University of Plymouth
PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk
Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences School of Psychology
2021-07-17
Loot boxes, problem gambling and
problem video gaming: A systematic
review and meta-synthesis
Spicer, S
http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/17268
10.1177/14614448211027175
New Media and Society
SAGE Publications
All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with
publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or
document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content
should be sought from the publisher or author.
Page Proof Instructions and Queries
Thank you for choosing to publish with us. This is your final opportunity to ensure your article will be accurate at
publication. Please review your proof carefully and respond to the queries using the circled tools in the image below,
which are available in Adobe Reader DC* by clicking Tools from the top menu, then clicking Comment.
Please use only the tools circled in the image, as edits via other tools/methods can be lost during file conversion. For com-
ments, questions, or formatting requests, please use
. Please do not use comment bubbles/sticky notes .
*If you do not see these tools, please ensure you have opened this file with Adobe Reader DC, available for free
a t https://get.adobe.com/reader or by going to Help > Check for Updates within other versions of Reader. For more
detailed instructions, please see https://us.sagepub.com/ReaderXProofs.
No. Query
No queries
Please respond to and approve your proof through the “Edit” tab, using this PDF to review figure and table formatting
and placement. This PDF can also be downloaded for your records. We strongly encourage you to provide any edits
through the “Edit” tab, should you wish to provide corrections via PDF, please see the instructions below and email
this PDF to your Production Editor.
Journal Title: New Media & Society
Article Number: 1027175
1027175NMS
GQ1 Please confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence, and contact details,
is correct.
GQ2 Please confirm that the funding and conflict of interest statements are accurate.
GQ3 Please note that we cannot add/amend ORCID iDs for any article at the proof stage. Following
ORCID’s guidelines, the publisher can include only ORCID iDs that the authors have specifically
validated for each manuscript prior to official acceptance for publication.
1 Bold formatting in some of the phrases in the original MS has been removed. Please check.
2 Please clarify whether ‘Zendle et al. (2019)’ refers to ‘Zendle et al. (2019a)’ or ‘Zendle et al. (2019b)’
throughout the text.
3 Please clarify whether ‘Drummond et al. (2020)’ refers to ‘Drummond et al. (2020a)’ or ‘Drummond
et al. (2020b)’ throughout the text.
4 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Lenhard (2016)’, or delete the citation.
5 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Gilpin (1992)’, or delete the citation.
6 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Lin (2019)’, or delete the citation.
7 Please note that bold formatting has been removed from Tables 1 and 2.
8 Please note that the given URL in ‘Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2019)’ does not lead
to the desired web page. Please provide an active URL.
9 Please note that ‘a’ and ‘b’ have been added to references ‘Drummond, Sauer, Ferguson, et al. (2020)’
and ‘Drummond, Sauer, Hall, et al. (2020)’, respectively, to avoid confusion between two references
with identical year. Please check.
10 Please note that the given URL in ‘Ipsos/Gambling Commission (2019)’ does not lead to the desired
web page. Please provide an active URL.
11 Please provide date of work paper for ‘Von Meduna et al. (2019)’.
12 Please note that ‘a’ and ‘b’ have been added to references ‘Zendle, Cairns, Barnett, et al. (2020)’ and
‘Zendle, Meyer, Cairns, et al. (2020)’, respectively, to avoid confusion between two references with
identical year. Please check.
13 Please note that ‘a’ and ‘b’ have been added to references ‘Zendle, Meyer and Over (2019)’ and ‘Zendle,
Meyer, Waters, et al. (2019)’, respectively, to avoid confusion between two references with identical
year. Please check.
14 Please check whether the inserted details are correct for ‘Zendle et al. (2019b)’.
15 Please provide a 2 to 3 sentence biography for each of the authors.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027175
new media & society
1 –22
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14614448211027175
journals.sagepub.com/home/nms
Loot boxes, problem
gambling and problem
video gaming: A systematic
review and meta-synthesis
Stuart Gordon Spicer [GQ: 1]
University of Plymouth, UK
Laura Louise Nicklin
Maria Uther
Joanne Lloyd
University of Wolverhampton, UK
Helen Lloyd
James Close
University of Plymouth, UK
Abstract
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.
