Development and Validation of the RAFFLE: A Measure of Reasons and Facilitators for Loot Box Engagement

Abstract

Qualitative studies have identified a diverse array of motivations for purchasing items within video games through chance-based mechanisms (i.e., “loot boxes”). Given that some individuals—particularly those at risk of disordered gaming and/or gambling—are prone to over-involvement with loot box purchasing, it is important to have a reliable, valid means of measuring the role of different motivations in driving purchasing behaviour. Building on prior qualitative research, this paper reports the development and validation of the “RAFFLE” scale, to measure the Reasons and Facilitators for Loot box Engagement. A 23-item, seven-factor scale was developed through cognitive interviews (n = 25) followed by two surveys of UK-based gamers who purchase loot boxes; analysed via exploratory (n = 503) and confirmatory (n = 1495) factor analysis, respectively. Subscales encompassed “enhancement’; “progression’; “social pressure’; “distraction/compulsion’; “altruism’; “fear of missing out’; and “resale”. The scale showed good criterion and construct validity (correlating well with measures of loot box engagement; the risky loot box index (r = 0.63) and monthly self-reported spend (r = 0.38)), and good internal validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84). Parallels with, and divergence from, motivations for related activities of gaming and gambling, and alignment with broader theoretical models of motivation, are discussed.

Measuring loot box consumption and negative consequences: Psychometric investigation of a Swedish version of the Risky Loot Box Index

“…Presently, two main instruments measure aspects of loot box purchases. The Reasons And Facilitators For Loot box Engagement scale ( Lloyd et al, 2021 ) measures the motivations for loot box use, whereas the Risky Loot Box Index (RLI) ( Brooks & Clark, 2019 ) investigates risky loot box use and problematic behaviors and actions to acquire loot boxes. The RLI, originally devised as 12-item scale and psychometrically evaluated, is a one-factor solution with five items after several iterations ( Brooks & Clark, 2019 ).…”

Beyond gambling: the dangers of analogistic reasoning in addiction science, and how loot box psychology should create its own unique theory

“…Loot box researcher should therefore seek to better understand how the experiential value of video games and their resulting communities how the significance of video games and their resulting communities contribute to loot box expenditure. Some initial findings along these lines are that heavy gamers tend to also spend more on loot boxes (Li et al, 2019), and that some gamers report purchasing loot boxes because of social pressure from other gamers 10 (Lloyd et al, 2021). However, this research needs to be taken further.…”

To screen, or not to screen: An experimental comparison of two methods for correlating video game loot box expenditure and problem gambling severity

“…We provided participants with a definition of loot boxes that was previously used with UK videogame players [61] and then asked them how much money they spent on loot boxes in the past month as shown in Figure 2.…”