I cannot agree more with this statement, unfortunately.

Here, @aarslew.bsky.social and I use the well-demonstrated fact that, in issues where people have incentives to withhold socially undesirable behaviours or opinions, the absence of an interviewer facilitates their expression. (4) www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Thanks, Chuma! As far as I recall, neither social identification nor variables relating to the socio-structural premises of SIT were measured (only macro-economic inequality indices being used). Perhaps @vukasin.bsky.social, the lead author, could provide a more in-depth answer!

@aycaaksu.bsky.social this piece might interest you!

❗ These double standards reveal serious threats to civil rights, hence carrying societal implications: freedom of speech and assembly appear safeguarded for some groups, but repressed and contested for others.

❗ Political psychology must focus more on elite hypocrisy, political leaders who violate liberal principles, even at the cost of alienating some of their voter base (e.g., the Biden administration), rather than solely on voter asymmetries.

❗ Protest evaluations depend not just on tactics, but on who is using the so-called effective protest tactic and whether they challenge the status quo (in this case, historical dispossession and genocide led by Israel and openly aided by the US, the UK, and the EU).

left-wingers rated the policing as far more unfair, while right-wingers did not.

There are couple of key implications from this research:

The only difference was whether the protest was led by pro-Israel or pro-Palestine Jewish groups. Findings showed that while both left- and right-wingers judged the policing of pro-Israel protests as unfair, polarisation emerged around pro-Palestine protests:

Thus, across two experimental studies, we presented non-Jewish British and American participants with an identical protest scenario: an authorised silent sit-in with the banner “Never Again”, followed by police detainment of protesters.