Loot box spending is associated with greater distress when normalized to disposable income: a reanalysis and extension of Etchells

Loot boxes are purchasable, randomized rewards available in some video games. These mechanisms share important psychological and legal similarities with conventional forms of gambling. While research has consistently demonstrated an association between risk of gambling harm (as indexed by problem gambling symptomatology) and spending on loot boxes, findings are mixed on whether purchasing loot boxes is associated with psychological distress. Divergent findings may reflect uncontrolled socio-economic confounds. We reanalyse two recent, publicly available datasets for associations between loot box spending and psychological well-being and distress. We find divergent results. In one study, when loot box spending is normalized to participants' disposable income, loot box spending is associated with psychological distress, translating to increased risk of extreme distress, partially or fully accounted for by Problem Gambling Risk Status. In contrast, the other study, using a shorter distress scale, showed no relationships between loot box spending and distress irrespective of how spending was considered. Our findings suggest that loot box spending should be considered in the context of available financial means, albeit with improved measures. Our work concords with work on conventional gambling showing some gamblers bet more than they can afford to lose, meeting quintessential definitions of financial harm.