Video game microtransactions are purchases made inside a game, commonly for cosmetic items, additional content, virtual currency, randomized rewards, or advantages in play. Research finds associations between some purchasing patterns and problematic gaming or gambling, with particularly consistent findings for paid loot boxes. The strongest available synthesis supports an association rather than a demonstrated causal pathway from an individual purchase to gaming disorder. The design of the purchase, its frequency, a player's financial circumstances, and whether play or spending causes functional impairment determine the clinical and public-health significance. Gibson et al., 2022; Raneri et al., 2022.
What counts as a video game microtransaction?
A microtransaction is an optional or functionally pressured payment within a video game or its associated platform. Payments can be direct, as when a player buys a visible costume for a stated price, or indirect, as when money is converted into virtual currency that is subsequently exchanged for digital goods. The adjective “micro” describes the commercial format and does not guarantee a small total cost. Repeated purchases can accumulate into significant expenditure, and some premium bundles cost substantial amounts at once. The same game may combine several mechanisms, so treating all microtransactions as a single psychological exposure obscures meaningful differences.
Direct purchases and cosmetic goods
Direct-purchase cosmetics, character outfits, decorations, additional levels, and other disclosed-content items give the buyer a specified product. Purchases may be driven by identity expression, enjoyment, social belonging, collection, or an interest in supporting a game. These motivations can be ordinary aspects of leisure consumption. Risk assessment asks whether the player understands the cost, has the means to pay, retains control over purchasing, and experiences measurable harm. A fixed-price cosmetic purchase and a wager on an uncertain prize are structurally different transactions. Research reviews find stronger gambling-related associations for loot boxes than for other forms of in-game spending. Raneri et al., 2022.
Pay-to-win items, convenience purchases, and progression
Pay-to-win purchases change competitive performance, progression speed, or access to capabilities. Extra lives, timed boosts, accelerated leveling, and resource packages may be attractive because they reduce waiting or help a player keep up with others. The strongest psychological concern arises when the game creates an obstacle and simultaneously sells relief from that obstacle. However, not every convenience purchase constitutes coercive design. The relevant questions are whether the underlying game remains playable, whether the advantage is essential for participating, and how much spending is repeatedly demanded or encouraged. Studies vary widely in how they group these product types, limiting direct comparisons. Gibson et al., 2022.
Loot boxes and other randomized rewards
Paid loot boxes provide a reward whose exact contents are unknown before the transaction. The payment may involve real money, purchased virtual currency, or another resource that has monetary value. Some prizes are cosmetic; others affect performance; some can be transferred or sold. These differences matter for gambling-law classifications, financial risks, and expected economic value. Randomized monetization resembles gambling in its uncertainty, anticipation, and reinforcement contingencies, but legal classification depends on the jurisdiction and specific conversion or transfer mechanisms. The scientific questions concern purchasing behavior and measurable harms independently of the legal label. Spicer et al., 2022; Wardle and Zendle, 2021.
Season passes, subscriptions, bundles, and virtual currency
Season passes and battle passes typically connect purchased access to rewards earned through ongoing play. Subscriptions can lower the apparent cost per session while extending a relationship with a platform. Time-limited bundles combine several items and may obscure each item's effective price. Virtual currency introduces an additional translation between familiar currency units and game prices. These systems may affect perceived value, play scheduling, or spending awareness, although the magnitude and clinical consequences of each mechanism are less securely established than the broad loot-box associations. A research assessment should identify the precise product feature before attributing an observed behavior to monetization in general.
Microtransactions, problematic gaming, and gaming disorder
The distinction between spending and clinically impaired gaming
Problematic gaming describes gaming patterns associated with difficulty regulating play, distress, conflict, or other harms, and its operational definition varies by study. Gaming disorder in ICD-11 has a narrower clinical meaning: impaired control over gaming, increasing priority of gaming over other activities, and continued or escalating gaming despite negative consequences, accompanied by significant impairment in important areas of functioning. The pattern would normally be evident for at least 12 months, although clinical descriptions allow flexibility in severe presentations. Time spent playing and the amount spent are contextual observations, not substitutes for diagnostic criteria. World Health Organization, 2020; World Health Organization, 2024.
