Reply to “Fundamental flaws in the design and reporting of Chew and Neo (2024)”

Chew, Peter K.H.

Abstract

Although loot boxes are structurally and psychologically similar to gambling, they are available to minors and relatively free from government regulations. The extant research has generally found weak positive relationships between the purchase of loot boxes, and internet gaming disorder and problem gambling severity. However, most of the research do not include a comparison group to quantify the unique harm of loot boxes. Indeed, our study found that internet gaming disorder and problem gambling severity were not significant predictors of resources (i.e., money and time) spent on games with loot boxes after controlling for resources spent on games without loot boxes (Chew & Neo, 2024). In response, an authors’ commentary provided feedback on the following issues: (a) fundamental error in the survey materials, (b) unclear and unjustified inclusion and exclusion criteria, (c) misinterpreting null results as evidence of absence, (d) statistical approach and overcontrolling, (e) lack of engagement with open science. In this paper, I elaborated on some of the decisions made in our study and strengthened the conclusions via Bayesian statistics. Overall, the authors’ concerns are unwarranted and I reiterate our conclusion that (a) there is a lack of evidence for the unique harm of loot boxes and (b) it might be worth examining the effects of microtransactions in general (Chew & Neo, 2024).

Journal

Trends in Psychology

Publication Name

Trends in Psychology

Volume

N/A

ISBN/ISSN

2358-1883

Edition

N/A

Issue

N/A

Pages Count

Location

N/A

Publisher

Springer

Publisher Url

N/A

Publisher Location

N/A

Publish Date

N/A

Url

N/A

Date

N/A

EISSN

N/A

DOI

10.1007/s43076-025-00487