Support for Conciliatory Policies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Role of Different Modes of Identification and Territorial Ownership Perceptions

Understanding people’s attitudes toward conciliatory policies in territorial interethnic conflicts is important for a peaceful conflict resolution. We argue that ingroup identification in combination with the largely understudied territorial ownership perceptions can help us explain attitudes toward conciliatory policies. We consider two different aspects of ingroup identification—attachment to one’s ethnic ingroup as well as ingroup superiority. Furthermore, we suggest that perceptions of ingroup and outgroup ownership of the territory can serve as important mechanisms that link the different forms of ingroup identification with conciliatory policies. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among Israeli Jews (N = 1,268), we found that ingroup superiority, but not attachment, was negatively related to conciliatory policies. This relationship was explained by lower outgroup (but not by higher ingroup) ownership perceptions of the territory. Our findings highlight the relevance of studying ingroup superiority as a particularly relevant dimension of identification that represents a barrier to acknowledging outgroup’s territorial ownership, and is thus indirectly related to less support for conciliatory policies in intergroup conflict settings.

The Effects of Ingroup Development in a Post-Merger Joint-Brand Context

<p>Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) involve a complex relationship between two previously separate organisations. Social Identity Theory (SIT) has been applied to the study of M&As as a way to better understand this relationship. To date, SIT literature has focused on developing the relationship between the merging organisations, in turn relinquishing the identity of the pre-merger organisations in favour of the new organisational identity. This research examines the constructs of the pre-merger groups, focusing on the pre-merger ingroups as a significant contributor to success in the post-merger environment. In some M&As, both pre-merger brands continue to operate simultaneously in the post-merger environment, and it is in this context that the ingroup plays an important role in post-merger integration. This research looks at ingroup development within a post-merger joint-brand context in order to assess the significance of ingroup identification within the post-merger environment. Ingroup development involves generating member identification with the pre-merger ingroup, rather than building identification with the post-merger organisation as a whole. Although there is literature to support the continuation of pre-merger ingroup identity in the post-merger environment, ingroup identification has generally been seen as a hindrance to the merger integration process. A New Zealand based case study was examined to explore the significance of ingroup development in the post-merger context. The research looked into the effects of implementing an "ingroup development intervention" within the case study. The research design used forty semi-structured interviews to create a 'before' and 'after' assessment of the case study in order to gauge the effects of the ingroup development intervention. The findings of the research were analysed using thematic analysis, which was able to assess the change in participant perceptions over a period of time. The findings showed that the ingroup development intervention resulted in a perceived reduction in status differences between the pre-merger groups, as well as a reported improvement in both ingroup and intergroup relations. The findings suggest that in a specified context, ingroup development can have a positive effect on the post-merger environment. The results of the research hold implications for both theorists and practitioners. The research provides intergroup theory with a greater understanding of ingroup identification and the extent to which it is effective within the post-merger environment. For practitioners, the research exhibits the value in post-merger organisations committing to long-term identity development for staff.</p>

The Effects of Ingroup Development in a Post-Merger Joint-Brand Context

<p>Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) involve a complex relationship between two previously separate organisations. Social Identity Theory (SIT) has been applied to the study of M&As as a way to better understand this relationship. To date, SIT literature has focused on developing the relationship between the merging organisations, in turn relinquishing the identity of the pre-merger organisations in favour of the new organisational identity. This research examines the constructs of the pre-merger groups, focusing on the pre-merger ingroups as a significant contributor to success in the post-merger environment. In some M&As, both pre-merger brands continue to operate simultaneously in the post-merger environment, and it is in this context that the ingroup plays an important role in post-merger integration. This research looks at ingroup development within a post-merger joint-brand context in order to assess the significance of ingroup identification within the post-merger environment. Ingroup development involves generating member identification with the pre-merger ingroup, rather than building identification with the post-merger organisation as a whole. Although there is literature to support the continuation of pre-merger ingroup identity in the post-merger environment, ingroup identification has generally been seen as a hindrance to the merger integration process. A New Zealand based case study was examined to explore the significance of ingroup development in the post-merger context. The research looked into the effects of implementing an "ingroup development intervention" within the case study. The research design used forty semi-structured interviews to create a 'before' and 'after' assessment of the case study in order to gauge the effects of the ingroup development intervention. The findings of the research were analysed using thematic analysis, which was able to assess the change in participant perceptions over a period of time. The findings showed that the ingroup development intervention resulted in a perceived reduction in status differences between the pre-merger groups, as well as a reported improvement in both ingroup and intergroup relations. The findings suggest that in a specified context, ingroup development can have a positive effect on the post-merger environment. The results of the research hold implications for both theorists and practitioners. The research provides intergroup theory with a greater understanding of ingroup identification and the extent to which it is effective within the post-merger environment. For practitioners, the research exhibits the value in post-merger organisations committing to long-term identity development for staff.</p>

Can ingroup love harm the ingroup? Collective narcissism and objectification of ingroup members

We examined how collective narcissism (a belief in ingroup greatness that is underappreciated by others) versus ingroup identification predicts treatment of ingroup members. Ingroup identification should be associated with favorable treatment of ingroup members. Collective narcissism, however, is more likely to predict using ingroup members for personal gain. In organizations, collective narcissism predicted promoting one’s own (vs. group) goals (prestudy: N = 179), and treating coworkers instrumentally (Study 1: N = 181; and longitudinal Study 2: N = 557). In Study 3 ( N = 214, partisan context), the link between collective narcissism and instrumental treatment of ingroup members was mediated by self-serving motives. In the experimental Study 4 ( N = 579, workplace teams), the effect of collective narcissism on instrumental treatment was stronger when the target was an ingroup (vs. outgroup) member. Across all studies, ingroup identification was negatively, or nonsignificantly, associated with instrumental treatment. Results suggest that not all forms of ingroup identity might be beneficial for ingroup members.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.