Intergroup processes in intragroup contexts: The roles of group status, group identification and communication in diverse work teams

The present research examines employee identification and communication in organisations. In Study 1, 2229 soldiers from a military organisation completed measures of perceived status and strength of identification with their unit, employment category and their brigade. As predicted, the status of a key organisational group influenced reactions to different organisational groups: full-time soldiers evaluated their work unit and the organisation as being lower in status and identified less strongly with both of these groups than part-time soldiers. The second study extended these findings to a different research context: a large psychiatric hospital undergoing downsizing and restructuring. Surprisingly, there were no differences in survivors' and victims' levels of identification with organisational groups. Instead, and consistent with Study 1, there was evidence to suggest that employees adjusted their patterns of identification and perceptions of group status through a compensatory mechanism that maximised opportunities for selfenhancement and positive distinctiveness. In the third study, employees from a public hospital (N = 142) rated communication from double ingroup members (same work unit/same occupational group) more favourably than communication from partial group members (same work unit/different occupational group). These results are considered in terms of their practical implications for identity management in organisations.

Grumbling, voting, demonstrating, and rioting: ''Rationality'' and decision-making in intergroup conflict

An individual faced with intergroup conflict chooses A from a vast array of possible actions, ranging from grumbling among ingroup friends to voting and demonstrating to rioting and revolution. The present paper conceptualises these intergroup choices as rationally shaped by perceptions of the benefits and costs associated with the action (expectancy-value processes). However, in presenting a model of agentic normative influence, it is argued that in intergroup contexts group-level costs and benefits play a critical role in individuals' decision-making. In the context of English-French conflict in Quebec, in Canada, four studies provide evidence that group-level costs and benef influence individuals' decision-making in intergro conflict; that the individual level of analysis need mediate the group level of analysis; that group-level co and benefits mediate the relationship between soc identity and intentions to engage in collective action; a that perceptions of outgroup and ingroup norms for inte group behaviours are relatively invariant and predictal related to perceptions of the group- and individual-le, benefits and costs associated with individualistic vers collective actions. By modelling the relationship betwe group norms and group-level costs and benefits, soc psychologists may begin to address the processes th underlie identity-behaviour relationships in collecti action and intergroup conflict.