Atypical practices of crossing categories or genres are generally discouraged in the market, but the ideal of the Renaissance mind1 persists. Building on recent work elaborating the need to reward the greater risk associated with atypicality for it to survive, this article provides the first systematic, direct evidence for such a reward. We focus on stylistic inconsistency—mixing distinct artistic styles. In a between-subject experimental design, 183 subjects estimated the aesthetic and market value of consistent and inconsistent sets of artworks by Pablo Picasso in three status conditions. Controlling for cognitive difficulties posed by inconsistency, we show that inconsistency is rewarded (i.e., evaluated higher than consistency on aesthetic value) only at high status. Status cues guide perception so that inconsistent works by a prominent artist are given the benefit of the doubt and interpreted as a sign of creativity. The association with creativity leads to a reward for atypicality in the absence of tangible proof that it performs better than typicality.
AbbottAndrew. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AckermanJames. 1962. “A Theory of Style.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism20:227–37.
3.
AmabileTeresa M.1983. The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
4.
AshenfelterOrleyGraddyKathryn. 2003. “Auctions and the Price of Art.” Journal of Economic Literature41:763–87.
5.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A.1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51:1173–82.
6.
BarthFredrik1966. Models of Social Organization. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
7.
JensBeckertAspersPatrik, eds. 2011. The Worth of Goods: Valuation and Pricing in the Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BergerJohn. 1989. The Success and Failure of Picasso. New York: Vintage Books.
9.
BergkvistLarsRossiterJohn R.2007. “The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research44:175–84.
10.
BudnerStanley. 1962. “Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable.” Journal of Personality30:29–50.
11.
CarneyJames. 1991. “Individual Style.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism49:15–22.
12.
CavesRobert. 2002. Creative Industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
ClemensElisabethCookJames. 1999. “Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change.” Annual Review of Sociology25:441–66.
14.
CohenBernard P.SilverSteven D.1989. “Group Structure and Information Exchange.” Pp. 160–81 in Sociological Theories in Progress, edited by BergerJ.ZelditchM.Jr.AndersonB.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
CooperDouglas. 1970. The Cubist Epoch. London: Phaidon Press.
16.
CorrellShelleyRidgewayCecilia L.2003. “Expectation States Theory.” Pp. 29–51 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by DelamaterJ.New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17.
CottingtonDavid. 1998. Cubism in the Shadow of War: The Avant-Garde and Politics in Paris 1905–1914. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
CowlingElizabeth. 2002. Picasso: Style and Meaning. London, UK: Phaidon Press.
19.
FinneyHenry. 1993. “Mediating Claims to Artistry: Social Stratification in a Local Visual Arts Community.” Sociological Forum8:403–431.
20.
GalensonDavid. 2009. Conceptual Revolutions in Twentieth-Century Art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GetzelsJacob W.CsikszentmihalyiMihaly. 1969. “Aesthetic Opinion: An Empirical Study.” Public Opinion Quarterly33:34–45.
22.
GingerasAlison. 2004. “Performing the Self: Alison Gingeras on Martin Kippenberger.” Artforum International43(2):253.
23.
GoodmanNelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
24.
HannanMichael T.PólosLászlóCarrollGlenn R.2007. Social Codes and Ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
KempMartin. 2004. Leonardo. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
KraussRosalind. 1999. The Picasso Papers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
LampelJosephLantThereaShamsieJamal. 2000. “Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries.” Organization Science11:263–69.
28.
McCallMichal. 1978. “The Sociology of Female Artists.” Pp. 289–318 in Studies in Symbolic Interaction, edited by DenzinN. K.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
29.
MooreJames. 1985. “Role Enactment and Self-Identity.” Pp. 262–316 in Status Rewards and Influence: How Expectations Organize Behavior, edited by BergerJ.ZelditchM.Jr.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30.
MunroThomas. 1946. “Style in the Arts: A Method of Stylistic Analysis.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism5:128–58.
31.
NeumeyerAlfred. 1942. “Picasso and the Road to American Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism2:24–41.
32.
PadgettJohnAnsellChristopher. 1993. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.” American Journal of Sociology98:1259–1319.
33.
Palau i FabreJosep. 1990. Picasso Cubism (1907–1917). New York: Rizzoli.
34.
PatrickVanessaHagtvedtHenrik. 2011. “Aesthetic Incongruity Resolution.” Journal of Marketing Research48:393–402.
35.
PeracchioLauraMeyers-LevyJoan. 1994. “How Ambiguous Cropped Objects in Ad Photos Can Affect Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research21:190–204.
36.
PhillipsDamon J.TurcoCatherineZuckermanEzra W.2013. “Betrayal as Market Barrier: Identity-Based Limits to Diversification among High-Status Corporate Law Firms.” American Journal of Sociology118:1–32.
37.
PhillipsDamon J.ZuckermanEzra W.2001. “Middle-Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets.” American Journal of Sociology107:379–430.
38.
PocheptsovaAnastasiyaLabrooAparna A.DharRavi. 2010. “Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing Research47:1059–69.
39.
PodolnyJoel M.1993. “A Status-Based Model of Market Competition.” American Journal of Sociology98:829–72.
40.
PodolnyJoel M.1994. “Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange.” Administrative Science Quarterly39:458–83.
41.
PontikesElizabeth. 2012. “Two Sides of the Same Coin: How Ambiguous Classification Affects Multiple Audiences’ Evaluations.” Administrative Science Quarterly57:81–118.
42.
PreacherKristopher J.HayesAndrew F.2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavior Research Methods40:879–91.
43.
RaderMelvin. 1958. “The Artist as Outsider.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism16:306–18.
44.
RidgewayCecilia L.2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues57:637–55.
45.
RidgewayCecilia L.BackorKristenLiYan E.TinklerJustine E.EricksonKristan. 2009. “How Easily Does a Social Difference Become a Status Distinction?” American Sociological Review74:44–62.
46.
SchapiroMeyer. 1953. “Style.” Pp. 287–312 in Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inquiry, edited by KroeberA. L.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
SimpsonCharles. 1981. SoHo: The Artist in the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
SmithEdward. 2011. “Identities as Lenses: How Organizational Identity Affects Audiences’ Evaluation of Organizational Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly56:61–94.
49.
SobelMichael E.1982. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equations Models.” Pp. 290–312 in Sociological Methodology, edited by LeinhartS.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50.
TroyerLisaYountsC. Wesley. 1997. “Whose Expectations Matter? The Relative Power of First- and Second-Order Expectations in Determining Social Influence.” American Journal of Sociology103:692–732.
51.
Van de VenAndrew H.FerryDiane. 1980. Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons.
52.
VelthuisOlav. 2003. “Symbolic Meanings of Prices.” Theory and Society32:181–215.
53.
WartofskyMax. 1993. “The Politics of Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism51:217–25.
54.
WhiteHarrison. 2002. Markets from Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
WoodWendyKartenStephen J.1986. “Sex Differences in Interaction Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:341–47.
56.
ZhaoXinshuLynchJohn G.Jr.ChenQimei. 2010. “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research37:197–206.
57.
ZuckermanEzra. 1999. “The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount.” American Journal of Sociology104:1398–1439.
58.
ZuckermanEzraKimTai-YoungUkanwaKalindavon RittmannJames. 2003. “Robust Identities or Nonentities?” American Journal of Sociology108:1018–74.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
