links with problem gambling severity. Nearly half (45.6%) of the participants that were involved in gaming in the past year engaged in loot box activities at some level, and loot box users were predominantly male. The vast majority of the males (93%) had earned, bought, or sold items from a loot box whereas 15% of the females reported engagement with loot boxes. There was a significant positive correlation between loot box engagement and problem gambling severity when controlling for core demo-graphic factors. Compared to participants with no engagement or participants who solely obtained a loot box, the proportions of at-risk and problem gamblers were higher among those, who had purchased or sold items from a loot box. The findings provide new insights into the links between loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent populations. Specifically, the study provides new knowledge on different engagement patterns among loot box users and their implications. On this basis, different measures to reduce loot box purchases and reduce marketplace structures are discussed.
1. Introduction During recent years, technological innovations and increased access to internet mediated gambling and gaming have blurred the lines between monetary gambling and gaming activities (Derevensky & Gainsbury, 2016; Gainsbury, 2019: Griffiths, 2018; King, Gainsbury, Delfabbro, Hing, & Abarbanel, 2015; Teichert, Gainsbury, & Muhlbach, 2017). One particular aspect of this development is the integration of in-game purchases and gambling-like elements in video gaming (Gainsbury, King, Russell, & Delfabbro, 2016). In-game purchases can be defined as fees paid to obtain virtual goods within a specific game, typically for small amounts of money often described as ‘microtransactions’ (Kim, Hollingshead, & Wohl, 2017). Such
⁎
microtransactions constitute a significant stream of revenue for the global video game industry (Li, Mills, & Nower, 2019). One specific type of microtransaction is termed ‘loot boxes’. Loot boxes can be defined as ‘virtual items in video games that can contain randomized contents but can be paid for with real-world money’ (Zendle & Cairns, 2018:1) or simply as ‘randomized rewards with potential real-world value’ (McCaffrey, 2019:483). When purchasing a loot box, the player makes a payment and a chance-based mechanism generates a selection of an object to the buyer (von Meduna, Steinmetz, Ante, Reynolds, & Fielder, 2019). The reward scheme underlying loot boxes seem to bear some resemblance to variable ratio reinforcement schedules that are found in gambling activities. This may foster cognitive distortions (King,
Corresponding author at: Department of Sociology & Social Work, Kroghstraede 7, 9220 Aalborg Oest, Denmark E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Kristiansen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106254 Received 14 August 2019; Received in revised form 6 December 2019; Accepted 7 December 2019 Available online 20 December 2019 0306-4603/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
adolescents aged 16–18, Zendle, Meyer, and Over (2019) found a significant association between loot box purchasing and problem gambling. Compared to participants who did not spend money on loot boxes in the previous month, participants who had done so, scored two times higher on the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (CAGI). Clearly, more research from various jurisdictions is needed to replicate the emerging findings in the field and to understand loot box engagement among young people. In particular, research based on representative samples is necessary in order to build a robust and generalizable knowledge base. Knowledge of young loot box users and the associations between loot boxes and problem gambling among young people constitute an important basis for identifying potential at-risk groups and therefore for developing policies and interventions that can prevent and mitigate risks related to loot box engagement in youth populations. Loot boxes constitute an under-researched area within the gambling-gaming nexus, and recently an editorial called for research to understand the financial nature of this phenomenon and the relationship to problematic gaming (King & Delfabbro, 2018). Against this backdrop, the current study aimed at (1) exploring loot box engagement patterns among young gamers, and (2) examining whether different levels and forms of engagement in loot boxing is associated with problem gambling. The study contributes to the current literature in three regards: Firs, it is only the second study to focus on youth. Second, it is based on a relatively large sample and third is uses data from a nationally representative survey.
