No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking

No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking

Is it a dangerous factor for future gambling to be involved in gambling video game rewards? Although speculation, there is no experimental verification of this "gateway hypothesis". We examine the impact of risk take on the mechanism that can support this route, that is, the reward mechanism similar to gambling. We have a hypothesis that players who are exposed to rewards similar to gambling (ie, random reward provided through a loot box) increase risk take than players with fixed rewards and no n-rewards. Verified. 153 participants (M)age= 25 years old) completed a 2 0-minute gameplay, including any of the three remuneration conditions, before completing the gam e-ized online Balloon Analogue Risk Task (Bart). Self-reporting on gambling and loot was collected by Problem Gambling Severity Index and Risky Loot-Box Index. The Bayes T-test, which compares the Bart score between reward conditions, provided a strong evidence from a medium level that indicates the effects of the conditions for risk takings (bf = 4. 05-10. 64). The null effect was not adjusted by the player's problem gambling symptoms. Spearman correlation between the past involvement in the past loot box and the severity of gambling due to sel f-reportings= 0. 35) is consistent with the existing literature. Our data is contrary to the Gateway hypothesis, but supports the idea that the symptoms of the problem gambling may weaken the player in the loot box.

Similar content being viewed by others

The associations between autistic characteristics and microtransaction spending

Paper release June 18, 2024

Surprisingly high prevalence rates of severe psychological distress among consumers who purchase loot boxes in video games

Paper release September 27, 2022

Within-session chasing of losses and wins in an online eCasino

Paper release September 2, 2024

In the United States and Australia, at least tw o-thirds of the population play a video game, and the world's game market is expected to reach $ 314 billion (USD) by 2026. The rapid growth of video games has been active in research on positive and negative impacts brought about video games. There are more research evidence, which suggests that enthusiasm for video games has reached the level of problems and habituals, and may cause psychological pain to individuals.

As the gaming industry grows and more titles compete for gamers' attention, innovations are being designed to capture players' attention, keep them engaged, and generate revenue6, 7. Some researchers attribute the rise in video games and gaming-related revenues to innovations in reward design and monetization strategies, which now include the ability to purchase randomized in-game items (i. e., loot boxes) with real money or virtual currency. Such monetization mechanisms have generated controversy in the media8, 9, with some scientists considering reward monetization to be "predatory" towards consumers10, 11. Loot boxes in particular have attracted significant social and academic interest, with many likening them to gambling due to the similarities in the aesthetics of the two and the common psychological mechanisms that they both rely on6, 12, 13. These similarities have led some researchers and policymakers to speculate that loot boxes could serve as a "gateway" to gambling in the future14, 15. Some may intuitively agree; others may find this unlikely. However, a key question is: through what mechanisms might exposure to gambling-like in-game rewards lead to future gambling? We examined one causal pathway through which engagement with loot boxes may increase future gambling risk. Importantly, our aim is not to examine all mechanisms that may lead to future gambling behavior. Rather, we

Loot boxes

A loot box is a digital container with rewards in video games, and in many cases it can be purchased with actual money. Various rewards in the loot box are randomly acquired randomly, and rare (and more desirable) rewards are awarded than general (and less desirable) rewards. Rewards vary depending on the game, but often provide competitive advantage in the game (such as characters and items, etc.; 6, 16). Other rewards are only giving gameplay cosmetic changes (eg, i n-game characters and items), but they can still be desirable for players based on rarity and evaluation in the game community. 17. The boot boxes are increasingly noticeable on mobile, console and PC game platforms. In addition, for products with the target age of 7 years or older, the US app store has been installed nearly 1 billion times, including a loot box. Furthermore, when analyzed the most played games from 2010 to 2019 on the PC platform Steam, the exposure to the loot box has increased from 5. 3%of the 2010 players to 71. 2%in 2019. Is confirmed 18. In this way, the exposure to the loot box is increasing in a wider range of game population, regardless of age group, and from the ubiquitousness between platforms. In response to the ubiquitous loot's ubiquitousness, research has appeared on how the loot box works as part of a widespread gameplay experience and how it affects the player's behavior.

Many of the loot boxes are sold for less than $ 3 in the United States, but for the game industry, the total revenue after sales is billions of dollars 6, 7, 10, 19. Items acquired in some loot boxes may be sold on online marketplace, and the selling price may be much higher than the purchase price. However, many of the items in the loot box box have a resale price below the purchase price of the loot box, so if the items earned in the loot box are on sale, the player will be financially lost. 。 Since the rewards of the loot box are random, players are more likely to receive more general items than rare items after purchasing. The hierarchy of such a reward can create a system of i n-game items that do not exist directly in microtransactions purchased, and provide valuable results with intermittent reinforcement schedules. 21, 22, 23.

The psychology of loot boxes

The design of many loot box systems appears to be psychologically similar to traditional gambling, which is reflected in the player's action trends about the loot box 13, 16, 24, 25. 。 Drummond and Sauer 6 indicated that most of the popular games of popular games are the main psychological standards of gambling using Griffiths 26 frameworks. These standards include exchanging (i) (ii) unknown future events and money, (III), at least partially determined by coincidence, and (IV) optouts that can avoid losses. (V) Includes the fact that prize money can be "cashed". Furthermore, randomization, which is the central element of a loot box box, enables enhanced variable ratio. This is 6, 27, a feedback mechanism that promotes and promotes actions and attenuates the extinction of behavior. In the context of the loot box, the enhancement of the variable ratio is expected to promote the behavior of repeatedly purchasing, even if the desired result is reduced. The characteristics of such enhancements are the center of operant conditions and support many traditional gambling activities. < SPAN> The design of many loot box systems appears to be psychologically similar to traditional formal gambling, which is reflected in the player's action trends in the loot box. 24, 25. Drummond and Sauer 6 indicated that most of the popular games of popular games are the main psychological standards of gambling using Griffiths 26 frameworks. These standards include exchanging (i) (ii) unknown future events and money, (III), at least partially determined by coincidence, and (IV) optouts that can avoid losses. (V) Includes the fact that prize money can be "cashed". Furthermore, randomization, which is the central element of a loot box box, enables enhanced variable ratio. This is 6, 27, a feedback mechanism that promotes and promotes actions and attenuates the extinction of behavior. In the context of the loot box, the enhancement of the variable ratio is expected to promote the behavior of repeatedly purchasing, even if the desired result is reduced. The characteristics of such enhancements are the center of operant conditions and support many traditional gambling activities. The design of many loot box systems appears to be psychologically similar to traditional gambling, which is reflected in the player's action trends about the loot box 13, 16, 24, 25. 。 Drummond and Sauer 6 indicated that most of the popular games of popular games are the main psychological standards of gambling using Griffiths 26 frameworks. These standards include (i) (II), to exchange unknown future events and money, (III), at least partially determines the result, and (IV) op t-out, and can avoid losses. (V) Includes the fact that prize money can be "cashed". Furthermore, randomization, which is the central element of a loot box, enables the variable ratio. This is 6, 27, a feedback mechanism that promotes and promotes the acquisition and repetition of action and attenuates the extinction of behavior. In the context of the loot box, the enhancement of the variable ratio is expected to promote the behavior of repeatedly purchasing, even if the desired result is reduced. The characteristics of such enhancements are the center of operant conditions and support many traditional gambling activities.

Conventional gambling and the purchase of a loot box require betting on unknown results, and their activities have financial risks. The winning or losing is not guaranteed, the result is almost accidentally determined, and the "win" is intermittently distributed (depending on the nature of certain gambling activities). In this way, the purchase of all gambling activities and all the loot boxes depends on the operant conditions and the variable enhancement schedule, and uses it 6, 28. From the structural and psychological similarity between the loot box and the conventional gambling, researchers and the general public have considered that involvement in the loot boxes may have negative consequences to gamers. In addition to raising concerns that at least some gamers may have excessive game time and expenses for at least some gamers, the involvement of the loot box has been involved in the loot box for future gambling. There is speculation that it may function. There is a strong positive correlation between the symptoms of the problem gambling and the expenditure in the loot box, but there is no direct experimental verification of this gateway hypothesis, and involved in the rampant box. There is no clear consideration of causal routes that contribute to the increase in future gambling. One possibility is that repeated risks through the involvement of a loot box can affect the awareness of risk assessment and the willingness to involve future risk behavior.

