STATUS AND CREATIVITY ing middle 2001) of the eva 5 ond, thus disting able from others (Clydesdale n.&a r could in the nrove their statu a.2006 readily conform to convention,then they may be at a sig diverge too far from existing solutions,they could be crit nand creative I to a lowe and abo than the opportunity for status gain (Pettit et al e in vel.they often run counter to existi articularly compared with moving from an valuation sohtiosmyakoceneomtecrnmorebteresianeiomewah nd fa more practi cal solutions (Mueller. 01 an who express The Present Research nform to e we hy e that the threat of status loss should mak the他mid Is at t if individua are asked part to g deas will be riticized (Diehl 18 to the threat of status loss when ther was the mposed of disp would therefore generate the least crative id individuals (Ca whe ility of this ffe re dividual with middle rospect that their ideas will be ev d negatively by other 05 e underlying psychological pro priate given that ide pert rman liver from ma ntaining their or ma ring threat of (M te ins is that the arm glow of soci cceptan e that high tus rovide atus is unigue to s oppos edo than d fo reative idea may be particularly salient to middl ed by tance of others (oun Chigh middle and low and xpected evaluation Magee&Galinsky.2008). high-status nay be ally ly,they will not d b ted that individuals with middle status ould c ideas Compa with individuals with midd status further down the hierarchy hierarchy.and therefore not likely to make a significant move search on middle-status conformity to the realm of problem solvthose higher up—thus, a rebellious and nonconforming middle manager would not necessarily serve the needs of the group (Huy, 2001). Yet particularly when the majority is in error, it is some￾times important for individuals to defy convention to pursue novel ideas that depart from the status quo (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Goncalo & Duguid, 2012; Goncalo & Staw, 2006). If the threat of status loss causes those with middle status to more readily conform to convention, then they may be at a sig￾nificant disadvantage in situations that demand creative solutions as opposed to those that demand obedience or cooperation. The distinguishing characteristic of a creative idea over and above ideas that are merely practical is that creative ideas diverge in a novel direction from what is known (Amabile, 1983). Because creative solutions are novel, they often run counter to existing knowledge (Ward, 1994) and are thus likely to be controversial, at least initially (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). Creative solutions may also encounter more subtle resistance from evalua￾tors who may explicitly state that they desire creativity, but in the end favor more practical solutions (Mueller, Goncalo, & Kamdar, 2011). In other words, individuals who express a creative idea must be willing to risk criticism and resist substantial pressure to conform to existing solutions (Förster, Friedman, Butterbach, & Sassenberg, 2005; Kim, Vincent, & Goncalo, 2013; Nemeth & Staw, 1989). The potential for negative evaluation impedes cre￾ativity because even if individuals are able to generate creative solutions, they may be reluctant to share them if they fear that their ideas will be criticized (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). For example, groups composed of dispositionally anxious individuals generated fewer ideas when brainstorming compared with groups composed of less anxious individuals (Camacho & Paulus, 1995). Moreover, this difference was not apparent when individuals brainstormed alone, suggesting that the fear of being evaluated was what caused anxious individuals to withhold their ideas (Camacho & Paulus, 1995). Individuals with middle status may be particularly threatened by the prospect that their ideas will be evaluated negatively by others, and these feelings of threat may inhibit their willingness to share creative ideas. These feelings of threat are appropriate given that individuals who express creative ideas, as opposed to purely prac￾tical ideas, risk appearing quirky and unpredictable; impressions that may prevent them from maintaining their position or may cause them to move down the status hierarchy (Mueller et al., 2011). In other words, middle-status individuals operate just out￾side the warm glow of social acceptance that high status provides, yet they are high enough in the status hierarchy to fear the loss of status. Thus, the prospect of being criticized and negatively eval￾uated for suggesting a creative idea may be particularly salient to individuals with middle status. Bolstered by the social acceptance of others (Lount & Pettit, 2012; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), high-status individuals may be more confident that, even if their creative ideas are evaluated negatively, they will not feel threatened by the prospect of status loss. Hence, confidence in the security of their position in the group will embolden high-status individuals to risk suggesting creative ideas. Compared with individuals with middle status, having low status may also be somewhat liberating for two rea￾sons. First, knowing that they are at the very bottom of the status hierarchy, and therefore not likely to make a significant move further down than they already are, may substantial reduce low￾status individuals’ evaluation concerns (Blau, 1955). Second, a viable way to gain status may be by suggesting ideas that are very novel and thus distinguishable from others (Clydesdale, 2006; Merton, 1968; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). Though the middle status could, in theory, improve their status position by being creative, doing so would entail much more risk compared with the risks faced by those with low status. If the middle-status individ￾uals diverge too far from existing solutions, they could be criti￾cized, rejected, and relegated to a lower status position—this risk would be particularly salient given that the prospect of status loss looms larger than the opportunity for status gain (Pettit et al., 2010). Low-status group members may risk moving from “low” to “lower,” but doing so would not constitute a meaningful change in status position—particularly compared with moving from “mid￾dle” to “low” (Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). This relative lack of evaluation apprehension, combined with the potential for acquiring status by standing out from the group, could liberate low-status individuals to suggest novel solutions. The Present Research In sum, we hypothesize that the threat of status loss should make individuals with middle status less creative than individuals at the top or the bottom of the status hierarchy. In Study 1, we manip￾ulated status level and then asked participants to generate new ideas. We expected that middle-status individuals would be most vulnerable to the threat of status loss when there was the prospect of evaluation, and would therefore generate the least creative ideas under conditions of expected evaluation but not under the cover of anonymity. Accordingly, we also manipulated whether partici￾pants expected that their ideas would be evaluated after the exper￾iment or whether they would generate ideas anonymously. In Study 2, we tested the robustness and replicability of this effect using a different status manipulation and a different measure of creativity. In addition, in Study 2, we measured the threat of status loss directly in order to trace the underlying psychological process. In Study 3, we investigated the possibility that having middle status might narrow rather than broaden attention, and improve performance on a task that demands convergent rather than diver￾gent thought. We again investigated the role of threat of status loss by both manipulating expected evaluation and measuring threat of status loss directly. One implication of our theoretical perspective is that the curvi￾linear relationship between creativity and status is unique to status as opposed to power. Because power is derived from control over resources rather than conferred by the group, individuals with middle power should feel less susceptible to the threat of status loss (Blader & Chen, 2012). Hence, in Study 4, we manipulated power level (high, middle, and low) and expected evaluation. Finally, in Study 5, we investigated the threat of status loss directly, by manipulating the stability of the status hierarchy. We expected that individuals with middle status would experience less status threat, and thus be just as creative as their counterparts with high or low status when they are assured that they cannot move further down the hierarchy. The current set of studies extends existing research in at least two important ways. First, our findings extend the classical re￾search on middle-status conformity to the realm of problem solv￾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. STATUS AND CREATIVITY 3