Download - Van Baaren Et Al 2009

7/23/2019 Van Baaren Et Al 2009

1/10

Where Is the Love? The Social Aspects of MimicryAuthor(s): Rick van Baaren, Loes Janssen, Tanya L. Chartrand and Ap DijksterhuisSource: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 364, No. 1528, Evolution,Development and Intentional Control of Imitation (Aug. 27, 2009), pp. 2381-2389Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012.

Accessed: 18/12/2014 04:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophical

Transactions: Biological Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.120.118.241 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:49:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rslhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40486012?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl


2/10

PHILOSOPHICAL

TRANSACTIONS

OF

"fj

THE

ROYAL

W'

SOCIETY

JlJ

Phil.

Trans. . Soc. B

(2009) 364,

2381-2389

doi: 0.1 98/rstb.2009.0057

Where

is

the love?

The social

aspects

of

mimicry

Rick

van

Baaren1'*,

Loes

Janssen2,

anya

L.

Chartrand3

and Ap Dijksterhuis1

1

Behavioral

cience

nstitute,

adboud

University

ijmegen,

he Netherlands

2

Department

f

Communication,

wente

niversity,

he Netherlands

3Fugua

Business

chool,

Duke

University,

urham,NC,

USA

One

striking

haracteristic

f human

ocial nteractionss unconscious

mimicry;eople

have a

tendency

o take

ver

ach

other's

osture,

mannerismsnd

behaviours ithoutwareness. ur

goal

sto make

he

ase that

nconscious

imicrylays

n

important

ole

n

human

ocial nter-

action

nd

to show

hat

mimicry

s

closely

elated o and

moderated

y

our connectedness

o

others.

irst

we

will

position

uman

nconscious

mimicry

n

relation o

types

f mitationsed

in

cognitive

sychology

nd

cognitive

euroscience.

hen we

will

provide upport

or ocial

moderation

f

mimicry.

haracteristics

f both

the mimickernd the

mimickeenfluencehe

degree

f

mimicry

n a

social

nteraction.

ext,

we turn

o the

positive

ocial

consequences

f

thisunconsciousmimicryndwewillpresent ata showing owbeing mitatedmakespeople

more ssimilative

n

general.

n the inal

ection,

e discuss

what hese

indingsmply

or

heorizing

on

the

mechanisms

f

mitation

nd

point

ut everalssues hat

eedto

be resolved efore

start

can

bemade

o

ntegrate

his

ield

n thebroader

ontext

fresearchn imitation.

Keywords:

mitation;ocial;

humans

Imitation,

y

definition,

s a

truly

ocial

phenomenon:

it

takes

wo

to

imitate.

lthough

t

first

lance

his

statement

may

seem

somewhat

rivial,

he

social

nature

f

mitation

n

fact

as

notbeen

fully

ppreci-

atedbycurrentheorizingn imitation. hereaswe

know

lot bout

he

mechanisms

f

mitation

rom

cognitive-,

evelopmental-

nd

neuropsychological

perspective,

he

ocial

moderators

nd

consequences

are ess

wellunderstood.

o we

mitate

verybody

r

are

wemore

elective?

ow does

our

relationship

o

the

mimicker

rmimickee

oderate

mitation

nd

ts

consequences?

hat

are the

social

consequences

f

imitation?

he

purpose

f

this

paper

s to

present

evidence

or

he

ocial

ide

of mitation

nd

by

doing

so,

hopefully

nspire

ther

disciplines

o

integrate

these

indings

n

their

heorizing

nd

empirical

ork.

It is

not the

ntention

o

provide

complete

eview

ofall thework oneon mimicryfor review,ee

Chartrand

VanBaaren

009),

nstead,

he

paper

s

written

o

make

strong

ase

for ocial

processes

n

this

ype

f

mitation.

In

the

next

ections

we

will

provide

vidence

or

social

moderators

nd

consequences

f

mimicry,

whereafter

e

will

discuss

the

fit

and

misfit

with

current

heorizing.

t is

not

our

ntention

o

ntegrate

the

present

hapter

n the

theorizing

one

in other

chapters

n this

pecial

ssue,

imply

ecause

here

s

just

oo

ittle

esearch

n this

ype

f

mimicry

n

cog-

nitive

sychology

nd

cognitive

euroscience.

hat

we

do instead

s

point

out

which

uestions,

n our

*

Author

or

orrespondence

[email protected]).