Risk-taking: risk and reward

Risk-Taking-A spontaneous actions performed under uncertainty, which may bring a disadvantageous fruit 29, 30- is an element that has the core of both gambling and loot purchases. The development of risk taking and risk evaluations is well known, increasing from childhood to adolescence, and repeatedly peaking and decreasing after adulthood. Not all risk takings are a problem, but some risk behaviors are negative (crime, drug use, violence and aggression, etc.) 32, 33, 34. However, the high risk taking in adolescence is 29, 31, 35, which is related to lateral vulnerabilities. Therefore, the purchase of a loot box for adolescence may affect future risk take 36, 37. This is because some people think that the use of a loot box is a risk, and some people think that the use of a loot box is a form of risk behavior.

Risk taking is influenced by the reward consequences of decisions, with some individuals being more sensitive to rewards than others. Motivation to take risks can be understood through two mechanisms: behavioral activation and inhibition. Behavioral activation refers to the excitement felt when rewards are available, while inhibition governs the cessation of behavior. 40 Risk-averse individuals may be better able to inhibit their thoughts and emotions, whereas risk-prone individuals may be less able to inhibit their behavior. 41, 42 Rutherford and colleagues 43 found that adolescents who engage in risk behaviors, such as underage gambling, have an imbalance between reward activation and inhibition, which results in higher scores on measures of risk taking.

Risk and future gambling

The relevance of gambling and risk is established: Gambling is essentially a risk take 44, 45, 46, and the risk recognition plays an important role in the generation and maintenance of gambling behavior. ARMSTRONG and others argued that the simulated gambling games argued that the distortion of cognition caused by being repeatedly exposed to unreasonable simulatic systems, which could increase the risk takes, and participated in such a gambling simulation. It suggested that the illusion of gambling related to actual gambling (that is, the potential financial loss, addiction) caused a misunderstanding of gambling. Such cognitive distortion may also contribute to the formation of habitual behavior (for example, chasing losing; 49). Armstrong et al. (48) has revealed that young people who play cryptocurrencies and pseudo gambling are likely to fall into financial gambling and problematic gambling. For this reason, there are 50 rouge box mechanisms that are likely to be easily used by minor girers. Research has demonstrated that many of the popular game titles that children can use include a loot box that meets the psychological standards of gambling, and nearly half of the young gamers are already in a loot box. 51 being handed out. Here, the player who touches on the mechanisms proposed by Armstrong, that is, randomized elements in the loot box, may be more involved in risk taking, rather than players who do not. I tried to verify that on one scale of risk taking behavior.

Loot boxes as a gateway to gambling

The loot box has a relatively low cost (and financial risk) for purchasing individual loot boxes (and financial risk), which has been established between the loot box and many conventional gambling forms. It is considered an example of relatively lo w-risk gambling simulation in the game context. Therefore, the loot box, like gambling simulated experiences, may distort the perception of risk. This distortion causes the gateway effect of 10, 52, and the involvement in the loot box increases the risk of players, and has begun a series of actions that act as a precursor to gambling that can be a problem in the future. There is a possibility.

Furthermore, participating in loot boxes may condition players to spend more, take more risk, and play longer. Zendle (53) points out: "The intermittent wins characteristic of loot boxes may result in a conditioning process in which loot box consumers learn to associate gambling-like experiences with excitement" (p. 3). The excitement associated with this conditioning process can also be seen in studies that compare players' brain activity during loot box opening with activity during a gambling task. For example, Larche et al. 17 found that winning rewards from loot boxes activates the same neurobiological reward response as winning money on a slot machine, with rarer items contained in loot boxes eliciting stronger responses.

Research 16, 54, 55, 56, 57 has established a consistent positive relationship between loot box purchases and problem gambling symptoms. Although this study does not suggest a causal relationship between spending on loot boxes and the onset of problem gambling symptoms, and may simply indicate that these mechanisms are disproportionately attractive to those at risk for problem gambling, concerns have been expressed that involvement in loot boxes may have a causal effect on future maladaptive behaviors such as gambling 9, 14, 38 . The factors underlying the directional effects between loot box use and risk taking, which would be necessary to support the gateway hypothesis, have not been established 10 . Regardless of our beliefs about the possibility of a gateway mechanism in this context, this issue is worth exploring because several theoretically plausible (although not necessarily likely) pathways of the relationship exist, and because policymakers have already argued for the possibility of such a gateway 14 . Thus, this relationship requires empirical investigation.

Specifically, the time order of relevance between loot boxes, gambling and risk behavior is not yet understood. However, Zendle 53 gives some speculation about such a relationship. First, intentionally, a loot box may function as an entrance to gambling. Second, existing gambling actions, trends, or qualities may encourage the purchase of a higher loot box when participating in gambling. Third, individuals who can access the loot box may be digitally close to online gambling products, and are more likely to access online gambling products, and as a result, purchases and gambling. May c o-happen. Studies in this field have just begun, and most research rely on sel f-reporting on the expenditure, frequency of action, and problem gambling tendencies. Thus, research on direct impacts on which the purchase of a loot box can be purchased on the player's behavior is limited.

The present study

Before registration, this study took a first step to solve this gap and examined one mechanism that might support the gateway hypothesis. Compare individuals who interact with the i n-game loot box and individuals that are not with the established behavioral scale of risk taking. The risk behavioral scale is designed to evaluate the actual risk behavior (that is, the "Clear Choice" approach 58). The behavioral scale is often designed to capture or prove the cognitive process under risk behavior. Therefore, we use general action risks in order to evaluate the impact of the player's risk take on the gamblin g-like i n-game rewards: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (59, 60). 。 < SPAN> Specifically, the time order of relevance between loot boxes, gambling, and risk behavior is not yet understood. However, Zendle 53 gives some speculation about such a relationship. First, intentionally, a loot box may function as an entrance to gambling. Second, existing gambling actions, trends, or qualities may encourage the purchase of higher loot boxes when participating in gambling. Third, individuals who can access the loot box may be digitally close to online gambling products, and are more likely to access online gambling products, and as a result, purchases and gambling. May c o-happen. Studies in this field have just begun, and most research rely on sel f-reporting on the expenditure, frequency of action, and problem gambling tendencies. Thus, research on direct impacts on which the purchase of a loot box can be purchased on the player's behavior is limited.

Before registration, this study took a first step to solve this gap and examined one mechanism that might support the gateway hypothesis. Compare individuals who interact with the i n-game loot box and individuals that are not with the established behavioral scale of risk taking. The risk behavioral scale is designed to evaluate the actual risk behavior (that is, the "Clear Choice" approach 58). The behavioral scale is often designed to capture or prove the cognitive process under risk behavior. Therefore, we use general action risks in order to evaluate the impact of the player's risk take on the gamblin g-like i n-game rewards: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (59, 60). 。 Specifically, the time order of relevance between loot boxes, gambling and risk behavior is not yet understood. However, Zendle 53 gives some speculation about such a relationship. First, intentionally, a loot box may function as an entrance to gambling. Second, existing gambling actions, trends, or qualities may encourage the purchase of a higher loot box when participating in gambling. Third, individuals who can access the loot box may be digitally close to online gambling products, and are more likely to access online gambling products, and as a result, purchases and gambling. May c o-happen. Studies in this field have just begun, and most research rely on sel f-reporting on the expenditure, frequency of action, and problem gambling tendency. Thus, research on direct impacts on which the purchase of a loot box can be purchased on the player's behavior is limited.

