14
This article was downloaded by: [Fordham University] On: 03 November 2013, At: 08:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Basic and Applied Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20 Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat Catherine E. Amiot a , Deborah J. Terry b & Blake M. McKimmie b a Université du Québec à Montréal b The University of Queensland Published online: 21 Sep 2012. To cite this article: Catherine E. Amiot , Deborah J. Terry & Blake M. McKimmie (2012) Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34:5, 443-455, DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2012.712016 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.712016 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

  • Upload
    blake-m

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

This article was downloaded by: [Fordham University]On: 03 November 2013, At: 08:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger:The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity ThreatCatherine E. Amiot a , Deborah J. Terry b & Blake M. McKimmie ba Université du Québec à Montréalb The University of QueenslandPublished online: 21 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Catherine E. Amiot , Deborah J. Terry & Blake M. McKimmie (2012) Social Identity Change During anIntergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34:5, 443-455,DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2012.712016

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.712016

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger:The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

Catherine E. Amiot

Universite du Quebec a Montreal

Deborah J. Terry and Blake M. McKimmie

The University of Queensland

Conducted during the merger between two hospitals, this longitudinal study (N = 149)revealed that at both Time 1 (i.e., questionnaire completed 12 months prior to the merger)and Time 2 (completed 1 year after the merger had been implemented), employees fromthe low-status premerger organization generally reported lower adjustment to the merger.Whereas Time 2 identity threat predicted lower and decreased identification with the newmerged organization and perceptions of a common in group identity, perceivedsimilarities between the merging organizations at Time 2 predicted higher identificationwith the new merged organization and higher perceptions of a common in group identity.

Although organizational mergers have beenimplemented throughout the world with the aim ofimproving organizations’ effectiveness and competitive-ness in the global economy (Daly, Pouder, & Kabanoff,2004), between 60 and 70% of mergers fail to achievetheir economic aims (Devoge & Shiraki, 2000; Gunders& Alpert, 2001). Relying on a strictly economical pointof view is unlikely to provide insights into why mergersso often fail, and human factors must be taken intoconsideration to understand what goes on during orga-nizational mergers (Cartwright & Cooper, 1992). Thepresent study adopts an intergroup approach andfocuses on the dynamics of identity change during amerger. Mergers involve the imposition of a new super-ordinate organizational identity on employees thatrequires them to recategorize members of two distinctorganizational groups into one common ingroupand to develop a new social identity over time, that is,identification with the new merged organization (e.g.,Anastasio, Bachman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1997;Haunschild, Moreland, & Murrell, 1994; vanKnippenberg, van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima,

2002). Yet virtually no merger research has investigatedthese changes in identification over time or the factorsthat predict these changes (cf. Amiot, Terry, & Callan,2007; Gleibs, Mummendey, & Noack, 2008).

Drawing on theories of intergroup relations (i.e.,social identity theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986),models of superordinate social identification (Gaertner,Dovidio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg,2000), and a newly developed model of social identitychange and integration (Amiot, de la Sablonniere,Terry, & Smith, 2007), the present research extends pre-vious studies by investigating the temporal intergroupdynamics taking place over the course of a merger.Specifically, the research aims to (a) compare, in a longi-tudinal manner, low-status versus high-status groupmembers’ levels of social identification with the newmerged organization and their perceptions of the simila-rities between the merging organizations and of identitythreat; (b) examine the changes in social identificationand in perceptions of similarities that take place overtime, and (c) test how identity threat inhibits the devel-opment of a new social identity and group members’perceptions of a common in group identity, whereas per-ceiving similarities between the premerger organizationsfacilitates the development of these identities. Theseobjectives are important as they allow us to deepen

Correspondence should be sent to Catherine E. Amiot,

Departement de psychologie, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, C.P.

8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC H3C 3P8, Canada. E-mail:

[email protected]

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 34:443–455, 2012

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0197-3533 print=1532-4834 online

DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2012.712016

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 3: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

our knowledge of the temporal intergroup dynamicsthat take place throughout the phases of a merger andtest the role played by both contextual factors (i.e.,threat, status) and cognitive factors (i.e., perceived simi-larity) in predicting the development and integration ofa new social identity.

AN INTERGROUP APPROACH TOORGANIZATIONAL MERGERS

An important body of research on mergers has adoptedan intergroup approach to capture how different premer-ger organizations can come to regroup and form onelarge superordinate group (e.g., Terry, 2003; see alsoGiessner, Viki, Otten, Terry, & Tauber, 2006; Gleibset al., 2008). A number of observations can be drawnon the basis of this research. First, according to socialidentity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986), socialidentity represents the part of the self-concept thatderives from memberships of social groups. Duringmergers, important changes to group members’ socialidentities take place as group members are required tolet go of a defining and recurrent social identity (i.e., theiridentification with the premerger organization) and cometo redefine themselves as members of the new mergedorganization (e.g., Terry, Carey, & Callan, 2001).

Second, during mergers, the premerger organizationsare rarely equal in terms of status. Rather, one of thepremerger organizations is likely to compare favorablyto the other premerger organization on valued dimen-sions of comparison, such as productivity, competence,access to resources, and economic competitiveness(Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Cool, 2006; Sachdev & Bourhis,1991; van Oudenhoven & de Boer, 1995). This asym-metrical situation heightens the salience of the inter-group disparities and leads the members from thesedifferent premerger groups to experience the merger dif-ferently. In fact, in comparison to employees fromhigh-status premerger organizations, employees fromlow-status premerger organizations report higher stressand threat (Terry, 2003; Terry & O’Brien, 2001), higherperceptions that the merger was implemented unfairly(Amiot, Terry et al., 2007; Gleibs et al., 2008), lowerjob adjustment (Terry et al., 2001), and lower identifi-cation with the new merged organization (Gleibs,Noack, & Mummendey, 2010; Terry et al., 2001). Basedon these findings, one aim of this research is to investi-gate how members from the low-status and high-statuspremerger groups differ, throughout the phases of amerger, in their levels of identification with the newmerged group and in their perceptions of a commoningroup identity and of identity threat. The research alsotests how members from the low- and high-status pre-merger organizations differ in terms of their perceptions

of the similarities that exist between the two premergerorganizations. Because members of the higher statuspremerger organization are generally more optimisticand open about mergers, and generally fare better dur-ing this intergroup change (see Terry, 2003), it wasexpected that this positive state of mind would also leadthem, at the cognitive level (Fredrickson & Branigan,2003), to perceive more resemblance and similaritiesbetween the two premerger organizations in comparisonto members of the lower status premerger group.

