You guys who are (a) downvoting my original comment and (b) telling me to "educate myself" because I deigned to point out that a sample size of 31 people is low are just being petty.
They sampled 31 people. Would you accept a 31 person study over a two week period for a new pill in which "most" of the people given the pill (16 out of the 31) were now immune to any form of cancer? Or would you require more people in the study and/or longer, more rigorous testing before you took the pill yourself or gave the pill to your family?
Pointing out that there are but 31 people in the study could be considered helpful, but a basic familiarity with qualitative studies of anything that isn't a drug informs us that small sample sizes are pretty standard.
Complaining about a small sample size screams of ignorance; there's nothing wrong with shameless extroversion, thespianism, or small sample sizes. If you want to point it out and be meaningful, comment on the sample size in relation to the effect size in a way that includes statistical power. Say something. Don't just echo things you've heard other people say.
At the very least, I would require replication of the study by an independent researcher before I believed the study result as a settled conclusion about the reality of human behavior.
They sampled 31 people. Would you accept a 31 person study over a two week period for a new pill in which "most" of the people given the pill (16 out of the 31) were now immune to any form of cancer? Or would you require more people in the study and/or longer, more rigorous testing before you took the pill yourself or gave the pill to your family?
Get over yourselves. 31 effing people.