This experiment tested to what extent identification with a new merger group is determined by the status of that merger group and by the relative representation of the pre-merger ingroup. One hundred university students were assigned to a team of `inductive' thinkers, and were later merged with a team of 'deductive' thinkers to form a team of 'analyst' thinkers. The status of the merger group (low, high) and the relative representation of the ingroup into the novel merger group (low, high) were manipulated. Participants identified more with the merger group in the high than in the low status condition, and they identified more in the high than in the low representation condition. The predicted interaction between relative representation and merger status was not significant. However, relative representation did interact with participants' pre-merger identification: Pre- and post-merger identification were positively related when the ingroup was highly represented, but negatively when the ingroup was lowly represented.