Delfabbro, & Griffiths, 2010) and stimulate persistent behaviors driven by the hope of receiving a reward (Drummond & Sauer, 2018). Therefore loot boxes have been characterized as ‘gamblification of gaming’ (Brooks & Clark, 2019:26), and as ‘predatory monetization schemes’ that disguise long-term costs and ‘entraps’ the player in a belief that repeated spending of money is justified as it increases the likelihood of obtaining valuable items (King & Delfabbro, 2018:1967). Clearly, such schemes may pose a risk to young people, who may not fully understand the underlying mechanisms and reward systems. On this basis, there is a need for further understanding the links between loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent populations. Specifically, it is important to build new knowledge on the loot box users as well as the specific ways players engage with loot boxes. 2. Review of literature Research on loot boxes is still in its infancy, and the majority of studies have used online surveys among adult or young adult video gamers recruited via posts on online bulletin boards, Internet-based research panels or alternatively undergraduates recruited from universities. A large proportion of these studies have examined associations between loot boxes and problem gambling (see Abarbanel, 2018; Brooks & Clark, 2019; Macey and Hamari, 2018, 2019, Li et al., 2019; Zendle & Cairns 2018; 2019). Taken together, this research has established that loot box purchasing is associated with increased scores on gambling severity scales, and that expenditure on loot boxes is positively correlated with problem gambling severity. Furthermore, it is a general observation, that the majority of loot box purchasers are male. Thus, among a sample of 1508 Pay2win users [users of games with options to make in-game purchases to obtain benefits in the game], Meduna et al. (2019) found that 38.9% purchased loot boxes, and close to half of this sample (45.9%) met the criteria for problem gambling according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Additionally, more than half of the loot box users were male (55.3%). Although existing studies have used cross-sectional designs, and therefore have some limitations in terms of establishing causality between loot purchasing and problematic gambling, the current knowledge seem to suggest that loot box engagement catalyze monetary gambling and gambling problems among video gamers. Some studies have examined the characteristics of those game users who spend money on loot boxes. In a recent study based on a sample of 577 adult video game users, Anthony and Nower (2019) investigated the characteristics of video game users who purchase loot boxes and the links of loot box purchase to Internet gambling, problem video gaming, and problem gambling. They found that the participants, who bought loot boxes, reported significantly higher levels of video problem gambling and gambling severity compared to those who never bought loot boxes. In video games, players can earn loot boxes as a reward for completing tasks in the game, they can purchase loot boxes directly, or they can purchase keys to open loot boxes. While loot boxes vary across different games, they typically contain items with in-game value that enhance game experience by increasing progression in the game, provides a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other players. or by adding cosmetic features to the player’s character. In some games, items from loot boxes can be sold for real money via the platform that distributes the game or via third-party websites (Drummond & Sauer, 2018). Currently, there are some indications, that among adult video gamers, the majority have obtained and opened a loot box, close to half have bought a loot box and between a quarter and fourty percent have sold a loot box or loot box items (Brooks & Clark, 2019). To date, however there is no evidence of how such different modes of loot box engagement relates to gambling problems among adults or adolescents. The vast majority of research on the role of loot boxes in problematic gambling and gaming behaviors have used adult samples. To date, one empirical study using an adolescent sample recruited via an online bulletin board has been published. Among a sample of 1115
3. Methods 3.1. Data and participants This study used data from a survey among a representative gross sample of 5000 Danish adolescents (12–16 yrs.) drawn randomly from the Danish Civil Registration System. As the survey instrument, data collection methods, and the representativeness of data have been described in detail elsewhere (see Kristiansen & Severin, 2019), only the main features will be outlined here. The survey was conducted through self-administration of a web survey sent, mainly digitally, to a selected parent of the participant, and the final sample had a total of 1137 completed questionnaires. This corresponds to a response rate close to 23%. Despite the relatively high nonresponse rate, the net sample deviated only marginally from population figures on the core demographic variables gender and age. The questionnaire included sections on monetary gambling involvement, simulated gambling involvement, self-evaluated exposure from gambling advertisements, and a subsection on gambling related gaming including loot boxes. In the survey instrument, participants were introduced to the following definition of a loot box: ‘In many games for PC or video game consoles (e.g. CS:GO, Fortnite, Overwatch, FIFA 17 Ultimate Team), you can purchase or obtain a loot box. Loot boxes are treasure chests or card packs, and when you open them, you earn a reward for use in the game. For example, the reward may be new weapons, skins, or cards, and sometimes you can be lucky enough to win rare items’. Consistent with current studies on loot box engagement (see e.g. Brooks & Clark, 2019; Li, Mills & Nower 2018), this study focused on adolescents who played on a PC or video game console in a 12-month period prior to the survey (n = 995, 88.5% of net sample), here referred to as ‘gamers’. As displayed in Table 1, this subsample included a small majority of males. Additionally, the subsample consists of more adolescents in the youngest age group (12–13 yrs.) which may be a result of a marginally lower average age in the net sample compared with population figures (mean difference, 95% CI: −0.22 to −0.06 yrs., p < 0.001).
