10 DUGUID AND GONCALO Alhough most of the does not take in novel ideas than th se in the low-power con dition,97=12.17 in sor ces.individuals may 048.0027 e that stable and oaluated rticipants ated more novel were not being e 903s and Given that we found that middle-status individuals Discussion The pesults revealed that individuals who exn nced high powe hen the middle ced low t in th others (An nd who are ut their s ding in the stat ecaus moving from nay no ary of g d about and e ing from a middle-status hey bec e less co mps &ckerman.2001). ce,when the status even at the middle of the hier solutions thn the topor whereas increasing powe y the th that the threat of loss.We test these predictions in the following study. Method Study Participants and design. We have theorized that middle- sindividuals are concemed ants (mean age=1.6 years:females45.3%)took part in the n status Tand th at mak es individuals more focus whic high vs.mi c vs.low) this the undergraduate students who were paid $10for stud of tho ith midd th as thos ant role in our theorizing becase upcoming task,they could never )move down nth d.in the real world,status hi dcdqpcstion related to demographic s to Results hether the hierarchy is stable (you can never move down)or Manipulation checks. role in the 4749.p<001. Picsidcntrocrcthihcrtatsw tatus as the xtent to which one perceives that an ate ative stat 123)= 4.79.p<.001.or Assi tant role (M 293 SD position is likely to berealiz In stable 122 08P≤.001 001. nstable hierarchies may believe that changing status rank ain effect of status stability,F(181)=0.45 (M 1.52, SD 0.56), t(97) 15.37, p  .001, conditions. Participants in the middle-power condition also generated more novel ideas than those in the low-power condition, t(97) 12.17, p  .001. In addition, there was a significant main effect of evaluation, F(1, 142) 3.96, p .048, p 0.027. When ideas were being evaluated, participants generated more novel ideas (M 2.62, SD 0.91) than when ideas were not being evaluated (M 2.44, SD 0.92). However, there was no a significant interaction of power and evaluation, F(2, 142) 2.90, p .916, p 0.001. Discussion The results revealed that individuals who experienced high power generated more ideas and more novel ideas than those who experi￾enced middle or low power. Likewise, individuals who experienced middle power were more creative than those who experienced low power. Given that status is granted by others (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Fiske, 2010; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007), individuals with middle status who are concerned about their standing in the status hierarchy may be wary of going against convention for fear that they will be evaluated negatively and lose status. However, as individuals’ power increases, they become less concerned about and less constrained by others’ opinions and judgments (Galinsky et al., 2006; Lee-Chai et al., 2001), and therefore they will generate more creative ideas. Thus, whereas increasing power, even at the middle of the hierarchy, may help mitigate feelings of threat, moving from low to middle status seems to exacerbate feelings of threat. Building upon Studies 2 and 3, these results lend further support to the argument that the threat of status loss may be driving middle-status insecurity. Study 5 We have theorized that middle-status individuals are concerned with status loss and this threat makes individuals more focused but less creative. The results from our previous studies are consistent with this theoretical account—introducing the possibility of eval￾uation exacerbated perceived threat, which, in turn, stifled the creativity of those with middle status. One limitation of our previous studies is that we did not vary the stability of the status hierarchy. This limitation is important for two reasons. First, the stability of the status hierarchy plays an impor￾tant role in our theorizing because we suggest that the threat of status loss may occur when individuals can possibly move further down the hierarchy (i.e., when the hierarchy is potentially unstable rather than fixed). Second, in the real world, status hierarchies may vary in the extent to which they are stable or unstable. Thus, it is important to vary this dimension of status to specify more pre￾cisely the scope conditions of our theory. In Study 5, we manip￾ulated the threat of status loss directly by systematically varying whether the hierarchy is stable (you can never move down) or unstable (you can move down). The stability of a status hierarchy may play a role in the behaviors of social actors who are in high, middle, and low positions. Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) defined the stability of status as the extent to which one perceives that an alternative status position is likely to be realized. In stable hierarchies, individuals may assume that their current status rank is constant, whereas those in unstable hierarchies may believe that changing status rank is possible. Although most of the literature on status does not take into account the stability of the hierarchy but rather conceptualizes status as a static construct, in some instances, individuals may perceive that the status hierarchy is stable and unlikely to be altered, whereas in other instances, they may perceive that there is the possibility to change their status position (Jordan, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2011). There is an influential body of literature that shows that individuals’ beliefs about the stability of the status structure affects individuals’ perception, attitudes, decisions, and behaviors (e.g., Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg, 1993). Given that we found that middle-status individuals were more susceptible to the threat of status loss when being evaluated than high- and low-status individuals, we would expect those with middle status to be much more conservative in the number and novelty of ideas they express when the status hierarchy is unstable and there is the possibility of moving down in rank. We suggest that high-status individuals may be more confident in their social acceptance and, hence, assume they have more leeway to take risk. Low-status individuals, on the other hand, may think they have less to lose because moving from “low” to “lower” may not represent as meaningful or significant a change in status position as moving from a middle-status position to a low-status position (Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). Hence, when the status hierarchy is unstable, individuals with middle status may be less likely to suggest creative solutions than individuals at the top or the bottom of the status hierarchy. Conversely, when the status hierarchy is stable, the middle status may not be stifled by the threat of status loss. We test these predictions in the following study. Method Participants and design. One hundred eighty-seven partici￾pants (mean age 19.06 years; females 45.3%) took part in the study, which consisted of a 3 (status: high vs. middle vs. low) 2 (status stability: stable vs. unstable) between-participants design. Participants were undergraduate students who were paid $10 for taking part in the study. Procedure. The cover story and status manipulation were the same as those used in Study 2. In order to manipulate the stability of the status hierarchy, after the status manipulation, participants were told that (regardless of/depending on) their performance in the upcoming task, they could (never/always) move down in the status hierarchy. The upcoming task was the same creativity task used in Study 2. At the end of the study, participants completed a short survey, which included questions related to demographic information and the manipulation checks. Results Manipulation checks. Status. ANOVA revealed a main effect of status, F(2, 181) 47.49, p  .001, p 0.344. Participants randomly assigned to the President role felt higher status (M 4.99, SD 1.30) than those assigned to the Middle Manager role (M 4.00, SD 0.98), t(123) 4.79, p  .001, or Assistant role (M 2.93, SD 1.22), t(122) 9.08, p  .001. Additionally, Middle Managers felt higher status than Assistants, t(123) 5.40, p  .001. There was no significant main effect of status stability, F(2, 181) 0.45, p .503, p 0.002, nor an interaction between status and status 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. 10 DUGUID AND GONCALO