The DSM-5-TR retains Internet Gaming Disorder as a condition for further study, whereas ICD-11 recognizes gaming disorder within disorders due to addictive behaviors. DSM terminology and screening instruments used in the literature therefore do not automatically identify an ICD-11 clinical case. A person may spend money on a game without losing control of gaming. Conversely, severe gaming-related impairment can occur without any microtransactions. These distinctions are essential when interpreting research samples labeled “problem gamers,” “at-risk gamers,” or “internet gaming disorder.” American Psychiatric Association, 2013; World Health Organization, 2020.
Spending-related harm and gambling-related harm
Financial strain from game purchases, conflict over undisclosed charges, missed financial obligations, or distress associated with compulsive purchasing can merit attention regardless of gaming-disorder status. Gambling disorder concerns an additional clinical pattern involving gambling behavior, loss of control, priority, continued involvement despite harm, and classification-specific diagnostic requirements. Buying a random reward does not by itself establish gambling disorder. Likewise, a high score on a gambling screening scale is not the same as a clinician's diagnosis. These distinctions protect against both overpathologizing leisure and overlooking real costs below a diagnostic threshold. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
What systematic reviews actually show
Associations across microtransaction types
Gibson and colleagues examined 19 cross-sectional studies published through the review's search period. They found consistent links between paid loot boxes and problem gambling measures, with heterogeneous evidence for other purchase types and a recurring role for purchase frequency. The design of the included studies could establish statistical co-occurrence but generally could not determine whether monetization contributed to later symptoms, existing symptoms increased purchasing, or shared vulnerabilities influenced both. The review's recommendations for regulation represent author interpretations of the evidence rather than a proven clinical effect of one specific policy. Gibson et al., 2022.
A preregistered systematic review by Raneri and colleagues synthesized 14 studies examining microtransactions, Internet Gaming Disorder measures, and gambling disorder measures. Positive associations were reported, especially for loot boxes. The reviewers highlighted convenience sampling, predominantly Western participants, cross-sectional designs, inconsistent assessment instruments, and variation in estimated prevalence. Their characterization of the included evidence as good quality concerns the review's appraisal framework; it does not transform observational associations into causal estimates. Raneri et al., 2022.
Spicer and colleagues' systematic review similarly reported an association of loot-box engagement with problem gambling and problematic gaming. Its value lies in considering these two outcomes together. An important limitation is that different surveys define engagement as exposure, purchase history, spending frequency, or expenditure amount. These measures are related but not interchangeable. Reviews may also summarize overlapping primary samples, so counting reviews as if each represents wholly independent research exaggerates the available evidence. Spicer et al., 2022.
Primary surveys and what their effect sizes mean
In a survey of 7,422 gamers, Zendle and Cairns found a relationship between loot-box expenditure and scores on a problem-gambling measure. The observed association was stronger for loot-box spending than for spending on other in-game items. The authors' later correction removed an inapplicable statement referring to a statistical analysis from a preprint; the corrected article remains an influential observational result. A large online sample makes the association worth examining but does not remove selection bias, self-report error, or uncertainty about temporal ordering. Zendle and Cairns, 2018; Zendle and Cairns, 2019a.
In a separate replication study, Zendle and Cairns again identified an association between loot-box purchasing and gambling problems. Replication improves confidence that the pattern is not unique to one sample, while leaving the causal question open. Wardle and Zendle investigated young people ages 16 to 24 and found relationships among loot-box purchasing, gambling, and gambling-problem measures. Their cross-sectional design does not determine whether one activity precedes another in individual development. Zendle and Cairns, 2019b; Wardle and Zendle, 2021.
New evidence from 2026
A 2026 systematic review by Arnedo-Moreno and colleagues examined 15 studies focused on monetization-related dark patterns and random rewards among youth and young adults, broadly ages 15 to 24. It described associations with problematic gambling and identified impulsivity, perceived social pressure, and reward sensitivity as potentially relevant factors. The authors stressed the high prevalence of cross-sectional and self-reported data and the limits these impose on causation and generalization. These findings support focused examination of products and environments, while they do not establish an individual diagnostic or causal test. Arnedo-Moreno et al., 2026.
