CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

394 TERRY AND AMIOT
ously independent scientific organizations—(a) one of relatively high status,
in terms of research performance, budget, and viability, and (b) one
of relatively low status—was undertaken (Terry & O’Brien, 2001). First, it
was proposed, once again, that members of the low-status group would
show the most negative responses to the merger. Both individual outcomes
(perceived threat and job satisfaction) and group-related outcomes
(identification with the merged organization, common in-group identity,
and intergroup anxiety) were assessed. Second, it was proposed that the
employees of the low-status group would exhibit higher levels of in-group
bias on dimensions not directly relevant to the basis for the status differentiation
(e.g., administrative efficiency, good communication skills,
professional attitudes) than the employees of the high-status organization
would, but that employees of the high-status group would exhibit
the most in-group bias on the status-relevant dimensions (e.g., scientific
excellence, scientific diversity, project accountability). Third, it was proposed
that the effects of premerger group status would be moderated by
employees’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the status differential between
the two groups. Specifically, it was anticipated that for members of the
low-status premerger group, high levels of perceived legitimacy would be
related to low levels of status-irrelevant in-group bias, and more positive
responses to the merger, whereas the opposite was proposed for the highstatus
employees—for these employees, it was anticipated that high levels
of legitimacy would be associated with high levels of status-relevant ingroup
bias, and more negative responses to the merger.
Respondents were 120 employees of the merged organization, who
ranged in age from 20 to 64 years old. The sample comprised approximately
equal numbers of employees from the two premerger organizations. As
expected, participants from the high-status premerger organization identified
more strongly with the new organization than the employees of the
low-status organization. Employees of the low-status premerger organization
were also less likely to perceive a common in-group identity than
employees of the high-status premerger organization, and they appraised
the merger as more threatening. There was also a weak tendency for
employees of the high-status organization to be more satisfied with their
job than the employees of the low-status organization.
Thus, this second study replicated the finding that, overall, the employees
of the low-status premerger organization are likely to react most negatively
to the merger situation. There was also clear evidence of in-group
bias among both groups of employees involved in the merger. Moreover,
the pattern of in-group bias accorded with the predictions derived from
SIT, as did the observed relations between perceived threat and in-group
bias. Also, in support of SIT, the perceived legitimacy of the basis for
the status differentiation between the groups was associated with more
positive responses to the merger among employees of the low-status premerger
organization, but with poorer responses among employees of the
high-status premerger organization.