To be fair, maybe BBC doesn't have an in-house team of journalists who understand what peer-reviewed rigor looks like... Okay, yeah, this is crap. I couldn't e

To be fair, maybe BBC doesn't have an in-house team of journalists who understand what peer-reviewed rigor looks like... Okay, yeah, this is crap. I couldn't even devil's advocate that with a straight face. You'd need a sample size of several thousand, a much more rigorous (as always, preferably double-blind assessment) method than self-report, and diversify the sample size with much higher age variation (at the least). To top it all off, news nowadays doesn't wait for repeat studies to demonstrate reliability of an outcome. It's all, "Holy shit, this thing happened once, linkbait that puppy and put it online." I remember hearing about a 20th-century study done where a psychology researcher made huge claims about racial intelligence differences based on the number of pebbles he could fit into their skulls. It was widely believed until someone finally tried to repeat it. (My google-fu failed me, if someone else knows this study, feel free to link it).