Building trust in the digital era: achieving Scotland's aspirations as an ethical digital nation: case study supplement

Reliable, Representative Data & Technologies Underpinning Algorithmic Decision Making

Case Study: Gambling – Dr. Raffaello Rossi & Dr. Agnes Nairn

The social media advertising sphere has developed incredibly fast, and many regulations seem to be unfit to regulate the domain accordingly. Of particular worries is advertising by potentially harmful products such as gambling, tobacco, vaping, or HFSS - especially when it potentially affects children or vulnerable people. Our research focused on gambling advertising on social media – however, we believe many of our findings are similarly applicable to the earlier mentioned product groups.

The gambling industry in the UK has increased its marketing spend by 56% since 2014 to £1.5bn and has now a seven-time higher annual marketing budget than Proctor & Gamble. Most of this massive annual budget is going into online strategies, with £747m spent on direct online marketing and £149m into social media marketing. The increasing use of social media gambling advertising raises serious concerns about the potential effect and exposure to children. Most social media platforms these platforms tend to be composed of relatively young demographics – on Twitter, for example, the largest demographic group are users from 18-34 years old (51.8% of all users).

Our empirical research investigates the use of social media advertising by UK gambling brands. In doing so, we focused on a) the volume, content, regulatory compliance of gambling ads on social media, b) which age groups engage with these adverts on social media, and c) how such advertising efforts affect children, young persons and adults emotionally.

A particular focus was on the use of content marketing (a relatively new advertising technique that hides advertising behind humours and harmless messages) and esports betting advertising (which is the betting on the outcomes on online video games that are being played competitively such as FIFA Football, Fortnite, DOTA, CounterStrike). Indeed, our research found that two-thirds of all engagement (comments and replies) with UK gambling accounts on Twitter are from people under 25-year-olds, and that around 41,000 children under the age of 16 follow such gambling accounts. With children and young people being particularly susceptible to both advertising efforts and the development of addictions, the resulting vacuum appears exceptionally worrisome.

Social media advertising spent is increasing rapidly and the basis for many modern advertising campaigns. Already in 2018, the gambling industry invested a massive £149m into social media marketing – which has likely increased substantially in the past three years.

The increasing use of social media (gambling) advertising, however, raises three general concerns: First and foremost, most social media platforms tend to be composed of relatively young demographics. On Twitter, for example, the largest demographic group are users from 18-34 years old (51.8% of all users). On Snapchat 82% are aged 34 or younger. And on TikTok even 60% are aged 9-24. Any advertising posted on these platforms is therefore likely to disproportionally affect children and young people.

Second, the cascade of social media advertising – which is considerably cheaper to launch and thus, resulting in more adverts per pound – raises substantial challenges for regulators due to its volume. Even the CEO of the UK Advertising Standards Authority publicly admitted during a House of Lords Committee Inquiry that methodological challenges render it highly complex for his organisation to identify whether advertisers are targeting specific (vulnerable) groups or, indeed, even know the volume of advertising to which these groups are exposed online. The combination of regulators not being able to uncover irresponsible social media advertising activity, together with the methodological challenges of analysing this massive amount of data, could potentially create a “dark space” with no one obeying the advertising rules, no one able to monitor this, and therefore no one able to regulate or inform policy thinking (Rossi et al., 2021).

Finally, and related to the previous point, current UK advertising regulations are outdated. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) argues that UK advertising is well regulated and under control, but the stipulation that rules “apply equally to online as to offline advertising” makes little sense given the “social” characteristics and possibilities of social media that simply don’t apply to traditional media. For example, the “snowballing” effect created when users follow engage and with social media posts from companies’ accounts only applies to social media. Through snowballing, the sender of the post (e.g the company account) has no control who will end up seeing their post – which means it might inadvertently expose children to harmful adverts. This powerful mechanism currently completely unregulated.

