From the paper:

> Methods:

> We used a mixed methods approach. First, qualitative data were collected through 41 exploratory, in-depth interviews (women: n=19, 46.3%; men: n=21, 51.2%; prefer not to disclose sex: n=11, 2.4%; mean age 22.51, SD 1.52 years) with university students who had experience playing Super Mario Bros. or Yoshi. Second, quantitative data were collected in a cross-sectional survey…

So interviews with a biased sample (students with experience playing the game) and then a survey.

Also, try adding up those n= numbers. They don’t sum to 41. The abstract can’t even get basic math or proofreading right.

If the body of the paper describes something different than the abstract, that’s another problem

EDIT: Yes, I know the n=11 was supposed to be an n=1. Having a glaring and easily caught error in the abstract is not a good signal for the quality of a paper. This is on the level of an undergraduate paper-writing exercise, not a scientific study as people are assuming.