CHANGES IN A NEW SUPERORDINATEIDENTITY OVER TIME

Another aim of the current research was to investigatehow superordinate identification with the new mergedorganization and perceptions of similarities betweenthe premerger organizations develop and change overtime. To fully understand how a new social identitydevelops, let us first turn to models of superordinateidentification, which are highly relevant to the mergercontext (Haunschild et al., 1994). According to thesemodels, perceiving one global and encompassing super-ordinate group (i.e., the new merged organizationalgroup) as one common in group identity can be advan-tageous in mergers as this leads group members fromdifferent subgroups (i.e., the premerger organizations)to consider that they are all part of the same in group.Empirically, identifying with this superordinate groupyields to lower in group bias and more intergroup toler-ance (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Other models of superordinate identification addfurther nuances about how the superordinate mergedgroup should be represented for it to truly be inclusiveand encompassing of the different premerger subgroups(Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). According to thesemodels, the creation of a common superordinate groupneeds to be done sensitively, by recognizing and ensur-ing that the subgroups’ particularities and characteris-tics also contribute to defining the superordinatewhole. Representing the superordinate identity (i.e.,the new merged organization) as complex—that is, asrepresented by a diversity of characteristics (i.e., not justby characteristics that are prototypical of one higher sta-tus group)—also yields more positive intergroup out-comes, such as increased tolerance (Mummendey &Wenzel, 1999; Waldzus, Mummendey, & Wenzel,2005; Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Weber,2003). Hewstone and Brown (1986) as well as Hornseyand Hogg (2000) concurred in stating that the superor-dinate identity should respect and consider the particu-larities of the distinct subgroup identities (i.e.,premerger organizations) within this superordinatewhole. Preserving these specific premerger identities also

444 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 4: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

minimizes identity threat and facilitates group members’acceptance and endorsement of the superordinate group(see also Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Building on these superordinate identity models, thecognitive-developmental model of social identity inte-gration (Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al., 2007) focuseson how each group member subjectively represents thedifferent social identities that are at play in a changingintergroup context. This model also proposes that one’sdifferent social identities can become integrated in groupmembers’ sense of self by developing a superordinatesense of identification (e.g., identification with the newmerged organization) that is inclusive of the differentsubgroup identities (e.g., premerger identities). Such acognitive representation is not only beneficial to inter-group relations but also allows the person to cognitivelybind different identities into the overall self.

Another important contribution of the cognitive-development model is that it proposes specific develop-mental and cognitive processes through which newsocial identities develop and change over time. Althoughclassic intergroup theories (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explain how social identitiescan fluctuate and change situationally depending on thecues present in the social context, the processes throughwhich social identities become a more recurrent partof the self remain under studied in the psychologicalliterature (Deaux, 1991). The cognitive-developmentalmodel of social identity integration was aimed to fillthese theoretical gaps and to directly capture how groupmembers integrate a new organizational identity (i.e.,identification with the new merged organization)throughout the phases of an important life change, suchas an intergroup merger.

Based on developmental principles, our modelassumes that, over time, the self tends to becomeincreasingly complex as different social identities areintegrated into the self-concept (e.g., Harter, 1999).When new social identities become integrated in theoverall self, cognitive links are created between theidentities that were already in place in the self (e.g.,identification with the premerger organization) and thenew identity to be integrated (e.g., the new merged orga-nizational identity). This model also proposes thatdeveloping a sense of identification with superordinategroups, such as the new merged organization, shouldfacilitate the integration of diverse and possibly con-flictual subgroup identities (i.e., the different premergerorganizations; Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al., 2007).Based on these models, identification with a new super-ordinate social identity (i.e., identification with the newmerged organization) was expected to increase overtime, as new group members develop an allegiance toand incorporate this new relevant superordinate identityin their sense of self. Perceptions of similarities between

the premerger organizations were also expected toincrease over time, as group members become increas-ingly familiar with the other premerger group and rea-lize the communalities between these groups (Gaertneret al., 1993).

FACILITATORS AND INHIBITORS OF SOCIALIDENTITY CHANGE

Although the integration of a new social identity and anincreased feeling of identification with a new social groupover time are desirable goals in merger contexts, thesocial environment also needs to provide the nutrimentsthat will allow the new superordinate identity to actuallydevelop. We propose different factors that will eitherfacilitate or inhibit the development of new social identi-ties over time (Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al., 2007).These factors can also be conceptualized as mechanismsof change, which explain exactly how changes in socialidentification take place over time and how a new ident-ity develops. In this sense, these factors are also media-tors of the associations between the social context inwhich the change takes place (i.e., employees’ premergerorganization) and the outcomes of the change process(i.e., changes=development of a new social identity).Figure 1 illustrates these associations.

Perceptions of Similarities

One facilitating mechanism involves perceiving similari-ties between the different social groups and identities.To the extent that different social identities share simila-rities, these different identities will be easier to ‘‘link’’ atthe cognitive level (Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al.,2007). This notion of similarity also shares conceptualsimilarities with the notion of identity continuity, whichinvolves the subjective feeling that despite the socialchanges experienced, the characteristics of one’s ingroup are maintained over time (Jetten, Iyer, Tsivrikos,& Young, 2008; Sani, Bowe, & Herrera, 2008; Ullrich,Wieseke, & Van Dick, 2005). In line with this work,and as illustrated in Figure 1, it was expected that the

FIGURE 1 Overall mediation model tested. Note. The symbol 4represents the change variable.

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 5: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

development and the change in a new social identityover time will be facilitated if similarities are perceivedcognitively between the two premerger organizationalgroups.

This prediction is in contrast with the principles ofsocial identity theory, according to which antagonisticintergroup responses are likely to be engendered whenthe distinctiveness of the in group is threatened bysimilarity between the in group and the out group—thesimilarity differentiation hypothesis (Hewstone &Brown, 1986; Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997).However, perceptions of similarity between the premer-ger groups may not be threatening in a merger context,where the need for corporate diversification may meanthat there are considerable differences, on multiple levels,between the merging organizations. To facilitate har-monious intergroup relations in this type of context, itmay be preferable for the two groups of employees toperceive some intergroup similarity. This is also in linewith recent empirical evidence gathered in merger con-texts, a context where possibilities for group distinctive-ness are more salient than in experimental contextsamong minimal or ad hoc groups (see van Knippenberget al., 2002). Empirically, perceiving such similaritiesbetween the members of two specific subgroups promotesthe development of a merged superordinate identity.

Identity Threat

In contrast to perceptions of similarities, which shouldfacilitate identity change and integration, identity threatis a factor that should block the development andintegration of a new superordinate identity over time(Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). This is because appraisals ofthreat are likely to increase stress and induce cognitiverigidity. This stress should then inhibit the integrationprocess, which by definition requires cognitive energy,flexibility, and effort as the self reorganizes and adjuststo its new social environment and develops new copingstrategies to meet changing demands (Amiot, de laSablonniere et al., 2007; Roccas & Brewer, 2002).During mergers, feelings of threat predict lower iden-tification with the new merged organization and lowerperceptions of a common ingroup identity (Terry &O’Brien, 2001).

