Funny how everyone instantly becomes an expert on research methodology when a study they disagree with is talked about.
People start talking about a small sample size when the sample is larger than in many comparable experiments and
people complain about a correlation being mistaken for causation when this is an experiment with randomly assigned groups not study of correlation. The results are statistically significant to a p<0,001 on all three measurements and this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The researchers even specifically talk about the fact that not all people react this way to the games and that the affect they are seeing is the interaction between high moral disengagement and the violent stimuli.
Could we please stick to valid criticism.
People start talking about a small sample size when the sample is larger than in many comparable experiments and
people complain about a correlation being mistaken for causation when this is an experiment with randomly assigned groups not study of correlation. The results are statistically significant to a p<0,001 on all three measurements and this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The researchers even specifically talk about the fact that not all people react this way to the games and that the affect they are seeing is the interaction between high moral disengagement and the violent stimuli.
Could we please stick to valid criticism.