One

contribution

f

1 to

a Theme

Issue

'Evolution,

development

and

intentional

ontrol

f

mitation'.

view,

houldbe addressed

y

studies

n

the near

future.

irst,

however,

e

will

clarify

hat

type

of

imitation

s the

focus f

this

aper.

1. TYPE OF

IMITATION:UNCONSCIOUS

HUMAN

MIMICRY

The social

sychological

tudies

roviding

videnceor

the social

side

of imitation

ave

mostly

ocused

n

human

mimicry.

n this

field,

mimicry

s denned

s

unconscious

r automatic

mitationf

gestures,

eha-

viours,

facial

expressions,

peech

and

movements

(for

n extensive

eview ee

Chartrand

Van Baaren

2009).

A

prototypical

xample

s when

wo

people

n

a bar are

nvolved

n a conversation

nd are

unaware

of thefact hat

hey

ake

on the

same

posture,

od

their

eads,

nd make

he ame

face

rubbing

r hair

touchingmovements.his typeofmimicryhus s

different

rom he

more

onscious

ypes

f mitation

that ave

been

tudied

n therealm

f

earning,

od-

elling

nd

acculturation

e.g.

Bandura

1962).

This

type

f

mimicry

s

also different

rom

he

types

sed

in

research

n

cognitive

sychology

nd

cognitive

neuroscience

hat as

focused n

imitation

see

other

chapters

n

the

special

ssue).

The difference

n this

case

centres

round

wareness;

re

you

aware

f the

behaviour

ou

ee

and are

you

ntentionallyrying

o

copy

t?

When

t comes o unconscious

mimicry,

he

answer o

those

questions

s

'no'.

In

most

ognitive

and

neuropsychological

tudies,

t

leastone of

these

questionss answeredy yes'.

A related

ey

ifference

etween he ocial

psycho-

logical

tudies

ndmost f

he tudies

n

cognitive-

nd

cognitive

euroscience

s the

elativeocus n

ecological

2381

This

journal

s 2009 The

Royal Society

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

2382 R. van Baaren

et al. Social side

of

mimicry

versus nternal

alidity.

Most studies

on unconscious

mimicry

se

an observational

method

nd one is

in a

sense

waitinglike

an

amateur

bird-watcher)

ntil

the

behaviour

o be

imitated

s

spontaneously

roduced.

This

is

in contrastwith

many

tasks used

in

cognitive-

nd

cognitive

euroscience

here ften

stimulus-response

compatibility

ask is

used

(e.g.

Prinz

1990;

Iacoboni

et l. 1999;Brass t l. 2001;Massen& Prinz 009) and

the

behaviour

f nterest

s either

nstructed

r

inherent

in the taskor

participants

re

consciously

bserving

behaviour

nd

their

pontaneous

motor r

neurological

responses

re

coded.

It

is

important

to realize

that,

in

studies

on

unconscious

human

mimicry,

mimicry

s

just

a

by-

product

in the

interaction.

The

participants

are

focusing

n

something

ompletely

ifferent

e.g.

work-

ing

on a

picture

describing

ask

Chartrand

&

Bargh

1999)

or

judging

advertisements

Van

Baaren

et al.

2003))

and

they

are

unaware

of

the

behaviour,

he

mimicry

nd

the fact

hat

the researchers

may

n fact

be interestedn something lse otherthantheirrele-

vant task the

participant

s

working

n....

In

sum,

the

type

of

imitation

we have

researched

most

extensively

s

unconscious,

peripheral

mimicry.

A

prototypical

example

of

an

experimental

investigation

f

human

unconscious

mimicry

s

the

'Chameleon

effect'

Chartrand

&

Bargh

1999).

In

this

research,

articipants

nteracted

ith

n unknown

confederate

n two consecutive

picture-describing

sessions.

In one

session,

the confederate

either

rubbed

her face

or shook

her foot

while

describing

the

pictures

with the

participants,

while the

second

confederate

performed

he

behaviour

that the

first

confederateid

not. The

behaviour

fthe

participants,

'secretly'

ecordedon

videotape,

howedthatpartici-

pants

shook

their

foot

more in the

presence

of

the

foot-shaking

onfederate,

and

rubbed

their

faces

more

n

the

presence

of the

face-rubbing

onfederate.

Debriefing

ndicated

hat

participants

ere

unaware

f

their

mimicry.

2.