Different types of threat are experienced by emp-loyees undergoing organizational mergers (Bordia,Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004). To extendpast merger research, and to capture how the mergermay represent a symbolic yet salient threat to employ-ees’ premerger organizational identity, the study investi-gates identity threat. Identity threat involves threat tothe distinctiveness, to the influence and representationof one’s premerger organization within the new mergedorganization, and even to the existence of one’s in group

within the new merged organization (van Dick, Ullrich,& Tissington, 2006). The type of threat should be par-ticularly pronounced for members of the low-statusgroup, for whom the premerger identity is confrontedto becoming erased within the new superordinatemerged group (van Leeuwen, van Knippenberg, &Ellemers, 2003). These feelings of identity threat shouldalso predict decreased identification with the newmerged organization and block the development of acommon in group identity (Figure 1).

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

During mergers, it is important to employ methodologi-cal procedures that allow the direct understanding ofhow group members negotiate their shifting organiza-tional identification and come to develop an enduringsense of identification with the new merged group overtime. Despite the importance of attending to these tem-poral dynamics throughout the different phases of amerger (Cartwright & Cooper, 1992; Cartwright &Schoenberg, 2006; Seo & Hill, 2005), only a handful ofpublished studies to date have investigated the inter-group processes involved in a merger by relying on alongitudinal design (Amiot, de la Sablonniere, et al.,2007; Gleibs et al., 2008). Doing so allows not onlythe prediction of changes occurring throughout themerger but also the investigation of the intergroupdynamics that emerge over time.

This longitudinal study was conducted in the context ofa merger between two previously independent metropoli-tan hospitals. The lower status hospital was a 180-bedhospital specializing in women’s health services (i.e.,obstetrics, gynecology, and neonatology), whereas thehigher status hospital was an 870-bed medical and surgi-cal general adult hospital, with acute care and emergencyservices and a full range of specialist services. This higherstatus hospital was affiliated with the state university andhired staff involved in university teaching and research.This hospital also had access to more publicly fundedresources and was named after the city in which it wasbased. In line with a staged completion of the new sharedhospital redevelopment, a gradual integration of the func-tional units and clinical support services occurred.

Participants completed two questionnaires: Time 1questionnaire took place in the 12 months before amerger at the initial planing and formal combinationstage (Seo & Hill, 2005), and it captured the processesactivated by the anticipation of a merger before the mer-ger was actually implemented. The Time 2 questionnairewas completed approximately 1 year after the implemen-tation of the merger, after all units and services hadmoved into the new premises as merged units and theactual integration of organizational functions and

446 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 6: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

operations had taken place. At this stage (i.e., theoperational combination stage; Seo & Hill, 2005), inter-actions between the members of the combined organiza-tions are extended from top management and jointcommittees to general work units and day-to-day opera-tions (Garpin & Herndon, 2000), and employees arepushed to learn new ways of doing things, meet newperformance standards, and adopt new values and beliefsystems (Marks & Mirvis, 1992).

Building on previous merger research and intergroupmodels, we hypothesized that members of the high-statuspremerger organization will report better adjustment tothe merger—in terms of lower identity threat, higheridentification with the new merged organization, highercommon in group identity, and higher perceptions ofsimilarities between the premerger organizations—incomparison to members of the low-status premergerorganization (H1). In terms of changes over time, weexpected that the new merged organizational identifi-cation, perceptions of a common in group identity, andperceptions of similarities between the premerger organi-zations will increase over time (H2). Based on the prop-osition that similarity should facilitate identity change,perceived similarities between the premerger organiza-tions were hypothesized to predict higher and increasedidentification with the new merged organization andhigher and increased perceptions of a common in groupidentity (H3a). In contrast, and based on the idea thatthreat should inhibit the linkages between the identitiesand impede the development of a new social identity, feel-ings of identity threat were expected to predict lower anddecreased identification with the new merged organiza-tion and lower and decreased perceptions of a commonin group identity (H3b). As illustrated in Figure 1, andbridging together H1 with H3a and H3b, perceptions ofsimilarities and identity threat were also expected tomediate the associations between premerger organiza-tional status and the social identification outcomes (H4).

METHOD

Design and Procedure

For each of the two data collections, a self-administeredquestionnaire was sent to each staff member. Respon-dents were informed that the questionnaires weredesigned to give them an opportunity to express theiropinions about a range of issues associated with themerger. For both Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaire,respondents were provided with preaddressed envelopesin which to return the questionnaires directly to theresearchers. All participants were informed that theirresponses to the questionnaires were confidential andthat at no time they would be made available to the

health facility where they work. A matching code wasused to match questionnaires from Time 1 and Time 2.

Participants

A total of 1,385 respondents completed the Time 1 ques-tionnaire (representing 27% of the staff at the lower sta-tus hospital and 25% of the staff at the higher statushospital), and 279 completed the second questionnaire.A total of 149 participants completed both ques-tionnaires. To test if participants composing this finalsample differed from those who had completed onlythe first or only the second questionnaire, two series ofBonferroni-corrected t tests were used. In the first series,employees who had completed only the first question-naire (N¼ 1,256) were compared to those who hadcompleted both questionnaires (N¼ 149) on the Time1 variables. Based on these tests, participants who com-pleted both questionnaires reported higher scores on themeasure of identification with the premerger organiza-tion (M¼ 5.23), t(1367)¼�2.93, p¼ .003, and lowerscores on the measures of merged organizationalidentification (M¼ 2.81), t(1359)¼�3.52, p¼ .001, andperceived similarities (M¼ 2.54), t(1304)¼�2.96,p¼ .003, in comparison to participants who completedonly the Time 1 questionnaire (Ms¼ 4.82, 3.21, and2.79, respectively). However, the eta-squared for theseanalyses were all lower than 1%, suggesting that the dif-ferences between these groups of participants can beconsidered of small magnitude (Cohen, 1988).1

1Two sets of alternative analyses on the Time 1 data were conducted

to further test if the pattern of findings reported herein (i.e., with part-

icipants who completed both questionnaires) differs from the pattern of

findings observed when we account for the data from participants who

completed only the Time 1 questionnaire. The first set of alternative

analyses controlled for group (i.e., whether participants completed only

Time 1 questionnaire or both questionnaires). A second series of alter-

native analyses involved conducting the Time 1 analyses among all

participants (i.e., both participants who completed only the Time 1

questionnaire and those who completed both questionnaires). In both

sets of alternative analyses (i.e., those controlling for ‘‘group’’ and those

using all participants), the same findings are observed.

