Spurious relationship?? (Score 1)

I don't want to chuck out the $5 it will take for me to further take this article apart, but it seems that on the onset that the authors aren't very theory driven in their approach. As they beat in our heads over and over again in the social sciences "correlation does not equal causation", and just because the authors find some weak statistical relationship does not mean there is any causality in that relationship. I suspect that this relationship is spurious and merely happenstance, but would be interested in reading the whole article...