EVIDENCE

FOR SOCIAL

MODERATORS:

MIMICKER

CHARACTERISTICS

The

Chameleon

effect

Chartrand

&

Bargh

1999)

did

show thatthere s an

automatic

human

tendency

o

mimic behaviour

and mannerisms.

However,

sub-

sequent researchrevealedwe don't imitateeveryone

all the

time. Our

tendency

to

unconsciously

mimic

is moderated

by

both

enduring

and

temporary

characteristicsf the

mimicker

nd the

mimickee.

First,

nonconscious

mimicry

s increased

when

people

are more

focusedon the

individuals

round

them.

Providing

nitial

support

for this

contention,

Chartrand

&

Bargh

(1999, study

3)

found

that

people

high

n

perspective

aking

i.e.

who are

paying

more attention o those

around

them)

mimicked

he

behaviour

of a

confederate o a

greater

xtentthan

those ow

in

perspective

aking.

Additional

evidence

for the

moderating

role of

concern with others comes from researchby van

Baaren et

al.

(2003).

In three

tudies

that

either em-

porarilyrimed

elf-construal

rientation

r

compared

participants

rom

ifferent

ultures,

n

interdependent

Phil

Trans.R. Soc.

B

(2009)

self-construal

was associated

with

more

automatic

mimicry

than

with

an

independent

self-construal.

In

essence,

self-construal

efers

to the

extent

to

which

people

perceive

hemselves

s

unique

individ-

uals,

independent

f others

nstead

of

connected

to,

and

dependent

on,

others

see

Brewer

1991).

Even

though,

n

general,

ome

people

are

enduringly

more

dependent than independent, elf-construalan be

temporarily

modified.

For

example,

priming

artici-

pants

by presenting

hem

or

having

hem

read

words

like

T,

'me'

or mine'

versus

we',

us'

or

our'

tempor-

arily

hifts

heir

elf-construals

n

the

social-personal

dimension.

This

in turn

influences

he

degree

of

unconscious

mimicry

n a

subsequent

interaction

with

a

stranger

Van

Baaren

et

al.

2003;

study

2).

That

is,

participants

ith

ither

temporary

r endur-

ingly

dominant

and

interdependent

elf

were

more

likely

o

nonconsciously

ake

on

the

behaviours

nd

mannerisms

of

a confederate.

Using

a stimulus

response

compatibility

ask

(a

dependent

variable

morecommonto cognitive sychologyompared

to

spontaneous

mimicry),

Leighton

et al.

(submitted)

recentlyonceptually

eplicated

his

effect.

Finally,

enduring

or

temporary

ttention

o

and

concern

with

others

have

been

shown

to

moderate

the

extent

o

which

ndividuals

mimican

interaction

partner.

or

example,

an

affiliation

oal

is associated

with

more

mimicry

han

no affiliation

oal,

as

has

been

shown

by

Lakin

& Chartrand

2003).

This held

regardless

f

whether

he

goal

was

consciously

held

after

getting

xplicit

nstructions

o

get

along

with

another

person,

or

nonconsciously

held

after

being

subliminally primed

with

affiliation-related

ords

such

as

affiliate,

riend,eam,

partner,

nd

like.

Thus, whenwe are more concernedwithothers,

depend

more

on

them,

feel

closer

to

them,

or

want

to be

liked

by

them,

we tend

to

takeover

their

ehav-

iourto

greater

xtent.

This

malleability

f

mimicry

s

beautifully

aptured

by

Brewer's

1991) optimal

dis-

tinctiveness

heory.

he

theory

uggests

hat

people

try

o

strike

balance

between

desire

for

distinctive-

ness

i.e. feeling nique

anddifferent

rom

thers)

nd

a desire

for ssimilation

r

belonging

i.e.

feeling

imi-

lar to

others).

When

people

feel

too

distinct

r

too

similar,

they

are

motivated

to

regain

the

balance.

Thus,

they

have

a

need

to

assimilate

activated

n

situations

where

they

feel unusual

or

different.

n a

study pplying heprinciples fthis heoryomimicry

behaviour,

Uldall

et

al.

(submitted)

had

participants

complete

a

supposed

'personality

est'.

