CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

13. SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION IN INTERGROUP MERGERS 389
in-group (also referred to as “in-group bias” and “in-group favoritism”).
The aim of this strategy is to positively reevaluate the in-group (Hogg
& Abrams, 1988). To achieve this aim, intergroup comparisons may be
made on new dimensions, a modification of values assigned to comparative
dimensions, or the selection of a different comparison group (Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Lalonde, 1992).
Some evidence proves that members of low-status groups engage in
more in-group bias than members of high-status groups (see Brewer,
1979; cf. Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991), a pattern
of results that is consistent with Tajfel’s (1974) expectation that group differentiation
is most marked when the classification is particularly salient,
or in other words, personally relevant to group members. The status relevance
of the dimensions or attributes on which in-group and out-group
members can be judged, however, must be taken into account when making
predictions concerning the effects of group status on in-group bias
(see Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). As previously noted, low-status group
members may attain a positively valued group distinctiveness through
the use of social creativity in their intergroup comparisons. One way in
which this may be achieved involves the pursuit of positive in-group differentiation
on dimensions that do not form the basis for the status hierarchy,
or which are only peripherally related to this hierarchy. Because
the status-defining and status-relevant dimensions cannot be ignored
(Lalonde, 1992), members of a low-status group may well acknowledge their
relative inferior status on the status-relevant dimensions. On the statusirrelevant
dimensions—that is, on those not directly related to the basis
for the status hierarchy—however, members of low-status groups should
show positive differentiation.
In contrast to members of low-status groups, high-status group members
should show in-group bias on the status-defining dimensions (Mullen
et al., 1992). This is because to do so serves to verify their dominant position
in the intergroup context. Thus, among high-status group members, ingroup
bias should be more marked on status-relevant than status-irrelevant
dimensions. In fact, on the latter type of dimension, a “magnanimous”
out-group bias or “reverse discrimination” effect may be evident (Mullen
et al., 1992). In other words, high-status group members may be willing
to acknowledge that the out-group is better than the in-group on dimensions
that are clearly irrelevant to the basis for the status differentiation
(see also Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987; Turner & Brown, 1978).
In-Group Bias During Organizational Mergers
The very nature of an organizational merger challenges employees’
organizational identity, which serves not only to heighten the salience of
the identity, but also increase the likelihood of antagonistic and conflictual
intergroup perceptions and behaviors. In fact, the merger situation