2
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
Table 1 Gender and age distribution in sample and target population.
Gender Female Male Total Age 12–13 14–15 16+ Total
Table 2 Forms of loot box engagement among adolescent gamers.
Sample
Population
Z test for difference
Engaged in one or more loot box activities
% of gamers(valid n = 939)
n
50.6% (5 7 5) 49.5% (5 6 2) 100% (1137)
48.8% (164,850) 51.2% (172,673) 100% (337,523)
p = 0.232
Forms of engagement
% of engaged (valid n = 428)
n
Involvement patterns across different forms of engagement
% of engaged (valid n = 407)
n
Not engaged in any form Engaged in one or more activities Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Obtained loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Bought loot box Engaged in 1 activity: Sold items from loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Obtained and bought loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Obtained and sold items from loot box Engaged in 2 activities: Bought and sold items from loot box Engaged in all 3 activities
54.4% 45.6% 93.2% 44.4% 23.8% 48.2% 2.0% 2.7% 25.3%
511 428 399 190 102 196 8 11 103
4.2%
17
1.0%
4
16.7%
68
43.7% (4 9 2) 41.0% (4 6 2) 15.4% (1 7 3) 100% (1127)
40.2% (135,628) 39.9% (134,610) 19.9% (67,285) 100% (337,523)
p = 0.012 p = 0.447 p < 0.001
Source: Population figures were retrieved from Statistics Denmark, FOLK1A, 4th quarter 2018. Note: A few respondents who were 16 years at the sampling time turned 17 during the data collection period.
3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Loot box engagement In alignment with recent research (Brooks & Clark, 2019; Nielsen & Grabarczyk, 2018), this study distinguished between different forms of loot box engagement and accordingly, the survey instrument included three items measuring loot box engagement. All items were dichotomous, and participants were asked to indicate whether or not they engaged in the following activities within a 12-month period prior to the study: (1) obtaining a loot box, (2) purchasing a loot box or a key to unlock a loot box, and (3) selling virtual items that were originally obtained from a loot box. Participants were classified in four groups: (1) no engagement, (2) earned loot box (did not purchase or sell items from loot box), (3) purchased loot box or key to unlock loot box (did not sell items from loot box), and (4) sold items from loot box. The groups are characterized by increasing levels of loot box engagement with (4) meeting definitions of gambling as winnings from exchanges determined by chance is disbursed.
Note: Respondents who did not provide valid answers on all three questions about loot box engagement were recoded to missing when determining the respondents’ involvement patterns across different forms of engagement. n = 939–965.
participants reporting different levels of loot box engagement. To support and validate results, this bivariate analysis was controlled for gender and age, and partial and local gamma values were calculated to test for spurious associations and interaction effects. 4. Results 4.1. Loot box engagement among adolescent gamers
3.2.2. Problem gambling severity The South Oaks Gambling Screen – Revised for Adolescents (SOGSRA) (Winters, Stinchfield, & Fulkerson, 1993a,b) was used to estimate levels of problem gambling. SOGS-RA is a validated and widely used 12-item screening tool assessing the experience of specific behaviors and feelings in relation to monetary gambling in adolescent samples. Based on total scores, participants were classified in three groups: Nonproblem gamblers (score 0–1), at-risk gamblers (score 2–3), and problem gamblers (score 4 or higher).