They

were

given

(bogus)

feedback

on

the

test

that

indicated

they

had

a

'personality

ype'

hat

was

either

ery

imi-

lar

to

most

others

t their

ndergrad

nstitution

r one

that

was

extremely

nusual

at

their

niversity.

artici-

pants

then

nteracted

with nother

tudent

actually

confederate),

nd

those

who had

earlier

een

told

they

were

very

ifferent

rom thers

t their

chool

engaged

in more

mimicry

f

the confederate

han

those

who

had

been told

they

were

similar

to

others

at

their

school.

This

suggests

hat

people

mimic

more

when

they refeeling oo differentromn-groupmembers.

Mimicry

s a

way

that

people

(nonconsciously)

egain

their

optimal'

balance

(Brewer

1991)

by

affiliating

with others

n an

effort

o

belong.

It

is

important

o



4/10

Social side

of

mimicry

R.

vanBaaren et al

2383

note the difference

etween

riming

r

activating

self-construalnd the

manipulation

sed in the

Uldall et al

(2008)

study.

Whereas

ndependent

r

interdependent

elf-construalsre self-construalshat

can

differ

etween nd

within

eople,depending

n

context,

heUldall t

l

manipulation

ntails n

extre-

mely

ependent

r

ndependentriming.

his

means

that t s outside he normal' oundariesfhow we

relate

o

others

nd

we

(unconsciously)

eel heneed

to

restore

he alance.

n

the

xperiments

n affiliation

goals

nd

self-construal,

owever,

he

priming

s not

extremend

people

assimilateo

the

prime,

nstead

of

restoring

balance.

Extremity

s

the

moderating

principle

ere

Brewer

991).

Social

processes

an extend

o a basic

perceptual

and

cognitive

evel,

nd

research rom ultural nd

social

psychology

ndicated

hat he

mimickerharac-

teristics,

uch as

self-construal,

re correlated ith

the

perceptual

nd

cognitive

imickerharacteristics

(Witkin

t al

1979;

Witkin

Goodenough

981;

Ji t al 2000).Fielddependence,or xample, hich

refers

o the

phenomenon

f

perceptually

ntegrating

objects

n

their

ontext,

oes together

ith

ocially

being

more ttunedo others.

n the ther

and,

ield

independence,

hich

s

he

endency

o

perceptually

so-

late

objects

rom

heir

ontexts,

s related

o a

socially

independent

indset.

n three

xperiments

y

Van

Baaren

t l

(2004a,>),

he

ognitive

tyles

field

epen-

dency

ersus

ield

ndependence)

ere ither

measured

or

experimentally

rimed

nd

then the

degree

of

unconscious

imicry

n

a

subsequent

nteraction

as

measured.

As

expected,

he more

field

dependent

participants

ere n a test

f

cognitive

tyle

e.g.

the

HiddenFigures est,Witkin t al 1971) the more

they

mimicked

heir

nteraction

artner.

his attests

the

dea that

he

mimicker

haracteristics

nfluencing

our

unconscious

mimicry

re

deeply

rooted and

fundamental.

3.

EVIDENCE

FOR

SOCIAL

MODERATORS:

MIMICKEE

CHARACTERISTICS

Another

mportant

ocialmoderator

f

mimicry

s our

evaluation

f the

characteristics

f our interaction

partner.

When

we

like

person,

r

his/her

thnicity,

or

group

membership

r social

tatus,

e

will mitate

that erson oa greaterxtentompared

o whenwe

do not

positively

valuate those characteristics.

Johnston

nd

colleagues

have

conductedseveral

experiments

roviding

vidence

or

his ffect.

irst,

Johnston

2002) investigated

he

mpact

f a

social

stigma

n

mimicry.

n two

tudies,

articipants

ere

ostensibly

working

n an icecream

tasting

ask

together

ith

nother

erson

a

confederate),

ho

had

or had

not a visible

ocial

stigma

being

bese,

or

having

facial

car).

The confederate

te a lot or

a little

ce creamnd

t

was

assessed

whether

he

par-

ticipant

mimicked

he

ce cream

onsumption.

he

results

evealed

ndeed

mimicry

ffect

f he

partici-

pant'sconsumption;owever,

o

mimicry

ccurred

when he onfederatead a visibleocial tigma. he

theory

s that

mimicry

unconsciously)

reates

a

bond

or connection etween ndividuals nd that

humans

automatically

nd

unconsciously ry

to

Phil. Trans.

. Soc. B

(2009)

prevent

mimicry

n

caseswhere

hey

o

not want o

bondwith

nother

erson.

