This is the numerical result the researchers used to make their “ridiculous” assumptions in their paper:
The ANOVA procedure for repeated measurement designs yield significant results for the
- dACC (Wilk’s Λ = 0.33, F = 4.59, p <.027, η2 = 0.67)
- rACC (Wilk’s Λ= 0.19, F = 9.55, p <.003, η2 = 0.81)
- amygdala (Wilk’s Λ = 0.28, F = 5.75, p<.014, η2 = 0.72)
Tests for linear trends were significant in the three ROIs:
- dACC: F = 8.28, p < .014;
- rACC: F = 17.97, p < .001;
- amygdala: F = 30.02, p < .001
but not for higher order trends
The other study they mention does not involve any experiment and is merely a review of other studies.
Whether the significance in the study is significant for science is up to the researchers but, yeah, we can make assumptions with a sample size of just 13. Interestingly, others would regard “too many” people in a sample size as a manipulation to achieve significance. So I guess that when we don’t like something we can always find reasons to complain about it.
- Neuroscientists pinpoint location of fear memory in amygdala (health.einnews.com)
- Increased Neural Habituation in the Amygdala and Orbitofrontal Cortex in Social Anxiety Disorder Revealed by fMRI (plosone.org)
- Violence: Control Guns or Control the Media? (psychologytoday.com)
- Survey: 75% Of Parents Think Violent Video Games Contribute To Actual Violence (kotaku.com)
- Final Fantasy Blamed for Brutal Murder (kotaku.com)
One thought on “Media on “Video Games & Violence””
As i have said elsewhere (regardless if i agree with this post, which i do), >representative samples is the problem par-excellence of statistics.
In this sense, and only in this sense, arguments about the sample size are meaninghful.