Loot box purchasing is associated with gambling and problem gambling when controlling for known psychological risk factors of gambling

Abstract

Background

A robust literature has found that loot box purchasing is associated with gambling and problem gambling. However, it remains unclear whether this association is merely an artifact of known psychological risk factors for gambling. The present study thus examined associations of loot box purchasing with gambling and problem gambling while controlling for potential psychological confounders.

Methods

Current gamers, recruited from five Canadian universities (N = 1189) and Academic Prolific and Reddit (N = 499), reported on loot box engagement, gambling engagement, and psychological characteristics. In each sample, binomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between past-year loot box purchasing and likelihood of past-year gambling. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine the associations of each of past-year loot box purchasing and risky loot box engagement with problem gambling severity.

Results

In both samples, having purchased loot boxes in the past year was significantly associated with increased likelihood of having gambled in the past year and greater problem gambling severity. In the student sample, greater risky loot box engagement was significantly associated with increased problem gambling severity.

Conclusions

Consistent with previous research, there exist associations between loot box purchasing and gambling. Results suggest that these associations are robust to known psychological risk factors for gambling, reducing plausibility of the notion that the association between loot box purchasing and gambling exists only due to shared psychological vulnerabilities. Loot box purchasing represents an important marker of risk for gambling and problem gambling among people who play video games.

Keywords:

• Gambling
• gaming
• loot boxes
• problem gambling
• gaming–gambling convergence

Ethical statement

The study procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All study procedures received approval from the Research Ethics Board of each participating institution. All participants were informed about the study and provided informed consent.

Author contributions

SGC: conceptualization, formal analysis, writing–original draft; MTK: conceptualization, writing–review & editing; DCH: conceptualization, writing–review & editing; NWS: conceptualization, writing–review & editing; PKP: data collection, writing–review & editing; HSK: conceptualization, writing–review & editing, supervision, funding acquisition. All authors had full access to the data in the present study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Disclosure of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by a Toronto Metropolitan University Faculty of Arts research grant. The Toronto Metropolitan University Faculty of Arts 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.