A new but highly trending social media advertising technique called content marketing (sometimes also “native advertising”) raises severe issues in relation to children. Such efforts try to bypass protective heuristics that warn users internally: Be careful, this is an advert like comment on share viral. Instead, they are designed to create a warm fuzzy feeling or to make their audience giggle. As social media users who see such a funny post , and it, it gains momentum – might go . We know from previous research that children are more affective (Pechmann et al., 2005) and do not have the same advertising recognition skills as adults (Wilcox et al., 2005). With this new form of advertising, however, it is nearly impossible for children to immediately recognise the posts’ persuasive intent – breaching a fundamental marking pillar: “Marketing communications should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used.” (International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)). Although content marketing poses a real danger of luring children into addictive behaviour, it is nearly completely unregulated. Currently, there are regulations set by the Committee of Advertising Practise (CAP) that prohibit, for example, that adverts for gambling or HFSS targets or appeals to children. However, such codes do not apply to content marketing as they are not considered advertising by the regulator (see CAP, 2020). Indeed, currently advertisers in the UK can do anything they like within content marketing posts. An alcohol brand account could post content marketing ads, which include children, and a gambling brand could post content marketing ads that are obviously targeted at children. Both cases, of course, would be strictly prohibited for “normal” (i.e. non content marketing) advertising.

In our research we found that out of 888,745 UK gambling adverts on Twitter, around 40% were classified as content marketing (Rossi et al., 2021). In a subsequent study, we found that these content marketing adverts were almost 4x more appealing to children and young persons (11-24) compared to adults: 11 out of 12 gambling content marketing ads triggered positive emotions in children and young persons – only 7 did for adults (Rossi & Nairn, 2021).

We have published a The Conversation article: “How children are begin targeted with hidden ads on social media.”

Our concerns about gambling content marketing were also recently picked-up by Channel 4´s “Joey Lycett´s Got Your Back”. The TV programme criticised PaddyPower for using content marketing and therefore luring children into gambling. They launched the trending hashtag: #PaddyPowerLeaveTheKidsAlone.

Another area of concern is advertising for esports betting (Nairn & Rossi, 2021). Most large sports events came to an abrupt halt during the pandemic, but one category was not only unaffected but enjoyed accelerated growth. Esports is the industry surrounding the professional competitive playing of computer games online. Games include Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Fortnite, Defence of the Ancients and FIFA. The industry’s market revenue is forecast to reach $1.1 billion in 20218. Global audience reach was estimated to be 474 million people in 2021 – most of them children and young persons. Conventional bookmakers (such as Bet365) have responded by offering esports bets and new dedicated esports betting internet sites (e.g. Midnite) have emerged. The esports betting market is predicted to be worth $205 billion by 2027.

In 2020, a stunning 21% of 18-24 year old UK respondents who took part in a Gambling Commission survey said they had already betted on esports. This is not too surprising since esports spectators are on average 26. Accordingly, there is substantial concern that esports betting advertising will be of inherent appeal to children.

This was confirmed in two of our recent studies. The first one found that 85% of all 9,332 followers of esports betting accounts on Twitter were under the age of 25 (Rossi et al., 2021). Our most recent study found, that esports betting was only appealing to children and young persons, whereas adults had strong negative emotions. Indeed, adults were four-times more likely to feel intense negative emotions about esports gambling adverts than children and young persons (Rossi & Nairn, 2021).

To clarify, we do not have any concerns with eSports – indeed; a recent study by the Oxford Internet Institute confirmed that video gaming could be good for one´s wellbeing (Johannes, Vuorre, & Przybylski, 2021). Our concerns solely lay in the intersection of eSports and gambling: Firstly, by offering bets on eSports due to the young age of the average eSports player. Secondly, since current regulations do not offer any guidance/requirements for eSports advertising which we believe is a huge problem (Nairn & Rossi, 2021)

Recommendations

1. Ban All Esports Gambling Advertising

Esports gambling advertising is dramatically more appealing to children and young persons than to adults – who find it very unappealing. As most esports fans are under 30 anything related to esports – including gambling – has an almost inherent appeal to children and young persons. It is even questionable whether esports gambling advertising can ever not be of strong appeal to youth. Esports betting advertising should thus be banned.