Taking

tmore

roadly

han

ocial

tigma,

tel t

l

(submitted)

ave

explored

he

relationship

etween

evaluationr

iking

fa

target

nd

mimicry.

n a

first

study

where

articipants' priori

iking

or

target

was

manipulated

nd

their

mimicry

f

that

person

was thenmeasured,hey ound hatwhen targets

disliked,

acial

mimicry

s

attenuated.

n

another

study,

reaction ime

measure o assess

implicit

associations

IAT,

ee

Greenwaldt

l

1998)

towards

Dutch and Moroccans

was

administered. ith

his

measure,

he relative

valuation f

Dutch

versus

Moroccans an

be

quantified.

n a

subsequent

ession,

participants

atched

ideos of both a Dutch actor

and a Moroccan

actor

performing

ome

clerical

tasks nd in

addition

erforming

ome subtle

eha-

viours,

uch as face/hair

ouching

nd

pen-playing.

Hidden videocameras

egistered

he

participants'

behaviours

nd

twasfound hat he

mplicit

ttitudes

correlatedith nconscious imicry,hats, hemore

negative articipants

ere owards oroccans

elative

to

Dutch,

he ess

relatively

hey

mimicked Moroc-

can

compared

o a

Dutch actor. imilar esults ere

previously

btained

by

Yabar et al

(2006),

where

instead f ethnic

ttitudes,

mplicit

ttitudes

owards

Christians

versus on-Christians)

ere sed.

Finally,

several ther tudies oundmaineffectsf

ngroup

outgroup

distinctionon

mimicry.

Heider &

Skowronski

submitted)

onducted

study

n which

African-merican nd Caucasian

participants

nter-

actedwith

woconfederatesne after he

other,

ne

African-American

nd one Caucasian.

They

found

more mimicry f ethnic ngroupmembers hanethnic

outgroup

members.

imilarly,

ourgeois

&

Hess

(2008)

foundmorefacial

mimicry

f

ingroup

membershan

utgroup

embers.

In

sum,

here

s

ample

vidence or ocialmoder-

ation

of

mimicry,amely,

he

humannonconscious

tendency

o imitate.We

do not

ust

mitate

verybody

all the ime.We mitatemorewhen:we

feel

onnected

to

others,

thers re

important,

e want o affiliate

with

thers,

e are

ocially

riented

r have

n

assim-

ilative

ognitive tyle.

Furthermore,

n

addition o

these more

general

mimicker

haracteristics,

he

characteristics

f

he

mimickee

lso

moderate

imicry.

A

priori

valuations

f those

targets redict

our

subsequentmimicry.

In

the

next section

we

discuss

another ine of

evidence

ending trong

upport

or view hat

mimi-

cry

s

closely

elatedo nfluencesnd s nfluenced

y

social

rocesses

nhuman nteractions.

hen,

wemove

on to

an

attempt

o

integrate

hese ocial

moderators

and

consequences

n

current

heorizing

n mitation.

4.

SOCIAL

CONSEQUENCES

OF UNCONSCIOUS

MIMICRY: ON

THE DYAD

In

many

ommercialooks

on

influencend

making

friends,

mitations

offered

s one of the

means o

create good mpressionnd have positiveelation

or

rapport

ith

thers

e.g.

Lieberman

000).

There

is now

xperimental

vidence hat

his ndeed

ccurs.

Positive

ocial

consequences

ave

been

observed

or



5/10

2384 R. van Baaren et al. Social side

of

mimicry

mimicry

f

body

movementsnd

peech

ariables.

n a

typical xperiment,

participant

nd a confederate

workon an irrelevantask.

During

that

task,

the

confederate

imics

or not)

the

posture,

annerisms,

andbehavioursf the

participant

fter

short

elay.

These can be

gestures

r movementsuchas

face-

rubbing,

oot-shaking,

laying

ith

pen,

orientation

ofthebody avoidingmovementshat ndicate ower

or

status),

r

speech

ariables

uch s

using

he ame

phrases

of

speech.

This subtle

mimicking

lmost

always

s

completely

nnoticed

y

the

participant.

After

his imitation

manipulation,

he

dependent

variable

s

assessed,

which s often

n evaluation

f

or behaviour

owards

he onfederate.

Chartrand

Bargh

1999)

found hat

articipants

who were

subtly

mimicked

y

a confederate

iked

that onfederate

ore

nd had smoothernteractions

with hat

onfederate.

he

developmentalsychology

literature

ocuments

vidence

hat nfants

eact

more

favourably

owards

dults

who mitate

hem han

dults

who do not Meltzoff990;Asendorpft al. 1996).

