We are still better than them: A longitudinal field study of ingroup favouritism during a merger

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 819-836

  Gleibs, Ilka H ^a   Noack, Peter ^b   Mummendey, Amelie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957224555     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: 10990992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.652     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
2. 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.
3. Amiot, C., Terry, D., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of stress and coping processes during an organizational merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32, 552-574.
4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7 [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
5. Bartels, J., Douwes, R., de Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identification during a merger: Determinants of employees' expected identification with the new organization. British Journal of Management, 17, 49-67.
6. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis amongst majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843-856.
7. Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., Brebels, L., Huybens, W., & Millet, K. (2007). Post-merger identification as a function of pre-merger identification, relative representation and pre-merger status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 380-389.
8. Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., Hollants, K., & Feys, J. (2005). Predictors of pupils' and teachers' identification with a merged school. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2577-2605.
9. Boldry, J. G., & Gaertner, L. (2006). Separating status from power as and antecedent of intergroup perception. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 377-400.
10. Bollen, K., & Curran, P. (2004). Autoregressive latent trajectory (ALT) models: A synthesis of two traditions. Sociological Methods and Research, 32, 336-383.
11. 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. 35-58). Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
12. Buono, A. F., &Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13. Campbell, D. T., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). A primer on regression artifacts. New York: The Guilford Press.
14. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Mergers & acquisitions: The human factor. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
15. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Organizational marriage: 'Hard' versus 'soft' issues? Personnel Review, 24, 32-42.
16. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.
18. Curran, P. J., & Bollen, K. A. (2001). The best of both worlds: Combining autoregressive and latent curve models. In L. M. Collins, & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 107-135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. 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.
20. Eggins, R. A., Haslam, S. A., & Rynolds, K. J. (2003). Working with identities: The ASPIRe model of organizational planning, negotiations, and development. In: S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. P. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 241-261). New York: Hove: Psychology Press.
21. Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 27-57). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). 'Gringos' in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup favouritism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 55-75.
23. Eller, A.,&Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew's reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229-256.
24. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
25. Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (2000). Reducing intergroup favouritism: The common ingroup identity model (pp. 33-51). Ann Arbor: Tyler & Francis.
26. Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategozation and reduction of intergroup favouritism. InW. Stroebe, &M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (p. 1-26). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
27. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F.,&Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271-290.
28. Giessner, S. R.,&Mummendey, A. (2008). United we run, divided we fail? Effects of cognitive merger representations and performance feedback on merging groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 412-435.
29. 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.
30. Gleibs, I. H., Mummendey, A., & Noack, P. (2008). Predictors of changes in post-merger identification during a merger process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1095-1112.
31. Greenland, K., & Brown, R. J. (1999). Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 503-521.
32. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in Organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.
33. Haslam, S., Eggins, R., & Reynolds, K. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83-113.
34. Haunschild, P. R., Moreland, R. L., & Murrell, A. J. (1994). Sources of resistance to mergers between groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1150-1178.
35. Henry, P., & Hardin, C. (2006). The contact hypothesis revisited: Status favouritism in the reduction of implicit prejudice in the United States and Lebanon. Psychological Science, 17, 862-868.
36. Herzog, C., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2003). Assessing psychological change in adulthood: An overview of methodological issues. Psychology and Aging, 18, 639-657.
37. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup favouritism. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
38. Hoffman, K. D., & Kretovics, M. A. (2004). Students as partial employees: A metaphor for student-institution interaction. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 103-120.
39. 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 9, (p. 249-279) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
40. Hong, Y.-Y., Liao, H.-Y., Chan, G., Wong, R. Y. M., Chiu, C.-Y., et al. (2006). Temporal causal links between outgroup attitudes and social categorization: The case of Hong Kong 1997 transition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 265-288.
41. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common in group identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242-256.
42. 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.
43. Hu, L., &Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
44. Islam, M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710.
45. Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Tsivrikos, D. (2008). Torn between identities: Predictors of adjustment to identity change. In F. Sani (Ed.), Individual and collective self-continuity. New York: Psychology Press.
46. Jetten, J., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Turning to others in times of change: Shared identity and coping with stress. In S. Stürmer, & M. Snyder (Eds.), New directions in the study of helping: Group-level perspective on motivations, consequences and interventions. Oxford: Blackwell.
47. Jetten, J., Iyer, A., Tsivrikos, D., & Young, B. (2008). When is individual mobility costly? The role of economic and social identity factors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 866-880.
48. Jetten, J., O'Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to organizational restructure as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 281-298.
49. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635-657.
50. Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1090-1102.
51. Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2002). Sequential or parallel processes? A longitudinal field study concerning determinants of identitymanagement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75-88.
52. Klendauer, R., Frey, D., & Greitemeyer, T. (2006). Ein psychologisches Rahmenkonzept zur Analyse von Fusions-und Akquisitionsprozessen. [A psychological framework for the analysis of merger & acquisition processes]. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 87-96.
53. Kline, R. B. (2005). Structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
54. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13, 103-123.
55. Malekzadeh, A. R., & Nahavandi, A. (1990). Making mergers work by managing cultures. Journal of Business Strategy, 11, 55-57.
56. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. M. (1986). The merger syndrome. Psychology Today, 20, 36-42.
57. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. M. (2001). Making mergers and acquisitions work: Strategic and psychological preparation. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 80-94.
58. McKinsey, J. O. (1929). Effect of mergers on marketing, production, and administrative problems. The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, 2, 326-337.
59. Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530-547.
60. Mummendey, A., &Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
61. Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
62. Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
63. Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
64. Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192-200.
65. Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. (2006). Diversity in in-group favouritism: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 944-960.
66. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London: Routlegde & Kegan Paul.
67. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies of intergroup relations. New York: Harper & Brothers.
68. Singer, J. D., & Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538-553.
70. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
71. 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 Publishing.
72. Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). In-group favouritism in response to an organizational merger. Group Dynamics, 2, 67-81.
73. Terry, D.,&O'Brien, A. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and ingroup favouritism in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 271-289.
74. Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sartori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12, 105-122.
75. 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: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
76. 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.
77. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Lemmer, G. (2004). The winds of change: Multiple identifications in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 121-138.
78. 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.
79. van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup favouritism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 679-690.
80. van Oudenhoven, J. P., & de Boer, T. (1995). Complementarity and similarity of partners in international mergers. Basic and Applied Social, 17, 343-356.
81. 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.
82. Weber, U., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449-470.
83. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461-473.