Han, Li, and Lin reviewed 26 studies on adolescents and loot boxes, mapping external stimuli, individual factors, responses, and outcomes. They proposed several pathways involving gaming-to-gambling convergence, social norms, and feedback between problematic engagement and psychological factors. These are hypotheses organized from the literature and proposed for testing; they should not be reported as confirmed causal mechanisms. The review strengthens the case for attention to youth exposure, advertising, and safeguards while preserving uncertainty about the effect of any single design feature. Han et al., 2026.
Why certain monetization designs may be psychologically powerful
Reward learning and variable outcomes
Reward-learning models predict that an uncertain reward may maintain anticipation and repeated responses when outcomes sometimes exceed expectations. In randomized purchases, a reveal animation, rarity indicator, near-success framing, or conspicuous prize display can increase attention to outcomes and anticipated value. The presence of a plausible psychological mechanism is not itself evidence that the feature causes disorder. Individual reward sensitivity, affordability, previous experiences, and the wider game environment influence behavior. Research distinguishes the reinforcement properties of a transaction from claims that all players respond in the same way.
Near misses, rarity, and distorted probability judgments
A near-miss presentation can make an unsuccessful outcome feel close to success. Rarity tiers and highlighted winning examples may draw attention to exceptional outcomes while leaving ordinary probabilities less salient. The gambler's fallacy, illusions of control, and selective recall are candidate cognitive processes where transactions are perceived as chance-based opportunities. Their relevance must be measured rather than presumed, because a player may fully understand the odds and still enjoy an occasional randomized purchase. Studying product interfaces and player interpretations together is more informative than attributing every purchase to a distortion.
Virtual currency and payment friction
When the price is shown in game tokens instead of familiar currency, estimating total real-world expenditure requires conversion. Bundles may leave residual currency balances that encourage another purchase; auto-renewal and stored payment credentials may reduce the time available for a purchase decision. These are design-based hypotheses about spending awareness and friction. Their effect on clinically significant gaming impairment remains less thoroughly tested than the association between loot-box expenditure and gambling-problem scores. Clear price presentation and itemized histories are useful for auditing real expenditures even where clinical benefit has not been established in trials.
Social status, scarcity, and time pressure
Multiplayer communities can attach meaning to exclusive skins, battle-pass achievements, seasonal scarcity, and publicly displayed inventories. Players may spend for recognition, group participation, competition, or perceived obligations to teammates. Limited-time offers and countdowns can shift the decision from personal preference to a perceived deadline. Distinguishing enjoyment-driven affiliation from costly pressure requires asking how freely the person feels able to decline purchases, what happens if they do, and whether spending aligns with their own financial priorities.
Emotion regulation, impulsivity, and executive control
Stress, boredom, loneliness, frustration, and the wish to repair a disappointing gaming session can influence purchasing motives. Impulsivity and difficulty delaying gratification may increase vulnerability to rapid, repeated purchases, but they vary across individuals and contexts. A purchase may also be planned, social, or aesthetic. An assessment should examine the sequence of triggers, emotions, decisions, and consequences rather than inferring a stable trait or psychiatric condition from a transaction record. In studies of gaming disorder and comorbidity, symptom scales may correlate without resolving which difficulty came first. Düll et al., 2024.
Does spending on microtransactions cause gaming addiction?
The current synthesis does not justify a universal causal claim. Four pathways remain plausible: exposure to certain monetization structures could increase repeated purchases or risky play; a person already experiencing impaired control could seek more rewards and buy more frequently; common factors such as financial stress or impulsivity could influence both spending and symptoms; and reciprocal influences could develop over time. These models can coexist in different groups. Observational correlations cannot choose among them without stronger temporal, experimental, and confounding controls. Gibson et al., 2022; Raneri et al., 2022.
Prospective studies with baseline assessment, repeated exposure measures, objective transaction histories, and validated functional-impairment outcomes would be better positioned to test temporal claims. Natural experiments following interface changes or feature removal can provide clues, but concurrent changes in games and players remain potential confounders. Randomized studies of price displays, default settings, or purchase restrictions can test specific mechanisms, yet should not be generalized beyond the tested product, outcome, and population. Ethical and practical limits also constrain trials intended to measure long-term harm.
Interpreting gambling-like mechanics without collapsing categories
An ordinary microtransaction exchanges money for disclosed digital content. A paid loot box exchanges payment for a chance-based outcome. Skin gambling involves game-related digital items used as stakes or rewards in gambling-like activities, sometimes through third-party markets. These systems differ in expected value, tradability, legal standing, and exposure to wagering. The presence of uncertainty in a game mechanic does not automatically make the game or the player a clinical gambling case. The existence of purchasable randomized rewards makes the specific transaction an appropriate object of scientific and consumer-protection scrutiny. Spicer et al., 2022.
