Gamblification refers to the infiltration of gambling-like features in video games. Elements such as loot boxes, randomized rewards, time-limited offers, and pay-to-win mechanisms replicate the structure and psychological appeal of gambling. These features closely mirror structural and psychological components traditionally associated with gambling, creating potential implications for youth behavior and well-being. ^{3 – 5}

The dataset presented in this Data Note documents gaming practices and the emotional and financial reactions associated with gamblified features among young people in Spain. Data were collected in June 2025 from individuals aged 16 to 25 years old using an online survey instrument. The dataset includes detailed information on exposure to gamblified mechanics, spending patterns, emotional responses to in-game rewards, and broader social interactions within gaming contexts. ¹

By offering standardized measures on player experiences with gamblified systems, this dataset enables researchers to examine emerging forms of consumption, reward mechanisms, and risk-like behaviors in youth digital culture. It is expected to be useful for investigations in psychology, digital game studies, human-computer interaction, and platform governance, as well as for comparative analysis across different geographic and demographic populations. ^{2 , 6 , 7}

Data were collected using a structured online survey administered in June 2025 to young people aged 16 to 25 residing in Spain. The sample was recruited through a contracted third-party online access panel. Within the panel, eligible respondents residing in Spain and aged 16–25 years were selected using a simple random selection procedure in line with the study’s territorial and demographic criteria.

The territorial distribution of the sample was structured using Nielsen Areas [1], a market research classification that groups Spanish territory into broad geographic areas commonly used for survey design and quota monitoring. In this study, Nielsen Areas were used to organize the territorial allocation of the sample and to monitor fieldwork. Within the panel, eligible respondents were selected through a simple random sampling procedure from panelized individuals who met the study’s age and territorial criteria.

Sampling quotas were monitored during fieldwork to approximate distributions by (i) Nielsen Area and (ii) sex and age group: males aged 16–19 (n = 219), females aged 16–19 (n = 204), males aged 20–25 (n = 323), and females aged 20–25 (n = 254). The achieved sample comprises n = 1,000 complete and valid interviews with the following regional counts: 1. Cataluña, Zaragoza, Huesca, and Baleares (n = 216); 2. Comunidad Valenciana, Albacete y Murcia (n = 150); 3. Andalucía, Cáceres, Ceuta y Melilla (n = 189); 4. Madrid, Castilla-La Mancha, Ávila, Segovia, Badajoz, Valladolid, Salamanca, Zamora, Soria y Teruel (n = 224); 5. Galicia, Asturias y León (n = 86); 6. País Vasco, Navarra, Cantabria, La Rioja, Burgos y Palencia (n = 89); and 7. Islas Canarias (n = 46).

To facilitate assessment of the achieved sample structure, Table 1 compares the final distribution by sex and age group with the corresponding reference distribution for the resident population aged 16–25 years in Spain.

Eligibility criteria ensured the inclusion of respondents within the target age range who were currently living in Spain. Quality controls were applied throughout data collection, including attention-check questions, routing controls, and automatic exclusion of incomplete submissions. Respondents who indicated that they played video games were routed to Block A (gamers), whereas those who did not were routed to Block B (non-gamers). Of the final sample of 1,000 valid and fully completed interviews, 927 respondents were assigned to Block A and 73 to Block B.

Only participants aged 16 years and older were eligible for inclusion in the study. Consent procedures for online participation, including respondents aged 16–17 years, followed the protocol approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Further details are provided in the Ethics and Consent section.

Survey participation was therefore administered in accordance with the provider’s established procedures. The research team did not collect or have direct access to personally identifiable data at any stage of the study. Only anonymized survey responses were made available to the authors for research purposes, thereby minimizing risks related to personal data processing and participant identification. The public dataset shared through the repository contains only anonymized data.

The data provider operated in compliance with applicable data protection regulations and standardized response protocols. Data handling and participant confidentiality adhered to UNE EN ISO/IEC 27001 standards.

Following data acquisition, anonymization procedures were applied to the data before release. Data cleaning steps included removing duplicate entries, verifying variable coding schemes, harmonizing ordinal scales, labeling missing values, and formatting to ensure interoperability with standard statistical software. All processing tasks and file structures are documented to support reproducibility and future reuse. As with other panel-based online surveys, the dataset should be interpreted in light of the usual limitations associated with panel recruitment, including the potential underrepresentation of individuals with limited internet access or those not enrolled in online panels.

The dataset, codebook, and questionnaire supporting this Data Note are publicly available at Figshare. ¹ The public deposit contains a primary data file and supporting documentation. The dataset is provided in `.csv` format and includes 1,000 rows (individual responses) and 79 columns (survey items and codes). Each row represents an anonymized participant.

Variables mirror the questionnaire routing: “F” for screeners and demographics; “A” for the players block; and “B” for the non-players block. The questionnaire contained 35 items organized into blocks (most attitudinal items used 5-point Likert response options anchored at “Totally disagree” =1 to “Totally agree” =5): •

Screeners & demographics: (Age, sex, gender identity, municipality size, education, employment, province/region, Nielsen Area).

No custom code or new software was created to generate, process, or analyze the dataset described in this Data Note. Data cleaning and validation were conducted using Microsoft Excel. The released.csv file can also be opened and reused with open-source alternatives such as LibreOffice Calc, R, or Python/pandas.

The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) under file reference Exp.: CE24-PR52.

All participants provided written informed consent electronically before beginning the online survey. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, the anonymized processing of responses, and the use of the data for research purposes.

The study included respondents aged 16–17 years. Their participation followed the Ethics Committee-approved protocol for anonymous, minimal-risk online survey research with participants aged 16 years and older. No separate parental or legal guardian consent was collected under this approved protocol. The research team did not receive directly identifiable personal data at any stage, and the public dataset contains only anonymized responses.