In terms of correlations, the same overall pattern of correlations was

observed (i.e., in terms of their direction and whether they were signifi-

cant or not) as the pattern observed in Table 1. In the ANOVAs con-

ducted on Time 1 data among all participants and with premerger

organization as the independent variable, only one finding differs from

those presented in Table 2: In these alternative analyses, a significant

difference emerged between the two premerger organization on identi-

fication with the original identity, such that members of the lower status

premerger organization identify more strongly with their premerger

organization (M¼ 5.22) in comparison to members of the higher status

premerger organization (M¼ 4.74), F(1, 1367)¼ 14.12, p¼ .000, g2¼.02. Despite this difference, it is important to reiterate how challenging

it can be to collect longitudinal data in merger contexts, yet how these

field data are rich and valuable and has their place in social psychologi-

cal research, still dominated by experimental studies conducted among

undergraduate students (Arnett, 2008).

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 7: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

A second series of t tests was conducted to compareemployees who had completed only the second question-naire (N¼ 195) to those who had completed both ques-tionnaires (N¼ 149) on the Time 2 variables. Based onthese tests, participants who completed both question-naires were found not to differ significantly from thosewho completed only the Time 1 questionnaire or onlythe Time 2 questionnaire.

Participants composing the final sample were aged 22to 65 (M¼ 41.69 years old; SD¼ 10.10 years) and themajority (76%) were women. They had been employedat their hospital for an average of 8.84 years(SD¼ 6.60 years). This sample consisted of 90 employ-ees from the higher status premerger hospital and 59employees from the lower status premerger hospital.Participants were employed across a wide range of occu-pations in these hospitals. The most common occupa-tions included nurses (28%), administrative officers(16%), physiotherapists (11%), wards persons (8%),social workers (4%), food services employees (4%), mid-wives (3%), and radiographers (2%).

Measures

With the exception of the perceived relative status ofparticipants’ premerger organization, all measures wereobtained using multi-item scales. The first questionnaireincluded measures of the perceived statuses of the twomerging organizations and the legitimacy of these sta-tuses, identification with the premerger organizationand with the (anticipated) new merged organization,perception of a common ingroup identity, and perceivedsimilarities between the two premerger organizations.The second questionnaire again assessed identificationwith the premerger organization and with the newmerged organization, perception of a common ingroupidentity, and perceived similarities between the two pre-merger organizations. This second questionnaire alsoassessed threat.

Relative status of participants’ premerger organiza-tion and status legitimacy (Time 1). As a check on therelative status of the two premerger organizations, part-icipants indicated which premerger organization was thestronger partner in the new merged organization(1¼ smaller hospital definitively the stronger partner;7¼ larger hospital definitively the stronger partner;Amiot et al., 2007; Terry et al., 2001). This item wasrecoded such that higher scores indicated greaterperceived status for participants’ own premerger organi-zation relative to the other premerger organization. Thelegitimacy of these status differences was also assessedwith the following item: Consider the relative status ofthe two original hospital groups. Do you think this is

the way things should be? (1¼ not at all to 7¼ verymuch so).

Perceived similarities (Time 1 and Time 2). Thisthree-item scale assessed how participants perceivedsimilarities between the two original premerger hospitals(e.g., ‘‘The beliefs and values of the employees of thetwo hospitals are very similar’’; ‘‘In general, the (namesof the hospitals) are similar to each other’’; ‘‘The atmos-phere at the (name of one hospital) is similar to theatmosphere at the (name of the other hospital)’’;1¼ strongly disagree to 5¼ strongly agree; Time 1a¼ .78; Time 2 a¼ .79).

Identity threat (Time 2). To measure identity threat,participants were asked to indicate the extent to whichthey experienced different difficulties such as ‘‘loss ofidentity for your hospital,’’ ‘‘loss of distinctive role foryour hospital in the community,’’ ‘‘Fear that your hos-pital will be in a weak position in the merged hospital,’’‘‘Loss of history and distinctive culture of your hospi-tal,’’ ‘‘Concern that your hospital’s interests will notbe well-represented in the merged hospital,’’ ‘‘Fear thatyour hospital will be dominated in the new merged hos-pital,’’ ‘‘Concerns that your hospital’s interests will notbe well-represented in the senior positions in the mergedhospital,’’ ‘‘Not feeling that your hospital is beingvalued in the new merged hospital,’’ ‘‘Loss of statusfor your hospital,’’ ‘‘Concern that the merger willweaken the reputation of your hospital,’’ using a 0 (havenot experienced) to 3 (experienced and very difficult) scale(10 items; a¼ .97).

Identification measures (Time 1 and Time 2). AtTimes 1 and 2, strength of identification with employees’premerger (original) organization was assessed with fouritems based on the measures used by Brown, Condor,Mathews, Wade, and Williams (1986) and by Hogg,Cooper-Shaw, and Holzworth (1993), that is, ‘‘Howmuch do you see yourself belonging to this hospital?’’‘‘How much do you identify with this hospital?’’‘‘How much do you feel strong ties with colleagues inthis hospital?’’ ‘‘How important is it to you that youare a member of this hospital?’’ (1¼ not very much to7¼ very much; Time 1 a¼ .92; Time 2 a¼ .90). At Time1, anticipated merged organizational identification wasalso assessed by adapting these items (e.g., ‘‘How muchdo you think that you will identify with the new mergedhospital?’’). At Time 2, merged organizational identifi-cation was assessed with the same items formulated atthe present tense (e.g., ‘‘How much do you identify withthe new merged hospital?’’; 1¼ not very much to 7¼ verymuch; Time 1 a¼ .94; Time 2 a¼ .89).

448 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 8: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

Common ingroup identity (Time 1 and Time2). Four items developed by Gaertner and his collea-gues (1993) assessed how participants perceived thatthe two premerger organization could be recategorizedinto one superordinate category—one common in groupidentity (e.g., ‘‘Despite the different hospital back-grounds, it feels as though the two hospitals are all justone group’’; ‘‘It feels as though the (names of the twohospitals) are two separate groups’’ (reverse-codeditem); 1¼ strongly disagree to 5¼ strongly agree). Oneitem employed a different rating scale and was as fol-lows: ‘‘How do the two hospitals feel to you’’ (1¼ liketwo groups; 5¼ like one group; Time 1 a¼ .80; Time 2a¼ .83).

To capture intra individual changes over time andcreate the change in the identification and commoningroup identity variables, residualized difference scoreswere computed by regressing each Time 2 variable ontoits corresponding Time 1 variable and then saving theresidual values for these predictions as distinct variables(Cronbach & Furby, 1970). Residualized change scoresare particularly useful in the current context given thatthey capture the change experienced within each individ-ual over time (see also Amiot, de la Sablonniere, et al.,2007; Amiot, Terry, Wirawan, & Grice, 2010).

