When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of premerger status and relative representation on postmerger identification and ingroup bias

Abstract

This experiment tested the combined impact of premerger status (low, high) and relative representation (low, high) on identification with a merged group and on bias expressed towards members of the merger partner. In phase 1, 111 university students were assigned to a premerger team of “inductive” thinkers. Premerger status was manipulated by informing participants that their team had performed worse or better than a deductionist team on a decision-making task. In phase 2, the participants’ premerger team was supposedly merged with this deductionist team to form a new merger team of analyst thinkers. Relative representation was manipulated by preserving either most or none of the characteristics of the premerger team in the new merger team. The results revealed a significant interaction between premerger status and relative representation on both postmerger identification and ingroup bias. Participants belonging to a high premerger status group confronted with a low relative representation reported less postmerger identification and more bias than participants in the other three conditions. Moreover, relative representation, but not premerger status, moderated the relation between postmerger identification and ingroup bias. More specifically, when relative representation was high, postmerger identification and ingroup bias were positively related. By contrast, when relative representation was low, postmerger identification and ingroup bias were negatively related. These results confirm the predictions based on the Ingroup Projection Model.

Keywords

identification ingroup bias ingroup projection model mergers prototypicality representation status

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amiot, C.E. , Terry, D.J. , & Callan, V.J. ( 2007). Status, fairness, and social identification during an intergroup merger: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psychology,46, 557-577.

Ashforth, B.E. , & Mael, F. ( 1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,14, 20-39.

Bartels, J. , Douwes, R. , de Jong, M. , & Pruyn, A. ( 2006). Organisational identification during a merger: Determinants of employees’ expected identification with the new organisation. British Journal of Management,17,49-67.

Boen, F. , Vanbeselaere, N. , Brebels, L. , Huybens, W. , & Millet, K. ( 2007). Postmerger identification as a function of premerger identification, relative representation, and premerger status. European Journal of Social Psychology,37,380-389.

Boen, F. , Vanbeselaere, N. , & Cool, M. ( 2006). Group status as a determinant of organizational identification after a takeover: A social identity perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,9,547-560.

Boen, F. , Vanbeselaere, N. , & Millet, K. ( 2005). The impact of merger status and relative representation on identification with a merger group. Psychologica Belgica ,45, 257-270.

Christ, O. , van Dick, R. , Wagner, U. , & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra-mile: Foci of organizational identification as determinants of different forms of organizational citizenship behaviour among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology,73,329-341.

Fischer, P. , Greitemeyer, T. , Omay, S.I. , & Frey, D. ( 2007). Mergers and group status: The impact of high, low and equal group status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger, experienced controllability, group identity and group cohesion. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,17, 203-217.

Giessner, S.R. , Viki, G.T. , Otten, S. , Terry, D.J. , & Täuber, S. (2006). The challenge of merging: Merger patterns, premerger status, and merger support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 339-352.

10.

Haslam, S.A. ( 2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach . London: Sage.

11.

Hogg, M. , & Terry, D.J. ( 2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review,25, 121-140.

12.

Hogg, M. , & Terry, D.J. ( 2001). Social identity theory and organizational processes. In M. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts(pp. 1-12). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

13.

Hornsey, M.J. , & Hogg, M.A. ( 2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26, 242-256.

14.

Hornsey, M.J. , & Hogg, M.A. ( 2002). The effects of status on subgroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology,41,203-218.

15.

Hornsey, M.J. , Spears, R. , Cremers, I. , & Hogg, M.A. ( 2003). Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,29,216-227.

16.

Hornsey, M.J. , van Leeuwen, E. , & van Santen, W. (2003). Dragging down and dragging up: How relative group status affects responses to common fate. Group Dynamics,7, 275-288.

17.

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

18.

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.

19.

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.

20.

Terry, D.J. , & O’ Brien, A.T. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 271-289.

21.

Ullrich, J. , Christ, O. , & Schlüter, E. (2006). Merging on mayday: Subgroup and superordinate identification as joint moderators of threat effects in the context of European Union’s expansion. European Journal of Social Psychology,36, 857-876.

22.

Ullrich, J. , & van Dick, R. ( 2007). The group psychology of mergers & acquisitions: Lessons from the social identity approach. In C. L. Cooper and S. Finkelstein (Eds.), Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions (Vol. 6, pp. 1-15). Oxford: Elsevier.

23.

Vanbeselaere, N. , Boen, F. , & De Witte, H. ( 2002). Intergroup relations after a merger: The relative impact of ingroup prototypicality and satisfaction with ingroup representation. Paper presented at the 5th Jena Workshop on Intergroup Processes , June 19-23, Castle Kochberg, Germany.

24.

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.

25.

van Knippenberg, D. , & van Leeuwen, E. (2001). Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of continuity as the key to postmerger identification . In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 249-264). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

26.

van Knippenberg, D. , & van Schie ( 2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,73, 137-147.

27.

van Leeuwen, E. , van Knippenberg, D. , & Ellemers, N. ( 2003). Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 679-690.

28.

Waldzus, S. , Mummendey, A. , Wenzel, M. , & Boettcher, F. ( 2004). Of bikers, teachers, and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology,43, 385-400.

29.

Waldzus, S. , Mummendey, A. , Wenzel, M. , & Weber, U. ( 2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,31-47.

30.

Wenzel, M. , Mummendey, A. , & Waldzus, S. ( 2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology ,18, 331-372.