2. Better Labelling of Social Media Ads

Advertising regulations should specify unambiguously that all posts from commercial operators on social media must be clearly labelled as advertising. Otherwise, users – in particular children – are unlikely in a position to immediately identify the advertising as such – which might leave them defenceless against advertisers’ persuasive attempts. This is particularly important for content marketing. Whilst we believe that an ad-label might be sufficient for content marketing of non-harmful products, we believe that this would suffice for harmful-products such as gambling, tobacco, HFSS and we believe that in these cases the use of content marketing should be banned.

3. New Social Media–Specific Advertising Regulations

The ASA posits that rules apply equally to online and offline advertising. Sometimes this is appropriate, and the wide range of restrictions should apply in both spheres. However, our research has shown that social media presents additional opportunities for advertisers that are well beyond the scope and consideration of traditional advertising regulations such as (1) encouraging engagement with and sharing of content that exposes an ever-increasing number of children to gambling, (2) immediate links to accessible betting on a mobile phone, (3) exposure to gambling opportunities at night, and (4) an incredibly high volume of gambling ads that serves to normalise the activity.

4. Better Enforcement of Current Regulations

That 68% of the traditional and 74% of e-sports gambling ads contravened regulations is a serious issue. We therefore strongly recommend that regulations relating to gambling advertising on social media be given particular attention by the enforcement team at the ASA.

To aid this, social media platforms should establish a free, searchable database of gambling advertising. This resource could be maintained by platforms and function in a similar way to existing libraries for political advertising. This database should be made available to regulators and researchers to ensure compliance, transparency, and accountability.

5. Ask Children and Young Persons Directly and Frequently What Appeals to Them

That gambling advertising is appealing to children is a serious issue. However, regulators (in neither tobacco, gambling nor HFSS contexts) have never asked children and young persons what actually appeals to them. We strongly recommend that the ASA includes children and young persons when evaluating complaints, and that the CAP uses our appeal test ongoing and when creating guidance or new codes.

6. Use Children ́s and Young Person ́s Answers to Urgently Review Guidelines for What Advertisers Must Avoid

The current CAP guidance for advertising features appealing to children is unclear and highly subjective – making it almost impossible for advertisers to stick to the rules. We recommend that, using answers from children and young persons, the criteria for "strong appeal" are very clearly articulated within the revised CAP code with specific examples of images and text considered of “strong appeal”.

7. Expand the Definition of “Young Persons” in CAP from 16-17 to 16-24

CAP use the terms children for anyone aged 0-15 and young persons for anyone aged 16 and 17. As 18-24-year-olds found gambling adverts more appealing than other age group we recommend that CAP extend the definition of “young persons” to 18-24-year- olds to ensure their protection, too.

8. Only Serve Up Gambling Ads on Social Media When Users Confirm They Recognise It and Want It

We recommend that social media companies use tools to ensure that people only see gambling/tobacco/HFSS ads when they recognise and want to. This could be done by using a Sensitive Content tool, where users only see an ad after confirming that they recognise it as advertising and want to see it. Instagram has recently introduced such a tool.

Case Study: Video Games in Scotland: Risks, Opportunities and Myths – Dr. Matthew Barr

Video games play a role in a significant number of peoples’ lives across Scotland, with UK-wide data suggesting that 86% of people aged 16-69 have played computer or mobile games in the last year (Ukie, 2020). In addition, despite assumptions to the contrary, 50% of these players are female, and nearly half are over the age of 40. It is notable that, as an industry, video games continue to grow in significance, with the UK video game market valued at £7bn in 2020 – an increase of 29.9% from 2019 (Ukie, 2021). So, while Scotland-specific statistics are not readily available, it is safe to assume that the people of Scotland spend a significant amount of time (and money) playing video games. Scotland is also a prominent producer of video games, with games companies including Rockstar, Outplay, Blazing Griffin, Ninja Kiwi, No Code, Stormcloud, and many more developing games here.

As both producers and consumers of video games, it is imperative that we understand the ethical and social implications associated with playing them. However, our understanding of the issues is muddied by a mixture of bad science, anecdotal reports, and ill-informed media coverage. This case example will provide a balanced, evidence-based overview of the science behind games’ potential impact on player well-being. As such, it will look at the relationships between video games and mental health, video games and violence, and online games and gambling. In doing so, the case example will dispel some common misconceptions about video games, relating the research to the Scottish context through interviews with experts and players based in Scotland.

