tl;dr: Based on the information that's publicly available, which does not include the full text of the article, it passes the sniff test. Long: To take a stab

tl;dr: Based on the information that's publicly available, which does not include the full text of the article, it passes the sniff test. Long: To take a stab at the study's scientific integrity without access to it[1], other aspects may be better indicators than a Washington Post article written for a mainstream audience -- namely, the journal's reputation and review policy, the author's CV, and the abstract. That's not anyone's fault, but the Post author's goal - an understandable explanation - doesn't emphasize what you're evaluating. So, let's check these things out. Here's the CV of the first named author (I can't easily tell whether he was PI): http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvita2015%20Li.pdf http://www.smu.edu.sg/sites/default/files/socsc/pdf/psychvit... The abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26847844 A preview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12181/pdf The entity behind the journal (which also grants licenses to psychologists in Britain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Psychological_Society ToC from the February issue: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.issue-1/issuetoc http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.2016.107.iss... Peer reviewers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12174/full He's a trained scientist with a lot of experience and many prior studies, and that this was published in a well-known peer-reviewed journal. Short of reading the actual article and having experience in the field, I think that's a more likely indicator of scientific integrity than the OP's URL. [1]: The full text of the article isn't publicly available. While drawing conclusions without reading it would be crazy, checking the author and the journal are reasonable.