RESULTS

Background Variables and Checks

Preliminary analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and chi-square analyses by premerger organizational membershipon the demographic variables revealed no significantdifferences on age, F(1, 137)¼ 2.42, p¼ .123, g2¼ .02;gender, v2(146)¼ 8.11, p¼ .051; or marital status,F(1, 141)¼ 0.39, p¼ .535, g2¼ .00.

A one-way ANOVA (with premerger organization asthe independent variable) was first conducted on theperceived relative status of employees’ own premergerorganization. Premerger organization had a significant

main effect on status perceptions, F(1, 149)¼ 92.12,p¼ .000, g2¼ .39. As expected, employees in the premer-ger high-status organization rated their own premergerorganization as being relatively higher in status(M¼ 4.96, SD¼ 1.62) than employees from the lower sta-tus premerger organization (M¼ 2.59, SD¼ 1.37). Thesefindings confirmed that the more resourceful university-attached hospital was perceived as possessing a higherstatus in comparison to the hospital specializing inwomen’s health. When conducting a similar one-wayANOVA on the perceived legitimacy of the relative statusof the two premerger hospitals, a significant effect ofpremerger organization was found, F(1, 148)¼ 4.22,p¼ .042, g2¼ .03. Employees in the premerger high-statusorganization rated the relative status of the premergerorganizations as being more legitimate (M¼ 3.96,SD¼ 1.81) compared to employees from the lower statuspremerger organization (M¼ 3.45, SD¼ 1.24).

Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correla-tions among all variables for both Time 1 and Time 2.

Testing for Differences Between Organizations (H1)and Changes Over Time (H2)

To test H1, an ANOVA on identity threat with premer-ger organization as the independent variable was firstconducted. A main effect for premerger organizationemerged, F(1, 148)¼ 105.74, p¼ .000, g2¼ .42), reveal-ing that members of the lower status premerger organi-zation perceived stronger identity threat (M¼ 1.93,SD¼ 0.84) compared to members of the higher statuspremerger organization (M¼ 0.57, SD¼ 0.75).

A series of mixed-model ANOVAs were then conduc-ted to test for differences between premerger organiza-tions (H1) and to assess changes from Time 1 to Time2 (H2). Details for these analyses are presented inTable 2. A number of differences were found between

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between the Main Variables

Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. T1 Identification with premerger group 5.19 1.35 —

2. T1 Merged organizational identification 4.51 1.49 .42��� —

3. T1 Common ingroup identity 2.85 1.08 .12 .52��� —

4. T1 Perceived similarities 2.55 0.88 .13 .40��� .48��� —

5. T2 Identification with premerger group 5.29 1.25 .27�� .20� .05 .13 —

6. T2 Merged organizational identification 4.13 1.50 .16 .48��� .29��� .31��� .28�� —

7. T2 Common ingroup identity 2.64 1.29 .07 .38��� .32��� .34��� .01 .41��� —

8. T2 Perceived similarities 2.60 0.84 .10 .40��� .46��� .50��� .18� .43��� .44��� —

9. T2 Identity threat 1.10 1.03 .01 �.31��� �.24�� �.32��� .02 �.44��� �.51��� �.42���

�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 9: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

the two premerger hospitals across time points (H1).Members of the higher status hospital identified morestrongly with the new merged organization (M¼ 4.66),F(1, 148)¼ 17.98, p¼ .000, g2¼ .11; perceived a strongercommon ingroup identity (M¼ 3.08), F(1, 148)¼ 32.22,p¼ .000, g2¼ .18; and perceived more similaritiesbetween these organizations (M¼ 2.87), F(1, 148)¼44.96, p¼ .000, g2¼ .23, than members of the low-statuspremerger organization (Ms¼ 3.80, 2.24, and 2.13, formerged organizational identification, common ingroupidentity, and perceived similarities, respectively).Together, this first series of results provide support forH1 by confirming that members from the high-statuspremerger organization reported greater adjustment tothe merger—in terms of lower identity threat, andhigher identification with the new merged organization,stronger common ingroup identity, and higher perceivedsimilarities—in comparison to members of thelow-status premerger organization.

When testing for H2, main effects of time were alsofound in these ANOVAs. More specifically, mergedorganizational identification decreased from Time 1(M¼ 4.43) to Time 2 (M¼ 4.03), F(1, 148)¼ 9.89,p¼ .002, g2¼ .06. Perception of a common ingroupidentity also decreased from Time 1 (M¼ 2.78) to Time

2 (M¼ 2.54), F(1, 148)¼ 4.42, p¼ .037, g2¼ .03. Thesefindings are contrary to H2 and are discussed in theDiscussion section. As can be seen in Table 2, none ofthe Time�Premerger Organization interactions weresignificant.

Associations Between Perceived Similarities,Identity Threat, and the Identification Outcomes

To test the facilitating role of perceived similaritiesbetween the premerger organizations (H3a) and theinhibiting role of identity threat (H3b) in predictingour identification outcomes, multiple regressions wereconducted. Premerger organization was also includedas a moderator to test if these associations differedacross the two premerger organizations. Results wereanalyzed using hierarchical moderated multiple regre-ssion analyses and all continuous predictors weremean-centered prior to conducting the analyses (Aiken& West, 1991). The independent variable of premergerorganization was dichotomous: Belonging to the lowerstatus premerger organization was coded as �1, whereasbelonging to the higher status premerger organizationwas coded as þ1. Identity threat and perceived similari-ties were continuous predictors.

TABLE 2

Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance With Premerger Organization and Time as Independent Variables

Premerger Organization Univariate Tests

Lower Status Higher Status

Premerger

Organization Time

Premerger Organization�Time Interaction

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 F p g2 F p g2 F p g2

Identification with

premerger group

5.33 (1.47) 5.48 (1.26) 5.11 (1.44) 5.16 (1.09) 2.42 .120 .016 0.60 .440 .004 0.12 .740 .001

Merged organizational

identification

4.06 (1.45) 3.53 (1.45) 4.80 (1.64) 4.53 (1.27) 17.98 .000 .109 9.89 .002 .063 1.04 .309 .007

Common ingroup identity 2.44 (1.05) 2.04 (1.02) 3.12 (1.00) 3.03 (1.32) 32.22 .000 .180 4.42 .037 .029 1.65 .201 .011

Perceived similarities 2.06 (0.77) 2.20 (0.81) 2.86 (0.72) 2.87 (0.82) 44.96 .000 .234 1.03 .313 .007 0.99 .321 .007

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

TABLE 3

Role of Premerger Organization, Perceived Similarities, and Identity Threat in Predicting the Identification Outcomes