Before registration, this study took a first step to solve this gap and examined one mechanism that might support the gateway hypothesis. Compare individuals who interact with the i n-game loot box and individuals that are not with the established behavioral scale of risk taking. The risk behavioral scale is designed to evaluate the actual risk behavior (that is, the "Clear Choice" approach 58). The behavioral scale is often designed to capture or prove the cognitive process under risk behavior. Therefore, we use general action risks in order to evaluate the impact of the player's risk take on the gamblin g-like i n-game rewards: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (59, 60). 。

Recruit participants, and in any of the three reward conditions, a speciall y-ordered video game (modeled a popular match 3-style game to maximize the participants' ability to play and play). I had you play. Some participants touch the reward mechanisms that can purchase random rewards (in effect, "powe r-up" that helps players to achieve tasks in the game) in the currency acquired in the game (in effect, a "powe r-up") ), Some participants touched on a reward mechanism that allows you to purchase visible rewards or known rewards in the currency acquired in the game (designed to be similar to the standard microtransactions of i n-game content. Fixed remuneration conditions) and other participants played the game without reward mechanism (no reward, contrasting conditions). After the game play, the participants performed the Balloon Analogue Risk Taking (Bart) tasks, Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), RISKY LOOT BOX Inventory (RLI). It is an experimental operation that is important to include randomized rewards (loot boxes) and fixed rewards, which accompanies some risk factors (that is, whether the result of transactions is desirable or not desirable). The effects of being involved in gambling (that is, randomized) rewards and the effects of more i n-game spending were separated, affecting behavioral risk take.

Considering the essential roles of risk take in gambling and the structural similarity between the loot box and the gambling activity, being involved in a loot box in the game is a reward mechanism like a gambling, after the game. Verified the hypothesis that it is related to an increase in risk take:

H1: Participants in the loot box (random reward) condition have higher Bart scores than participants in the no n-reward (contrast) conditions.

H2: Participants in the loot box conditions have a higher Bart score than the participants under the fixed reward (no n-random) conditions.

Since this design is explorable, we also verified the differences between the risk taking between the No Reward condition and the Fixed Reward condition (H3).

Considering the interaction between risks and gambling, past gambling experience may affect the relationship between participation in a loot box and risk take. Therefore, we examined whether the difference in the Bart score between the three reward conditions is eased by the participant's PGSI score:

H4: Participants with higher PGSI scores will show a larger difference in BART scores from the Loot Box to the No Reward condition than participants with lower PGSI scores.

Method

Preregistration

H5: Participants with higher PGSI scores will show a larger difference in BART scores from the Loot Box to the Fixed Reward condition than participants with lower PGSI scores.

Participants and design

The RLI is a relatively new measure of loot box engagement38. Therefore, we had the opportunity to test whether BART scores correlated with participants’ RLI scores (H6), and, as a replication of the original study, we tested whether RLI scores correlated with participants’ PGSI scores in our sample (H7).

Data screening

To promote transparency, reproducibility, and demonstrate good research practices61, this study was preregistered in the OpenScience Framework (https://osf. io/f4wgh) including all hypotheses, Bayesian and frequentist analyses, transformations, and exclusions.

For a one-sided independent-samples t-test comparing two means, a priori power calculation in G*Power suggested that with 51 participants per condition (N = 153), the power to detect a moderate difference (d = 0. 5) between the two conditions would be 0. 8. We used this calculation based on frequentist analysis to derive the recruitment cutoff, even though we intended to conduct a Bayesian t-test for the primary comparison.

A total of 166 participants completed the experiment from May to September 2021. (Data collection for this study began in 2020, but was interrupted due to the COVID19 pandemic, and only 26 participants were tested. We started data collection anew in 2021, collecting a full sample of 153 participants. However, for full transparency, we report the analyses including data collected in 2020 in the supplementary material (SI Tables 1-4). The pattern of results remains unchanged.) Thirteen participants were removed due to incomplete datasets resulting from software issues, leaving 153 participants for analysis. Preregistered exclusion criteria included participants who failed to answer at least 75% of the PGSI questions, which was not the case for the remaining data.

Ethics approval

One hundred fifty-three participants (91 males, 59 females, and 3 others) aged 18 to 53 years were assigned to one of three experimental conditions in a between-group design, with 51 participants in each. Participants were recruited from various sources, including undergraduate students and social media platforms. All participants were entered into a prize draw to win one of six $50 gift vouchers by completing the experiment.

Materials

Our game

Across gaming platforms (mobile/tablet, console, and PC), 64 participants reported that they “never play games,” with an average daily gaming time of approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes, with a standard deviation of approximately 4 hours.

In-game rewards

Ethics approval was obtained as a minimal risk application (H0021748) by the Tasmania Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee. The study was conducted in accordance with all relevant guidelines/regulations and the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation was anonymous and voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to study participation.

The match-3 game used in this study was designed to mimic a popular match-3 game that is generally well known and accessible (i. e., easy to play) for participants without gaming experience (see Supplementary Material, SI Figure 1). In this game, participants must match or match three colored candies, with each successive level offering more matching candies and varying conditions. Participants completed this task online using a personal computer. Play time was limited to 20 minutes in each condition, after which an automatic pop-up displayed and participants moved on to the next task.

Presentation of rewards and possibilities vary depending on the conditions. There were three rewards with different game play functions. All rewards are the powe r-up in the game, which is common in the match 3 games, destroying one candy selected by the player, replacing the position of two candies, and destroying all the randomed colors. Can be done. These powe r-up helped players to achieve their level goals, but their support levels were different. Participants provided powe r-up functions and instructions to show hierarchies. These rewards are modeled on the generally available rewards in this genre, enhancing the ecological validity of experimental issues.

Measures

Balloon analogue risk task (BART)

Rewards can only be used in fixed reward conditions and loot box conditions (see Supplementary Materials, SI Fig. 2), and participants were presented to the participants at the end of each level. According to the fixed reward conditions, the reward was presented in the Market Plac e-style purchase window. In the loot box conditions, participants presented one option to purchase a random item box containing random items from the three remuneration pools. Therefore, unlike fixed reward conditions, under the loot box conditions, the result of the reward purchase was unknown to the player before purchasing. With no reward (control) conditions, the reward was not obtained, and the access was hidden. However, the gameplay itself did not change. The important thing is that the same rewards were obtained in the fixed reward conditions and the loot box conditions, so the value of the available reward did not change systematically depending on the condition. It was guaranteed that this ensures the robustness of the experimental operation, and the difference that was observed between conditions is not the value of the reward itself, but the randomization of the reward delivery.

The problem gambling severity index (PGSI)

Rewards were purchased using virtual currency acquired in gameplay, and items were equally evaluated by fixed rewards and rampant box conditions (200 coins). Once the rewards I purchased were used during game play at the player's discretion. < SPAN> Presentation of rewards varies depending on the conditions. There were three rewards with different game play functions. All rewards are the powe r-up in the game, which is common in the match 3 games, destroying one candy selected by the player, replacing the position of two candies, and destroying all the randomed colors. Can be done. These powe r-up helped players to achieve their level goals, but their support levels were different. Participants provided powe r-up functions and instructions to show hierarchies. These rewards are modeled on the generally available rewards in this genre, enhancing the ecological validity of experimental issues.

The risky loot-box index (RLI)

Rewards can only be used in fixed reward conditions and loot box conditions (see Supplementary Materials, SI Fig. 2), and participants were presented to the participants at the end of each level. According to the fixed reward conditions, the reward was presented in the Market Plac e-style purchase window. In the loot box conditions, participants presented one option to purchase a random item box containing random items from the three remuneration pools. Therefore, unlike fixed reward conditions, under the loot box conditions, the result of the reward purchase was unknown to the player before purchasing. With no reward (control) conditions, the reward was not obtained, and the access was hidden. However, the gameplay itself did not change. The important thing is that the same rewards were obtained in the fixed reward conditions and the loot box conditions, so the value of the available reward did not change systematically depending on the condition. It was guaranteed that this ensures the robustness of the experimental operation, and the difference that was observed between conditions is not the value of the reward itself, but the randomization of the reward delivery.

Procedure

Rewards were purchased using virtual currency acquired in gameplay, and items were equally evaluated by fixed rewards and rampant box conditions (200 coins). Once the rewards I purchased were used during game play at the player's discretion. Presentation of rewards and possibilities vary depending on the conditions. There were three rewards with different game play functions. All rewards are the powe r-up in the game, which is common in the match 3 games, destroying one candy selected by the player, replacing the position of two candies, and destroying all the randomed colors. Can be done. These powe r-up helped players to achieve their level goals, but their support levels were different. Participants provided powe r-up functions and instructions to show hierarchies. These rewards are modeled on the generally available rewards in this genre, enhancing the ecological validity of experimental issues.