Interestingly,

imilar

onsequences

ave een bserved

in

human

computer

nteractions.

ailenson

& Yee

(2005)

had a realistic

nterface

gent

i.e.

an

avatar

using

virtual

eality

echnology)

ither

mitating

he

participant's

ead

movements

r

performing

ifferent

headmovements.

he

imitating

nterface

gents

were

rated

s more

ikeable ndmore

persuasive

han he

non-mimicking

vatars.

Similarly,

uzuki et al.

(2003)

found hat

mimicry

f

ertain

prosodie)

rop-

erties

fa

participant's

oice

by computer

gent

ed

to more avourable

valuations

f he

omputer

gent.

Thus,

he valuative

onsequences

f

mitationre

not

unique

o human-humannteractions.

VanBaaren t l (2004a,>;xperiment)found hat

being

mitated ot

only

nfluencesvaluations

uch

s

liking

r

rapport,

ut also

makes

eople

behave

n a

more

ro-social

anner.n this

tudy,

mimicking

r

non-mimickingxperimenter

accidentally' ropped

several

ens

on thefloor. he

dependent

ariable

as

whether

articipantsot

off heir hairs nd

startedo

help

(a

measure

eveloped

y

Macrae

&

Johnston

1998).

The results evealed

hat mitated

articipants

were

considerably

ore

helpful

han

non-imitated

participants.

his effect

as

recentlyeplicated

ith

eighteen-month

ld hildren

Carpenter

t l.

ubmitted).

Whatwas confounded

n the

tudies,

n the

onse-

quencesof mitation,s that he effectsf mitation

were

measured is-a-vishe

mitator.his s

mportant

to

note,

ecause tcould

heoretically

e

possible

hat

theeffects

f mitationre

not restrictedo

the

dyad

and the mitator.

erhaps

he effects

xtend

eyond

the relation etween

he mitatornd

the

mitated.

Accordingly,

t affects

he mitated

erson

n a more

fundamental

ay.

t is

possible

hat

mitation akes

one more

ro-socially

riented

n

general.

5. SOCIAL

CONSEQUENCES

OF UNCONSCIOUS

MIMICRY:BEYOND

THE

DYAD

Initial upport or his dea was obtainedn studies

looking

t the

ffectsf

being

mimickedn behaviour

towards

eople

other han

hemimicker

Van

Baaren

et al.

2004a,>).

imilar o the

previously

escribed

Phil

Trans.R. Soc.

B

(2009)

experiment,

articipants

ere

mimicked

r

not

by

an

experimenter

nd

the effects

n

prosocial

ehaviour

were ssessed.

This

time,

owever,

he

experimenter

who

mimicked

he

participant

aid

he was

finished,

and

that

new

xperimenter

ould ome

n and

eft

the

oom.

After

while,

he

new

xperimenter

ntered

theroom

nd

dropped

he

pens

on

the

floor.

Were

mimicked articipants oreprosocial fterbeing

mimicked,

ven

though

he

person

was

somebody

else rather

hanthe

mimicker?

he results

evealed

indeed hat

lso this

new

person

enefited

orm

he

increased

ro-sociality

f

a mimicked

articipant.

t

could

be the

case

that hese

esults

an be

explained

by

a transfer

f

the

pro-social

rientation

owardshe

mimickingxperimenter

nto

the

new

experimenter,

because

they

have

similar oles

and

operate

n the

same

setting.

o control

his,

he

next

tudy

ooked

at

prosocial

behaviour

owards

n

abstract,

on-

human

ntity:

onation

o

a

charity.

fter

he mita-

tion

manipulation,

articipants

ere

eft

lone

n a

room,with hemoneyhey eceivedor articipatingand

they

were sked ofill ut a

questionnaire

nthe

'CliniClowns'

Dutch

charity

rying

o

alleviate

he

stay

n

hospital

or

eriously

ll children.

here

was

a

sealed

collection

ox

in the

corner

f the

room

nd

participants

ere

in the

position

o

anonymously

donate

or not.

Whereas

non-mimicked

articipants

on

average

onated

little

nder

0 eurocents

o the

CliniClowns,

he donation

ncreased

pto

almost

0

eurocents

for those

whose

behaviour

had been

mimicked.

