I happen to agree with the article's premise and conclusion, but this is typical of social psychology articles, which start by noting a correlation between two

I happen to agree with the article's premise and conclusion, but this is typical of social psychology articles, which start by noting a correlation between two traits A and B, then, to appear to be scientific, they presume to explain the correlation, but without any substantive, falsifiable validation for the explanation. In science, a statistical correlation, a description, is followed by a falsifiable explanation that can be later confirmed or refuted by those who try to replicate the study. But not in psychology -- in psychology, reliable but possibly meaningless correlations are followed by unreliable and unfalsifiable explanations, then no one tries to replicate the work. Again, I happen to think the article's conclusion is correct. But that conclusion is an opinion, not science.