Statistical analysis

Rewards can only be used in fixed reward conditions and loot box conditions (see Supplementary Materials, SI Fig. 2), and participants were presented to the participants at the end of each level. According to the fixed reward conditions, the reward was presented in the Market Plac e-style purchase window. In the loot box conditions, participants presented one option to purchase a random item box containing random items from the three remuneration pools. Therefore, unlike fixed reward conditions, under the loot box conditions, the result of the reward purchase was unknown to the player before purchasing. With no reward (control) conditions, the reward was not obtained, and the access was hidden. However, the gameplay itself did not change. The important thing is that the same rewards were obtained in the fixed reward conditions and the loot box conditions, so the value of the available reward did not change systematically depending on the condition. It was guaranteed that this ensures the robustness of the experimental operation, and the difference that was observed between conditions is not the value of the reward itself, but the randomization of the reward delivery.

Results

The effects of reward condition on risk-taking

Rewards were purchased using virtual currency acquired in gameplay, and items were equally evaluated by fixed rewards and rampant box conditions (200 coins). Once the rewards I purchased were used during game play at the player's discretion.

Bart59 is a computerized task designed to measure personal risk take. Bart's instructions were presented on the screen at the start of the task. In this study, 30 balloons (trials) were presented to each participant. In each trial, the participants had to simulate balloons, and they were found to burst of balloons due to uncertainties. The pop threshold changed between two and 14 times, and was set randomly for each trial. Every time the balloon is inflated, the participants save the token and lose the token when the balloon bursts. Therefore, the risk of loss accumulates each time the balloon is inflated. Every time you inflate, the participants can choose either cash out or inflate the token again. When you select a cashout, the token accumulated in the trial is transferred to the bank, the current trial is terminated, and the next trial is started. Banked tokens are safe and will not be lost in subsequent trials. The important thing is that this task is designed to be designed to be correlated with rewards. The results of this task are measured as the average number of pumps on balloons that have ended in the balloon (that is, the average of the total number of participants in the number of pumps that did not explode the balloon), and the higher the score, the higher the risk take. 59, 60 indicating a big thing. In order to give the tokens accumulated in this task, the participants can participate in a lottery that hits one out of six gifts of $ 50, per token held at the end of the task. Ta.

PGSI63 is a nine survey that asks the participants about the frequency of various activities related to gambling in the past 12 months (for example, "" To gamble with a larger price to get the same excitement. "Is there?" "Have you borrowed money or sold something to get money to gamble?"). In recent verification studies of PGSI, as recommended by Currie and others, by r e-adjusting the group as lo w-risk (1 to 4), medium risk (5-7), and problem gamblers (& gt; 7). It is recommended to fold gambling categories from 4 groups to 3 groups 64. This r e-corrected variation was commonly used in loot box research (for example, 15, 53), and was also adopted in this study. The internal reliability of this scale is high (α = 0. 936).0+RLI is a scale consisting of five items designed to examine the risks of the rampance box. Participants are asked how much they agree with the following description: "I wanted to buy more from the thrill of opening the loot box," and "I want to earn more and buy a loot box. I have postponed the activities, work, and housework. " The internal reliability of this scale is high (α = 0. 915).0+Participants were alternately assigned to the recruitment time (that is, the first: Control, No. 2: Women's Box Conditions, 3rd: Control, etc.). After the assignment, the participants participated in the online video conference session with the researchers. Participants were guided to the registered process required to access the online data collection platform for experiments, providing information on gameplay and rewards related to their conditions. After that, the participants freely played the games for 20 minutes before BART. At the end of the two tasks, the participants answered population statistical questions, then provided some additional items that had nothing to do with RLI, PGSI, and this study. At the end of these items, the participants were grateful for spending time and received Debley Fing. < SPAN> RLI is a scale consisting of five items designed to investigate the risks of the loot box. Participants are asked how much they agree with the following description: "I wanted to buy more from the thrill of opening the loot box," and "I want to earn more and buy a loot box. I have postponed the activities, work, and housework. " The internal reliability of this scale is high (α = 0. 915).01Participants were alternately assigned to the recruitment time (that is, the first: Control, No. 2: Women's Box Conditions, 3rd: Control, etc.). After the assignment, the participants participated in the online video conference session with the researchers. Participants were guided to the registration process required to access the online data collection platform for experiments, providing information on gameplay and rewards related to their conditions. After that, the participants freely played the games for 20 minutes before BART. At the end of the two tasks, the participants responded to population statistical questions, then provided some additional items that had nothing to do with RLI, PGSI, and this study. At the end of these items, the participants were grateful for spending time and received Debley Fing. RLI is a scale consisting of five items designed to examine the risks of the rampance box. Participants are asked how much they agree with the following description: "I wanted to buy more from the thrill of opening the loot box," and "I want to earn more and buy a loot box. I have postponed the activities, work, and housework. " The internal reliability of this scale is high (α = 0. 915).

Participants were alternately assigned to the recruitment time (that is, the first: Control, No. 2: Women's Box Conditions, 3rd: Control, etc.). After the assignment, the participants participated in the online video conference session with the researchers. Participants were guided to the registered process required to access the online data collection platform for experiments, providing information on gameplay and rewards related to their conditions. After that, the participants freely played the games for 20 minutes before BART. At the end of the two tasks, the participants responded to population statistical questions, then provided some additional items that had nothing to do with RLI, PGSI, and this study. At the end of these items, the participants were grateful for spending time and received Debley Fing.

Data cleaning and integration were performed at Microsoft Excel. The analysis and conversion were performed by Jamovi 65. The Bayes T-test was performed using a JSQ ad d-on, and the model analysis was performed using Medmod ad d-on. The Bayes approach to analysis has some advantages than a more common NHST and frequency approach. These complete considerations are beyond the scope of this paper, but the excellent treatment of this topic is Wagenmakers, Marsman et al. However, the most important thing here is Bayes' analysis, which has the invalid effect. It is to be able to quantify support evidence. Therefore, if our operations could not be effective in the behavioral risk taking, we would not simply conclude that we could not find evidence of the effect, but the strength of evidence that supports this invalid effect (). In other words, it can be said that the level of behavioral risk taking is similar among conditions). The Bayes coefficient is interpreted in accordance with Wagenmakers, Love and 67. The Bayes coefficient is an anecdotal evidence, 3 to 10 is moderate, 10-30 is strong evidence, 30 to 100 is very strong evidence, and more than 100 is extreme for conflict hypotheses (or hypothesis) It is regarded as evidence. The effect is indexed by δ, which is the default scale provided by Jamovi software. δ is a mother group equivalent to Cohen's D (in effect, standardization between groups), and the cu t-off value of small, medium effects, and great effects is 0. 2, 0. 5, and 0. 8, respectively.

First, he proved that he was involved in the reward mechanism. There were various ways of how much the player was involved in the reward mechanism, but there was evidence that both remuneration conditions were involved. On average, players in the loot box conditions purchased 12 rewards (range: 0 to 46) and used four rewards (range: 0 to 18).

Next, a T-test of Bayes's on e-sided independent specimen was conducted to compare the average BART score between the groups. Our prior experimental hypothesis for H1 and H2 specified a direction in advance distribution for the opposing hypothesis between Group 1> Group 2 (Wrestling Box> Other Group). Considering the exploration properties of these compensation group comparison, there was no legitimate reason to deviate from the default outline (0. 707).

Our analysis gained three important and simple knowledge about the relationship between reward conditions and risk takings. First, the average score of risk taking in BART was very similar among the remuneration conditions (Fig. 1). Comparing the risk taking of the loot box and the control conditions (H1), the T-test of the Bayes Independent specimen provided a mediu m-sized evidence (BF).

