Reactions of third-graders to recognition allocation after being peer-imitated

Being imitated has generally been regarded as a positive experience conducive to reciprocal imitation of and increased attraction to one’s imitator. An experiment on 3rd-graders, in an adaptation of a Thelen-Kirkland paradigm, investigates whether the receipt of public recognition for a good product would simply amplify those positive effects, or would tend to reverse them, and explores whether gender would moderate models, reactions under such conditions. Recognition allocation was manipulated by having an “authority” award a symbolic star solely to the model, to the confederate imitator alone, to the confederate nonimitator alone, or to no one. The results suggested that the boys rather than girls showed amplification effects of receiving sole recognition: they reciprocally imitated more, and expressed greater attraction to, their same-sex imitator than did the girls. Overall, models expressed relatively less attraction to the imitator than to the nonimitator. When interviewed, the models were equally divided as to which of the two deserved the recognition when they themselves or their imitator received it, but they stated unequivocally that the nonimitator who received the recognition deserved it. They also clearly stated a preference for those tasks on which they themselves had been imitated—given that they themselves or their imitator had received recognition credit, compared to models in the nonimitator-recognition and control conditions. It is clear that recognition allocation is an important construct that should be considered in investigating models, reactions to being imitated, particularly in the light of its significance in the adult world, at least of this culture. Several directions are proposed for pursuing this construct further.