Rare Loot Box Rewards Trigger Larger Arousal and Reward Responses, and Greater Urge to Open More Loot Boxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loot boxes are a purchasable video-game feature consisting of randomly determined, in-game virtual items. Due to their chance-based nature, there is much debate as to whether they constitute a form of gambling. We sought to address this issue by examining whether players treat virtual loot box rewards in a way that parallels established reward reactivity for monetary rewards in slots play. Across two sets of experiments, we show that loot boxes containing rarer items are more valuable, arousing, rewarding and urge-inducing to players, similar to the way slots gamblers treat rare large wins in slots play. Importantly, we show in Experiment 2 that the duration of Post Reinforcement Pauses, an index of reward reactivity, are longer for boxes with rarer items. Boxes containing rarer rewards also trigger larger Skin Conductance Responses and larger force responses-indices of positive arousal. Findings of Experiment 2 also revealed that there was an increase in anticipatory arousal prior to the reveal of loot box rewards. Collectively, our results elucidate the structural similarities between loot boxes and specific gambling games. The fact that players find rarer game items hedonically rewarding and motivating has implications for potential risky or excessive loot box use for some players.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".