The public and academic discourse around the effects of playing video games has, in the past, focused on games’ alleged ill effects. From the moment video games entered the mainstream in the late 1970s until at least the turn of the century, the overwhelming majority of research published in relation to games’ impact was concerned with their harmful effects. These effects were, variously, associated with concerns about cardiovascular health (Gwinup, Haw and Elias, 1983), seizures (Kasteleijn-Nolst Trenité, 1994), and physical injuries dubbed “Nintendinitis” (Brasington, 1990). From the beginning, video games’ psychological effects have also been the subject of much discussion, including the threat of addiction or “pathological preoccupation” (Keepers, 1990), violent behaviour (Dorman, 1997), and even – in one, isolated case – hallucinations (Spence, 1993). These tensions came to a head in 1993, when the United States Judiciary Committee and United States Senate Committees on Governmental Affairs held a congressional hearing (‘Violent Video Games: What Parents Need to Know’) that examined the perceived impact of video games on children (Roth et al., 1995). The hearing was a response to the moral panic around games such as Mortal Kombat Night Trap (1992) and (1992), the latter of which was also raised in the UK Parliament (Maclean, 1993), and resulted in the creation of a video games rating system.

While the machinations the United States Judiciary may appear somewhat irrelevant to policy in Scotland, it must be acknowledged that the games industry is a global (and increasingly US-centric) phenomenon. Furthermore, the two best-selling video games of all time have significant ties to Scotland: Grand Theft Auto V Minecraft GTAV (2013) was developed primarily by Rockstar North, based in Edinburgh, while the console (Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo) versions of (2012-17) were handled by Dundee-based 4J Studios. For context, has 150 million sold copies to date (Take-Two Interactive, 2021), while Minecraft has sold in excess of 238 million copies across all platforms (Microsoft, 2021). The IP for both GTA Minecraft Observation and , however, is owned by US companies (Take-Two Interactive and Microsoft, respectively). At the same time, the Scottish games industry continues to produce significant original IP, a recent example being (2019) – developed by Glasgow-based No Code Studios – which received the British Academy Games Award for British Game in 2020.

Returning to the controversy surrounding video games, it should be noted that we have been here before: virtually every new medium – be it radio, film, television, comics, or even the humble novel – has been the subject of some initial moral panic (Bowman, 2015). Indeed, given that the first commercial video game, Computer Space, was released just 50 years ago, video games remain the ‘new kid on the block’ when compared to other media. As such, the moral panic associated with games’ initial rise in popularity persists to this day, with former US President Donald Trump suggesting – in the absence of evidence to support the claim – that “gruesome and violent video games” were to blame for a spate of lethal shootings in 2019 (Shanley, 2019).

Indeed, the violent nature of the aforementioned GTAV GTA Daily Telegraph – largely a product of Rockstar’s Scottish studio – has been the subject of much discussion in the popular press. The game – like its predecessors in the series – has been described by the as being “designed deliberately to degrade women” (Hoggins, 2013), while the Daily Record highlighted “footage that lays bare the shocking sexual violence at the heart of a controversial hit video game, which has its roots in Scotland” (Allen, 2014). A scene from the game in which the player is involved in the torture of another character attracted significant attention on the game’s initial release in 2013, for example. As reported in The Guardian, this scene was condemned by organisations including Freedom from Torture and Amnesty, but it was the Association of Teachers and Lecturers that perhaps got to the heart of the matter, noting that “ATL is not calling for a ban on these games, or censorship at all. What we are asking is for parents to become aware that the little ones are seeing these things” (Hern, 2013). The issue here is not necessarily games’ mature, often controversial, content. Rather, the issue is with a lack of awareness around the intended audience: GTAV, in common with many titles, is designed for an adult audience and is rated 18 by the body responsible for video game age classifications, PEGI.

