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

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 461-475

  Boen, Filip ^a   Vanbeselaere, Norbert ^a   Wostyn, Piet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

identification; ingroup bias; ingroup projection model; mergers; prototypicality; representation; status

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049351617     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430209350746     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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.
2. Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,14, 20-39.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Giessner, S.R., Viki, G.T., Otten, S., Terry, D.J., & TÃ{currency sign}uber, 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.