They do link to the actual study, which does not throw up any immediately obvious signs to be cautious for me, but I also couldn't do the detailed work of deeper research myself. They reference a hypothesis that preceded the study, which they were trying to test with this. I don't know if this is a case of bias or even manipulation at work, but at least at a superficial glance, it doesn't immediately scream "total hacks doing unscientific things."