Dataset Information

Loot box engagement: A scoping review of primary studies on prevalence and association with problematic gaming and gambling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Loot boxes are an increasingly common type of random microtransaction in videogames. There is some concern about their expansion and entailed risks, especially among adolescents. The actual prevalence of engagement with loot boxes among child and adult population is uncertain, and there is still controversy over the nature of their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling.

Objectives

The aims of this scoping review are to summarize the characteristics and findings of published primary empirical studies about the prevalence of engagement with loot boxes and/or their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling, taking in account the type of sample, time frame and measured variables.

Methods

This study follows the Joanna Briggs Institute's "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews" and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Three academic databases provided 299 articles.

Results

Sixteen primary empirical studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used cross-sectional designs, and most used convenience samples. Twelve study samples were comprised exclusively of gamers, and two were comprised of gamers and/or gamblers. Only six studies included adolescents. The annual prevalence rate of loot box purchases was higher for adult gamers than for adolescents (22.7%-44.2% and 20%-33.9%, respectively), but in studies with general population samples, the opposite was true (24.9% for players aged 13-14 versus 7.8% for adults). In general, the studies suggested a significant positive relationship between engagement with loot boxes and problematic gaming and gambling, but this may be related to the type of engagement (open/purchase/sell), and the characteristics of the study participants (male/female, adolescents/adults, gamers/gamers-gamblers/general population).

Conclusions

This scoping review summarizes the results of recent empirical studies on engagement with loot boxes and discusses how methodological issues may affect their results and interpretation. Recommendations for future research are also provided.

SUBMITTER: Montiel I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8794181 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:COVID-19 has prompted widespread self-isolation and citywide/countrywide lockdowns. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has encouraged increased digital social activities such as video game play to counteract social isolation during the pandemic. However, there is active debate about the potential for video game overuse, and some video games contain randomised purchases (loot boxes) that may psychologically approximate gambling. In this pre-registered study, we examined the effects of self-isolation and quarantine on excessive gaming and loot box spending. We recruited 1,144 (619 male, 499 female, 26 other) Australian, Aotearoa New Zealand, and US residents who self reported being quarantined or self-isolating (n = 447) or not (n = 619) during the COVID-19 pandemic to a cross-sectional natural experiment. We compared the associations between problem gambling symptomology, excessive gaming and loot box spending for isolated and non-isolated participants. Participants completed the Kessler-10 Psychological Distress Scale, Problem Gambling Severity Index, Internet Gaming Disorder Checklist, a measure of risky engagement with loot boxes, concern about contamination, and reported money spent on loot boxes in the past month, as well as whether they were quarantined or under self-isolation during the pandemic. Although, in our data, excessive gaming and loot box spending were not higher for isolated (self-isolated/ quarantined) compared to non-isolated gamers, the established association between problem gambling symptomology and loot box spending was stronger among isolated gamers than those not isolated. Concerns about being contaminated by germs was also significantly associated with greater excessive gaming and, to a lesser extent, loot box spending irrespective of isolation status. Gamers might be managing concerns about the pandemic with greater video game use, and more problem gamblers may be purchasing loot boxes during the pandemic. It is unclear whether these relationships may represent temporary coping mechanisms which abate when COVID-19 ends. Re-examination as the pandemic subsides may be required. More generally, the results suggest that social isolation during the pandemic may inflate the effect size of some media psychology and gaming effects. We urge caution not to generalise psychological findings from research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic to be necessarily representative of the magnitude of relationships when not in a pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundInternet gaming disorder (IGD) was included in the DSM-5 in 2013 as a condition requiring further research, and gaming disorder (GD) was included in the ICD-11 in 2018. Given the importance of including these conditions in diagnostic guidelines, a review was conducted to describe their prevalence.MethodsUsing guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane library were searched for literature published from inception to July 2018. All review stages were pilot-tested to calibrate reviewers. The titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened by one reviewer to include quantitative primary studies that reported GD or IGD prevalence. Excluded citations were screened by a second reviewer to confirm exclusion. Charting was conducted by one reviewer and verified by another, to capture relevant data. Results were summarized descriptively in tables or text.ResultsWe assessed 5550 potentially relevant citations. No studies on GD were identified. We found 160 studies of various designs that used 35 different methods to diagnose IGD. The prevalence of IGD ranged from 0.21-57.50% in general populations, 3.20-91.00% in clinical populations, and 50.42-79.25% in populations undergoing intervention (severe cases). Most studies were conducted in the Republic of Korea (n = 45), China (n = 29), and the USA (n = 20). Results are also presented for severe IGD and by geographic region, gender/sex, and age groups (child, adolescent, adult). The five most frequently reported health-related variables were depression (67 times), Internet addiction (54 times), anxiety (48 times), impulsiveness (37 times), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (24 times).ConclusionsDue to the variability in diagnostic approaches, knowledge users should interpret the wide IGD prevalence ranges with caution. In addition to further research on GD, consensus on the definition of IGD and how it is measured is needed, to better understand the prevalence of these conditions.