Search

This article introduces a model of the internalisation of normative social harmdoing: the MINSOH. This model seeks to explain how group members internalise harmful social norms such that they personally endorse their groups' normative actions. To this aim, the MINSOH integrates two divergent yet complementary theoretical perspectives: self‐determination theory and the social identity approach. These perspectives differ in their basic assumptions about the possibility for harm to become internalised, yet when integrated, they provide a powerful account of how harmdoing can become internalised. The MINSOH proposes specific conditions under which harmful normative actions become accepted by group members. This article outlines multiple self‐determined motivations for harmdoing and discrete group processes that enable harmdoing to be internalised and autonomously enacted, and reviews factors that facilitate (i.e., strong/unique/comparative social identification; endorsement of ideological justifications) and block the internalisation process (presence of multiple identities/diverging norms; inclusive superordinate identity). Directions for future research are then discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identity integration, and more specifically, the subtractive pattern of cultural identification, is investigated in this article. This pattern is hypothesized to occur when individuals integrate a new group identity of higher and legitimate status than their original identity, resulting in lower identification with the original group. The first study examined how relative status predicts the subtractive pattern of identification in immigrants living in Canada. Studies 2 and 3-conducted among Kyrgyz and Canadian participants-extended these results by measuring the impact of legitimacy on the subtractive pattern of identification. Results support the hypothesis that the subtractive pattern of identification takes place when the new identity has a higher and legitimate status compared with the original one, highlighting the possible different patterns of identity integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using an intergroup perspective, this longitudinal study (N = 215) examined the adjustment patterns of employees from low vs. high status pre-merger organizations. The first questionnaire was distributed 3 months after the implementation of the merger, whereas the second was completed 2 years later. As predicted, members of the low status group perceived the merger to be implemented in a less fair manner at the start of the merger and reported a decreased adjustment to the merger over time. Members of the high status group showed an increase in adjustment over time, lower in-group bias and a stronger identification with the new merged organization. Path analyses further confirmed that identification with the new merged organization mediated the associations between perceptions of fairness and in-group bias as well as changes in adjustment over time. With its longitudinal design, this study replicates and extends past results by revealing the predictors of adjustment for members of low vs. high status groups involved in an intergroup merger. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]