I agree with the sentiment that the study is hardly a good barometer of the situation. The data set is simply not at all substantial enough to draw any reasonable conclusions. This is hardly a example of comprehensive polling. I am not disagreeing with the outcome however. This very well may be the case, but it doesn't mean that the polling was well done. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and seeing as there are only three possibilities good, middling, or bad then it is really a one in three chance of being dead on the money.
There is a reason that statistical surveys are often considered to be junk science. The methodology is often faulty, or the workmanship is questionable. When you sample a small group in a restricted time frame, and probably in a geographically limited area. You are just asking for wildly inaccurate results. People could be down on gaming for no other reason then the financial news was dire in the days in question. You really need to cast a wide net when doing statistical surveys to counteract small anomalies otherwise you run the risk of making a mountain out of what amounts to a mole hill.
Bottom line don't read too much into this. Maybe if the survey was of ten thousand over the space of a couple of weeks in a number of places you might have a little of something, but this could be totally wrong due to a bad news cycle.