Merged Organizational

Identification

Common Ingroup

Identity (T2)

DMerged Organizational

Identification (T1-T2)

D Common Ingroup

Identity (T1-T2)

Step Independent Variable b b b b

1 Premerger organization �.01 .04 �.01 �.01

Perceived similarities (T2) .29�� .23�� .14 .10

Identity threat (T2) �.32�� �.39��� �.27� �.43���

2 Premerger Organization� Similarities (T2) .12 .00 .14 �.03

Premerger Organization� Identity threat (T2) .04 .11 .07 .11

— Step 1 R2 .27��� .32��� .13��� .23���

Total R2 .28��� .33��� .15��� .24���

F Change from Step 1 to Step 2 1.25 1.12 1.46 1.24

�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

450 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 10: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

Table 3 presents the results of the moderated regres-sions conducted on the four identification outcomes.When predicting T2 merged organizational identifi-cation, perceived similarities and identity threat are bothsignificant predictors: The more participants perceivedthat the premerger organizations shared similarities(b¼ .29, p< .01), and the less they perceived identitythreat (b¼�.32, p< .01), the more they identified withthe new merged organization at T2. None of the interac-tions in this analysis were significant, suggesting thatthese associations do not significantly differ across thetwo premerger organizations. When predicting T2 com-mon ingroup identity, perceived similarities and identitythreat are again both significant predictors: The moreparticipants perceive the premerger organizations toshare similarities (b¼ .23, p< .01), and the less they per-ceive identity threat (b¼�.39, p< .001), the more theyperceive a common ingroup identity at T2. None ofthe interactions in this analysis were significant, suggest-ing again that these associations do not significantly dif-fer across the two premerger organizations.

When predicting the change variables, namely, thechange in identification with the new merged organiza-tion from Time 1 to Time 2 variable (residual changescores), only identity threat predicts a decrease in identi-fication with the new merged organization over time(b¼�.27, p< .05). Again, none of the interactions inthese analyses were significant. Finally, when predictingthe change in common ingroup identity variable, onlythreat to identity predicted a significant decrease inperceptions of a common ingroup identity over time(b¼�.43, p< .001).

None of the interactions in this analysis were signifi-cant, again suggesting that these associations do not sig-nificantly differ across the two premerger organizations.Together, these findings provide strong support for thefacilitating role of perceived similarities (H3a) and theinhibiting role of threat in the development of a newidentity (H3b).

Mediating role of perceived similarities and identitythreat. To test H4, two mediation models were testedusing Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) SPSS macro for mul-tiple mediation. Based on the pattern of findings fromthe multiple regressions, we tested models for whichboth mediators (i.e., identity threat and perceptions ofsimilarities) were significantly associated with the depen-dent variable, a precondition for multiple mediationanalyses. The first model tested whether perceivedsimilarity and perceived threat mediated the relationshipbetween premerger organizational identity (status) andidentification with the new merged organization at Time2 in the merger (see Figure 2). This model was signi-

ficant, F(3, 145)¼ 17.40, p< .001, R2adj ¼ :25. A similar

model was tested with perceptions of a common ingroup identity at Time 2 as the outcome variable (seeFigure 3), and this model was also significant, F(3, 145)¼22.87, p< .001, R2

adj ¼ :31. As can be seen in Figures 2

and 3, for both outcomes, there was a significant posi-tive total effect of premerger organization: As premergerorganizational status increased, so too did identificationwith the merged organization and perceptions of acommon ingroup.

For Model 1, the indirect effects of premerger organi-zational status on identification with the new mergedhospital via perceived similarity (Effect¼ 0.18, SE¼.06, Z¼ 3.04, p< .01; CI [.10, .28]) and perceived ident-ity threat (Effect¼ 0.30, SE¼ .10, Z¼ 3.04, p< .01; CI[.15, .48]) were both significant according to normaltheory tests. As premerger organization status increased,so too did perceptions of similarity, which was in turnassociated with an increase in identification with themerged organization. As premerger organization statusincreased, perceived identity threat decreased, and adecrease in identity threat was associated with anincrease in identification with the merged organization.Likewise, for Model 2, the indirect effects of premergerorganizational status on perceptions of a commoningroup identity via perceived similarity (Effect ¼.14,

FIGURE 2 Mediation model testing indirect effects of premerger

organization (status) through perceived similarity and perceived ident-

ity threat on identification with the new merged organization. Note.

Coefficients are unstandardized. Direct effect is represented on top

of connecting line. Premerger organization is coded: 0¼ lower status

organization; 1¼ higher status organization.

FIGURE 3 Mediation model testing indirect effects of premerger

organization (status) through perceived similarity and perceived ident-

ity threat on perceptions of a common in group identity. Note. Coeffi-

cients are unstandardized. Direct effect is represented on top of

connecting line. Premerger organization is coded: 0¼ lower status

organization; 1¼ higher status organization.

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 11: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

SE¼ .05, Z¼ 2.90, p< .01; CI [.06, .22]) and perceivedidentity threat (Effect¼ .33, SE¼ .08, Z¼ 3.91,p< .001; CI [.20, .49]) were again significant. The natureof the relationships between premerger organization sta-tus, the two mediators, and the outcome was identical tothat described for the first model. The direct effect ofpremerger organization on the outcomes was not signifi-cant in either model. This pattern of mediation for bothoutcomes was consistent with our predictions (H4).

DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to examine, over time, theintergroup dynamics involved in a merger betweenlow-status and high-status premerger hospitals and to testthe social and cognitive mechanisms through which thesechanges take place. Very little merger research to date hasinvestigated these changes in identification over time (cf.Amiot, de la Sablonniere, et al., 2007; Gleibs et al., 2008),and none, to our knowledge, has studied the role of simi-larities and identity threat in predicting these changes insocial identification. Doing so is important to understandthe temporal changes that take place throughout amerger (Seo & Hill, 2005) and to identify the mediatingprocesses through which new social identities changeand become integrated in the self, a neglected topic insocial psychology (Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al., 2007).

Current Findings and Their Broader TheoreticalImplications

In accord with social identity theory and past mergerresearch (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Terry, 2003; Terryet al., 2001) and supporting H1, the negative effects ofthe merger were most marked for employees of thelow-status organization throughout the merger: Theseemployees reported higher identity threat, lower identi-fication with the new merged organization, and lowerperceptions of a common ingroup identity. Membersof the lower status premerger organization also per-ceived fewer similarities between the two premergerorganizations.