= 8. 77, indicating that the returnless hypothesis is more likely to be 8. 77 times than the opposing hypothesis; Fig. 2A). Comparing the loot box group and the fixed reward group (H2), a strong evidence of supporting the returnless hypothesis between the loot box group and the fixed reward group (BF) was observed (BF).

= 10. 64; Fig. 2B). Finally, the BART score was compared between the fixe d-compensation group and the no n-reward group by the explorable both sides of the independent specimen Bayes T-test (H3). Again, BF

= 4. 05) supported the returnless hypothesis (Fig. 2C). In line with the evidence of the observed unprofessional effect, the median value of the effect was very small (δ = 0. 07-0. 11; see the center value of Fig. 2A-C). As you can see from FIG. 2, the medial value of the observed effect is below the cu t-off value of the small effect (δ = 0. 1), or in one case, close to the cu t-off value.

Figure 1

Moderation analyses

Average value of BART score according to reward conditions.

Figure 2

Prior / afte r-matter plot and Bayes T-certification.

Second, the stubborn check of the T-certification-indicating how much the odds will change as the pre-distribution function selected after the after-matter, is in support of the data in a wide range of appropriate pre-distribution, and supports the return hypothesis. It suggests that it provides strong evidence from a degree (Figure 2D-F). Therefore, the obtained results do not depend on the use of default advance distribution.

Correlations

Finally, in H1 and H2, which compares the no n-cropped conditions, the no n-compensated conditions, and the Bart score of the no n-compensation conditions, the evidence that supports the returnless hypothesis is generally enhanced as the data accumulates. (Fig. 3A and B). In H3, when comparing the fixed remuneration conditions and the Bart score under no n-reward conditions, the strength of the evidence for the returnless hypothesis stagnated, near the middle cu t-off (Fig. 3c).01Figure 310Continuous analysis of Bayes T-test.

Discussion

To summarize these results, at least this study suggests that our data provides persuasive evidence regarding the impact of exposure to i n-game rewards such as gambling. It will be done.

The literature suggests that past gambling history may influence an individual's risk taking. We therefore tested whether PGSI scores moderate the relationship between exposure to gambling rewards and BART scores. We hypothesized that the difference in BART scores between the randomized reward condition and the two controls would be larger for participants with higher scores on the PGSI (H4). In the absence of accessible Bayesian tools for neutralization, we reverted to a frequentist null hypothesis significance testing approach. The robustness of the estimates was improved by bootstrapping to 1000 samples. When comparing the reward random condition with the no-reward control (H4) or fixed reward condition (H5), we found no evidence that the PGSI moderated the effect of reward condition on BART scores, b = 0. 32, 95% CI [- 3. 40, 3. 50], p = 0. 854 and b = 2. 11, 95% CI [- 4. 0, 8. 85], p = 0. 530, respectively. This may reflect that the distribution of PGSI scores in our sample was positively skewed, indicating a low proportion of gambling (Figure 4). Specifically, in our sample, 70% (N = 99) of participants were classified as non-gamblers and 29% (N = 44) were classified as low-risk gamblers (PGSI 1-4). Only five participants were classified as medium-risk gamblers (PGSI 5-7) and only two participants were classified as high-risk gamblers (PGSI 7+).

Figure 4

Risk-taking behaviour, risky loot box use, and problem gambling symptomatology

Density plot of PGSI score distribution.

We also examined whether risk-taking correlated with riskier loot box use as measured by the RLI (H6). Furthermore, as a replication of previous research 38, we examined the correlation between the PGSI and the RLI (H7). Interestingly, Bayesian correlations showed moderate evidence for a relationship between BART and RLI scores (r = - 0. 06, BF = 7. 72). However, we conceptually replicated Brooks and Clark's 38 significant positive correlations between the PGSI and the RLI and found very strong evidence for a positive correlation using a Bayesian approach (r = 0. 35, BF = 2197 when using Spearman's rho to counter skew in the PGSI data).

Future directions

= 2197 when using Spearman's rho to correct for skew in the PGSI data).

Loot boxes are psychologically similar to traditional gambling behaviors, 6 and increased involvement in loot boxes is positively correlated with problem gambling severity. 16 These theoretical and empirical associations between loot boxes and gambling have prompted speculation that involvement in loot boxes may lead to future gambling behavior. Because simulated gambling experiences can affect risk appraisals, one mechanistic pathway through which loot boxes may promote future gambling is through their effect on subsequent risk taking. We experimentally tested the effect of involvement in loot boxes on subsequent risk-taking behavior compared to fixed-reward and no-reward gameplay conditions. Results showed no meaningful differences between conditions in players' subsequent risk-taking behavior as measured by the BART. Indeed, we found moderate to strong evidence for such an effect. To the extent that the BART is a valid measure of risk-taking behavior and our experimental task is ecologically valid, this finding suggests that risk-taking behavior is not increased by exposure to loot boxes. Below, we discuss limitations and boundary conditions of our findings. The observed null effect was also not moderated by problem gambling symptoms, although this lack of moderation must be interpreted cautiously given the small number of participants with moderate risk and problem gambling symptoms in the sample. Loot boxes are psychologically similar to traditional gambling behaviors, 6 and increased involvement in loot boxes is positively correlated with problem gambling severity. 16 These theoretical and empirical associations between loot boxes and gambling have prompted speculation that involvement in loot boxes may lead to future gambling behavior. Because simulated gambling experiences may affect risk appraisals, one mechanistic pathway through which loot boxes may promote future gambling is through their effect on subsequent risk taking. We experimentally tested the effect of involvement in loot boxes on subsequent risk taking behavior compared to fixed reward and no-reward gameplay conditions. Results showed no meaningful differences between conditions in players' subsequent risk taking behavior as measured by the BART. Indeed, we found moderate to strong evidence for such an effect. To the extent that the BART is a valid measure of risk-taking behavior and our experimental task is ecologically valid, the findings suggest that risk-taking behavior is not increased by exposure to the Loot Box. Below, we discuss limitations and boundary conditions of our findings. The observed null effect was also not moderated by problem gambling symptoms, but this lack of moderation must be interpreted with caution given the small number of participants with moderate risk and problem gambling symptoms in our sample. Loot Box is psychologically similar to traditional gambling behaviors6, and increased involvement in Loot Box is positively correlated with problem gambling severity16. These theoretical and empirical associations between Loot Box and gambling have prompted speculation that involvement in Loot Box may lead to future gambling behavior. Because simulated gambling experiences can affect risk appraisal, one mechanistic pathway by which Loot Box may promote future gambling is its effect on subsequent risk taking. We experimentally tested the effect of Loot Box involvement on subsequent risk-taking behavior compared to fixed-reward and no-reward gameplay conditions. As a result, we found no meaningful differences between conditions in players' subsequent risk-taking behavior as measured by the BART. Indeed, we found moderate to strong evidence for such an effect. To the extent that the BART is a valid measure of risk-taking behavior and our experimental tasks are ecologically valid, the findings suggest that risk-taking behavior is not increased by exposure to loot boxes. Below, we discuss the limitations and boundary conditions of our findings. The observed null effect was also not moderated by problem gambling symptoms, although this lack of moderation must be interpreted with caution given the small number of participants with moderate risk and problem gambling symptoms in our sample.

