Gaming or Gambling? On Selection Neglect and Loot Boxes

Last registered on May 26, 2022
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gaming or Gambling? On Selection Neglect and Loot Boxes
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0008021
Initial registration date
July 30, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
August 02, 2021, 1:44 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
May 26, 2022, 9:03 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Mats Köster
Affiliation
Central European University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt
PI Affiliation
University of Konstanz
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Simon Cordes
PI Affiliation
Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Tobias Werner
PI Affiliation
Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2021-08-03
End date
2021-10-31
Keywords
Behavior
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Nowadays, many successful video games feature "loot boxes" that, just like gambling, offer random rewards to be used in-game. In 2020 alone such loot boxes generated $15 billion of worldwide revenue. There is an increasing public concern, however, that video game developers design loot boxes in a way to make gamers "overpay" for the typically small chance of getting the reward. We single out two features of loot boxes that might result in gamers overestimating the probability of winning the reward and, consequently, paying too much. First, developers typically do not disclose the odds, but provide gamers only with an interval-censored distribution of rewards. Second, in many games there is a public announcement whenever someone wins a reward, which results gamers observing a selected sample of the reward distribution. In a controlled laboratory experiment, we systematically study the effect of either feature, as well as combinations thereof, on the willigness-to-pay for (monetary) lotteries.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Cordes, Simon et al. 2022. "Gaming or Gambling? On Selection Neglect and Loot Boxes." AEA RCT Registry. May 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8021-2.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We study the willingness-to-pay for (and beliefs about) monetary lotteries across four treatments that vary how much information subjects receive on the reward distribution.
Intervention Start Date
2021-08-03
Intervention End Date
2021-10-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
A subject's willingness-to-pay for different lotteries.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
A subject's belief about the probability to win the maximum reward. (Applies only for the treatments without full disclosure of the odds.)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In each treatment, subjects state their willingness-to-pay for 10 different monetary lotteries. All lotteries have the following structure: with probability 0.99 - p, a subject gets an amount of x > 0; with probability 0.01, a subject gets an amount of y > x; and with probability p, a subject gets nothing. In each decision, subjects learn the feasible outcomes, x, y and 0, but we vary across four treatments how much information they receive on the corresponding probabilities.

Treatment "FULL:" subjects observe the full reward distribution; that is, they learn the probabilities of receiving of the three possible outcomes.

Treatment "CENSORED:" subjects only learn the probability, 1 - p, of receiving at least an amount of x.

Treatment "FULL-BEST:" subjects observe the full reward distribution and, in addition, the five highest outcomes in a random sample of 250 draws (from the underlying distribution).

Treatment "CENSORED-BEST:" subjects learn the probability, 1 - p, of receiving at least an amount of x, and, in addition, they observe the five highest outcomes in a random sample of 250 draws (from the underlying distribution).

In CENSORED and CENSORED-BEST, we further ask subjects to state their belief about the probability with which the first lottery that they had to price during the experiment pays the maximum amount.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by the computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
400 individuals.
Sample size: planned number of observations
4000 willingness-to-pay statements, and 200 belief statements.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 individuals per treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
German Association for Experimental Economic Research e.V.
IRB Approval Date
2021-07-30
IRB Approval Number
No. bK8MbiCk
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
September 30, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
September 30, 2021, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
401 subjects
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
4010 willingness-to-pay statements, and 201 belief statements
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
100 subjects in treatment FULL, 100 subjects in treatment CENSORED, 100 subjects in treatment FULL-BEST, 101 subjects in treatment CENSORED-BEST
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials