* only looking at animal crossing and a plants vs. zombies game. I can only speak to animal crossing but I wouldn't be surprised if that game sparks a lot more joy and well being than most.
* They do some... weird visualization choices with bars going both up and down but both implying a positive impact. I've never seen this. Super weird. You can't even compare the two options.
* R^2 of play time and well begin is 0.01. Technically significant.
Certainly sounds like garbage. I'd sort of expect random noise to produce an R^2 of around that value. But maybe for studies of human value that's normal? It's a peer reviewed study, so I'd hope it meets some basic standard for significance, but who knows? Is anyone familiar enough with psychology research to say how good or bad this is?
What that actually means is that if the observations are representative of the underlying reality, then 1% of happiness is explained by playing video games.
We use p-values to determine whether a relationship is likely to actually exist based on observations. R^2 is a measure of the "strength" of the relationship, i.e. how much of the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable -- it is silent on the matter of whether the relationship is likely to actually exist.
* only looking at animal crossing and a plants vs. zombies game. I can only speak to animal crossing but I wouldn't be surprised if that game sparks a lot more joy and well being than most.
* They do some... weird visualization choices with bars going both up and down but both implying a positive impact. I've never seen this. Super weird. You can't even compare the two options.
* R^2 of play time and well begin is 0.01. Technically significant.