To screen, or not to screen: An experimental comparison of two methods for correlating video game loot box expenditure and problem gambling severity

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Loot boxes are gambling-like products found in video games that players can buy with real-world money to obtain random rewards. A positive correlation between loot box spending and problem gambling severity has been well-replicated. Some researchers recently argued that this observed positive correlation may be due to participants incorrectly interpreting problem gambling questions as applying to their loot box expenditure because they see loot box purchasing as a form of ‘gambling.’ We experimentally tested this alternative explanation for the observed positive correlation (N = 2027) by manipulating whether all participants were given the problem gambling scale, as the previous literature generally had done (the ‘non-screening’ approach; n = 1005), or by ‘screening’ participants (n = 1022) by only giving the problem gambling scale to those reporting recent gambling expenditure. Through the latter screening process, we clarified and calibrated what ‘gambling’ means by providing an exhaustive list of activities that should be accounted for and specifically instructed participants that loot box purchasing is not to be considered a form of ‘gambling.’ Results showed positive correlations between loot box spending and problem gambling across both experimental conditions. In addition, a predicted positive correlation emerged between binary past-year gambling participation and loot box expenditure in the screening group. These experimental results confirm that the association between loot box spending and problem gambling severity is likely not due to participants misinterpreting problem gambling questions as being relevant to their loot box spending. However, problem gambling severity was inflated in the non-screening group, meaning that future research on gambling-like products should include gambling participation screening questions; better define what ‘gambling’ means; potentially exclude non-gamblers from analysis; and, importantly, provide explicit instructions on whether certain activities should not be considered a form of ‘gambling.’