This is a concern that was highlighted over a decade ago in arguably the most influential report on the impact of video games published in the UK. The Safer Children in a Digital World report – the result of Dr Tanya Brown’s government-commissioned review of children’s video game and internet use – made a number of key recommendations, concerned primarily with age classification, and parent and carer responsibilities (Byron, 2008). Noting that systems to inform parents about the content and suitability of games already exist, the Byron Review highlighted the need to raise awareness and understanding of these systems. The UK Government’s response to the Review focused primarily on internet safety, and the recommendation that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) play a greater role in games classification has been superseded by the Digital Economy Act 2010, which passed responsibility for rating video games to the Video Standards Council, using the PEGI system. However, as the controversy around GTAV in 2013 demonstrates, the lack of parental understanding of the age classicisation system remains an issue.

Another, more recent controversy concerns the presence of ‘loot boxes’ in online video games. Also known as, ‘loot crates’, loot boxes are digital items that may be purchased from within a video game. The controversy surrounding loot boxes stems from the apparently random items that they contain, which may include new colour schemes or outfits for player characters, new weapons, power-ups, or other in-game rewards. The inclusion of loot boxes was seen as appealing to game publishers, as they provide a revenue stream beyond the initial purchase of a game. In some games, loot boxes and other in-game purchases are the sole means of monetisation, with the base game distributed for free (the so-called ‘free-to-play’ business model). Paid-for downloadable content (DLC) has been commonplace since home internet connections first became popular (and, indeed, the origins of paying for game expansions may be traced back to the ‘add-on disks’ of the pre-internet era). The issue with loot boxes is the random element: when a player makes their purchase, they have no way of knowing what is inside the box. As such, the purchase of loot boxes may, quite reasonably, be viewed as gambling, and – again – there is a lack of awareness about the inclusion of such features in many games.

Press and politicians alike have been keen, however, to highlight the dangers of loot boxes, and their parallels with ‘real world’ gambling (see Ferguson, 2020, for example). Internationally, legislators saw fit to treat loot boxes as games of chance that fall under existing gambling laws, for example in the Netherlands (Taylor, 2018a) and Belgium (Taylor, 2018b). In the UK, the Gambling Commission drew a distinction between loot boxes that gifted items of value only within the game, and those, which may have some value beyond the game. It is this latter scenario – where ostensibly in-game items are traded for money or goods outside of the game – that might constitute gambling in the UK (Gambling Commission, 2018). In 2020, the UK Government launched a call for evidence to inform any decision about classifying loot boxes as gambling, the results of which have yet to be published (Davies, 2020). The legal aspects of loot boxes are discussed further in the Expert Insights below. Meanwhile, many games publishers have moved to head off any such legislation by, for example, removing the random element typically associated with loot boxes, and adopting a more transparent model of monetisation.

Perhaps the most controversial condemnation of video games, however, has come from the World Health Organization, in the 11^th revision of their International Classification of Diseases, commonly referred to as ICD-11 (World Health Organization, 2018a). ICD-11 saw the inclusion of ‘Gaming disorder’, which identifies a pattern of gaming behaviour that “results in marked distress or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (World Health Organization, 2018b). ICD-11 also adds a second, less serious condition referred to as ‘Hazardous gaming’, which “appreciably increases the risk of harmful physical or mental health consequences to the individual or to others around this individual” (World Health Organization, 2018c). ‘Gaming disorder’ is categorised under ‘Disorders due to addictive behaviours’, while ‘Hazardous gaming’ falls under ‘Problems associated with health behaviours’.

However, the move to include ‘gaming disorder’ in ICD-11 has proved divisive; with many academics highlighting the poor quality of the research on which the desire to pathologize video game use is predicated. For example, as noted by van Rooij et al. (2018), basic reporting standards are not always adhered to in studies that claim to show evidence of ‘pathological gaming’. An excellent example of how the picture has been distorted by poor quality research is the way in which several of the most commonly-cited papers claiming to show a link between games and violent behaviour actually rely on the same data set, used repeatedly to show the same result in multiple research papers (see Przybylski & Wang, 2016). As van Rooij et al. (2018) note, this has had the effect of inflating the number of studies that appear to show some causal link between video games and violent behaviour. In actuality, observational studies cannot show causation: only correlation. This is a fundamental flaw in much of the work that appears to show links between video games and violence or depression: these may be underlying issues that result in increased game play, perhaps as a coping mechanism. Furthermore, the research on the negative effects of playing video games is afflicted by publication bias, wherein studies that appear to show some hint of games’ negative effects – regardless of research quality – are more likely to be published (see Ferguson, 2015).

