Continuing and Changing Group Identities: The Effects of Merging on Social Identification and Ingroup Bias

Abstract

A social identity approach to the investigation of group-based reactions to a merger is outlined, in which a merger is analyzed in terms of the continuation or change of the pre-merger group identity. In two experiments, the relationship between pre-merger identification, post-merger identification, and ingroup bias was investigated using a minimal group paradigm. Results from both studies showed that the perceived continuation of the premerger group identity in the post-merger group strengthened the positive relationship between pre-merger identification and identification with the superordinate post-merger group. Moreover, perceived continuation strengthened, rather than reduced, ingroup bias at the subordinate level of the merged groups. Some theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Russell Sage.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 59-83). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup relations. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243-251.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. i-126). London: Wiley.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., et al. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388-402.

Haunschild, P. R., Moreland, R. L., & Murrell, A. J. (1994). Sources of resistance to mergers between groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24, 1150-1178.

10.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R.J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

11.

Hogan, E. A., & Overmyer-Day, L. (1994). The psychology of mergers and acquisitions. In C. L. Cooper & L. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 247-281). New York: John Wiley.

12.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

13.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.

14.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1986). The merger syndrome. Psychology Today, 20, 36-42.

15.

Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1990). Merger and acquisition stress: Fear and uncertainty at mid-career. Prevention in Human Services, 8, 139-158.

16.

Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.

17.

Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organizational contexts. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 164-183). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

18.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217-233.

19.

Schweiger, D. M., & Walsh, J. P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 41-107.

20.

Skevington, S. M. (1980). Intergroup relations and social change within a nursing context. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 201-213.

21.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

22.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press.

23.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

24.

Terry, D. J. (2003). A social identity perspective on organizational mergers: The role of group status, permeability, and similarity. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 223-240). New York: Psychology Press.

25.

Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). In-group bias in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 67-81.

26.

Terry, D.J., Carey, C.J., & Callan, V.J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 267-280.

27.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, UK:JAI.

28.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

29.

van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371.

30.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233-252.

31.

van Leeuwen, E., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Organizational identification following a merger: The importance of agreeing to differ. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 205-221). New York: Psychology Press.

32.

Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2002). Of bikers, teachers, and Germans: Groups' diverging views about their prototypicality. Manuscript submitted for publication.

33.

Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003). Towards tolerance: Reduction of in-group projection by vague or complex representation of superordinate categories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31-47.

34.

Weber, U., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup protypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449-470.

35.

Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (1999). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Manuscript submitted for publication.