These findings have multiple interpretations. If you receive it at face value, our discovery may indicate that participation in the loot box will not affect subsequent risk take, and may deny this route in the gateway hypothesis. The three aspects of our research are particularly confident in the usefulness of our knowledge. First, design, hypothesis, and analysis were registered in advance, reducing researchers' freedom to suppress type 1 error by researchers. Second, instead of relying on the reliance of involvement in the loot box and the sel f-reporting of risk behavior, the exposure and the promotion of involvement in the loot box were experimentally operated, and subsequent risk take action was measured. We create attractive and innovative experimental issues (our video games), design, operate, and implement reward systems in line with the key psychological components with interest. Was measured directly. The limits of trying to simulate the real world game experience of participating in a loot box in our experiments will be described later. However, the participants' feedback on the game tasks was positive (that is, the game was purely enjoyed), and it was encouraging for future research. Finally, by using the Bayes approach for the analysis, we were able to quantify the evidence of the effect, rather than simply not to find evidence of the effect. Thus, our results tell the evidence of this mechanical route, < Span> these knowledge has multiple interpretations. If you receive it at face value, our discovery may indicate that participation in the loot box will not affect subsequent risk take, and may deny this route in the gateway hypothesis. The three aspects of our research are particularly confident in the usefulness of our knowledge. First, design, hypothesis, and analysis were registered in advance, reducing researchers' freedom to suppress type 1 error by researchers. Second, instead of relying on the reliance of involvement in the loot box and the sel f-reporting of risk behavior, the exposure and the promotion of involvement in the loot box were experimentally operated, and subsequent risk take action was measured. We create attractive and innovative experimental issues (our video games), design, operate, and implement reward systems in line with the key psychological components with interest. Was measured directly. The limits of trying to simulate the real world game experience of participating in a loot box in our experiments will be described later. However, the participants' feedback on the game tasks was positive (that is, the game was purely enjoyed), and it was encouraging for future research. Finally, by using the Bayes approach for the analysis, we were able to quantify the evidence of the effect, rather than simply not to find evidence of the effect. Thus, our results tell the evidence of this mechanical route, and these findings have multiple interpretations. If you receive it at face value, our discovery may indicate that participation in the loot box will not affect subsequent risk take, and may deny this route in the gateway hypothesis. The three aspects of our research are particularly confident in the usefulness of our knowledge. First, design, hypothesis, and analysis were registered in advance, reducing researchers' freedom to suppress type 1 error by researchers. Second, instead of relying on the reliance of involvement in the loot box and the sel f-reporting of risk behavior, the exposure and the promotion of involvement in the loot box were experimentally operated, and subsequent risk take action was measured. We create attractive and innovative experimental issues (our video games), design, operate, and implement reward systems in line with the key psychological components with interest. Was measured directly. The limits of trying to simulate the real world game experience of participating in a loot box in our experiments will be described later. However, the participants' feedback on the game tasks was positive (that is, the game was purely enjoyed), and it was encouraging for future research. Finally, by using the Bayes approach for the analysis, we were able to quantify the evidence of the effect, rather than simply not to find evidence of the effect. Thus, our results show evidence of this mechanical route,

Conclusion

Despite these advantages, the aspect of our design may have restricted the relationship between rewar d-type operation and risk. First, it may not have been enough time for gameplay to reach the participants needed to create the effects, and it is recognized that i n-game rewards are sufficiently valuable. It may not have been. Risk take is linked to the recognition of value for both the betting and those that may be possible. When considering i n-game rewards, it is possible to derive value because the i n-game items are emphasized in the context of the game (that is, the value related to the ability to sell items). However, this value is likely to be adjusted depending on how much gamer is involved in games and compensation. Therefore, the fact that our experiments are short in play time and the rewards can only be useful in the context of the game may have restricted the involvement of players and put value in the rewards in the game. As a result, the risk sensation related to the loot box may have been restricted, and the impact on risk take may have been restricted. It is acknowledged that long game play time, investment and involvement in deeper games, and more valuable rewards may cause the hypothesis, but to clearly verify these possibilities. Further research is needed. Second, related to the relevant virtual currency that purchased rewards may have influenced risk take. < SPAN> Despite these advantages, the aspect of our design may have restricted the relationship between rewar d-type operation and risk. First, it may not have been enough time for gameplay to reach the participants needed to create the effects, and it is recognized that i n-game rewards are sufficiently valuable. It may not have been. Risk take is linked to the recognition of value for both the betting and those that may be possible. When considering i n-game rewards, it is possible to derive value because the i n-game items are emphasized in the context of the game (that is, the value related to the ability to sell items). However, this value is likely to be adjusted depending on how much gamer is involved in games and compensation. Therefore, the fact that our experiments are short in play time and the rewards can only be useful in the context of the game may have restricted the involvement of players and put value in the rewards in the game. As a result, the risk sensation related to the loot box may have been restricted, and the impact on risk take may have been restricted. It is acknowledged that long game play time, investment and involvement in deeper games, and more valuable rewards may cause the hypothesis, but to clearly verify these possibilities. Further research is needed. Second, as related, it is possible that the virtual currency that purchased the reward has influenced risk take. Despite these advantages, the aspect of our design may have restricted the relationship between rewar d-type operation and risk. First, it may not have been enough time for gameplay to reach the participants needed to create the effects, and it is recognized that i n-game rewards are sufficiently valuable. It may not have been. Risk take is linked to the recognition of value for both the betting and those that may be possible. When considering i n-game rewards, it is possible to derive value because the i n-game items are emphasized in the context of the game (that is, the value related to the ability to sell items). However, this value is likely to be adjusted depending on how much gamer is involved in games and compensation. Therefore, the fact that our experiments are short in play time and the rewards can only be useful in the context of the game may have restricted the involvement of players and put value in the rewards in the game. As a result, the risk sensation related to the loot box may have been restricted, and the impact on risk take may have been restricted. It is acknowledged that long game play time, investment and involvement in deeper games, and more valuable rewards may cause the hypothesis, but to clearly verify these possibilities. Further research is needed. Second, as related, it is possible that the virtual currency that purchased the reward has influenced risk take.

