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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Russell Sage.
2.
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.
3.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup relations. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
4.
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
