6 DUGUID AND GONCALO typical function (e.g.,ears for protection).The total number of typical features v and so their r ratings were averaged together to create an overal 144)identifie n overall measure of threat of 83 with high or low status,(85)=0.17.p= 867 There was also F1,124 which included 9.01. was anonymous (M Results an inte ion checks The status manipulatio status (M=2.85.Sp 1.35)partic and re (0.0 -401p2001 points were 1 (very or low-status (M 1.23.5D 1.11)40) 4.27 2.124 i0.1,p2001,ng =O.139.Pl 06)th Presid ere not bein 135.84)=2 38.p=004.or Assistant role (M=3.56 evaluate the number of h lated SD high-status (M 1.20,50 100.4 .F(1. 1240= sD=09444) -0.15p=882 evaluation F(2 124)=2 20 ence in number of threat-r late g the 24)= 1.00.p ction betweer .F2 632 All that was h they were ran 9 ANOVA reveale no main effect of dra 402. 0.006.There was,however. tatus and evaluatio mid and lo s indivi 013 status par ativity nigh -status (M =3.86.SD 14).140)04 when threa and lo taus(M=3.91,SD=2.00.40)=2.06,p=.046 of status los was entered into the regression,B 0.34,t 1.4 caivhn re not significantly less creative than high-status (M=3.53 not in the no- aluation condition.138 166 status n the bia 95% confidence inter below the nose), (d) had an exaggerated or unusual ability (e.g., eyes that had laser beams), or (e) had sensory organs that served an atypical function (e.g., ears for protection). The total number of atypical features was tallied for each participant. The ratings of the two coders reached significant agreement (ICC 0.77, p .008), and so their ratings were averaged together to create an overall measure of creative performance. Threat of status loss. To create an overall measure of threat of status loss, we computed a composite measure by summing the number of threat-related words selected. Scores ranged from 0 to 6; higher scores indicated a stronger feeling of threat of status loss (DeMarree et al., 2005). Finally, participants completed a short survey, which included questions related to demographic information and the manipula￾tion checks. Results Manipulation checks. Status. The status manipulation was checked using four items adapted from Anderson, John, Keltner, and Kring (2001). This included the question, “How much status, prominence and respect would others grant you?” Endpoints were 1 (very little) and 9 (a great deal),  .80. ANOVA revealed a main effect of status, F(2, 124) 10.11, p  .001, p 0.139. Participants randomly assigned to the President role felt higher status (M 5.25, SD 1.06) than those assigned to the Middle Manager role (M 4.33, SD 1.35), t(84) 2.38, p .004, or Assistant role (M 3.56, SD 1.37), t(86) 4.59, p  .001. Additionally, Middle Man￾agers felt higher status than Assistants, t(88) 2.00, p .046. There was no significant main effect of evaluation, F(1, 124) 0.32, p .571, p 0.003, nor an interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 124) 2.20, p .108, p 0.03. Individuals’ perceptions of power were also measured using the scale from Study 1 ( .91). ANOVA revealed no main effect of status, F(2, 124) 1.00, p .370, evaluation, F(1, 124) 1.99, p .160, or the interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 124) 0.46, p .632. Evaluation. All participants reported information that was consistent with the evaluation condition to which they were ran￾domly assigned. Creativity. ANOVA revealed no main effect of status, F(2, 124) 0.19, p .825, p 0.003, nor evaluation, F(1, 124) 0.71, p .402, p 0.006. There was, however, a significant interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 124) 4.18, p .017, p 0.063. Planned contrasts showed that when they thought their drawings were being evaluated, middle-status partic￾ipants generated less creative drawings (M 2.55, SD 2.27) than high-status (M 3.86, SD 1.74), t(40) 2.11, p .041, and low-status (M 3.91, SD 2.00), t(40) 2.06, p .046, participants. There was no significant difference in the creativity of high- and low-status participants, t(42) 0.08, p .936. In contrast, when they did not think their drawings were being eval￾uated, middle-status participants’ (M 4.33, SD 2.20) drawings were not significantly less creative than high-status (M 3.53, SD 2.23), t(44) 1.22, p .230, and low-status (M 3.38, SD 1.75), t(41) 1.55, p .128, participants. There was also no significant difference in the creativity of high- and low-status participants, t(41) 0.25 p .802. Threat of status loss. We hypothesized that being middle status would elicit the strongest threat of status loss when individ￾uals expect to be evaluated. ANOVA on the composite measure of threat of status loss revealed a main effect of status, F(2, 124) 7.73, p .001, p 0.111, such that middle-status participants (M 1.98, SD 1.44) identified more threat-of-status-loss￾related words than high-status (M 1.24, SD 1.10), t(83) 2.65, p .010, or low-status (M 1.20, SD 1.01), t(86) 2.94, p .004, participants. There was no significant difference in threat-of-status-loss-related words chosen by those with high or low status, t(85) 0.17, p .867. There was also a main effect of evaluation F(1, 124) 9.01, p .003, p 0.07. When participants assumed they were being evaluated, they iden￾tified more threat-related words (M 1.75, SD 1.41) than when they thought their performance was anonymous (M 1.20, SD 0.98). Importantly, there was also an interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 124) 7.15, p .001, p 0.103. Planned contrasts showed that when they thought their drawings were being evaluated, middle-status (M 2.85, SD 1.35) partic￾ipants identified more threat-of-status-loss-related words than high-status (M 1.27, SD 1.20), t(40) 4.01, p  .001, or low-status (M 1.23, SD 1.11), t(40) 4.27, p  .001, participants. There was no significant difference in threat-of￾status-loss-related words identified by high- and low-status participants, t(42) 0.13, p .897. Conversely, when they thought their drawings were not being evaluated, the differences in the number of threat-related words identified by middle-status participants (M 1.22, SD 1.04) and high-status (M 1.20, SD 1.00), t(41) 0.06, p .956, and low-status (M 1.17, SD 0.94), t(44) 0.15, p .882, participants were not significant. There was also no significant difference in number of threat-related words identified by high￾and low-status participants, t(41) 0.09, p .930. Mediation analysis. To test the hypothesis that threat of status loss accounts for the relationship between status and evaluation on creativity, we conducted a mediation analysis. There was no main effect of status,  0.03, t 0.38, p .704, or evaluation,  0.07, t 0.81, p .418. There was also an interaction between status and evaluation on creativity,  0.65, t 2.59, p .011, such that when individuals thought their drawings were being evaluated, middle-status participants generated less creative draw￾ings than high- and low-status participants, but there was no significant difference in the creativity of the drawings generated by high-, middle-, and low-status individuals when they did not think their drawings were not being evaluated. There was also a signif￾icant relationship between threat of status loss and creativity, 0.44, t 5.48, p  .001. The interaction between status and evaluation on creativity was no longer significant when threat of status loss was entered into the regression,  0.34, t 1.41, p .161. To further interpret these findings, we examined the conditional indirect effects at the levels of status. These effects showed that threat of status loss mediated the effect of evaluation on creativity in the evaluation condition, z 1.95, p .035, but not in the no-evaluation condition, z 1.38, p .166. To assess whether threat of status loss mediated the interactive effects of status and evaluation on creativity, we utilized bootstrap estimates to generate bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Based on 1,000 samples, the 95% CI ranged between 0.19 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 6 DUGUID AND GONCALO