The article doesn't link the study which it is based on. This is terrible science journalism to begin with. In case anyone wonders, it's probably this study: h

The article doesn't link the study which it is based on. This is terrible science journalism to begin with. In case anyone wonders, it's probably this study: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/22/0956797614524581.abstract http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/22/095679761452... It's paywalled, so... http://sci-hub.io/10.1177/0956797614524581 http://sci-hub.io/10.1177/0956797614524581 It doesn't strike me as an incredibly powerful study. I see no indication that it has been independently replicated. Usually these kinds of studies shouldn't be trusted unless you have a bunch of them and can do a metaanalysis.