The data showed that more than half of the gamers (56.1%) did engage with loot boxes at some level. Furthermore, gamers’ engagement in loot box activities varied greatly across different levels of engagement. As displayed in Table 2, 42.5% of the gamers reported experience with obtaining a loot box in the past 12 months, 19.8% indicated experience with purchasing a loot box or a key to unlock a loot box, and merely 10.6% reported experience with selling virtual goods obtained from a loot box. The marked differences indicate that obtaining a loot box is relatively common among adolescent gamers, whereas selling virtual items from loot boxes requires greater engagement and is less common among this particular group.
3.2.3. Demographic profile Demographic variables on gender and age were included to examine different engagement patterns among groups of gamers. In order to check for spurious associations, these variables were also used as control variables in the examination of possible links between loot box engagement and problem gambling.
4.2. Demographic profile of gamers involved in loot boxing When including demographic variables in the analysis, different engagement patterns appeared across groups of gamers. Within gender and age groups, the level of engagement was negatively correlated with the numbers of participants involved. The greater the level of engagement, the fewer participants were involved. However, when comparing engagement across demographic groups, significant gender differences were observed. As displayed in Table 3, male gamers were markedly more engaged in loot boxing than female gamers (p < 0.001). Furthermore, older adolescents were more involved than the youngest age group, but this difference was not, however, statistically significant.
3.3. Data analysis As adolescent loot box engagement is still an emerging research topic, descriptive analyses were used to profile loot box engagement patterns. Data analyses were carried out in three main steps. In the first step, frequency distributions of adolescents’ engagement in different types of loot box activities (obtained, purchased, or sold items from loot box) were calculated. In the following step, bivariate analyses (gamma correlation tests) were conducted to examine whether gender and age groups of gamers were characterized by different engagement patterns. In the third step, a bivariate analysis (gamma correlation test) was conducted to examine differences in problem gambling severity across
4.3. Loot box engagement and problem gambling The vast majority of adolescent gamers belonged to the ‘non-problem gambler’ group irrespective of their loot box engagement. 3
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
Table 3 Demographic characteristics of adolescent gamers involved in different forms of loot box activities. %, n, and χ2. Not engaged in any form
Obtained loot box
Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box
Sold items from loot box
Gender
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
% of gender (n)
Age
% of age group (n)
% of age group (n)
% of age group
% of age group (n)
Male Female
31.0% (163) 84.3% (348)
64.8% (340) 14.3% (59)
32.9% (175) 3.5% (15)
18.0% (96) 1.4% (6)
χ2 12–13 yrs. 14–15 yrs. 16–17 yrs.
χ2 = 264.7, p < 0.001 52.8% (224) 55.6% (209) 55.2% (74)
χ2 = 241.7, p < 0.001 44.3% (187) 40.7% (154) 42.5% (57)
χ2 = 128.7, p < 0.001 20.5% (88) 17.8% (69) 23.5% (32)
χ2 = 70.1, p < 0.001 7.6% (33) 12.3% (48) 15.3% (21)
χ2
χ2 = 0.665, p = 0.717
χ2 = 1.0, p = 0.594
χ2 = 2.3, p = 0.314
χ2 = 8.5, p = 0.014
n = 939–965. Table 4 Forms of loot box engagement and frequency of gambling participation. %, n, and χ2.
