I think that academic studies like this fall victim to availability bias.

Imagine a study trying to quantify the reasons for Michael Jordan's success. It might conclude that his success is due to his relative arm length, height, strength, endurance, vision, hand-eye coordination, and the number of hours he practiced as a child. They could probably work the numbers in a way that concludes all other reasons are "statistically insignificant." I'm sure these factors played huge roles. But the conclusion that other factors are "statistically insignificant" is ludicrous.

That's the same way I feel about the conclusion in this study: it's ludicrous.

When I read these types of articles, I can't help but think of the phrase made popular by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."