Two studies investigated the role of intergroup contact in predicting collective action tendencies along with three key predictors proposed by the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA; Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Study 1 (N= 488 Black South African students) tested whether social identity would positively, whereas intergroup contact would negatively predict collective action and support for policies benefiting the ingroup. Study 2 (N= 244 White South African students) predicted whether social identity would positively predict collective action benefiting the ingroup, and intergroup contact would positively predict support for policies to benefit the Black outgroup. Both studies yielded evidence in support of the predictive power of social identity and contact on collective action and policy support. Additionally, Study 1 confirmed that intergroup contact moderated the effects of social identity on relative deprivation, and relative deprivation on collective action. Overall findings support an integration of SIMCA and intergroup contact theory, and provide a fuller understanding of the social psychological processes leading to collective action.

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.

Two studies investigated the role of perceived realistic and symbolic threats in predicting collective action tendencies, and in mediating effects of intergroup contact and social identity on collective action in the context of an intractable conflict. Extending earlier research on collective action, integrated threat theory, and intergroup contact theory, we tested whether realistic and symbolic threats would predict collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes; and mediate the effects of intergroup contact and social identity on collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes among the advantaged, Turks, and the disadvantaged, Kurds. Findings from both studies (Study 1, N = 289 Turks; Study 2, N = 209 Kurds) supported the predictive and mediating role of threats on collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes. Overall findings suggest that advantaged and disadvantaged groups might not always have disparate psychologies regarding collective action and incorporating perceived threats as antecedents of collective action can help to explain collective action tendencies among both groups especially in conflictual contexts.

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173,429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus resreictions, and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments’ efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided.Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variance in experienced stress during the early months of coronavirus restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support, and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioral guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection.

Using a sample of Bosnian adults (N ϭ 381) we investigated the association between intergroup contact, measures of intergroup relations, and mental health. Structural equation models with latent variables showed that postwar contact had beneficial effects, being positively related to outgroup trust and intergroup forgiveness, and negatively associated with social distance. Moreover, postwar contact had indirect effects on reduced morbidity and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms via increased intergroup forgiveness and reduced social distance. We also analyzed the role of potential inhibitors and facilitators of the beneficial effects of postwar contact, and found that experience of violence played a detrimental role, while prewar contact was related to positive outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed the interactive effects of prewar and postwar contact, as positive effects of present-day contact on intergroup relations (promoting trust and reducing social distance) were strongest when prewar contact was high. Conversely, postwar contact was positively associated with outgroup trust only for respondents with low levels of experience of violence. Findings underline the value of promoting intergroup contact in postconflict settings. Public Significance StatementThis study analyzed whether positive intergroup contact in a sample of Bosnian Muslims had a positive impact on their relations with Serbs after the Bosnian War of 1992-95. Post-war contact had beneficial effects on feelings of trust and forgiveness and had indirect effects on reduced morbidity and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Further findings indicate that pre-war contact and post-war contact combine to promote better outcomes. This suggests that carefully planned interventions could be used to promote positive contact as a valuable part of post-conflict social reconstruction.

Research on the contact hypothesis has highlighted the role of contact in improving intergroup relations. Most of this research has addressed the problem of transforming the prejudices of historically advantaged communities, thereby eroding wider patterns of discrimination and inequality. In the present research, drawing on evidence from a cross-sectional survey conducted in New Delhi, we explored an alternative process through which contact may promote social change, namely by fostering political solidarity and empowerment amongst the disadvantaged. The results indicated that Muslim studentsˈ experiences of contact with other disadvantaged communities were associated with their willingness to participate in joint collective action to reduce shared inequalities. This relationship was mediated by perceptions of collective efficacy and shared historical grievances and moderated by positive experiences of contact with the Hindu majority. Implications for recent debates about the relationship between contact and social change are discussed.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVIDiSTRESS Consortium launched an open-access global survey to understand and improve individuals’ experiences related to the crisis. A year later, we extended this line of research by launching a new survey to address the dynamic landscape of the pandemic. This survey was released with the goal of addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion by working with over 150 researchers across the globe who collected data in 48 languages and dialects across 137 countries. The resulting cleaned dataset described here includes 15,740 of over 20,000 responses. The dataset allows cross-cultural study of psychological wellbeing and behaviours a year into the pandemic. It includes measures of stress, resilience, vaccine attitudes, trust in government and scientists, compliance, and information acquisition and misperceptions regarding COVID-19. Open-access raw and cleaned datasets with computed scores are available. Just as our initial COVIDiSTRESS dataset has facilitated government policy decisions regarding health crises, this dataset can be used by researchers and policy makers to inform research, decisions, and policy.