With respect to the changes taking place in theidentification measures over time, and contrary toexpectations (H2), identification with the new mergedorganization and perceptions of a common ingroupidentity were found to decrease from T1 to T2. Thesefindings could be due to a self-anchoring effect (Otten& Epstude, 2006). In fact, when anticipating a changeand expecting to join a new social group, it is possiblefor group members to develop an abstract sense ofidentification with this new group prior to physicallyjoining the group, even if they have very littleinformation about this new group (e.g., Amiot et al.,

2010). Over time, the anticipated new social identity islikely to be revised in light of the reality and possibly,to drop in importance as individuals discover both thepros and cons of their new identity. Such a process isanalogous to the ‘‘cultural clash’’ experienced by someimmigrants as they join a new country and realize howdifferent the new cultural identity actually is comparedto their original culture. This clash leads them to revisethe idea they had formed of their new cultural identityprior to arrival and possibly even disidentify with thenew social group (Sussman, 2000). This process ofself-anchoring and ‘‘idealization’’ of a new identitymay have been operating here as well at the anticipatoryphase of the merger.

In line with models of superordinate identification(e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 2000) and with our cognitive-developmental model of social identity change andintegration (Amiot, de la Sablonniere et al., 2007), per-ceiving similarities between the premerger organizationspredicted higher identification with the new mergedorganization and stronger perceptions of a common ingroup identity at T2, which partially supports H3a. Incontrast, identity threat had an inhibitory effect on thenew superordinate merged organization and on percep-tions of a common ingroup identity, both at T2, andalso when predicting the changes in these variables overtime (H3b). These associations were of comparable mag-nitude across the two premerger groups (see also Amiot,de la Sablonniere, et al., 2007). It should be noted thatalthough identity threat significantly and negatively pre-dicted all four identification outcomes in the multipleregressions, perceptions of similarities significantly posi-tively predicted the Time 2 identification outcomes butnot the change in identification outcomes. This patternof findings could be explained by the fact that in a timeof stressful change such as a merger, the identity threatvariable (relative to the similarity variable) may havebeen a more potent predictor of the identification out-comes, and especially the identity change variables. Infact, threat captures a negative type of cognition, whichtends to weigh more heavily in information processingand attentional processes (e.g., Taylor, 1991). Giventhe importance of attentional and cognitive resourcesas individuals undergo a significant change and developa sense of identification with a new social group (e.g.,Amiot, de la Sablonniere, et al., 2007; Roccas & Brewer,2002), feelings of identity threat felt during the mergermay be particularly detrimental. This may explain whythe variable of identity threat outweighed and offsetthe relative benefits afforded by perceptions of similaritybetween the merging organizations, a positivelyvalenced type of social cognition.

There was clear support for our mediation hypotheses(H4): For both identification with the new mergedorganization and perceptions of a common ingroup

452 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 12: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

identity at Time 2, there were indirect effects from pre-merger organization to the outcomes via both perceivedsimilarity and perceived identity threat. These effectssuggested that belonging to the higher status premergerorganization was associated with increased perceivedsimilarity and reduced identity threat. Although premer-ger organization status was also positively associatedwith both increased identification with the new mergedorganization and a perception of a common in groupidentity, this relationship was fully mediated throughperceptions of similarity and threat for both outcomes.Increased perceived similarity was associated withincreased identification with the new merged organiza-tion and a greater perception of a common ingroupidentity. Increased perceived identity threat was associa-ted with reduced identification with the new mergedorganization and a lesser perception that there was acommon ingroup identity. These findings suggest thatboth perceived similarity and perceptions of identitythreat are important mechanisms for the establishmentof a new identity during times of organizational mergers.

Future Research Directions

On the basis of the present findings, several researchavenues can be proposed. First, despite the advantageof the two-wave longitudinal design employed in Study2 and the scarcity of merger research that has employedsuch a design, future studies could aim at including morenumerous assessments, which could be taken closer intime. The merging process is complex and involves con-stant changes and adjustment on the part of employeesexperiencing the merger (e.g., Isabella, 1990; Seo & Hill,2005). Using more elaborate longitudinal designs (e.g.,diary studies) could thus provide a finer grain analysisof the change processes experienced by group membersand would allow a more precise mapping of the inter-group dynamics that emerge during a merger. The unex-pected decreased in identification observed over timealso raise the question of how long it takes beforeemployees adjust to a merger and come to integratethe new social identity in their sense of self. Accordingto Seo and Hill (2005), this process is potentially quitelong. Given that our T2 questionnaire was completedapproximately 1 year after the merger had been imple-mented, our T2 assessment point may not have allowedsufficient time to integrate a new social identity (e.g.,Gleibs et al., 2008). Definitely, future research shouldfurther investigate these anticipatory processes in thecontext of mergers and conduct longer term follow-ups.

Applied Implications of the Research

Several applied recommendations can be made on thebasis of the present findings. The most important

pertains to the recognition that the experience of themerger is different for members of the low-status versusthe high-status premerger group. Member of thelow-status group generally reported lower adjustmentand greater threat to the merger in comparison to mem-bers of the high-status group. Together, the findingsdirectly highlight how intergroup dynamics play animportant role in shaping employees’ experiences ofthe merger. They also point to the fact not only thatmergers are stressful for employees but that theidentity-related concerns, which are triggered by pre-merger organization status, underpin a complexity thatis unlikely to be addressed satisfactorily with genericorganizational change management programs. Instead,organizations involved in mergers need to realisticallyassess the nature of the intergroup relations betweenthe merging organizations and acknowledge the likelystatus differential between them. To the extent possible,managers and decision makers should ensure thatmechanisms are put in place so that employees fromthe low-status premerger group do not feel threatenedby the merger but, instead, feel that they have accessto new opportunities and that they equally bring a spe-cific, unique, and valued contribution to a greaterwhole—the new merged organization.

One solution to facilitating the acceptance and inter-nalization of the intergroup merger involves developinga new merged organizational identity that is complexand inclusive of the specific premerger organizationsthat comprise it. Such a superordinate organizationalidentity would account for the specificities of each pre-merger identity and would also recognize its uniquecontribution to the superordinate whole. Some com-mentators have suggested that keeping positive featuresfrom both premerger groups (rather than trying to eraseall preexisting organizational characteristics, or retain-ing only the features of the high-status premergerorganization) is key in facilitating intergroup relationsduring a merger and establishing a productive newmerged organization (e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 2000;Mummendey et al., 1999; Waldzus et al., 2005; Waldzuset al., 2003).

The strategy of social creativity (Tajfel & Turner,1986; see Matsuzaki & Homma, 2005) could also be rel-evant to create such a superordinate identity (see alsoTerry et al., 2001). Not only should each premergergroup realize its particularities, strengths, competencies,and how these complement one another when formingthe new merged organization, but the superiority (socialstatus) and value of some organizations over othersshould also be directly questioned. To do so, things needto be put in perspective. Some values clearly predomi-nate in our societies, such as money, productivity, anddominance. Social groups and organizations that havemore social prestige currently in the world distinguish

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 13: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

themselves positively from other groups on these valueddimensions of comparison. However, other dimensions(e.g., health and well-being of employees; full partici-pation of employees in their organization; innovation)are highly important as well, and are becoming parti-cularly salient in light of increased health- and stress-related problems observed in the workplace. Perhaps itis time to put things into perspective and start being cre-ative as to what the contribution and the ‘‘real’’ value ofeach social group is to the superordinate whole.

