Video games have become a global phenomenon, with over 2.46 billion players worldwide as of 2022, contributing to a staggering $347 billion in revenue. A significant portion of this revenue comes from microtransactions, which are small in-game purchases that enhance the gaming experience. Among these, loot boxes, which offer random virtual items, have sparked considerable debate due to their similarity to gambling.
A recent study published in Scientific reports The researchers investigated whether gamers with autistic traits were more likely to binge gamble and develop problematic gaming behaviors, as well as their spending habits on loot boxes. Surprisingly, the study found that while gamers with higher levels of autistic traits may be more vulnerable to binge and problem gaming, they actually spent less on loot boxes when their gaming symptoms were taken into account.
“Video gaming as a leisure activity has evolved considerably over the years, with the way people access and play video games changing as technology has advanced. Research into this increasingly popular pastime has proliferated in response,” said study author James D. Sauer of the University of Tasmania.
“One of the changes that has taken place in the video game industry is the rise of the microtransaction monetization model. This allows video game companies to generate revenue from their products by offering additional and optional in-game purchases. “Loot boxes” are a particular type of microtransaction that has become common in video games and has attracted considerable attention from users and researchers.”
“Loot boxes have been shown to be structurally, psychologically, and legally similar to gambling,” Sauer says. “So the researchers were interested in understanding whether some game users might be more vulnerable to overcommitting to or overspending on these optional virtual items.”
“Currently, there is limited scientific knowledge about how individual differences are associated with spending on microtransaction features. Neurodevelopmental differences, such as autism and ADHD, have been previously associated with problematic engagement with video games. However, there is less research on the relationship between neurodivergence and spending on microtransactions.”
For their study, the researchers recruited 1,178 participants through Prolific Academic, an online research platform. Participants were adults from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the United States, ensuring a diverse but predominantly Western sample. Participants had to be at least 18 years old.
The researchers used several validated scales to measure different aspects of gaming behaviors, gaming symptoms, and autistic traits. The Internet Gaming Disorder Checklist (IGD), a nine-item scale, assessed problematic gaming behaviors with items such as “I have lost interest in other hobbies or entertainment in order to play games” and “I feel irritable, anxious, or sad when I cannot play.”
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), another nine-item scale, measured the severity of problem gambling symptoms in the past year using items such as “Have you gambled more than you could realistically afford to lose?” and “Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?” The Risky Loot Box Index, a five-item scale, assessed risky engagement with loot boxes using items such as “The thrill of opening loot boxes has encouraged me to buy more” and “I often gamble longer than I intended, so I can win loot boxes.”
The Ritvo Autism and Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (RAADS-14), a 14-item self-report questionnaire, examined autistic traits in adults with questions such as “I have trouble understanding how others feel when we talk.” Participants also reported their spending on loot boxes and non-randomized microtransactions in the past month. Data was converted to U.S. dollars for consistency.
The researchers found strong positive correlations between problematic gambling behaviors, problem gambling symptoms, risky loot box use, and spending on these boxes and non-randomized microtransactions. This indicates that individuals who exhibit more problematic gambling and betting behaviors are also more likely to spend money on these game features. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that individuals with higher levels of problematic behaviors tend to spend more on microtransactions.
Interestingly, the study found that participants with higher levels of autistic traits reported higher levels of problematic gambling behaviors, problem gambling symptoms, and risky loot box use. However, the strength of these associations was generally weak.
Contrary to the researchers’ initial predictions, there is no evidence that individuals with higher levels of autistic traits spend more on loot boxes or non-randomized microtransactions. In fact, when gaming symptoms were statistically controlled, higher levels of autistic traits were associated with lower loot box spending. “So autism characteristics and experiences may have a slightly protective effect against excessive loot box spending,” Sauer told PsyPost.
Moderation analyses also confirmed these findings. Autistic traits did not significantly mediate the relationship between problematic gambling behaviors and microtransaction spending. However, a consistent pattern emerged, showing that higher levels of autistic traits were associated with reduced loot box spending.
This nuanced finding highlights that while individuals with autistic traits may be more vulnerable to problematic behaviors, they may also be more cautious or deliberate in their spending decisions, particularly regarding loot boxes.
“Previous research has consistently shown that higher levels of problem gambling and problem gaming are associated with higher levels of loot box spending. So we were surprised to find that our data showed that gamers with higher autistic characteristics and experiences, who had higher symptoms of gambling and problem gambling, did not also report higher loot box spending,” Sauer noted. “That’s the great thing about research, it’s not about belief, it’s about what the empirical evidence shows!”
It is important to note, however, that the study did not examine clinically diagnosed autism, meaning that the sample included individuals with varying levels of autistic traits, but not necessarily those with a formal diagnosis. This could affect the applicability of the findings to clinically diagnosed populations.
Additionally, the cross-sectional design of the study precludes drawing causal conclusions. Although the data indicate a relationship between autistic traits and gaming behaviors, it is unclear whether these traits drive changes in gaming behavior or whether other unmeasured variables are at play. Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand these relationships over time.
“We don’t know whether experiencing higher levels of autistic traits causes users to engage problematically with video games or spend less money on loot boxes, or whether some unmeasured variable is driving this relationship,” Sauer explained. “We can say that our data indicate a relationship between these factors, but it’s not the whole picture. More research is needed to better understand the relationship between neurodivergence and video game behaviors.”
“Ultimately, we want to better understand how microtransaction models, and particularly those that involve gambling-like features, affect video game players. The more science helps us understand, the more game consumers can learn about the products they interact with and make more informed decisions for themselves and their children.”
The study, “Associations Between Autistic Traits and Microtransaction Spending,” was authored by Tegan Charnock, Aaron Drummond, Lauren C. Hall, and James D. Sauer.