NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 motivational factors (Fajak & Haslam, 1998; Schmitt, Branscombe, &

62 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 motivational factors (Fajak & Haslam, 1998; Schmitt, Branscombe, &

Postmes, 2003). Further research also provides evidence of a number of other behavioral nuances that are consistent with social identity and self-categorization prin- ciples. For example, research by Mummendey and colleagues has shown that group members are less likely to display ingroup favoritism when they are awarding penalties rather than rewards—a finding which Reynolds et al. (2000; Turner & Reynolds, 2001) explain in terms of self-categorization theory’s principles of comparative and normative fit. Research in hospitals and scientific organizations by Terry and her colleagues examining the reac- tions of high- and low-status groups to organizational mergers has also found that employees of the high-status group typically show ingroup favoritism when evaluating the two groups on status-relevant dimensions, but that they display outgroup favoritism on status-irrelevant dimensions (Terry & Callan, 1998; see also Terry et al., 2001; Terry & O’Brien, 2001; for an overview see Terry, 2003). As a corollary, members of the low-status group are more likely to acknowledge the inferiority of the ingroup on status-relevant dimensions, but to accentuate their superiority on the status-irrelevant ones. These patterns are understood by the authors to be highly consistent with social identity theory’s predictions concerning the dimensions on which high- and low-status groups are likely to display ingroup and outgroup favoritism, depending on the stability of intergroup differences and the reality constraints these represent (see also Ellemers, van Rijswijk et al., 1997).

Along related lines, early field studies by Stephenson and Brotherton (1973, 1975) also found that the level of discrimination between coal mine employees was not constant across groups but depended on the level of pre- existing disagreement between groups as well as their relative size (see also Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984). In a slightly different vein, research has also shown that people’s willingness to display ingroup favoritism is constrained by audience factors. In interaction with group status, surveillance from in- group and outgroup members is thus a critical moderator of acts that favor the ingroup and disadvantage the outgroup (Ellemers, van Dyck, Hinkle, & Jacobs, 2000). Among other things, this means that individuals are less likely to discriminate against an ingroup or an outgroup to the extent that their behavior is monitored by members of those groups, although this itself depends on the status of those groups, the positions of individuals within them, and the security of intergroup relations (Barreto & Ellemers, 2001; Ellemers, Barreto, & Spears, 1999; Haslam & Reicher, 2002; Jetten et al., 2004; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995; Reicher & Levine, 1994).

Taken together, the above data scotch any suggestion that when a given social identity is salient, motivations to enhance the ingroup will always play themselves out in displays of ingroup favoritism. Again, not only does social identity theory never predict that they would, it clearly predicts the opposite. Paradoxically, though, the fact that many commentators remain blind to this

63 fact can be attributed partly to the success of the original minimal group

S OCIAL I DENTITY IN I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY

studies, and partly to other factors including tendencies toward individualism and psychologization (Turner & Reynolds, 2001). Again, this is because secondary accounts of these studies often lead researchers to believe that the core message of social identity theory is that, when in groups, people automatically evince ingroup favoritism and prejudice (Turner & Oakes, 1997). Ironically, then, such interpretations of the theory lead people away from an analysis of content and context, whereas a proper appreciation of the theory’s reasoning should actually turn them toward it (Turner, 1999, pp. 33– 34; Turner & Reynolds, 2001, p. 149; see also Lalonde, 2002, p. 627).

Beyond Interdependence, Exchange, and Personal Self-interest We noted above that one of the main reasons why the minimal group studies