Data availability

References

  1. BART (and other action issues) is related to risk behavior, but is shown that the correlation with risk trends and frequency measurement is low. Thus, BART may have been at the root of the involvement of wool boxes and rewards in our experiments, and may have been relatively insensitive to the cognitive process that affects it. But our main interests were the impact on risk taking behavior. Therefore, (a) Bart provides a ris k-taked behavioral scale, (b) validation is confirmed, and it is widely used in literature on risk taking. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in order to make sure that our invalid effect is not caused by Bart's specificity, conceptual reproduction using other scales of risk taking is necessary. For empirical verifications on the differences between risk selection and risk takings, Pedroni et al. < SPAN> Bart (and other behavioral issues) are related to risk behavior, but correlation with risk tendency and frequency measurement. 58 shows that it is low. Thus, BART may have been at the root of the involvement of wool boxes and rewards in our experiments, and may have been relatively insensitive to the cognitive process that affects it. But our main interests were the impact on risk taking behavior. Therefore, (a) Bart provides a ris k-taked behavioral scale, (b) validation is confirmed, and it is widely used in literature on risk taking. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in order to make sure that our invalid effect is not caused by Bart's specificity, conceptual reproduction using other scales of risk taking is necessary. Regarding empirical verifications on the difference between ris k-selection and risk takings, Pedroni et al. bart (and other actions) is related to risk behavior, but has a low correlation with risk tendency and frequency measurement. Is shown 58. Thus, BART may have been at the root of the involvement of wool boxes and rewards in our experiments, and may have been relatively insensitive to the cognitive process that affects it. But our main interests were the impact on risk taking behavior. Therefore, (a) Bart provides a ris k-taked behavioral scale, (b) validation is confirmed, and it is widely used in literature on risk taking. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in order to make sure that our invalid effect is not caused by Bart's specificity, conceptual reproduction using other scales of risk taking is necessary. Pedroni et al.
  2. In addition to the effects of engaging in randomized rewards on subsequent risk-taking behavior, our data addressed two other questions of interest. First, we sought to correlate a measure of behavioral risk taking (BART) with a self-reported measure of loot-related risk taking (RLI; 38). We found moderate evidence for a meaningful correlation between risk-taking behavior as measured by the BART and self-reported risky loot-box use. Contrary to its name, the Risky Loot-Box Index includes questions related to, but is not limited to, risk-taking (it was adapted from the finance subscale of the DOSPERT; 71). In contrast, the BART is a more generalized risk-taking behavior index and may not adequately capture the risk-related effects of engaging in loot boxes as well as the RLI. Furthermore, the RLI is considered a self-report measure of risk propensity specific to engaging in loot boxes. As previously mentioned, risk-taking behavioral measures may correlate poorly with measures of risk-taking tendencies. 58 The low correlations observed between the BART and the RLI may reflect differences in the domain of risk-taking measured (i. e., tendencies vs. behaviors) or important context-specific differences (e. g., between generalized risk-taking behaviors and loot box-specific risk behaviors). Alternatively, the limited variability in RLI scores and past loot box involvement within the sample may have constrained correlations between measures.
  3. Finally, correlations between the PGSI and the RLI have been reported previously. 38 This correlation supports the current study’s finding that self-reported risky loot box spending co-occurs with problem gambling symptoms. This reinforces concerns that loot box spending may be driven in part by vulnerable gamers with problem gambling symptoms.
  4. Following the limitations identified in the present study, we recommend three directions for further investigation. First, the time allotted for gameplay (and subsequent reward exposure) in the present experiment may have constrained participants’ perceptions of the reward’s value and purchase risk. Future experiments could experimentally manipulate gameplay conditions or reward exposure to increase the perceived value of the reward (i. e., making it essential to game progression) or to increase the perceived value of the in-game currency used to purchase the reward. Doing so may create a truer sense of risk, loss, and risk-reward ratio in purchasing loot.
  5. Second, the single exposure phase in this experimental design may have constrained players’ engagement. In reality, players experience and engage with loot boxes over multiple game sessions and extended periods of time18, 53. Such repeated exposure to the reward mechanism and time spent playing the associated game may alter perceptions of the reward’s value and associated purchase risk. In the future, a longitudinal design would be useful to encourage multiple gameplay sessions over a longer period of time, allowing players to spend more time immersed in the game and to evaluate the rewards during that immersion. Also, designs that allow for extended gameplay would make in-game currency more difficult and time-consuming to accumulate, and therefore more valuable (further increasing the perception of risk associated with purchasing rewards).
  6. Finally, conceptual replication is needed to ensure that our results are robust to variability in risk-taking measurements. Alternative behavioral measures (e. g., Iowa Gambling Task) or measures of risk preference may reveal cognitive and behavioral effects of engagement with loot boxes that were not detected in the current study.
  7. Consumers, scholars, and policy proppons have expressed concerns that their loot boxes may adversely affect gamers through looting design and implementation. Some say that a loot box can be involved in the cognitive process and may promote future gambling behavior. Our research is the first to directly verify the impact on risk take, one of the routes that can promote future gambling. We discovered evidence to deny this route: the involvement in the loot box did not increase the risk take. But this conclusion has two important precautions. First, our research is only the first research that directly verifies the relationship between involvement in a loot box and risk take. Second, games and spending o n-i n-game rewards acts in the complex systems of personal and social motivation. The limits of the efforts to replace the complex real world with an experimental environment that have been managed are taken care of when generalizing the results. Nevertheless, our results deny the presence of the gateway effect of the game-gambling, and the problem of gambling symptoms is not due to expenses in the loot box, but rather forecasting it. It is supported.
  8. Brand, J. E., Jervis, J., Huggins, P. M., & amp; Wilson, T. W. Digital Australia 2020 (DA20). Interactive Game & Entertainment Association (IGEA). 2019. 67 P. Report. Https://igea. net/2019/07/digital-customia-2020-Da20/.
  9. Entertainment Software Association. Important facts about the video game industry. 2021. http://www. theesa. com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2014. pdf. June 28, 2020.
  10. Moldo Intelligence World Game Market ｜ 2021-26 ｜ Growth-Mordor Intelligence (2020). G-Market.
  11. Billieux, J. et al. Problems in online games: Cluster analytical approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 242-250 (2015). Paper Google Scholar
  12. KNEER, J., RieGer, D., Ivory, J. D. & amp; Int. J. ment. Heal. Addict. 12 (5), 585-599 (2014).
  13. Video games' loot boxes are psychologically similar to gambling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 (8), 530-532 (2018). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolar
  14. Drummond, A., J. D., L. C., Zendle, Loudon, M. R. ROOT BOXES COUXED BE REGULATED AS GAMB running. Hum. https: // doi. org/10. 1038/s41562-020-0900-3 (2020). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolar
  15. ABARBANEL, B., Gainsbury, S. & Amp; Delfabbro, P. H. Social Platform: Gambling Games on Social Platform: Social Casino Games are young Are you targeting adults? Policy Internet 9 (2), 184-209 (2017). Paper Google Schoolar
  16. Kelly, M. How Loot Boxes Hooked Gamers and Left Regulators Spinning. /2/19/18226852/Loot-BOXES-GAMIN G-ReGULATION-GAMBLING-FREE-TO-PLAY.
  17. King, D. L. & amp; Delfabbro, PREDATORY MONETIZATION SCHEMES IN VIDEO Games') and Internet Gaming Disorder. Addition 113 (113) 1967-1969 (2018). ArticlePubmedGoogle Scholar
  18. The need for looting properties of loot boxes and government regulations. UIC John Marshall Law. 53 (4), 8 (2021). Google Schoolar
  19. DRUMMOND, A., Sauer, J. D. & amp; Hall, L. C. Limited Settings: Possibility of protecting video game users with gambling addiction? Addiction 114 (5), 935-936 (2019). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolar
  20. Hall, L. C., Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D. & amp; Ferguson, C. J. Self-isolation and selfish impact on a loot box and excessive games-the result of the natural experiment. Peerj 9, E10705. Https://doi. org/10. 7717/peerj. 10705 (2021). ArticlePubmedPubmedPubmed
  21. Quirk, T. Feds Box Prohibition bill for those under the age of 18 will be submitted to the Australian Parliament. CHECKPOINT (2021). Liament/.
  22. Video games' loot boxes are associated with the gambling of the problem: a larg e-scale survey. Plos ONE 13 (11), E0206767 (2018). ArticlePubmedPubmed CentralGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  23. GAREA, S. S., drummond, a., sauer, j. d., haLL, l. C. & amp; WiLLIAMS, M. N. Problem gambling, excessive games, met a-analysis of expenditures on expenditures on loot boxes. Int. Gambl. 21 (3), 460-479 (2021). Paper Google Schoolar