Not engaged in any form Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box
Less than once a month
At least once a month
At least once a week
One or more times a day
Total
96.3% 93.2% 89.3% 84.4%
2.6% 5.0% 7.3% 9.4%
0.4% 1.3% 2.3% 5.2%
0.6% 0.5% 1.1% 1.0%
100% 100% 100% 100%
(475) (357) (158) (81)
(13) (19) (13) (9)
(2) (5) (4) (5)
(3) (2) (2) (1)
χ2
(493) (383) (177) (96)
χ2 χ2 χ2 χ2
= = = =
6.8, p = 0.078 4.2, p = 0.238 13.9, p = 0.003 31.5, p < 0.001
Note: Frequency of gambling participation was recoded to four categories: ‘Less than once a month’, ‘At least once a month’, ‘At least once a week’, and ‘One or more times a day’. n = 904–930. Table 5 Forms of loot box engagement and problem gambling. %, n, and χ2.
Not engaged in any form Obtained loot box Bought loot box or key to unlock loot box Sold items from loot box
Non-problem gambler
At-risk gambler
Problem gambler
Total
98.6% 95.2% 92.6% 87.3%
0.8% 3.0% 3.7% 7.8%
0.6% 1.8% 3.7% 4.9%
100% 100% 100% 100%
(504) (380) (176) (89)
(4) (12) (7) (8)
(3) (7) (7) (5)
χ2 (511) (399) (190) (102)
χ2 χ2 χ2 χ2
= = = =
12.2, p = 0.002 4.7, p = 0.097 17.9, p < 0.001 33.6, p < 0.001
n = 939–965.
box engagement and monetary problem gambling was still significant, and the analysis thus indicated a possible link between the two. Furthermore, our data showed that this link is dependent of the level of engagement. The more engaged in loot box activities and the more these activities resemble gambling, the stronger the link.
However, examination of gambling behaviors revealed differences between groups of gamers with different levels of loot box engagement. As displayed in Table 4, gamers, who did not engage in loot boxing in the past 12 months, had lower SOGS scores compared to respondents, who were involved in loot box activities at some level. In addition to this, the more engaged gamers were, the more they engaged in problem gambling. As displayed in Table 4, the smallest proportion of at-risk and problem gamblers were identified among participants, who only obtained a loot boxes, whereas a relatively large proportion of the participants that engaged in selling items from loot boxes were at-risk or engaged in problem gambling (13%).Table 5 Our data showed that loot box engagement patterns varied markedly across demographic groups of gamers, and for this reason, analyses controlled for demographic factors were conducted to eliminate possible age and gender effects. When controlling for gender and age, the strength of the association did not change markedly. However, some statistically significant interaction effects were found. The association between loot box engagement and problem gambling was markedly stronger for females than males (females: local γ = 0.777, p = 0.043, males: local γ = 0.541, p < 0.01). The reason for this may be that females in general are less engaged in loot box activities than males, thus, it requires more determination. Similarly, interaction effects were identified among age groups. The association was stronger for the two older groups (12–13 yrs.: local γ = 0.294, p = 0.322, 14–15 yrs.: local γ = 0.779, p < 0.01, 16–17 yrs.: local γ = 0.565, p < 0.1). When controlling for core demographic factors, the association between loot
5. Discussion In this study, the call made by King and Delfabbro (2018) to examine empirically the associations between loot boxes and problem gambling was addressed, specifically here, among young people. The current study has provided evidence on the link between loot box engagement and problem gambling as well as generated insights into the use and users of loot boxes. First, it was found that a large proportion of the gamers in our sample (56.1%) engage in loot box activities at some level. This finding corresponds with studies among adult gamers. In their examination of loot box purchasing among adult gamers, Anthony and Nower (2019) found that almost half of the sample (47%) had ever purchased loot boxes in video games. Second, it was found that young loot box users are predominantly male. Close to 70% of the males in the subsample of gamers had earned, bought, or sold items from a loot box whereas 85% of the female gamers in the sample reported no engagement with loot boxes. This gender pattern is echoing studies using adult samples (Meduna et al., 2019) suggesting that loot box engagement is predominantly a male activity. Third, our data showed that among those, 4
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
statistically significant link between loot box engagement and problem gambling, our data do not allow conclusions as to whether loot box engagement promotes problematic gambling or if problematic gambling leads to gambling-like loot box behavior in gaming. Clearly, longitudinal studies are needed to examine such possible causal links. A second limitation concerns data granularity. In this study, participants were asked whether or not they had earned, purchased, or sold loot box items within a 12-month period prior to the study. However, no data were obtained concerning the frequency of this behavior which limits explorations of nuances and temporalities of loot box engagement.