The so-called gateway hypothesis proposes a developmental progression between loot-box use and gambling. Retrospective reports may describe sequences in both directions, including gambling preceding loot-box purchases. They cannot rule out recall bias or shared risk factors. A study explicitly examining this hypothesis reported associations and self-reported pathways, which are informative for further research but do not establish that loot boxes cause later gambling disorder. Spicer et al., 2022b.
Children, adolescents, and young adults
Young players may face particular challenges in evaluating complex odds, recurring prices, social incentives, and virtual currencies, while their access to payment accounts may be managed by adults. Many studies of youth use broad age ranges, recruit convenience samples, or rely on self-reported spending. Consequently, evidence about 16-to-24-year-olds does not automatically apply unchanged to younger children. Both young people's autonomy and effective consumer protection matter. Age-appropriate information, explicit consent for purchases, accessible histories, and manageable account settings offer practical safeguards without implying a psychiatric diagnosis. Wardle and Zendle, 2021; Han et al., 2026.
When caregivers identify unexpectedly large purchases, the first steps involve establishing the amount spent, whether payment access was authorized, the mechanics used, and whether other harm is present. A calm review of purchase records can distinguish a one-time misunderstanding from persistent loss of control. A family response is more productive when it combines boundaries for payment access with discussion of the game, peer relationships, and the child's own goals. Conflict alone is an insufficient diagnostic marker; patterns of distress, concealment, escalating expenditure, and impairment deserve a more comprehensive evaluation.
Assessment: what clinicians and researchers need to measure
Exposure, purchase behavior, and financial consequences
A credible assessment records the game and platform, whether payments are direct or randomized, real-money expenditure, number and timing of transactions, use of virtual currency, and whether purchased items can be traded for value. Objective receipts or account records, when voluntarily available, can help establish total expenditure and reduce recall error. Total spending must be interpreted relative to income, access to money, age, and unmet obligations. A single dollar threshold cannot define gaming disorder or gambling disorder across different financial circumstances.
Gaming symptoms, gambling symptoms, and functional impairment
A separate interview examines control over gaming, priority given to gaming, persistence despite harm, loss of sleep, educational or occupational consequences, and changes in relationships. Where gambling or tradable-item wagering is involved, the clinician should assess gambling behavior and its harms separately. Screening measures can identify people who may benefit from a fuller assessment, but scoring thresholds do not produce a diagnosis. Researchers should report which measure was used, whether it was validated for the studied age group and language, and whether the outcome was a symptom score, risky behavior, or a clinical disorder. World Health Organization, 2020; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
A clinical example of diagnostic restraint
Consider two adults each spending $80 per month on in-game purchases. The first budgets this money, understands the products, and has stable functioning. The second uses borrowed money, repeatedly exceeds agreed limits, conceals spending, and experiences significant financial and relational consequences. The same nominal expenditure has different implications. A further assessment must establish whether gaming itself meets ICD-11 criteria, whether gambling is involved, whether another mental-health condition contributes, and whether the primary concern is financial behavior. The example illustrates clinical reasoning; it is not a validated screening rule.
Comorbidity and differential diagnosis
Depressive symptoms, anxiety, attention and executive-function difficulties, substance-use problems, sleep disturbance, and other mental-health concerns may coincide with problematic gaming or excessive spending. Co-occurrence does not establish that microtransactions caused these conditions. A longitudinal review of gaming disorder symptoms found depression among the more consistent associated future outcomes, while evidence was mixed or sparse for several other domains; this literature concerns gaming symptoms broadly and should not be mislabeled direct evidence of microtransaction effects. Düll et al., 2024.
Assessment should consider ADHD-related impulsivity, autism-related interests and sensory or social context, mood episodes, and financial stress in their own clinical frameworks. In particular, impulsive spending occurring during a manic episode calls for evaluation of the mood episode rather than a conclusion that game monetization constitutes a separate addiction. A person can have intense, highly skilled, or professionally relevant engagement with games without meeting disorder criteria. The decisive clinical question concerns impaired control, consequences, temporal course, and alternative explanations.