  24. The rewards of rare loot boxes cause a greater awakening reaction and reward reaction, and the urge to open more romance boxes. J. Gambl. J. Gambl. 37 (1), 141-163 (2021). ArticlePubmedGoogle School
  25. Zendle, D., meer, R. & amp; N. The Changing Face of Desktop Video Game MONETISTION Micro Survey on exposure to transactions. PLOS ONE 15 (5), E0232780 (2020). Paper CaspubmedPubmed CentralGOGLE SCHOLAR
  26. GREER, N., RockLoff, M., Browne, M., Hing, N. & Amp; King, D. L. Esports Betting and Skin Gambling: Easy history. J. Gambl. ISSUES. 43, 128-146 (2019). Google Scalar
  27. Mace, J. & Amp; Hamari, J. ESPORTS, Skins and Loot Boxes: Participants, practice, and problems related to the appearance of gambling. New Media SoC. 21 (1), 20-41 (2019). Paper Google Scholar
  28. LIU, K. Global analysis about loot boxes: Is that a de facto gambling? Wash. Wash. 28 (3), 763-800 (2019). Google Scholar
  29. Survey on Mace, J. & Amp; Hamari, J. Video Games, ESPORTS watching, and gambling. Comput. Hum. Behav. 80, 344-353 (2018).
  30. NEELY, E. L. COME FOR THE GAME, Stay for The Cash Grab: Ethical box, microtransaction, flemium game ethics. Games Cult. 16 (2), 228-247 (2021).
  31. Drummond, A., Sauer, J. D., C. J. & Amp; Hall, L. C. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEBLEM GAMB running, Excessive Gaming D Spending on Loot Boxes in AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND, Australia, and United States-A Cross-Natedal Survey. Plos ONE 15 (3), E0230378. Https://doi. org/10. 1371/journal. pone. 0230378 (2020). ArticlecaspubmedPubmed centralGoogle school
  32. Problem and income as a prediction factor for expenditure in a loot box. Int. Gambl. Gambling research. 28, 1-2. Https://doi. org/10. 1080/14459795. 2022. 2029528 (2022).
  33. Griffith, M. D. Gambling (Psychology Publishing, 1995). Google Scholar
  34. Felstar, C. B. & Amp; Skinner, B. F. Schedules of Reinforcement (AppleTon-Century-Crofts, 1957). Book Google Scholar
  35. Toward the theory of recognition of the problem gambling. Br. J. psychiatry. 162 (3), 407-412 (1993).
  36. Balogh, K. N., Mayes, L. C. & amp; Potenza, M. N. N. Ris k-tall and decisio n-making: Relationship with the vulnerability of addiction. J. BEHAV. Addict. 2 (1), 1-9 (2013). Article Google Scalar
  37. Sel f-regulation and risk takings. Personality Individi. Differ. 45 (2), 153-159 (2008).
  38. FIGNER, B., MackinLay, R. J., Wilkening, F. & Amp; Weber, E. U. Emotional and careful process in dangerous choices: Age difference in risk take in Colombian card issues. J. EXP. Psychol. Learning. J. EXP. Psychol. 35 (3), 709-730. Https://doi. org/10. 1037/a0014983 (2009). ArticlePubmedGoogle Scholar
  39. Does Dramond, A., Zauer, J. D. & Ferguson, C. J. treble support the lon g-term relationship between aggressive gameplay and youth aggressive behavior? Verification by meta analysis. R. SOC. Open Sci. 7 (7), 200373 (2020). Paper ADSPUBMEDPUBMED CENTRALGOGLE SCHOLAR
  40. Dramond, A., Zauer, J. D., Ferguson, C. J., Canon, P. R. & Amp; Hall, L. C. Violet and no n-violent virtual reality video Games: Emotions, aggressive recognition, and aggressive actions. Preliminary registration experiment. (Two pr e-registration experiments) J. EXP. SoC. 95, 104119. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. jesp. 2021. 104119 (2021). Paper Google Schoolar
  41. Pursuing a sense of prediction factors for positive and negative dangerous behavior in youth. Personality Individ. Differ. 30 (4), 627-640 (2001). Paper Google Schoolar
  42. Who takes the risk? Risk take factor for determination. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 20 (4), 211-216. Https://doi. org/10. 1177/0963721411415790 (2011).
  43. Youth games and loot purchases in video games: Traditional observation research using collective cohort data. 9 (1), E23886 (2021). ArticlePubmedPubmed CentralGoogle Schoolar
  44. NewAll, P., Russell, A., Sharman, S. & amp; Walasek, L. The frequency of involvement in legal gambling products for youth in the UK is related to adult disturbed gambling. https://doi. org/10. 31234/osf. io/72uav (2020). Paper Google Schoolar
  45. Brooks, g. & Amp; Clark, L. Related to the use of loot boxes, gambling, gambling, and recognition related to gambling. Addict. 96, 26-34 (2019). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolar
  46. Zendle, D., meer, R. & amp; over, H. Adolescents and Loot Boxes: Relationship with problem gambling and purchase motivation. R. SOC. Open Sci. 6 (6), 190049 (2019). Paper ADSPubmedPubmed CentralGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  47. Meyer, B., Johnson, S. L. & amp; C. SPLORING BEHAVIORAL ACTIORAL ANHIBITITIES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS AT RISK for Bipolar Pectrum Symptomsatology. J. PSYCHOPATHOL. Behav. Assess. 21 (4), 275-292. https: // doi. org/10. 1023/a:102219414440 (1999). Articleepubmedpubmed centralGoogle school
  48. Bembich, S. et al. Differential activation over time in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex associated with low- and high-risk choices in a gambling task. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8 (464), 1-8 (2014). Google Scholar
  49. Noël, X. Why adolescents are at risk for alcohol and gambling misuse. Alcohol. Alcohol. 49 (2), 165-172 (2014). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rutherford, H. J., Mayes, L. C. & amp; Potenza, M. N. The neurobiology of adolescent substance use disorders: Implications for prevention and treatment. Child Adolescent Psychiatric Clin. 19 (3), 479-492 (2010). Article Google Scholar
  51. Mishra, S., Lalumière, M. L. & amp; Williams, R. J. Gambling, risk taking, and antisocial behavior: A replication study supporting the generality of deviance. J. Gambl. J. Gambl. 33 (1), 15-36 (2017). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Why do people gamble and continue to gamble despite big losses? Psychol. Sci. 1 (5), 294-297 (1990). Article Google Scholar
  53. Rachlin, H., Safin, V., Arfer, K. B. & amp; Yen, M. The allure of gambling. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 103 (1), 260-266 (2015). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Spurrier, M. & amp; Blaszczynski, A. Risk perception in gambling: A systematic review. J. Gambl. Study. 30 (2), 253-276. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10899-013-9371-z (2014). Article PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. An investigation into how simulated gambling games promote financial gambling. J. Gambl. J. Gambl. 34 (4), 1165-1184 (2018). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Blaszczynski, A. & Nower, L. A pathway model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction 97 (5), 487-499 (2002). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Gilbert, N. Number of gamers worldwide 2021/2022: demographics, statistics, and forecasts. 2020. Financesonline. Com. https://financesonline. com/number-of-gamers-worldwide/.
  58. Kristiansen, S. & amp; Severin, M. C. Loot box engagement and problem gambling among adolescent gamers: Results from a national survey. Addict. Behav. 103 , 106254 (2020). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Hayer, T., Kalke, J., Meyer, G. & amp; Brosowski, T. Does adolescent simulated gambling predict real money gambling? Empirical findings from a longitudinal study. J. Gambl. J. Gambl. 34 (3), 929-947 (2018). ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zendle, D. Problem gamblers spend less money when loot boxes are removed from games: A before-and-after study of Heroes of the Storm. PeerJ 7 , e7700 (2019). ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. King, A., Wong-PadoongPatt, G., Barrita, A., PHUNG, D. T. & Amp; T. T. Dangerous factors for American emerging adult non-school students: Women's box, microtransaction, risk take role. Assignment Ment. Health Nurs. 41 (12), 1063-1075 (2020). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolarar
  62. Is the video game entrance to gambling? A vertical research based on a sample representing Norway. J. Gambl. Study 35 (2), 545-557. Https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10899-018-9781-Z (2019). ArticlePubmedGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  63. Zendle, D., Cairns, P., Barnett, H. & amp; McCall, C. There is. Comput. Hum. Behav. 102, 181-191 (2020).
  64. The loot box is related to gambling addiction: the result of the reproduction research. Plos ONE 14 (3), E0213194 (2019). ArticlePubmedPubmed CentralGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  65. FREY, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, RIESKAMP, J. & Amp; RISK Preference Share The Psychometric Structure of Major PSYCHOLOCAL TRAITS. i. 3 (10), E1701381 (2017). Article AdspubmedPubmed CentralGoogle Schoolar
  66. Lejuez, C. ET Al. Risk taking A behavioral measure: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J. EXP. HOLAR
  67. Evaluation of balloons analog risk issues (BART) as prediction factors for risk taking behavior in the real world of puberty. J. Adolesc. 26 (4), 475-479 (2003). Paper CaspubmedGoogle School
  68. Yoichi Yamada: How to crack for preliminary registration: Aiming for transparent and open science. Front. Psychol. 9, 1831. https://doi. org/10. 3389/fpsyg. 2018. 01831 (2018). ArticlePubmedPubmed CentralGoogle Schoolar
  69. Steiner, M. D. & amp; Frey, R. Representative design in psychological assessment: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (Bart). J. EXP. Psychol. 150 (10), 2117-2136. Https://doi. org/10. 1037/xge0001036 (2021). ArticlePubmedGoogle School
  70. Ferris, J. A. & Amp; Win, H. J. Canada Problem Gambling Index (Canadian Substage Dusk Center, 2001). Google Scholar
  71. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C. & amp; Casey, D. M. J. Gambl. 29 (2), 311-327 (2013). ArticlePubmedGoogle Schoolar

Funding

Jamovi project. 2021. Jamovi (Version 1. 6) [Computer Software]. Https://www. jamovi. org.

avatar-logo

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

Article citations · Do Gamers Play for Money? · No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking. · Adolescents Who Play. No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking. Nicholas J. D'Amico, Aaron Drummond, Kristy de Salas, Ian Lewis. No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking no trajectory effect between gaming and gambling.

Play for real with EXCLUSIVE BONUSES
Play
enaccepted