While the research on games’ alleged negative impact remains inconclusive, there is increasing evidence of the potential positive effects of playing video games. These beneficial effects include stress relief (Reinecke, 2009), cognitive skills development (Barr, 2017), combatting loneliness (Kaye, Kowert, & Quinn, 2017) and dealing with trauma (Colder Carras et al., 2018). In the Case Example and Expert Insights that follow, games’ positive effects on well-being are explored.

While the prevalence of video game play across the UK is striking (see the Ukie statistics cited above), perhaps even more remarkable is the extent to which games became central to so many peoples’ lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ofcom, for example, have found that more than half of the UK population reported playing video games in order to cope with lockdown (Ofcom, 2021).

In a study conducted by the University of Glasgow, the effects of playing video games during the COVID-19 were examined via a survey of nearly 800 players (Barr & Copeland-Stewart, 2021). The study was intended to document how video games were being used during the pandemic, with a particular interest in examining how games were affecting players’ well-being – for better or for worse. It was found that time spent playing games increased for 71% of respondents during the first lockdown, while 58% of respondents reported that playing games had impacted their well-being, with the overwhelming majority of responses indicating a positive impact. Seven broad areas in which playing video games had affected players were identified, as follows.

Mental health

“I got really anxious around the time of [the] COVID outbreak in the UK and in Portugal (where my family is). Games have always helped with anxiety as they give me something else to focus on.”

Improving mood and alleviating conditions such as anxiety were common themes, with many references to games helping players “cope” with lockdown, in line with the findings of the Ofcom report. Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated games’ potentially restorative effects on mood (see, for example, Rieger et al., 2014).

Stress relief

“I find playing video games enjoyable and relaxing, taking time out to play games can mean I return to what I was doing in a less stressed frame of mind.”

Many players reported using games to relax or de-stress, often citing the simple enjoyment of playing games – especially when other forms of entertainment were unavailable. Again, there is prior evidence of games’ capacity to help players ‘de-stress’. These include the aforementioned Reinecke (2009), as well as studies wherein players reported stress relief as an unexpected side effect of playing games (Barr, 2019).

Escape

“Games provide an escape from the world for a limited time. They create a distraction from everything and also it is good exercise for the brain.”

Related to games’ reported capacity for stress relief is the escape that they offer players. Several respondents also compared video games favourably with social media, citing games as a healthier distraction from COVID than “doom scrolling” through their feed. As one might expect, the possibility of escaping to some other world is a common motivation for playing video games, as noted, for example, by Scharkow et al. (2015).

Cognitive stimulation

“Keeps my mind busy, and sharp.”

In addition to simply staving off the boredom associated with lockdown, respondents here make reference to ‘exercising the brain’ and being able to explore new experiences as an important source of mental stimulation. As noted above, there is evidence in the literature of games’ capacity to improve cognitive skills, so this is not a surprising finding.

Agency

“There’s a feeling of control within the context and confines of the game.”

Many players talked about how video games provide them with a sense of control and fulfilment that was otherwise lacking during lockdown. Player agency is a well-documented motivation for playing games, with the feelings of competence and autonomy that games are apt to produce being linked to our basic psychological needs (Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski, 2006).

Socialisation

“It has helped to keep me in touch with friends who I can’t see in person, and has kept me from being completely isolated at home. Some friends have started to play video games with our gaming group when they had not expressed an interest before. This has been very positive – it’s good to be able to share your hobby with people!”

The social aspects of video games are often overlooked by those who do not typically play them. Here, players made numerous references to the opportunities for social interaction that games afforded during lockdown. Again, there is prior research, too, that has shown games can help combat loneliness, such as the aforementioned study by Kaye, Kowert, & Quinn (2017).