6. SOCIAL

CONSEQUENCES

OF

UNCONSCIOUS

MIMICRY:SELF-CONSTRUAL

Howcan these

eneral

onsequences

e

explained?

s

was

described

n the section

on

moderators

f

mimicry,

elf-construals

re

intimately

inked

to

unconscious

mitation.

interdependent

or

social)

self-construal

oes

hand

n hand

with

mimicry

nd

prosocial

behaviour,

whereas

n

independent

or

personal)

elf-construal

s

associated

with

ess

mimi-

cry.

A

bi-directional

inkbetween

his

mindset nd

mimicry

ould

xplain

he

general

ocial

onsequences

described

n the

previous

aragraph.

shton-James

et al.

(2007)

tested

he

dea

that elf-construal

ay

mediate he

ffect

f

mimicry

n

prosocial

ehaviour.

In one of he xperiments,articipantseremimicked

during

an

initial

nteraction.

fter

his

mimicry

manipulation,

heir

self-construal

as

assessed

using

he

Twenty

tatements

est'

(TST,

Kuhn

&

McPartland

954),

n which

articipants

ad to

give

twenty

nswers

o

the

question

Who

am

I?'.

The

answers

othis est

re

hen oded

for

nterdependence

(social

roles,

onnections

o

others,

.g.

I amTom's

brother)

nd

independence

unique

attributes,

er-

sonal

characteristics,

.g.

I

am

tall).

After

he

TST,

the

measure

f

prosocial

ehaviour

in general)

ook

place.

The

participant

as asked

to

help

another

researcher,

ho

was unable

o

pay

hem,

ith nother

experiment.shton-Jamest l. (2007) indeed ound

an effect f

mimicry

n both

self-construal

nd

prosocial

ehaviour

nd,

n line

with

he

hypotheses,

self-construal

ediated

he

mimicry-prosocial

ffect.



6/10

Social side

of

mimicry

R.

van

Baaren et al

2385

Thus,

being

mitated

makes

people

feelmore attuned

to and connected

withothers.

As was

previously

mentioned,

here s an intimate

linkbetween elf-construal

nd

cognitive tyle.

Assim-

ilation n

a

behavioral

evel

goes

hand

n

hand with

n

assimilative

nformation

rocessing

tyle, mplying

hat

if

being

mimicked eads

to a social self-construal

hen

it should also lead to an interdependent field-

dependent)

ognitive tyle.

Van Baaren et

al.

(2004a,>;

experiment

)

found evidence

for this

hypothesis.

After

a

mimicry

manipulation,participants

whose

behaviour

had been

unobtrusively opied

scored

better

n

a

memory

ask

sensitive

o

contextualized

memory

Chalfonte

Johnson 996).

In this

measure,

the relative

osition

of an

object

in relation

o other

objects

s the

focus of interest nd

an

example

of an

interdependent

rocessingtyle.

(a)

Present

study

However,

the

question

remains

whether

being

mimickedreally leads to an assimilativemindset.

Instead,

t could

be the case

that,

through

mimicry,

we tend

to

relate

people

and

objects

to their ontext

and

see

them

n relation

o other

people

and

objects,

but

we do

not

necessarily

have to

assimilate

bject

and

context.

Contrast

could also

be an

outcome

of

such

a

comparative

rocess.

Here,

we will

present

study

designed

to test

whether

mimicry

ndeed

truly

leads to

an assimilative

endency.

o

people

actually

see

more

similarities

between

objects

or

people

after

being

mimicked?

To test

this,

a measure

developed

by

Mussweiler

2003)

will be used

(see

appendix

A).

In this

ask,

articipants

ee two different

pictures nd are asked to ratehow similar heyfind

them.

There

are

no

right

or

wrong

answers

and

because

there

is

no context

or

comparison

to

other

pictures,

here

are

no anchors

to

perform

he

task.

Hence,

the

similarity

udgement

s based

on

a

general

tendency

to

assimilate

or contrast.

In

this

experiment

we

will test the

hypothesis

that

being

mimicked

ndeed

moves

people

to be

more

assimilative

n

general

and

we

expect

mimicked

participants

o

perceive

more

similarity

etween

the

two

pictures.

7. METHOD

(a)

Participants

and

design

Twenty-one

tudents

rom

adboud

University

ijmegen

were

andomly

ssigned

o

one

or two

between-subjects

conditions,

Mimicry

yes

versus

no),

and

received

1

euro

for

articipation

n this rief

xperiment.

