STATUS AND CREATIVITY 2 Pow ontrol the ability o a pa you ividuals who may be /"L0 ect to or others (Kell uld Results sing access to valued r should Manipulation checks. Iwo co ders.blind o both the experimental the more power an individual has.the s fications of the essay: rand.2001).The tendency of the powerful to disregard others nd thus m nore adept at generating(Galinsky I,po ant (reve and sub dinate (re -coded 2008 were should infuse )and archy.we do wer.F2.142) 3.6 ha actors to be and anxious than their lov disposal.This reaso ning leads u oredict that the relationshir condition felt mor en power and a different form than v 001 relationship between power and creativity to be positive and tion between status and evaluation,)199. 0.0 nd powe at the tically important.b whether e pow .weus d in St igher up n the po hierarc should boo 0.00 p=977,n =0.001 ting these differential effects of status and po would ain effect of we.F2.14216.67.p<00 16.70 (M=13.24.SD=5.36.96) =234.p owe Method s in the middl 142 6221.001.=0.305.When ideas wer bein part in the stud 060, ant main effec e of power instead of sta sby using an adapted vers G女yae nts in the 0.5 Specifically.participants read. M-2.87.SD=0.551.96=-3.19.p=002.and1ow-powcothers (Blader & Chen, 2012). We expect that this key distinc￾tion between status and power would also lead to differential effects on creativity. Power is typically defined as the extent to which an individ￾ual controls valued resources (Fiske, 2010; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Therefore, unlike low-status individuals who may be liberated by having nothing to lose (Blau, 1955; Hollander, 1960), low-power individuals live in a world of risk and loom￾ing threats because they lack access to valued resources and are therefore subject to the whims of others (Keltner et al., 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Gaining power should alleviate this vulnerability, as increasing access to valued resources should also increase feelings of control (Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2009; Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011). Moreover, the more power an individual has, the less concerned and less aware of others’ needs and opinions he will be (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Lee-Chai, Chen, & Char￾trand, 2001). The tendency of the powerful to disregard others’ judgments makes them more resistant to conformity pressure and thus more adept at generating creative solutions (Galinsky et al., 2008). Therefore, although both power and status should infuse individuals with confidence at the top of the hierarchy, we do not expect low-power individuals to be as creative as those with high power (Galinsky et al., 2008), nor do we expect middle￾power actors to be more insecure and anxious than their low￾power counterparts, given they have more resources at their disposal. This reasoning leads us to predict that the relationship between power and creativity will take a different form than we found for status. That is, unlike with status, we expect the relationship between power and creativity to be positive and linear. Comparing status and power at the middle of the hierarchy is theoretically important, because doing so sheds light on why middle status (as opposed to middle power) is uniquely con￾straining. If power involves control over resources, then being higher up in the power hierarchy should boost confidence. However, because status is rooted in the subjective evaluations of others, the threat of status loss should become more acute, as in the middle of the status hierarchy versus in the high and low positions (any deviation risks criticism and rejection). Demon￾strating these differential effects of status and power would further strengthen the argument that threat of loss underlies the relationship between status and creativity. Method Participants and design. One hundred forty-eight partici￾pants (mean age 19.96 years; females 47%) took part in the study, which consisted of a 3 (power: high vs. middle vs. low) 2 (evaluation: yes vs. no) between-participants design. Participants were undergraduate students who were given course credit for taking part in the study. Procedure. The procedures of the study were the same as Study 1, with one exception. We manipulated the psychological experience of power instead of status by using an adapted version of Galinsky and colleagues’ (2003) power prime. Participants recalled situations in which they had high, middle, or low power. Specifically, participants read, Power determines the extent to which people control the ability of another person or persons to get something they want, or are in a position to evaluate those individuals. Please recall a particular inci￾dent in which you were part of a group and in that group your power relative to others was “HIGH,” that is at the top of the power hierarchy/ around the “MIDDLE” that is, neither the top nor the bottom of the power hierarchy/”LOW,” that is at the bottom of the power hierarchy. Please describe this situation in which you had high/middle/low power – what happened, how you felt, and so forth Results Manipulation checks. Power. Two coders, blind to both the experimental condition and hypotheses, categorized the priming essays as high, middle, low power, or whether they could not determine which category the essay belonged to. The coders’ classifications of the essays were 100% consistent with the conditions. As an additional power manipulation check, participants re￾ported to what extent they felt influential, independent, powerful, unimportant (reverse-coded), and subordinate (reverse-coded; Duguid & Goncalo, 2012). Endpoints were 1 (very little) and 9 (a great deal),  .87. ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of power, F(2, 142) 56.12, p  .001, p 0.007. Participants in the high-power condition (M 5.69, SD 0.55) felt more powerful than those in the middle-power (M 4.06, SD 0.43), t(96) 16.18, p  .001, and low-power (M 2.35, SD .53), t(98) 30.96, p  .001, conditions. Moreover, participants in the middle￾power condition felt more powerful than those in the low-power condition, t(96) 17.59, p  .001. There was no significant main effect of evaluation, F(1, 142) 0.01, p .927, p 0.007, or interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 142) 1.99, p .140, p 0.007. In order to determine whether the power manipulation also influenced individuals’ perceptions of status, we used the manip￾ulation check for status used in Study 2,  .92. ANOVA revealed no main effect of power, F(2, 142) 0.44, p .644, p 0.006, evaluation, F(1, 142) 0.88, p .350, p 0.006, or interaction between status and evaluation, F(2, 142) 0.02, p .977, p 0.001. Creativity. Number of ideas generated. As expected, ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of power, F(2, 142) 16.67, p  .001, p 0.190. Participants in the high-power condition (M 16.76, SD 9.05) generated more ideas than those in the middle-power (M 13.24, SD 5.36), t(96) 2.34, p .022, and low-power (M 9.88, SD 6.83), t(97) 4.27, p  .001, conditions. Participants in the middle-power condition also generated more ideas than those in the low-power condition, t(97) 2.73, p .008. There was also a significant main effect of evaluation, F(1, 142) 62.21, p  .001, p 0.305. When ideas were being evaluated, participants generated more ideas (M 17.19, SD 8.81) than when ideas were not being evaluated (M 9.45, SD 3.60). There was no significant interaction of power and evalua￾tion, F(2, 142) 2.90, p .060, p 0.039. Idea novelty. ANOVA also revealed a significant main effect of power for idea novelty, F(2, 142) 133.91, p  .001, p 0.654. Participants in the high-power condition (M 3.22, SD 0.55) generated more novel ideas than those in the middle-power (M 2.87, SD 0.55), t(96) 3.19, p .002, and low-power 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 9