STATUS AND CREATIVITY and98.If the CI does not include ero.the indirect effect is word word and the color r of the word would be different.In both Discussion olor of the ompared with high-and low atus individuals. eveal ev one's final sco e on the task to the entire o in th the drawings eing eval ted,there were told hat u ce o r.we measured and direct O he After the S pleted a short survey.which incud Study3 graphic infe manipulation check The t Results ions.The cor or task pe nce are no Manipuation checks ible that the thre e fror of at 0.196 3) to th anager role (M 8.p ticinants signed to the Middle Manger k 1950 Wells Matthews 100d)Thus s we predict that the evaluation.F(1.136)=0.18.p=.671. 0.001 and ne improve cov mddl rather than diver 136 =0.18.p cal cor ary of ou e aso measured using the thi e ction us valuation.F(136)0.8 之 on which All but one participant ted information tha f the luding the data yielded the identical patter of resuts. rinted in vellow ink ked t the coo of ne with previous r we compu d th the ink whe the Stroop e as an hen it did match the color.Perforn ce on this task improve .200 Baumcister. 200% Nemeth et al.1992) atencies e ater thn deviations above the men (.e Method 000ms)￥ RTodedas2.00 c=20.25 s:fer took part in the stud vs.mddle OW) 136)=0.91.p=342.=0.007.However.as expected,the tin the study in sude 2 The s was m same participants as a study of information processing and coor per-and 0.98. If the CI does not include zero, the indirect effect is deemed significant, and mediation can be said to be present (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Discussion Consistent with the pattern of results in Study 1, we found that when being evaluated, middle-status individuals generated less creative drawings compared with high- and low-status individuals. When their drawings were not being evaluated, there was no difference in creativity for middle-status, high-status, and low￾status individuals. Moreover, we measured and directly demon￾strated the threat of status loss as the mechanism underlying the relationship between status and evaluation and creativity. Study 3 The results of Studies 1 and 2 suggest that individuals with middle status will be at a disadvantage on tasks that demand creative solu￾tions. The consequences of middle status for task performance are not necessarily negative, however. It is possible that the threat of status loss might cause individuals with middle status to narrow their focus of attention, filter out irrelevant stimuli, and think more convergently on only a subset of relevant information (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010). It is well known that when individuals experience relatively intense negative emotions like anxiety (as opposed to low-intensity negative emotions like sadness), their attentional focus narrows (East￾erbrook, 1959; Wells & Matthews, 1994). Thus, we predict that the perceived threat of status loss may actually boost performance on tasks that demand narrowed rather than broadened attention, and convergent rather than divergent thought. Our prediction that middle status should improve cognitive control is a logical corollary of our prediction that middle status should diminish creativity: Performance on both kinds of tasks is impacted by a narrowed focus of attention, only in opposite ways. We test this prediction using the Stroop test (Stroop, 1935)—a task on which convergent thinking actually facilitates performance (Friedman & Förster, 2005; Nemeth, Mosier, & Chiles, 1992; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996). On this task, participants view the name of a color printed in ink of the same color (e.g., the word “Red” printed in red ink) or a different color (e.g., the word “Red” printed in yellow ink) and are asked to name the color of ink. Stroop (1935) reported that participants took significantly more time to name the ink when the word did not match the color than when it did match the color. Performance on this task improves when participants are able to focus their attention more conver￾gently on the color of ink while filtering out the word itself (Nemeth et al., 1992). Method Participants and design. One hundred forty-two participants (mean age 20.25 years; females 45%) took part in the study, which consisted of a 3 (status: high vs. middle vs. low) 2 (evaluation: yes vs. no) design. Participants were undergraduate students who were given course credit for taking part in the study. Procedure. Status was manipulated using the same procedure as in Study 2. The next part of the study was presented to participants as a study of information processing and color per￾ception. Participants were told that they would be presented with congruent words, for which the color word and the color of the word would match, and incongruent words, for which the color word and the color of the word would be different. In both conditions, they were told that their task was to respond to the color of the word as quickly and accurately as they could. Partic￾ipants were also either told that their performance on the task was not anonymous, and at the end of the study the experimenter would reveal everyone’s final score on the task to the entire group in the session; or they were told that their performance on the task was completely anonymous, and at the end of the study the experi￾menter would dismiss them without revealing their final score on the task. After the Stroop test, all participants completed the threat of status loss measure used in Study 2. Finally, participants com￾pleted a short survey, which included questions related to demo￾graphic information and the manipulation checks. Results Manipulation checks. Status. Using the scale from Study 2 ( .80), ANOVA revealed a main effect of status, F(2, 136) 16.31, p  .001, p 0.196. Participants randomly assigned to the President role felt higher status (M 4.83, SD 1.13) than those assigned to the Middle Manager role (M 4.03, SD 1.10), t(84) 3.48, p .001, or Assistant role (M 3.51, SD 1.13), t(86) 2.22, p .029. Additionally, participants assigned to the Middle Manger role felt higher status than those assigned to the Assistant role, t(88) 5.65, p  .001. There was no significant main effect of evaluation, F(1, 136) 0.18, p .671, p 0.001, and no interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 136) 0.18, p .838, p 0.003. Individuals’ perceptions of power were also measured using the scale from Study 1,  .79. ANOVA revealed no main effect of status, F(2, 136) 0.43, p .654, evaluation, F(1, 136) 0.88, p .351, or interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 136) 0.79, p .456. Evaluation. All but one participant reported information that was consistent with the condition to which they were randomly assigned. This individual was excluded from the final analyses, but including the data yielded the identical pattern of results. Stroop test. In line with previous research, we computed the difference in time between the incongruent and congruent trials in the Stroop task, and used this difference as an assessment of convergent thinking (DeWall, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2008; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005).1 Moreover, consistent with the procedures detailed in Richeson and Shelton (2003) and Richeson and Trawalter (2005), all Stroop latencies greater than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean (i.e., times 2,000 ms) were recoded as 2,000 ms. Lower scores reflect faster reaction times (RTs) and indicate better information pro￾cessing. Tests of between-subjects effects yielded no main effect of status, F(2, 136) 1.49, p .230, p 0.02, or evaluation, F(2, 136) 0.91, p .342, p 0.007. However, as expected, the 1 Accuracy was not included in the final analysis, because the overall error rate was very low (1%) and including incorrect trials did not impact the results. 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 7