The impact of COVID-19 on our way of life is yet to be fully understood. However, social psychology theory and research offer insights into its effect on social attitudes and behaviors, and here we gather the views of a unique group of experts in group processes and intergroup relations. Group processes and intergroup relations are major factors in social resilience and change arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. This special issue was developed to foreground the crucial role of group processes and intergroup relations in the COVID-19 pandemic. This article provides an overview of the areas explored in the special issue. First, we focus on the impact on societies, covering the evolution of intergroup processes during the pandemic, leadership, social connectedness, cultural differences in responses, and social development. Second, we turn to intergroup inequality and focus on gender inequality, ageism, xenophobia, and racial bias during COVID-19. Third, we explore worldviews during the pandemic, specifically conspiracy theories, science skepticism, and existential threat. Finally, we focus on the pandemic’s impact on behaviors, covering virtual working, social activism, virtual ostracism, and conformity and deviance. We finish with a discussion of the value of social psychology in helping us understand the impact of COVID-19 on social attitudes and behavior. As this special issue shows, group processes and intergroup relations are central to the ways that individuals and society is dealing with the challenges of this pandemic.

People endorsing stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals typically show less moral concern for animals. Yet, how people think about different types of animals also depends on the role of the animals in society. For instance, people are less concerned about food animals than about companion animals. It is unclear, however, how human supremacy beliefs relate to this perceived moral divide between different types of animals. In two surveys of British adults (n = 196 and n = 256), we tested whether human supremacy beliefs are associated with a greater perceived moral divide between high-status animals such as companion animals and low-status animals such as food animals. In both studies, participants rated the extent to which they felt obligated to show moral concern to a range of animals and completed the human supremacy beliefs scale. As expected, the results showed that participants felt more moral concern for companion animals (e.g., dogs and cats) and appealing wild animals (e.g., dolphins and chimps) than for food animals (e.g., pigs and turkeys) and unappealing wild animals (e.g., frogs and bats). Critically, confirming our hypotheses, this moral divide between high-and low-status animals was significantly larger for those holding stronger human supremacy beliefs. Furthermore, the effect of human supremacy beliefs remained after controlling for gender, age, diet, and social dominance orientation. These findings suggest that beliefs in human supremacy over animals may serve as a legitimizing strategy to preserve not only the existing human-animal hierarchy but also greater hierarchical divides between animals.

No abstract