Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908508›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2026

Can consumers accurately identify loot boxes and loot box receipts?

Matt B Hall, Lauren C Hall, James D Sauer, Aaron Drummond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matt B HallSchool of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Lauren C HallSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
James D SauerSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Aaron DrummondSchool of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2386-072X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loot boxes are randomized rewards in video games. Meta-analyses suggest relationships between loot box spending and problem gambling symptomatology, and early longitudinal evidence suggests loot box purchasers migrate into conventional gambling at higher rates than non-purchasers. Regulatory responses vary across jurisdictions, and even in jurisdictions that have banned loot boxes, evidence suggests their presence in games remains common. Consequently, consumers are often responsible for regulating their own, and their children's, loot box purchasing. To effectively achieve this, consumers must first be able to identify loot boxes. Here, we investigated consumer accuracy in identifying critical features of loot boxes. Participants were tasked to identify basic facts about, pictures of, and receipts generated by loot boxes. Parents and non-gamers, compared with non-parents and gamers, respectively, were poorer at identifying loot boxes. Our results suggest that parents and non-gamers may be less equipped to make informed loot box purchasing decisions compared with non-parents/non-guardians and gamers, respectively. This may pose risks for parents and unaware incipient gamers. These are the first findings providing objective evidence about the relative ability of consumers to identify, and thus self-regulate purchases of, loot boxes and suggest that parents and non-gamers may require support to ensure informed purchasing decisions.

Indexed as

consumer protectionsgamblingloot boxesparentsvideo games

Identifiers

PMID42908508
PMCPMC13682923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.