Skip to main content

Table 2 Loot box and DPM descriptives by gambling status at baseline

From: A longitudinal replication study testing migration from video game loot boxes to gambling in British Columbia, Canada

Variables

Non-gambling (n = 83)

Gambling (n = 43)

Test statistic

Video gaming per week

"About 26–30 h per week"

"About 26–30 h per week"

χ2 = 5.15, p =.881, φ =.202

Age started gaming (SD)

9.67 (3.84)

12.16 (3.48)

χ2 = 36.97, p =.002, φ =.542

Loot Boxes

 Familiar with… (%)

78 (94.0%)

39 (90.7%)

χ2 = 0.46, p =.498, φ =.060

 Played a game with…

78 (94.0%)

39 (90.7%)

χ2 = 0.04., p =.835, φ =.019

 Bought …

56 (67.5%)

39 (90.7%)

χ2 = 8.24, p =.004, φ =.256

 Sold an item won in a loot box

52 (62.7%)

35 (85.4%)

χ2 = 4.66, p =.031, φ =.192

 Past year spending on…

$15

$240

U = 840.5, z = − 4.90, p <.001, r =.437

DPMs

 Familiar with…

73 (88.0%)

40 (93.0%)

χ2 = 0.79, p =.375, φ =.079

 Played a game with…

73 (88.0%)

39 (90.1%)

χ2 = 0.22, p =.641, φ =.041

 Bought…

67 (80.7%)

39 (90.1%)

χ2 = 3.35, p =.067, φ =.163

 Sold an item purchased as a DPM

37 (44.5%)

36 (83.7%)

χ2 = 17.81, p <.001, φ =.376

 Past year spending on…

$70

$280

U = 1014, z = − 3.97, p <.001, r =.354

  1. Spending data are medians, and were analyzed with Mann–Whitney U tests with a derived r value for effect size (interpretive range: 0.1 to 0.3 is small effect, 0.3 to 0.5 a moderate effect, 0.5 to 1.0 a strong effect). Group differences on categorical variables were assessed with chi-squared tests with phi (φ) for effect size (interpretive range: 0.0 to 0.1 is a negligible effect, 0.1 to 0.2 is weak, 0.2 to 0.4 is moderate, 0.4 to 0.6 is relatively strong, 0.6 to 0.8 is strong, and 0.8 to 1.0 is very strong; Rea et al., 2016)