Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Copycatting as a Threat to Public Identity

2012; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 34; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01973533.2012.674418

1532-4834

Stephen Reysen, Mark J. Landau, Nyla R. Branscombe,

Media Influence and Health

Abstract In 4 studies we examined individuals' reactions when another person intentionally copies their distinctive public identity characteristics. In Study 1, participants reacted with anger and a desire to confront the copycat when many (vs. few) public identity characteristics were copied. Study 2 showed that participants did not react negatively to unintended similarity, or when a third party verified participants' ownership of intentionally copied characteristics. In Study 3, negative reactions to copycatting were elevated when a third party erroneously attributed the copied characteristics to the copycat but were not when imagining another person's characteristics being copied. In Study 4, negative reactions to copycatting were attenuated among participants led to focus on intrinsic, versus publicly observable, characteristics of their identity. The results of the present studies provide initial evidence of the threat to one's public identity posed by copycatting. Notes Note. Means with different subscripts are significantly different from the no characteristics copied condition (p < .05). Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. 1One characteristic versus no characteristics comparisons: angry, t(25) = −1.61, p = .12, d = .64; reflect negatively, t(25) = −.62, p = .54, d = .25; intentionality, t(25) = −1.75, p = .09, d = .70; and confrontation intentions, t(25) = −.75, p = .46, d = .30. Two characteristics versus no characteristics comparisons: angry, t(24) = −2.27, p = .03, d = .93; reflect negatively, t(24) = −2.48, p = .02, d = 1.01; intentionality, t(24) = −5.60, p < .001, d = 2.29; and confrontation intentions, t(24) = −4.49, p < .001, d = 1.83. Three characteristics versus no characteristics comparisons: angry, t(28) = −3.74, p = .001, d = 1.41; reflect negatively, t(28) = −2.62, p = .01, d = .99; intentionality, t(28) = −5.74, p < .001, d = 2.17; and confrontation intentions, t(28) = −4.12, p < .001, d = 1.56. Three characteristics versus one characteristic comparisons: angry, t(25) = 2.08, p = .048, d = .83; reflect negatively, t(25) = 2.14, p = .04, d = .86; intentionality, t(25) = 3.43, p = .002, d = 1.37; and confrontation intentions, t(25) = 2.90, p = .008, d = 1.16. Thus, the simple effect tests support the hypothesis that copycatting results in negative reactions when many (vs. few) characteristics of the self are copied.