United we win, divided we fail? Effects of cognitive merger representations and performance feedback on merging groups

Abstract

Research has shown that cognitive representations of mergers influence intergroup evaluations. This paper extends this research by studying how cognitive representations of mergers (one group, dual identity, and two groups) interact with performance feedback (success and failure) to affect intergroup evaluations. Two competing hypotheses were tested, which made different predictions in case of superordinate group salience combined with subgroup salience after merger failure: The subgroupsalience-hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience during a merger generally results in pre-merger ingroup bias toward the pre-merger outgroup (i.e., two groups and dual identity). The superordinatesalience-hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience only results in pre-merger ingroup bias if superordinate group salience is low (i.e., two groups). Both hypotheses predict low levels of ingroup bias after merger success. Study 1 confirmed the second hypothesis using a 3 (merger representation: one group, dual identity, and two groups) Â 2 (merger feedback: failure and success) design with interacting groups. Study 2 replicated the results in an adapted minimal group paradigm. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Mergers between groups are an everyday occurrence in society. Organizational mergers have received a lot of research attention, indicating that this organizational change may create harmful behavioral and psychological reactions (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996;Hogan & Overmyer-Day, 1994). A substantial body of research on intergroup contact suggests that problems associated with intergroup cooperation can be overcome under certain conditions (Brewer & Brown, 1998). This research has shown its applicability to group mergers (Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Cool, 2006;Giessner, Viki, Otten, Terry, & Täuber, 2006;Haunschild, Moreland, & Murrell, 1994;Terry, 2001;van Knippenberg & van Leeuwen, 2001) and is also the foundation of the current research on mergers. Based on early ideas of important pre-conditions of positive intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), previous research on intergroup European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 412-435 (2008) cooperation has concentrated on the underlying cognitive representations of the involved groups to explain positive intergroup relations (Brewer & Miller, 1984;Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993;Hewstone & Brown, 1986). However, the influence that performance feedback has on relations between pre-merger groups remains a relatively neglected area of research. Does the group split after a common failure? How does the cognitive representation influence the handling of performance feedback of the merger? The aim of this research is to focus on the interactive effects of cognitive representation of mergers and performance feedback on the evaluations of the pre-merger groups.Group mergers can be defined as the combination of a group with another into one group (Gaertner, Bachman, Dovidio, & Banker, 2001). Hence, merging groups experience a situation in...

Group Merger Between Political Parties: The Role of the Ingroup Projection Process

“…In fact, the findings revealed that the projection of distinctive ingroup traits and of common traits had equal impact on anticipated identification with the common party. From another point of view, these results also support the idea that the sense of continuity is central to the process of identification transfer from the ingroup to the common group (Giessner & Mummendey, 2008). The higher the match between ingroup representation (including common and specific traits) and common party representation, the more political activists are able to imagine identifying with the future party.…”

“…Research on group merging has investigated members' reactions to unification and examined its effects on the relationship between the two premerger groups and on the intergroup bias (Giessner & Mummendey, 2008; Terry & Callan, 1998; van Leeuwen et al., 2003). However, the intergroup bias might not only be an important consequence of the merger but also one of the relevant factors that intervene in the premerger stage to affect the projection processes and, ultimately, the likelihood of favorable disposition toward the future common group.…”

Social Identity and Corporate Mergers

“…Consequently, the merger decreased trust between employees from the different organizations and impaired company performance. Similar behavioral effects have been demonstrated in laboratory research settings (Giessner & Mummendey, 2008; Weber & Camerer, 2003).…”

Correlates of Sexual, Ethnic, and Dual Identity: A Study of Young Asian and Pacific Islander Men who Have Sex with Men

“…The final stage indicates that harmony has been reached between sexual identity and ethnic identity. Research has supported these models and it is believed that "merger"-the state of obtaining the harmonious identity integration-gives individuals the opportunity to achieve better health outcomes (Crawford, Allison, Zamboni, & Soto, 2002;Giessner & Mummendey, 2007;. Operario, Han, and Choi (2008) then followed this framework in an attempt to examine dual identity development among gay APIs.…”