Corresponding author:
Stuart Gordon Spicer, School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK.
Email: stuart.spicer@plymouth.ac.uk
0010.1177/14614448211027175new media & societySpicer et al.
review-article2021
Review Article (Invited Authors Only)
2 new media & society 00(0)
Keywords
Addiction, impulsivity, loot boxes, mental health, microtransactions, nudges, problem
gambling, problem video gaming, systematic review, wellbeing
Background[AQ: 1]
Loot boxes (LBs) are video game-related purchases with a chance-based outcome. They
come in various configurations and guises, and might be called boxes, crates, cases, card
packs, shards or eggs. Due to these complexities, there is often confusion about what
exactly constitutes an LB. Our definition encapsulates any purchasable game content
with a randomised outcome. The contents within LBs might include ‘pay to win’ features
such as improved weapons or power ups, or instead, they might be purely cosmetic
upgrades and customisation. LBs may also be purchased with in-game currency, or they
might be opened using purchasable ‘keys’, such as the ‘crate and key’ mechanics found
in games like Counter Strike: Global Offensive or the similar ‘eggs and incubator’
mechanics found in Pokémon Go. Furthermore, ‘free’ LBs are offered in some games –
but these are also always available as paid-for content (i.e. or else they would not be
classified as LBs under our definition, because there is no opportunity for monetary
exchange). These sorts of free giveaways are often aimed at encouraging future LB pur-
chasing (Zendle et al., 2019a).
[AQ: 2]
LBs have become increasingly prevalent over the past decade (Zendle et al., 2020b),
are available in the majority of video games across various formats (Zendle et al., 2020b)
and have become increasingly sophisticated (Koeder et al., 2018). An estimated 44–78%
of gamers are thought to have purchased LBs (Brooks and Clark, 2019; Li et al., 2019;
Zendle and Cairns, 2018). Widely available to children (Zendle et al., 2020b), they have
come under increasing scrutiny from academics, policymakers, the media (Drummond
et al., 2020a) and the gaming community itself (Allan, 2018), due to structural and psy-
chological similarities with gambling (Drummond and Sauer, 2018).
The first academic studies on LBs were published in 2018 (Drummond and Sauer,
2018; Zendle and Cairns, 2018, 2019), where the first survey of LB purchasing appeared
to confirm such concerns: establishing a significant, moderate-sized correlation between
problem gambling (PG) severity and LB purchasing (Zendle and Cairns, 2018). Due to
the correlational nature of the evidence, the direction of the relationship is unknown, but
there are three possibilities: (a) problem gamblers purchase more LBs, (b) LB purchasers
are more likely to start gambling – that is, via ‘gateway effects’ or (c) there is a complex,
dynamic relationship between the two behaviours.
There has been considerable debate about the extent to which LBs constitute gam-
bling. Some senior gaming executives have argued that since LBs always contain an
item, they are the digital analogue of baseball cards or Kinder Eggs (Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport Committee, 2019). However, analysis of game-related marketplaces
such as the Steam Community Market (where digital assets obtained in LBs can be
bought and sold) reveals that the items obtained within LBs usually constitute a mone-
tary loss (Drummond et al., 2020b). This type of ‘loss disguised as a win’ has parallels
with traditional gambling games such as online slots, where ‘wins’ can actually be lower
than the stake wagered. Some academics have therefore argued that LBs could be regu-
lated under existing gambling laws (Drummond et al., 2020b).
![Table 2.[AQ: 7] Mean r values for each of the three key relationships.](/figures/table-2-aq-7-mean-r-values-for-each-of-the-three-key-130newsl.webp)