Normalisation

“Playing video games has brought a sense of normality to everything.”

Finally, players reported how video games had provided them with a link to their normal, pre-COVID lives, as well as providing structure to the day. It is interesting to note that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that citizens should “try to do enjoyable activities and return to normal life as much as possible’ during a crisis” (CDC, 2020). Perhaps video games have a role to play in how a nation copes with such disasters.

The study also highlights the small number of negative responses to the question of how video games had affected players’ well-being, noting, “in several cases, negative comments about the impact of playing video games on well-being were balanced with more positive sentiments”. The main concern identified by players was that they were spending time doing something that was not ‘worthwhile’ or ‘productive’. But the trade-off was generally considered to be acceptable, as one participant noted: “One minor issue I can mention is I might have spent a bit too long playing games but I think in the current situation the positive side completely outweighs the negative and can justify the time spent”.

The following insights, from two Scotland-based players, help illustrate the relationship between video games and well-being touched upon in the case example above.

First is Gabriel Elvery, a PhD student at the University of Glasgow, whose research focuses on “the development of an analytical approach to video games that includes the balancing of affective immersion with mindful engagement and analysis”. Their work explores the parasocial interactions that players can have with in-game characters, also known as ‘non-player characters’, or NPCs.

Identifying how video games provoke emotional responses, and investigating the qualities of those feelings, can help us understand our wider social lives; video games provide demonstrations of social systems which are often taken for granted, and give us a way to think through our feelings. They may not provide perfect representation, but like a novel or great work of art, hailing their virtues and critiquing their flaws are both equally valuable educational experiences. Video games offer, for anyone who cares to learn, a platform for social and emotional education - especially single player games which can serve as an emotional testing ground that allows for mistakes.

Personally, video games have helped me understand and come to terms with the social difficulties I experience as someone with borderline personality disorder, as they allow me to study different relationship dynamics and analyse my emotional responses to them within a safe environment. Creating a game which illustrates my battle against mental illness has helped explain my neurodiversity to others - helping, I hope, to destigmatize a maligned disorder. Furthermore, using video games to teach has improved the morale of my students by providing social lubrication and offering them a shared social experience at a distance. Video games are a medium for connection: both with others when used to mediate group gameplay, and as affective technology which can help us connect with, and understand, our own sense of self via parasocial interaction with non-player characters.

Gabriel Elvery, LKAS PhD Researcher, University of Glasgow

Next is Glaswegian author and journalist, Joe Donnelly, who published Checkpoint: How Video Games Power Up Minds, Kick Ass and Save Lives Gaming and Me: Connections, Identity and Supportin 2020. He was also featured in BBC TV documentary, , broadcast in 2021.

I’ve always used video games as a means of escapism, but when my uncle took his own life in 2008, I turned to the medium like never before. At a time when my reality wasn’t the nicest place to be, I delighted in visiting Grand Theft Auto 4’s Liberty City, BioShock’s Rapture and Tomb Raider: Underworld’s coastal Thailand, whose digital landscapes helped me through a rough time like never before. In the early 2010s, I discovered indie games such as Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest, Will O’Neill’s Actual Sunlight and Vander Caballero’s Papo & Yo, all of which explore mental health themes and latterly gave me the courage to seek professional help for my own developing depression in the wake of my uncle’s suicide. Through all of this, I believe video games saved my life and gave me support during some of my darkest days. During the stretches of national lockdown and enforced isolation throughout the global pandemic, video games such as Fortnite, Minecraft and Animal Crossing: New Horizons provided thriving social spaces for so many people, at a time when real-world exploration was impossible and our collective mental health was compromised.

Joe Donnelly, author of Checkpoint

Video games and loot boxes

The following overview of how loot boxes relate to existing gambling legislation comes from Edinburgh-based solicitor Neil Falconer. He highlights the limitations of the 2005 Gambling Act in relation to dealing with loot boxes, and notes that updated UK-wide legislation has likely been delayed as a result of Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic.

