I'd be asking what peer review has been made on the results.
Of course I might be completely wrong in my suspicions, but.....
....researchers depend on funding for their livelihood. They propose all sorts of novel subjects for keeping their jobs going... sorry, for important research.
Often, sampling techniques are suspect, knowledge of the software they use for analysis is poor, and results are made to agree with the original proposal for research, to boost chances of further funding. The great thing is that nobody can actually prove them wrong, easily.
Some years ago when I worked at a university, an expert in the use of some analytical software was demonstrating its use for something called logistic regression. One researcher from a London hospital said - "that's wrong, for our research we have done it this way for years....."
The expert told them that this would produce incorrect results, and proceeded, by using other software for the same purpose, to demonstrate how their results would be flawed.
Afraid to lose face [maybe funds too] the researcher would not agree. They are probably still doing it the wrong way.
In the case of the nuns, I would be highly suspicious if the analysis had been carried out based on a nun's rating of herself.
If someone asked me if I am conscientious, I would say, yes, very. But that is by my standards. Nina might beg to differ. Asking someone of their own view of themselves is simply too subjective.
So we might change the report from saying "The conscientious tend to be more resilient, say researchers" to "Those who believe themselves, rightly or wrongly, to be more conscientious might possibly be more resilient if they are correct in their beliefs, say researchers"
Of course you could say "what do
I know?", and you would be perfectly correct.
