Study: Gaming linked to depression.
- Thread starter El Mahdi
- Start date
A sample size as small as 100 participants can give statistical significance and can be considered acceptable.
Also, 'localized' is not necessarily a problem. While convenient sampling (instead of true random sampling) is a hedgy area, a sample from one general geographical area is okay. That's how a typical study works (because it's usually professors/doctors/whatnot doing it on a nearby population they have access to).
Vigilance
Explorer
Wow, really?
I don't know so I'll take your word for it but wow.
I mean, there's 300,000,000 or so people in America.
Seems like you'd need at least a tenth of a percent (or 30,000 or so people) to get anything like real data.
Dire Bare
Legend
Yes, really.
And it's only one study. I'm sure the authors would be the first to tell you that more research needs to be done. That's how science works. It's impractical to expect one group of researchers in any field to do an exhaustive study that covers all possible permutations. That's why we have many groups of researchers working on smaller studies that over time add to the general body of scientific knowledge.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Correlation isn't causation.
I mean, 35-45 is roughly "adult-life crisis" range, so there's a LOT of people in that age group who are depressed (probably largely undiagnosed). Depression leads to being overweight (since "Life sucks but ice cream is still delicious" is almost a tautology). Not that you need to be depressed: most of the US is overweight, jolly or angry or otherwise.
Gaming doesn't seem very related.
Other than perhaps games can help make you chubby.
But I'm a big gamer, I'm younger than the study, and I work out at least weekly, so I'm (kind of) healthy, or at least my weight is.
Man, we're just throwing darts at the wall with this thing at this point.
I mean, 35-45 is roughly "adult-life crisis" range, so there's a LOT of people in that age group who are depressed (probably largely undiagnosed). Depression leads to being overweight (since "Life sucks but ice cream is still delicious" is almost a tautology). Not that you need to be depressed: most of the US is overweight, jolly or angry or otherwise.
Gaming doesn't seem very related.
Other than perhaps games can help make you chubby.
But I'm a big gamer, I'm younger than the study, and I work out at least weekly, so I'm (kind of) healthy, or at least my weight is.
Man, we're just throwing darts at the wall with this thing at this point.
Now, I have to go back on something I said. Looking at this page, a sample size of 100 isn't good enough for a true blue study to say something with confidence. You need 500 participants. Because 500 participants grant a margin of error a little below 5%, meaning you are 95% certain the numbers are correct.
If you look at the page, you'll note that 10,000 participants only get you 1% margin of error. The difference between 1% and 5% margin of error really isn't that much. 30K participants is, well, overkill.
WITH THAT SAID, do you have any idea how much that would cost to conduct using 30k participants? Not to mention teh TIME to enter all that data? Not to mention getting that many people to participate in the first place. Let alone the amount of cash you're forking out for the printing of 4 or so pages, at minimum, per participant...
The only people who could conduct studies then would be corporate polling companies and governments.
As a rough guestimation, I'd say your typical study is conducted by 1-3 professors who have at most 3 grad students helping them. That's it.
To give you an idea, you might have 500 people sign UP for a study, but you might wind up throwing out 30-40 purely because they didn't fill out the questionaires entirely. You can't use a half-finished questionaire.
Bingo.Dire Bare said:
Most studies I've looked at in school (or did myself, or helped do), usually the author looks at ONE SPECIFIC LITTLE TINY THING. And often he'll get some interesting results he didn't expect and say, "Yeah, we need more research to look at this funny thing I noticed to get more details about it". Or often, "There's very little research looking at this specific group, or addressing this variable (like gender, race, age, etc). We need more."
Last edited:
Did anyone else notice:
"The study, which was carried out in the Seattle-Tacoma area..."
I lived in Sea-Tac for a while. That area has more overcast days than any other area in the USA, higher than normal % of SAD sufferers, and (as anyone who is familiar with their music scene knows) a heroin epidemic.
Starbucks is in decline. The Seahawks and Mariners are underperforming. Heart, Pearl Jam and Queensryche are (arguably) past their prime. Jimi Hendrix, Layne Staley, Mia Zapata and Andrew Wood are all still dead.
OF COURSE they found depression at a higher rate!
"The study, which was carried out in the Seattle-Tacoma area..."
I lived in Sea-Tac for a while. That area has more overcast days than any other area in the USA, higher than normal % of SAD sufferers, and (as anyone who is familiar with their music scene knows) a heroin epidemic.
Starbucks is in decline. The Seahawks and Mariners are underperforming. Heart, Pearl Jam and Queensryche are (arguably) past their prime. Jimi Hendrix, Layne Staley, Mia Zapata and Andrew Wood are all still dead.
OF COURSE they found depression at a higher rate!
It could be a variable, but only in an indirect fashion.
For instance, one method of dealing with depression is physical activity. Exercise simply helps against depression.
If someone's playing video games, then they're not exercising (unless it's DDR).
But that also goes back to them being overweight.
Going back to the topic of "Correlation isn't Causation" and the Media, here's an illustration:
Similar Threads
