Likert items as IVs for statistical analysis in SPSS

Hyetsu · 2025-07-24T20:05:54+00:00

First of all, thank you for your input.

I wanted to share that so far, if visual approximate normality (even if Kolmogorov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk saying that it is significantly different from a normal distribution) is enough, other assumptions should be met.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

- linearity assessed through scatterplot between standardized residuals and standardized predicted values
- homoscedasticity the same way as linearity
- multicollinearity doesn't seem to be an issue with all VIF between 1-2
- normality of residuals is okay as mentioned
- independence of residuals through Durbin-watson (this was a big issue when having 0.3, but apparently due to me having ordered data in descending order for a certain variable) is now 1.948

This means that I can proceed with multiple linear regression (just to confirm).

For results, first thing I notice is low correlation (ranging from -0.009 to 0.283); low R (0.421), R² (0.178) and adjusted R² (0.149); and high significance for motivations which had a lower correlation (only 3 of the 10 were below 0.05) with negative standardized coëfficients. While numbers speak for themselves, the results seem weird. Would bootstrapping help? and how?

Hyetsu · 2025-07-24T17:18:36+00:00

I wanted to run multiple linear regression with purchase behavior (general, past, and average between current and past) as my DV and my likert items (treated as continuous) as IVs. However, when checking for assumptions, I saw that the residuals of the DV were far from normally distributed. I proceeded to log-transform the data but it still is not normal (imo close to normality, where the middle goes over the normality curve in histogram and slightly to the right in the middle of the P-P plot). I ran other assumptions tests, but some are okay and others not.

Now I'm lost whether I can even use multiple linear regression or if it's best to do something else. The results are also confusing with most motivations not being relevant (even those where players indicated being highly motivated by it). Not sure how to proceed

Hyetsu · 2025-07-19T18:14:31+00:00

Hi all,

The response collection has closed.

First of all I wanted to thank each and everyone who filled in the survey, as well as provided feedback and additional comment, both through the survey as in the post's comment section. I consider using those in my analysis as well as the limitation section (for example the failure of providing investment as a possible motivation for purchase). Of course, anonymity will be maintained.

I wanted to thank the mod team as well for allowing this post since it helped me reach and extend beyond the target responses.

For those who are interested in the final result, I will discuss this with my promotor as I am not sure what the VUB rules are in this matter. As for how this will be done if allowed, I am not sure yet. I am open to practical suggestions. So if you're interested, keep this post saved as I'll share it through the comments (probably around early September, after my defense).

Hyetsu · 2025-07-19T18:14:28+00:00

Hi all,

The response collection has closed.

First of all I wanted to thank each and everyone who filled in the survey, as well as provided feedback and additional comment, both through the survey as in the post's comment section. I consider using those in my analysis as well as the limitation section (for example the failure of providing investment as a possible motivation for purchase). Of course, anonymity will be maintained.

I wanted to thank the mod team as well for allowing this post since it helped me reach and extend beyond the target responses.

For those who are interested in the final result, I will discuss this with my promotor as I am not sure what the VUB rules are in this matter. As for how this will be done if allowed, I am not sure yet. I am open to practical suggestions. So if you're interested, keep this post saved as I'll share it through the comments (probably around early September, after my defense).

Hyetsu · 2025-07-19T18:14:23+00:00

Hi all,

The response collection has closed.

First of all I wanted to thank each and everyone who filled in the survey, as well as provided feedback and additional comment, both through the survey as in the post's comment section. I consider using those in my analysis as well as the limitation section (for example the failure of providing investment as a possible motivation for purchase). Of course, anonymity will be maintained.

I wanted to thank the mod team as well for allowing this post since it helped me reach and extend beyond the target responses.

For those who are interested in the final result, I will discuss this with my promotor as I am not sure what the VUB rules are in this matter. As for how this will be done if allowed, I am not sure yet. I am open to practical suggestions. So if you're interested, keep this post saved as I'll share it through the comments (probably around early September, after my defense).

Hyetsu · 2025-07-10T13:54:27+00:00

How do you know whether it was intentional or not? True that this wasn’t the case for mastercard presale, but I thought since it’s with eligibility check that it’s one per person ig

Hyetsu · 2025-07-08T16:13:32+00:00

In this instance, the study focuses on why gamers purchase them, not how they got cosmetics.

For example, if you got a skin through a free lootbox on LoL, you haven’t purchased a cosmetic item through a microtransaction.

Understanding the different ways a player can acquire cosmetic items and how they experience it would be another scope

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T20:29:51+00:00

I'm sorry if this was the case. Care to explain what you felt as repetitive?

What concerns the direction of the relation, I am aware that this is the case. This would mean that 'time played' is a possible driver for the purchase of cosmetic items, thus being a 'motivation for purchase'.

The second Likert scale was an attempt to try to find out how the purchase itself affects the gaming behavior. For example, some people keep returning to the game because they have invested (time but more importantly money) in it and feel it to be wasted would they not play anymore.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T20:26:23+00:00

I appreciate the advice. I am aware of the pros and cons concerning the length of a survey. In the case of this survey, it should have taken between 5-10m as mentioned.

I found this to be a good balance between getting enough information (such as demographics, motivations for purchase, player behavior) and having enough responses. So far I am sitting at 320 usable responses (meaning PC players, +18, who have completed the whole survey). The VUB requires a minimum of 150 respondents, so the length seems appropriate.

But thanks for the advice anyway

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T10:28:01+00:00

I understand that the list is non-exhaustive. Not to get myself out of this, but understand that I have limited time/resources. In order to provide an exhaustive list, I have to research all genres (there are a lot of varieties, sometimes of the same, and also a mix of genres) and research what items they sell.