who were engaged with gaming in the past 12 months, more than fourty percent had earned a loot box, twenty percent had purchased a loot box, and ten percent had sold items from a loot box. This same pattern, however with higher percentages, have been identified in studies among adult gamers (Brooks & Clark, 2019). Fourth, there was a significant positive correlation between loot box engagement and problem gambling severity even when controlling for core demographic factors. Compared to participants with no engagement or who had obtained a loot box, the proportions of at-risk and problem gamblers were higher among those who had purchased or sold items from a loot box. Following logically from this, the largest proportions of problem gamblers (4.9%) and at-risk gamblers (7.8%) were found among those participants who had sold items from a loot box. Again, these findings correspond with studies that have demonstrated correlation between loot box engagement and problematic gambling behavior among adult gamers (Li et al., 2019). While studies among adult gamers (e.g. Brooks & Clark, 2019; Zendle & Cairns, 2018) have demonstrated a link between loot box behavior and problem gambling based on expenditure, this study provided evidence of the link based on the level of loot box engagement. Interestingly, a group of participants (10.6%) reported to have sold items from loot boxes. This type of loot box engagement shares traits from gambling, as a monetary reward follows from a stake on a chance-based activity. Clearly, more research is needed to clarify in more detail the links between earning, purchasing, or selling items from loot boxes and other gaming and gambling behaviors. Specifically, it would be of interest to examine, whether games with sellable objects or marketplace structures that enables selling of loot box items, increase loot box engagement and gambling problems among young gamers. The findings presented here have some implications for policy and consumer protection. First, it provides input to the ongoing national debates on the classification of loot boxes on the gaming-gaming continuum. Recently, some jurisdictions have classified some types of loot boxes as gambling activities. Thus, Belgian authorities have declared that loot boxes purchased for real money is considered a form of gambling while in Denmark and the Netherlands only loot boxes that can be cashed out are considered gambling (Zendle & Cairns, 2018; The Danish Gambling Authority (2017), 2017). In the US, bills have been passed in Washington state requiring the state gambling commission to examine loot boxes in order to determine whether they should be considered gambling (Orland, 2018). Clearly, the question of whether loot boxes should be considered gambling holds significant implications in terms of protection of specific consumer groups such as children and young people who are more vulnerable to gambling problems from gaming activities that may involve financial risks. Our data suggest, that purchasing as well as selling items from loot boxes are linked to problematic gambling behavior, and therefore measures should be taken to: (1) reduce loot box purchases, and (2) reduce marketplace structures. Measures to reduce loot box purchases should involve a number of different initiatives such as the introduction of pre-commitment spending limits involving users to specify, before the beginning of the game, the maximum they will be willing to spend (Drummond, Sauer, & Hall, 2019) or loot box self-exclusion options (Brooks & Clark, 2019). A reduction of marketplace structures to reduce selling of loot box items would involve dialogues between industry and national authorities and/or involve legislation that prohibits such features in video games. However, as has recently been pointed out, no single regulatory control (such as limit setting that may have other, unintended consequences) should be chosen on behalf of other potential measures and therefore the production of a comprehensive list of potential countermeasures and consumer advice relating to in-game purchasing should be considered (King & Delfabbro, 2019). This study has several limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, while the cross-sectional design enabled examinations of factors associated with loot box engagement among young people, it did not allow conclusions regarding the causal relationship between loot box engagement and problem gambling. Thus, while establishing a
