4.4 Article

The potential relationship between loot box spending, problem gambling, and obsessive-compulsive gamers

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 733-743

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.2023.00038

关键词

loot box/es; problem gambling; obsessive-compulsive disorder; OCD; hoarding; regret; video games

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that symptoms of obsessive-compulsive behavior and hoarding are associated with increased spending on loot boxes. These findings help identify consumption issues among more vulnerable groups of players and may assist consumers in making informed choices.
Background and Aims: Loot boxes are digital containers of randomised rewards available in many video games. Individuals with problem gambling symptomatology spend more on loot boxes than individuals without such symptoms. This study investigated whether other psychopathological symptomatology, specifically symptoms of obsessive-compulsive behaviour and hoarding may also be associated with increased loot box spending. Methods: In a large cross-sectional, cross-national survey (N 5 1,049 after exclusions), participants recruited from Prolific, living in Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, provided self-reported loot box spending, obsessive-compulsive and hoarding symptomatology, problem gambling symptomatology, and consumer regret levels. Results: There was a moderate positive relationship between loot box spending and obsessive-compulsive symptoms and hoarding. Additionally, greater purchasing of loot boxes was associated with increased consumer regret. Discussion and Conclusion: Results identified that those with OCD and hoarding symptomatology may spend more on loot boxes than individuals without OCD and hoarding symptomatology. This information helps identify disproportionate spending to more groups of vulnerable players and may assist in helping consumers make informed choices and also aid policy discussions around the potentialities of harm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据