IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v228y2024ics016726812400369x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives demand for loot boxes? An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Cordes, Simon
  • Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus
  • Werner, Tobias

Abstract

The market for video games is booming, with in-game purchases accounting for a substantial share of developers’ revenues. Policymakers and the general public alike are concerned that so-called “loot boxes” – lotteries that offer random rewards to be used in-game – induce consumers to overspend on video games. We provide experimental evidence suggesting that common design features of loot boxes (such as opaque odds and positively selected feedback) indeed induce overspending by inflating the belief of winning a prize. In combination, these features double the average willingness-to-pay for lotteries. Based on our findings, we argue for the need to regulate the design of loot boxes to protect consumers from overspending.

Suggested Citation

  • Cordes, Simon & Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Werner, Tobias, 2024. "What drives demand for loot boxes? An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:228:y:2024:i:c:s016726812400369x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812400369X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106755?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Madhav Chandrasekher & Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2022. "Dual‐Self Representations of Ambiguity Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1029-1061, May.
    2. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2015. "Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-59.
    3. Bolton, Patrick & Freixas, Xavier & Shapiro, Joel, 2007. "Conflicts of interest, information provision, and competition in the financial services industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 297-330, August.
    4. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & David Zendle & Malcolm R. Loudon, 2020. "Why loot boxes could be regulated as gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 986-988, October.
    5. Ryan Oprea, 2020. "What Makes a Rule Complex?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3913-3951, December.
    6. Benjamin Enke, 2020. "What You See Is All There Is," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1363-1398.
    7. Ginger Zhe Jin & Michael Luca & Daniel Martin, 2021. "Is No News (Perceived As) Bad News? An Experimental Investigation of Information Disclosure," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 141-173, May.
    8. Deversi, Marvin & Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2021. "Spin doctors: An experiment on vague disclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Kai Barron & Steffen Huck & Philippe Jehiel, 2024. "Everyday Econometricians: Selection Neglect and Overoptimism When Learning from Others," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 162-198, August.
    10. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    11. Clotfelter, Charles T & Cook, Philip J, 1990. "On the Economics of State Lotteries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 105-119, Fall.
    12. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    13. Jonathan J. Koehler & Molly Mercer, 2009. "Selection Neglect in Mutual Fund Advertisements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1107-1121, July.
    14. López-Pérez, Raúl & Pintér, Ágnes & Sánchez-Mangas, Rocío, 2022. "Some conditions (not) affecting selection neglect: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 140-157.
    15. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    16. Alexander L. Brown & Colin F. Camerer & Dan Lovallo, 2012. "To Review or Not to Review? Limited Strategic Thinking at the Movie Box Office," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 1-26, May.
    17. Ningyuan Chen & Adam N. Elmachtoub & Michael L. Hamilton & Xiao Lei, 2021. "Loot Box Pricing and Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4809-4825, August.
    18. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa, 2018. "Endogenous sample selection: A laboratory study," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 183-216, March.
    19. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0206767 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David Danz & Lise Vesterlund & Alistair J. Wilson, 2022. "Belief Elicitation and Behavioral Incentive Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2851-2883, September.
    22. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer, 2018. "Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 530-532, August.
    23. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    24. Raman Kachurka & Michał Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "State lottery in the lab: an experiment in external validity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1242-1266, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anton Suvorov & Jeroen van de Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2024. "Selective Information Sharing and Group Delusion," Working Papers 2405, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. López-Pérez, Raúl & Pintér, Ágnes & Sánchez-Mangas, Rocío, 2022. "Some conditions (not) affecting selection neglect: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 140-157.
    3. Bolte, Lukas & Fan, Tony Q., 2024. "Motivated mislearning: The case of correlation neglect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 647-663.
    4. Backhaus, Teresa & Schäper, Clara & Schrenker, Annekatrin, 2023. "Causal misperceptions of the part-time pay gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    6. Hagenbach, Jeanne & ,, 2022. "Motivated Skepticism," CEPR Discussion Papers 17478, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Alessandro Ispano & Peter Schwardmann, 2023. "Cursed Consumers and the Effectiveness of Consumer Protection Policies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-440, June.
    8. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    9. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Kai Barron & Steffen Huck & Philippe Jehiel, 2024. "Everyday Econometricians: Selection Neglect and Overoptimism When Learning from Others," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 162-198, August.
    11. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    12. Chen Li & Uyanga Turmunkh & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Trust as a decision under ambiguity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 51-75, March.
    13. Madhav Chandrasekher & Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2022. "Dual‐Self Representations of Ambiguity Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1029-1061, May.
    14. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Kanin Anantanasuwong & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: field evidence from a large sample of investors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 548-581, July.
    16. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    17. Brian Hill, 2023. "Beyond Uncertainty Aversion," Post-Print hal-02428398, HAL.
    18. Ignacio Esponda & Emanuel Vespa & Sevgi Yuksel, 2024. "Mental Models and Learning: The Case of Base-Rate Neglect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 752-782, March.
    19. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    20. Evan Piermont, 2021. "Hypothetical Expected Utility," Papers 2106.15979, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:228:y:2024:i:c:s016726812400369x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.