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding This study was funded by a grant from the Spar Nord Foundation. The Spar Nord Foundation had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. References Abarbanel, B. (2018). Gambling vs. gaming: A commentary on the role of regulatory, industry, and community stakeholders in the loot box debate. Gaming Law Review, 22(4), 231–234. Anthony, W. L. & Nower, L. (2019). Loot box: A nexus of Internet gambling and video gaming. Paper presented at 17th International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Las Vegas, May 29. Danish Gambling Authority (2017). Statement about loot boxes / loot crates. https:// spillemyndigheden.dk/en/news/statement-about-loot-boxes-loot-crates. Retrieved July 4 2019. Brooks, G. A., & Clark, L. (2019). Associations between loot box use, problematic gaming and gam-bling, and gambling-related cognitions. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 26–34. Derevensky, J., & Gainsbury, S. (2016). Social casino gaming and adolescents: Should we be con-cerned and is regulation in sight? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 44, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.025. Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D., & Hall, L. C. (2019). Loot box limit-setting: A potential policy to protect video game users with gambling problems? Addiction, 114, 935–936. Drummond, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2018). Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 530–532. Gainsbury, S., King, D., Russell, A., & Delfabbro, P. (2016). Who pays to play freemium games? The profiles and motivations of players who make purchases within social casino games. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10. 1556/2006.5.2016.031. Gainsbury, S. (2019). Gaming-gambling convergence: Research, regulation, and reactions. Gaming Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2019.2323. Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Is the buying of loot boxes in video games a form of gambling or gaming? Gaming Law Review, 22(1), 52–54. Kim, H. S., Hollingshead, S., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2017). who spends money to play for free? Identifying who makes micro-transactions on social casino games (and why). Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9626-6. King, D., Gainsbury, S., Delfabbro, P., Hing, N., & Abarbanel, B. (2015). Distinguishing between gaming and gambling activities in addiction research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.045. King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Lott box limit-setting is not sufficient on its own to prevent players from overspending: A reply to Drummond, Sauer & Hall. Addiction, 114, 1324–1325. King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2018). Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder. Addiction, 113(11), 1967–1969. King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4. Kristiansen, S., & Severin, M. Christine (2019). Exploring groups of simulated gambling behaviour: a typological study among Danish adolescents. International Gambling Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2019.1697344 In press. Li, W., Mills, D., & Nower, L. (2019). The relationship of loot box purchases to problem video gaming and problem gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 97(2019), 27–34. Macey, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). eSports, skins and loot boxes: Participants, practices and problematic behaviour associated with emergent forms of gambling. New Media & Society, 21(1), 20–41. McCaffrey, M. (2019). The macro problem of microtransactions. The self-regulatory challenges of game loot boxes. Business Horizons, 62(4), 483–495. Nielsen, R. K. L. & Grabarczyk, P. (2018). Are Loot Boxes Gambling? Random reward mechanisms in video games. Proceedings of DiGRA 2018, Torino, Italy. https://pure.
5
Addictive Behaviors 103 (2020) 106254
S. Kristiansen and M.C. Severin
025. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, K. (1993a). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling problem severity scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 63–84. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, K. (1993b). Patterns and characteristics of adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 371–386. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., & Over, H. (2019). Adolescents and loot boxes: Links with problem gambling and motivations for purchase. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 190049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190049. Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLoS One, 13(11), 1–12. Zendle, D., & Cairns, P. (2019). Video game loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replications study. PLoS One, 14(3), 3–7.
itu.dk/portal/files/83333144/DIGRA_2018_Are_loot_boxes_gambling_pre_print_21. 05.2018.pdf. Retrieved August 31 2019. Orland, K. (2018). The legislative fight over loot boxes expands to Washington state. Ars Technica, 25 January. Retrieved from: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/01/ the-legislative-fight-over-loot-boxes-expands-to-washington-state/. Accessed 4 July 2019. von Meduna, M., Steinmetz, F., Ante, L., Reynolds, J., & Fielder, I. (2019). Loot Boxes – A Game Changer? Universität Hamburg Gambling Research Division, Work Paper Series, 2, 1–14. Teichert, T., Gainsbury, S., & Muhlbach, C. (2017). Positioning of online gambling and gaming products from a consumer perspective: A blurring of perceived boundaries. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.
6