As is often the case with new matters arising in the technology sector, when the relevant legislation was drafted the development of Loot Boxes would likely not have been envisaged. With the Gambling Act 2005 (the legislative basis for regulation by the Gambling Commission in the UK) now over a decade and a half old, the prevalence of in-game Loot Boxes would not have been a material consideration at that time.

The Gambling Commission can only act within its legislative remit. To fall within the remit of regulated gambling the 2005 Act requires that the prizes won via a game of chance be considered “money or money’s worth”. The Gambling Commission has taken the view that this requires a cash-out or financial reward which is not present in Loot Boxes where the prize is restricted to the gaming environment and therefore does not have a monetary value (although it obviously has utility to the player).

Loot Boxes therefore fall between the cracks of the current regulatory framework. With the prizes being in-game assets with no real world cash value, it would appear that current legislation does not allow for regulation. However, this point is blurred as there have been instances of third party transaction sites allowing in-game items to be traded for real-world money. The fact that gamers are willing to pay sometimes large sums of real world money for in-game items clearly shows there is a monetary value to these items for the gamers. Also the fact that gamers often pay real world money for the chance to win a Loot Box item would suggest that the prize has monetary worth to those playing the game.

Outside the purely legal position, the academic research on the psychology of Loot Boxes shows a connection between Loot Box purchasing and problem gambling. The fact that Loot Boxes appear in an industry which has a high volume of child gamers would amplify this issue in the eyes of the Government. Interestingly, that legislation has in some respects future-proofed itself. Both the definitions of ‘gaming’ and ‘lotteries’ in the Gambling Act 2005 allow for secondary legislation to be passed which would enable certain types of arrangements to be classed as gaming or lotteries. While this may have been pushed further down the Governments priority list in the last couple of years due the Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic, it would seem that amendments or clarification from the legislature in relation to the regulation of Loot Boxes is probably likely.

Neil Falconer, Associate, Thorntons Law LLP, Edinburgh

The potential ill-effects of playing video games are frequently overstated in media reports and, indeed, in certain research papers. The reality is that the research has failed to find convincing evidence of a causal link between video games and violent behaviour or gambling habits. This is not to deny that playing video games – as with many pastimes – carries some risk. There are, of course, instances of players developing an unhealthy relationship with games, exhibiting what can only be described as addictive behaviour. In addition, there are games – clearly labelled as such – which are not suitable for younger players, on the basis of their content. Furthermore, while video games rarely feature gambling in any overt sense, we have seen that loot boxes do, indeed, constitute a potentially problematic form of gambling. Loot boxes, however, are now largely consigned to the past, as a result of public concern and likely amendments to legislation.

All of these concerns must be considered in context. With the overwhelming majority of Scotland’s citizens (and many millions more, globally) likely to have played a video game of some form in the last year, the absence of an epidemic of game-related violence or widespread gaming addiction reveals the extremely low risk that games pose. Such risks must also be weighed against the increasing body of evidence that suggests video games may be a force for good in many players’ lives. Video games can have a positive impact on players’ well-being, offering a range of social, emotional, and cognitive benefits. To stigmatise video games is to potentially deny our citizens the opportunity to enjoy these benefits.

In short:

• Playing video games is a pastime that brings joy to many, and the potential benefits are increasingly clear.
• Meanwhile, the evidence for games’ negative effects remains inconclusive, and muddied by poor quality research.
• There remains a lack of awareness and understanding of existing video game age classification systems, and of the content and suitability of games aimed at adults.
• This lack of awareness also extends to the mechanisms that underpin in-game purchases, including loot boxes, which arguably constitute gambling.

Recommendations

• Scotland should adopt a suitably positive stance on video games, eschewing the moral panic with which they have often been associated.
• We should also actively avoid demonising an industry in which Scotland has frequently enjoyed significant success.
• We should consider a campaign to raise awareness of the PEGI video game age classification scheme at a national level, or advocate for a similar UK-wide campaign, aimed primarily at parents.
• If the UK fails to legislate to classify loot boxes as gambling in a timely fashion, Scotland should seek to pass equivalent legislation as soon as possible.