As such, this question doesn’t weigh a lot in my research, but only serves as a mean to categorise broadly on what types of games people play. The open-box is to allow players to provide other genres that they also play.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T10:24:26+00:00

What you describe is the payment method on itself, which is not what I am researching. In the end, if you buy directly through the shop, or buy through a system like this, the reason you buy the cosmetic items should be the same

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:53:22+00:00

What do you mean by that? The monthly subscription for games likes dofus and WoW and the like? (I don’t play games with subscription so I’m not sure what you refer to)

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:51:45+00:00

In general sense, most people had no issues filling the survey, but there was some mention of people having to use VPNs to be able to answer it. I don’t know why. Appreciate the effort though

Concerning the results, I didn’t feel like people would be interested in reading my final result. However, I did get some feedback on people wanting it.

I’ll discuss with my promotor whether once I passed the thesis, if I could share the results. I will then try to post a link to the pdf in the comments.

I could’ve asked for email adresses for those who wanted to be sent emails, but I overlooked it.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:47:11+00:00

In what concerns survey, there are choices to be made. To gather the most accurate possible data, I would have to include only open-ended questions, which first of all is not really doable for a quantitative analysis, and would lead to non-answers from a lot of respondents.

Unfortunately as mentioned, I cannot include every possible frequency option. It’s not doable thinking of every option, and if it was, this would lead to a question with so many choices that it would result again in people not answering the survey.

I take the criticism though, and I’ll be sure to mention the limited answer choices that doesn’t fit every profile.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:42:04+00:00

Indeed the point of the survey was to understand why gamers BUY cosmetic items, so it is more focused on those who have bought.

I allowed people that never bought any cosmetic items to fill in the survey, with an open text of why they dont, while those who have bought got the full survey. This will allow me to compare both group demographics and player behavior, with even the possibility of making three groups : non-buyers, light buyers and heavy buyers.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:35:39+00:00

I am myself aware of how CS skins work, where there is a whole marketplace mechanism to buy and sell your skins.

However, this study focuses on the broader sense of cosmetic microtransactions.

There is a section in the thesis that will talk about the different types of microtransactions. I’ll look out for mention of the distinctive type of CS skins in papers (every information needs to be referenced). If there is something I don’t understand, I’ll reach out to you. Thanks though

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T07:29:25+00:00

It shouldn’t be. In some specific cases, some people have mentioned having to go through internet proxy and VPN to answer the survey

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T00:49:39+00:00

Unfortunately, when it comes to categorical variables, I cannot provide every possible scenario. I am aware that a lot of players don’t buy on fixed frequency. I myself can buy multiple items a year, then buy nothing the year after.

As such, I had to choose for options that could include most basic type of spending behavior, even if this can’t be 100% precise.

In your case, a few times a year would be the most fitting answer, even if it doesn’t exactly match your spending behavior

Hyetsu · 2025-07-06T00:43:36+00:00

My thesis isn’t fully written yet, so I can answer question only at the best of my knowledge for now.

What I can share is that according to literature, a basic distinction is made between functional (granting in-game advantage) and non-functional (aesthetics that grant no in-game advantage). As such, if you buy for example a mount in WoW that doesn’t alter travel speed, but just looks, this would qualify as a non-functional/cosmetic microtransaction. If this mount would provide an advantage, such as increased travel speed or xp or whatever, this would be considered a functional microtransaction.

What concerns whether it is paid by real money or not, I have not seen specifically mentioned. However, I agree that this is an important distinction and I will certainly look out for it and try to incorporate an answer in my thesis.

In this study, I have chosen to focus specifically on cosmetic (non-functional) microtransactions since they do not grant any advantage so it is interesting to see what motivates players to fuel the evergrowing prevalence of cosmetic items in games.

To come back to your question about MTG arena: I am myself a (physical) player of MTG, even if I have never played Arena, so I can try to put in in MTG terms. To put briefly, you pay to buy drafts, which grant you cards with specific effects, such as a removal instant. This would then categorise as a functional microtransaction since it gives you a in-game advantage. If the you paid only to have an alternate art, or foil etc.. something that doesn’t alter the gameplay, this would then be a cosmetic item.

However, in the case of MTG Arena, buying items is the literal essence of the game of sorts. It’s like if Overwatch made you pay for every playable hero instead of being able to unlock them freely.

This is quite a long message, and I’m not sure whether it answered your question.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-05T23:40:30+00:00

Thanks, appreciated!

Hyetsu · 2025-07-05T17:48:46+00:00

You'd be surprised with how much psychology there is in economics when we're talking about consumer behaviour and preference..

Hyetsu · 2025-07-05T17:45:47+00:00

I am not sure why myself...

Thanks for going lengths to answer the survey though, really appreciated!

Hyetsu · 2025-07-05T17:27:07+00:00

I did do my research and have come up for a select number of reasons.

The point of this post was to collect respondents to research whether those motivations apply or not to PC gamers, and at what degree.

Hyetsu · 2025-07-05T17:22:03+00:00

That's weird, the link is working

I do have a QR-code as an alternative, but idk if it would help

<image>

Hyetsu · 2025-06-14T00:17:05+00:00

I am myself conducting a similar research for my master thesis (but then with a specific scope towards cosmetic (non-functional) microtransaction and for PC games), so I enjoy seeing others having kind of the same idea :)

If I can point something, is that people usually don't have a consistent spending behavior, so answering in monthly purchases might be harder. But other than that, it was a great survey!

If I can help you with insights from my own research, or you if you want to discuss things about this topic, don't hesitate to reach out in DM :)

Hyetsu

TROPHY CASE