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

Abstract

As in other areas of science, understanding in the addictions can progress by analogy, by taking concepts from a relatively well-understood area and applying them to another domain. This process helped increase our understanding of gambling, by using prior insights from substance-based addictions, and gambling has, in turn, served as an analogy for loot boxes: gambling-liked elements in video games. Although this could be a good way to make rapid initial advances, it could also limit our ability in the long-run to produce a complete understanding of the new area of inquiry. In this think piece I argue that these conceptual links did in fact limit our understanding of gambling in several ways, and that the same pattern is now becoming apparent with loot boxes. Although loot box expenditure correlates robustly with disordered gambling severity, it does not appear to correlate strongly with impulsivity, a key driver of disordered gambling symptomology. People also often gamble to try to win money, but this motivation is rarely observed with loot boxes. Instead, I argue that the enjoyment and meaning that gamers derive from games is a core motivator for loot box expenditure. Video games can bring enjoyment both directly and via the social connections they can help create, and these are motivations seen less frequently in gambling. This example can act as a warning to addiction science on the risks of proceeding via analogy too strictly, and of the need to consider the unique context of each potentially addictive behavior of interest.