Concrete strategies can be used by managers to createmore positive intergroup relations during a merger andmaximize the harmony between the premerging sub-groups. To achieve this, they can create favorable con-ditions for intergroup contact by officially encouragingmembers of the groups to interact together and ensuringthat the premerger differences are acknowledged. Theycan also change the normative climate to ensure that itis supportive of the merger and promote perceptions ofa new common superordinate in group (Terry, 2003). Atthe organizational level, merging organizations shouldalso be transparent about the extent to which the pre-merger identities will continue to exist within the newmerged organization, keeping in mind that if the lowerstatus group remains salient and vibrant in the newmerged organization, this is also likely to lead theseemployees to identify more strongly with the new mer-ged organization and, hence, to increase organizationalcohesion and performance (Hogg & Terry, 2000).

Throughout these interventions, managers need tomake crucial decisions about whether their objective isto maximize productivity of the new merged organiza-tion or to facilitate employees’ well-being and encouragepositive intergroup relations. Although feelings of threatthat are experienced during a merger are subjective andcan be changed to a certain extent through cognitivereappraisal processes and the strategy of social creativ-ity, managers, organizational leaders, and psychologistsalso need to keep in mind that employees undergoing amerger may face objective threats (e.g., layoffs, threat toworking conditions, etc.). In such contexts, the inher-ently frustrating and threatening nature of the mergingmust also be acknowledged rather than dismissed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was made possible thanks to a grant fromthe Australian Research Council to Deborah J. Terry.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007).

Development and integration of social identities in the self: Toward

a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 11, 364–388.

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2007). Status, equity, and

social identification during an intergroup merger: A longitudinal

study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 557–577.

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Wirawan, D., & Grice, T. (2010). Changes

in social identities over time: The role of coping and adaptation

processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 803–826.

Anastasio, P., Bachman, B., Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1997). Cate-

gorization, recategorization, and common in group identity. In R.

Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social

psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 236–256). Oxford,

England: Blackwell.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology

needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.

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.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004).

Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences

and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology,

18, 507–532.

Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A.

(1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organi-

zation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Mergers and acquisitions: The

human factor. Oxford, England: Butterworth=Heinemann.

Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and

acquisitions research: Recent advances and future opportunities.

British Journal of Management, 17, S1–S5.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure

‘‘change’’: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.

Daly, J. P., Pouder, R. W., & Kabanoff, B. (2004). The effects of initial

differences in firms’ espoused values on their postmerger perfor-

mance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 323, 343.

Deaux, K. (1991). Social identities: Thoughts on structure and change.

In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: Theoretical convergences in

psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 77–93). New York, NY:

Guilford.

Devoge, S., & Shiraki, J. (2000). People factors: The missing link in the

merger success. Compensation and Benefits Management, 6, 26–32.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2003). Positive emotions broaden

the scope of attention and thought–action repertoires. Cognition and

Emotion, 19, 313–332.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The

common in group identity model. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993).

The common in group identity model: Recategorization and the

reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology,

4, 1–26.

Garpin, T. J., & Herndon, M. (2000). The complete guide to mergers

and acquisitions: Process tools to support M&A integration at every

level. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Giessner, S. R., Viki, G. T., Otten, S., Terry, D. J., & Tauber, S.

(2006). The challenge of merging: Merger patterns, premerger sta-

tus, and merger support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

32, 339–352.

Gleibs, I. H.,Mummendey, A., &Noack, P. (2008). Predictors of change

in postmerger identification during a merger process: A longitudinal

study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1095–1112.

454 AMIOT, TERRY, MCKIMMIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Page 14: Social Identity Change During an Intergroup Merger: The Role of Status, Similarity, and Identity Threat

Gleibs, I. H., Noack, P., & Mummendey, A. (2010). We are still

better than them: A longitudinal field study of in group favouritism

during a merger. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 819–836.

Gunders, S., & Alpert, A. (2001). International mergers and acquisition

review: 2000–2001. London, England: Deloitte and Touche.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspec-

tive. New York, NY: Guilford.

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.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An

intergroup perspective on the ‘‘contact hypothesis.’’ In M.

Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup

encounters (pp. 1–44). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group

prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive

groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452–465.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-

categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 121–140.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An

integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.

Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as the change unfolds:

How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of

Management Journal, 33, 7–41.

Jetten, J., Iyer, A., Tsivrikos, D., & Young, B. M. (2008). When is

individual mobility costly? The role of economic and social identity

factors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 866–879.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. (1992). Rebuilding after the merger: Deal-

ing with ‘‘survival sickness.’’ Organizational Dynamics, 21, 18–32.

Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tol-

erance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.

Otten, S., & Epstude, K. (2006). Overlapping mental representations of

self, in group, and out group: Unraveling self-stereotyping and

self-anchoring.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 957–969.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling

strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple

mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in

minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 21, 1–24.

Sani, F., Bowe, M., & Herrera, M. (2008). Perceived collective conti-

nuity and social well-being: Exploring the connections. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 365–374.

Seo, M.-G., & Hill, N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of

merger and acquisition: An integrative framework. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422–443.

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.

Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity

throughout cultural transitions: Why home is not so sweet.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 355–373.

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. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-

group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology

of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative

events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin, 110, 67–85.

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. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers

(Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational

practice (pp. 223–240). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

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.

Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. T. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and in group

bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes and

Intergroup Relations, 4, 271–289.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,

M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization

theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Continuity and change

in mergers and acquisitions: A social identity case study of a

German industrial merger. Journal of Management Studies, 42,

1549–1569.

van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., & Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a

black cloud: How to sustain organizational identification after a

merger. British Journal of Management, 17, S71–S82.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima,

F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social

identity approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41,

233–252.

van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Con-

tinuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on

social identification and in group bias. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 679–690.

van Oudenhoven, J. P., & de Boer, T. (1995). Complementarity and

similarity of partners in international mergers. Basic and Applied

Social Psychology, 17, 343–356.

Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (2005). When ‘‘different’’

means ‘‘worse’’: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup

contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83.

Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003).

Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories

and perceived in group prototypicality. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 39, 31–47.

SOCIAL IDENTITY CHANGE DURING AN INTERGROUP MERGER 455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:16

03

Nov

embe

r 20

13