[adjkant]

I don't see how an age group of 10-17 which is at a much more formative time in their lives with some not having fully developed brains points to p-hacking. Gender difference is interesting but doesn't mean p-hacking because the reasoning for it is non-obvious.

It's also possible that the 10-17 audience of 13 Reasons Why was significantly more male, but Netflix does not release that data. But there are plenty of plausible reasons for the gender divide.

> Now we have two seemingly "significant" studies with opposite conclusions

But not conflicting results. There's nothing that says one age group, with vastly more life experience, would be affected less or even differently than another with significantly less life experience.

> Or could it be that the researchers had an expected result, broke down the data until they found a dimension that had a large enough increase by chance, and submitted it to a journal full of peer reviewers who would find the result plausible and prestigious to their field?

A result in either direction would have been interesting for the field, so I don't think this is the motivation. The positive does get a bit more media attention, but I think this view is overly skeptical.