Reducing harmful spending and protecting choice
Personal and household safeguards
A practical review begins by calculating actual spending across the full account history, including recurring payments and currency bundles. A player can then define a realistic leisure budget, remove stored payment credentials where appropriate, turn off one-click purchasing, use platform-level purchase controls, and separate entertainment money from essential expenses. For minors, guardians can activate age-appropriate authorization settings and review recurring subscriptions together. These strategies are reasonable ways to increase awareness and friction; direct evidence that any single setting prevents diagnosable gaming disorder remains limited.
Players who find randomized purchasing repeatedly difficult to control may choose games or modes without paid random rewards, mute promotional notifications, or take a break from the most triggering purchase interfaces. Such choices target a specific pattern of harm rather than requiring the elimination of enjoyable gaming. If the person experiences persistent uncontrolled gaming, serious impairment, or substantial financial losses, assessment by an appropriately qualified clinician can establish what type of support is indicated.
Clinical support when impairment is present
The appropriate intervention depends on the presenting problem. Gaming-disorder care focuses on persistent gaming behavior and functional impairment, including routines, coping strategies, associated mental-health conditions, and relationships. Evidence for specific gaming-disorder treatments continues to develop; findings from treatment of gambling disorder cannot simply be transferred to microtransaction spending. Where the behavior involves clinically significant gambling, structured psychological care may include motivational approaches, cognitive behavioral therapy, practical financial safeguards, and coordination with gambling services. NICE's gambling-harms guideline supports gambling-specific CBT and careful risk assessment, but it is not a trial demonstrating that CBT directly treats microtransaction purchases. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
Where gambling-related losses coexist with suicidal thoughts, severe distress, or immediate danger, direct safety assessment and urgent clinical or emergency support take priority. Gambling-related suicidality is a recognized concern in clinical guidance. It should not be attributed automatically to ordinary game purchases, yet it must be taken seriously when significant gambling harm is present. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
Product design, policy, and research implications
Possible safeguards include unambiguous real-money prices, transparent probability disclosures, restrictions on unauthorized purchases, accessible transaction histories, clear cancellation controls, age-appropriate defaults, and reduced exposure to manipulative urgency cues. Each intervention should be evaluated against measurable outcomes, such as expenditure, regret, losses relative to income, underage access, and sustained functioning, rather than assuming that a compliance label proves efficacy. Regulations and legal definitions differ by jurisdiction; evidence about psychological associations cannot decide a legal classification by itself.
Research quality would improve with representative sampling, preregistered analyses, independent access to anonymized purchase records, clear definitions of product categories, repeated measurements over time, standardized impairment outcomes, and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest. Comparing the same group before and after a monetization redesign can be useful when competing explanations are assessed. Equity also matters: the same absolute expenditure imposes different burdens across income levels, ages, currencies, and accessibility needs. The question for public health is how product characteristics and exposures contribute to preventable harm under real-world conditions. Arnedo-Moreno et al., 2026; Han et al., 2026.
What the evidence establishes, and what remains open
Established: ICD-11 gaming disorder is a clinical diagnostic category defined by impaired control, increasing priority, continued behavior despite consequences, and significant functional impairment; paid loot boxes are randomized digital purchases; systematic reviews consistently document an association between loot-box engagement and problem-gambling measures. These findings can inform assessment and consumer protection. World Health Organization, 2020; Gibson et al., 2022.
Preliminary: psychological accounts involving reinforcement, social pressure, payment friction, virtual currencies, and scarcity offer testable explanations for purchase behavior. Limited: reliable estimates of the causal effect of individual monetization mechanisms on the onset of clinically diagnosed gaming disorder; long-term effectiveness of specific purchase-control features in preventing disorder; and generalization from convenience samples to all players. Contested: whether all paid random rewards should receive an identical legal gambling classification and how to interpret causal gateway claims. Scientific debate is most useful when a specific population, product, outcome, and standard of evidence are made explicit. Raneri et al., 2022; Spicer et al., 2022b.
Frequently asked questions
Are all in-game purchases addictive?
No single purchase type or spending amount establishes a behavioral addiction. Fixed-price cosmetics, subscriptions, progression boosts, and loot boxes have different designs and different levels of research evidence. Clinical concern arises when behavior is difficult to control and produces meaningful harm or impairment. Research should identify the actual feature and outcome instead of treating every payment as equivalent.
