Loot boxes, problem gambling and problem video gaming: A systematic review and meta-synthesis
Open accessAbstract
Loot boxes (LBs) are video game-related purchases with a chance-based outcome. Due to similarities with gambling, they have come under increasing scrutiny from media, academics and policymakers alike. Initial evidence suggested that LB engagement might be associated with both problem gambling (PG) and problem video gaming (PVG). We therefore conducted a systematic review of the evidence for associations between LB purchasing, PG and PVG. For LB/PG, 12 of 13 publications reported a positive relationship, with a moderately sized mean effect of r = .27. For LB/PVG, the mean effect was r = .40, although this finding was drawn from only six surveys in total. For PG/PVG, the mean effect was r = .21, with only 11 of 20 studies reporting significant effects. While further evidence is required to determine the direction of causality, the strength of relationships suggests that policy action on LBs may have benefits for harm minimisation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
null (2016) · Philosophy Study · doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · Cited by 28,317 · see citing works
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We utilised the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018) to assess the quality of evidence, using items relating to quantitative descriptive studies: 4.1 = appropriate sampling strategy; 4.2 = representative population; 4.3 = appropriate measures; 4.4 = low nonresponse bias; 4.5 =…”
MethodInfluentialAn effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009) · Professional Psychology: Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/a0015808 · Cited by 3,467 · see citing works
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162 · see citing works
Walther, B., Morgenstern, M., & Hanewinkel, R. (2012) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000335662 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Predatory monetization schemes in video games (e.g. ‘loot boxes’) and internet gaming disorder
King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2018) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.14286 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A taxonomy of technology design features that promote potentially addictive online behaviours
Flayelle, M., Brevers, D., King, D. L., Maurage, P., Perales, J. C., & Billieux, J. (2023) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00153-4 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
- Authors
- Spicer, S. G., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Lloyd, J., Lloyd, H., & Close, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Plymouth (GB)
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Spicer, Stuart Gordon
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-07-17
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1001-1022
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W3185081605
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- BCU Open Access Repository (Birmingham City University) (acceptedVersion)
- PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- GambleAware (Gaming-gambling mergence - A mixed-method investig)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- loot boxes, problem gambling, gambling harm, gambling policy, harm reduction, causal direction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
