Squeezed in the Middle: The Middle Status Trade Creativity for Focus

Classical research on social influence suggested that people are the most conforming in the middle of a status hierarchy as opposed to the top or bottom. Yet, this promising line of research was abandoned before the psychological mechanism behind middle status conformity had been identified. Moving beyond the early focus on conformity, we propose that the threat of status loss may make those with middle status more wary of advancing creative solutions in fear that they will be evaluated negatively. Using different manipulations of status and measures of creativity, we found that when being evaluated, middle status individuals were less creative than either high status or low status individuals (Studies 1 & 2). In addition, we found that anxiety at the prospect of status loss also caused individuals with middle status to narrow their focus of attention and to think more convergently (Study 3). We delineate the consequences of power and status both theoretically and empirically by showing that, unlike status, the relationship between power and creativity is positive and linear (Study 4). By both measuring status (Studies 2 & 3) and by manipulating it directly (Study 5), we demonstrate that the threat of status loss explains the consequences of middle status. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our results for future research on status and problem solving on tasks that require either focus or flexibility

Follow the Crowd in a New Direction: When Conformity Pressure Facilitates Group Creativity (And When It Does Not)

Adopting a person by situation interaction approach, we identified conditions under which conformity pressure can either stifle or boost group creativity depending on the joint effects of norm content and group personality composition. Using a 2 x 2 x 2 experimental design, we hypothesized and found that pressure to adhere to an individualistic norm boosted creativity in groups whose members scored low on the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979), but stifled creativity in groups whose members scored high on that measure. Our findings suggest that conformity pressure may be a viable mechanism for boosting group creativity, but only among those who lack creative talent

Hidden Consequences of the Group Serving Bias: Causal Attributions and the Quality of Group Decision Making

A long stream of research in attribution theory suggests that groups are biased toward attributing their success to factors that are internal to their group. However, the existing research has confounded two types of attributions that are both internal to the group, but theoretically distinct: (1) Attributions that differentiate between the contributions made by each individual group member and (2) attributions that focus on the group as a whole. This dichotomy is important because, drawing on theories of social influence, we predict that different types of attributions will have different consequences for the quality of group decision making. In experiment 1, individually focused attributions for past success caused groups to consider more divergent alternatives prior to making a shared decision. In experiment 2, individually focused attributions for past success facilitated the sharing of unique information and improved decision accuracy. These findings suggest that the group serving tendency to internalize success may have important consequences for group performance that have not yet been considered in current research

Creativity from Constraint? How Political Correctness Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Groups

Most group creativity research is premised on the assumption that creativity is unleashed by removing normative constraints. As work organizations become increasingly diverse in terms of gender, however, this assumption needs to be reconsidered since mixed-sex interactions carry a high risk of offense. Departing from the assumption that normative constraints necessarily stifle creativity, we develop a theoretical perspective in which creativity in mixed-sex groups is enhanced by imposing a norm to be politically correct (PC)—a norm that sets clear expectations for how men and women should interact with one another. We present evidence from two group experiments showing that the PC norm promotes rather than suppresses members’ free expression of ideas by reducing the uncertainty they experience in mixed-sex work groups. These results highlight a paradoxical consequence of the PC norm: A term that has been used to undermine expectations to censor offensive language as a threat to free speech actually provides a normative foundation upon which demographically heterogeneous work groups can freely exchange creative ideas. We discuss the implications of our findings for managing creativity in diverse groups and under conditions of uncertainty, and the counterintuitive role that normative constraints play in that process

Politically correct norms encourage creativity among mixed-sex work groups

They reduce uncertainty, write Jack A. Goncalo, Jennifer Chatman, Michelle M. Duguid and Jessica A. Kenned

Living Large: The Powerful Overestimate Their Own Height

Three experiments tested the prediction that individuals’ experience of power influences perceptions of their own height. Power decreased judgments of an object’s height relative to the self (Study 1), made participants overestimate their own height (Study 2) and caused participants to choose a taller avatar to represent them in a second-life game (Study 3). These results emerged regardless of whether power was experientially primed (Study 1 and 3) or manipulated through roles (Study 2). Although a great deal of research has shown that physically imposing individuals are more likely to acquire power, this work is the first to show that the powerful may actually feel taller than they are. The discussion considers implications for existing and future research on the physical experience of power.Goncalo35_Living_Large.pdf: 4658 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

ILR Impact Brief - Group Success Depends on Giving Individuals Credit Where Credit Is Due

[Excerpt] Does the tendency of groups to take credit for their success without acknowledging the input of specific group members affect subsequent group performance? In a word, yes. This “group-serving bias” may cause groups to ignore or underestimate the potentially unique contributions made by each individual member, a common practice that can lead to inferior outcomes. When groups ascribe their success to individuals, they are more likely to explore a wide range of divergent alternatives before reaching consensus. Attribution to individuals also facilitates the sharing of information that is known to only one member of the group but is critical to making the right, or best, decision