Are loot boxes the same as gambling?
Loot boxes share paid uncertainty and reward anticipation with gambling, and certain formats involve items with transferable value. Legal treatment varies according to jurisdiction and specific product mechanics. Research reliably reports associations between loot-box purchasing and gambling-problem measures, while causality and exact classifications require separate analysis. Spicer et al., 2022.
Does a high spending total mean someone has gaming disorder?
Expenditure alone cannot diagnose gaming disorder. Assessment requires a sustained behavioral pattern and significant functional impairment under the relevant classification, alongside the person's resources, responsibilities, and reasons for spending. Financial harm can still deserve attention even when diagnostic criteria are not met. World Health Organization, 2020.
Can loot boxes lead to later gambling problems?
A developmental pathway is possible, and researchers investigate it. Cross-sectional surveys and retrospective reports support association but do not establish that exposure caused later gambling problems. Stronger prospective research is required to separate selection effects, shared vulnerabilities, and potential two-way influences. Spicer et al., 2022b.
What is a reasonable first response to unexpected in-game spending?
Review receipts and recurring charges, secure payment permissions, identify the purchasing mechanism, and discuss the circumstances without presuming a diagnosis. Escalating debt, concealed transactions, persistent loss of control, and marked changes in daily functioning are reasons for fuller evaluation. For youth, age-appropriate payment authorization and open discussion of social pressures can be especially relevant.
Related Articles
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — Scientific chapter covering recognized gambling and gaming disorders, behavioral mechanisms, treatments, and research boundaries.
Loot Boxes and Gambling Risk: What Studies Show — Focused evaluation of chance-based digital rewards and problem-gambling evidence.
Gaming Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — Clinical definitions, functional impairment, assessment, and available interventions.
Online Gambling Addiction: Risks, Signs, and Recovery — Distinct gambling-related risks and clinical help in online betting environments.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Internet gaming disorder: DSM-5 fact sheet. American Psychiatric Association.
Arnedo-Moreno, J., Pons López, J. J., Rodríguez-Rivera, P., Baena, A., and Aranda, D. (2026). The impact of video game use of dark patterns and random reward mechanisms on the youth: A systematic literature review. Entertainment Computing, 57, 101122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2026.101122.
Düll, L., Müller, A., and Steins-Loeber, S. (2024). Negative consequences experienced by individuals with gaming disorder symptoms: A systematic review of available longitudinal studies. Current Addiction Reports, 11, 528–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-024-00554-2.
Gibson, E., Griffiths, M. D., Calado, F., and Harris, A. (2022). The relationship between videogame micro-transactions and problem gaming and gambling: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107219.
Han, W., Li, R., and Lin, Y. (2026). Adolescents and loot boxes: A systematic review of behavioral mechanisms and problematic outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 181, 108738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2026.108738.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management (NG248). NICE guideline.
Raneri, P. C., Montag, C., Rozgonjuk, D., Satel, J., and Pontes, H. M. (2022). The role of microtransactions in Internet Gaming Disorder and Gambling Disorder: A preregistered systematic review. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 15, 100415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100415.
Spicer, S. G., Fullwood, C., Close, J., Nicklin, L. L., Lloyd, J., and Lloyd, H. (2022b). Loot boxes and problem gambling: Investigating the gateway hypothesis. Addictive Behaviors, 131, 107327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107327.
Spicer, S. G., Nicklin, L. L., Uther, M., Lloyd, J., Lloyd, H., and Close, J. (2022). Loot boxes, problem gambling and problem video gaming: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. New Media and Society, 24(4), 1001–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027175.
Wardle, H., and Zendle, D. (2021). Loot boxes, gambling, and problem gambling among young people: Results from a cross-sectional online survey. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0299.
World Health Organization. (2020). Addictive behaviours: Gaming disorder. WHO official guidance.
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO ICD-11 CDDR.
Zendle, D., and Cairns, P. (2018). Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLOS ONE, 13(11), e0206767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206767.
Zendle, D., and Cairns, P. (2019a). Correction: Video game loot boxes are linked to problem gambling: Results of a large-scale survey. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0214167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214167.
Zendle, D., and Cairns, P. (2019b). Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0213194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213194.