The cited paper uses chord clusters containing four notes, and say nothing about dissonance as a dyadic concept which is what the discussion of ratios have been focusing on. The results are not what the PR piece states since Figure 1 of the cited paper[1] which sums up the results show that for the non-Westerners (Just Pakistani tribes of Kalash and Khow. If that is enough to claim "universality" in the social sciences then God help us.) low valence ratings for chromatic clusters are similar to their responses to major chords, so there is uncertainty about interpreting this result as their aversion to harsh dissonance or simply something they are unfamiliar with.

Just browsing the paper and I come up with some shocking inaccuracies, consider

>Notably, low preference for the major triad among the Northwest Pakistani tribes is not corroborating the theory according to which the attractiveness of consonance is due to harmonic similarity to human vocalizations and is in line with the historical observation according to which the major third became consonant only over time in the framework of Western music as well.

The preference of the Pakistani tribes for the minor triad over the major triad (which is shown in the paper) is most certainly not in line with the gradual acceptance of the major third in Western music for the very simple reason that in the west the two types of thirds were accepted together. And if we consider the acceptance of thirds in the final chord of the piece, the western experience is exactly the mirror of the Pakistani tribes: the minor triad was deemed less 'stable' than the major triad and it took much longer for the minor triad to be regarded as acceptable to the ending of pieces.

Shoddy research like this which betray a lack of historical awareness is why I have very low opinion of most these types of social research. They are not good writers on music, and some, I assume, are good people.

[1] https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ny...