(b)

Procedure

Upon

arrival

t

the

laboratory,

he

participant

was

brought

to a room

by

the

experimenter

nd

was

asked

to take

a

seat at a

table

with

two chairs.

The

experimenter

eated

herself

n the

other

chair

and

explained

they

will

discuss

some

recent advertise-

ments.

During

this

discussion,

she

unobtrusivelymimicked

or

not)

the

spontaneous

behaviourof the

participant

e.g.

facial

xpressions,

ace/hair

ouching,

movements

y

feet or

arms)

with a 4-second

delay.

The interaction

asted

between

5.5 and 6 min. After

Phil.

Trans.

. Soc.

B

(2009)

this

mimicry

manipulation,

he

experimenter

anded

the

similarity

measure to the

participant

nd

left

he

room.

(c)

Results and discussion

To

test the effect f

mimicry

n

assimilation,

r-test

was

performed.

As

predicted,

mimicked

participants

perceived

more

similarity

etweenthe two random

pictures

(A

=6.91,

s.d.

=

1.14)

compared

to

non-mimicked

participants

(M=5.6,

s.d.

=

1.51),

r(21)

=

2.26,p


7/10

2386 R. van

Baaren

et al.

Social side

of

mimicry

evaluated ore

ositively

han

non-mimicking

vatar.

Importantly,

his ffect asreversedor

igh-prejudiced

participants

ho

weremimicked

y

n avatar ith

ypi-

cal Moroccan

eatures;

hey

valuatedhe

mimicking

avatar

ess

favourablyompared

o the

non-mimicking

one.

A

final

nterestinghenomenon

here

mimicry

s

not the defaults complementarity,r thetendency

to

automatically

eact

pposite

othe bserved

ehav-

iour.

Whenbehaviour

s

related

o

status,

ower

r

hierarchy,

umans

seem not to

imitate.

nstead,

dominance

utomaticallyriggers

ubmissiveness

nd

vice

versa

Wiggins

982;

Tiedens&

Fragale

003).

Tiedens

&

Fragale

2003)

for

xample

manipulated

the

dominance

r submissiveness

f a confederate's

posture e.g.

wide

versus

arrow)

nd observed

ow

the

articipant's

osture

hanges

ver

ime

n

response

to the onfederate.

hey

ound vidence

or utomatic

complementarity;

hen

participants

erefacedwith

a

dominant

onfederate,

heir

wn

body gradually

and unconsciouslyook up less space, whereas

they

ended

o extend

heir odies

in

space

when

interacting

ith submissive

onfederate.

(e)

Implications

or theorizing

n imitation

How

do these

ocialmoderators

nd

consequences

it

withinhebroader

heoriesn the

mechanisms

f mi-

tation

resented

lsewhere

n this ssue?Atthe

present

time,

his

uestion

annot e answered

y empirical

data

and

any theorizing

s

at best

speculative.

he

field f unconscious

mimicry

as worked

n isolation

too

ong.

What an

be

done,however,

s to

focus n

the research escribed n thischapternd to distilland

highlight

hose

aspects

of the data thatneed

an

explanation

r

may

be of nteresto theories

n

imitation

n

a broader ense.

Firstof

all,

unconscious

mimicry

s

surprisingly

flexible,

n

some cases

t occursmore han

n

others

and there re even circumstances

here

tendency

to act na

complementary

nstead f assimilative

ay

is

revealed.

econd,

given

hat he studies

eported

here

n the

onsequences

f mitation

oncern ffects

ofwhich

he

mimickees

unaware,

e needto be able

to

explain

how our brains

unconsciously

ode

or

'recognize'

we are

being

mitated r not and how

that

ffects

ur

brains

n

such

way

hatwe become

more rosocialor ess ncasesofnot iked argets).

In our

view,

hese

spects

re

currently

ot well

understoodnd thus

ny uggestion

n

possible

nte-

gration

s

inherentlypeculative.

owever,

egarding

the

flexibility

f

mimicry,

here re two

theories hat

provide

n architecture

theoretically

r

neurologi-

cally)

n

which

lexibility

f

sensory-motorouplings

may

occur:

Heyes'

Associative

equence

Learning

theory

n sensorimotorssociations

e.g. Heyes

&

Bird

007)

and

Keysers

Perrett's ebbian

Perspec-

tive n

themirror

ystemKeysers

Perrett

004).

In

both these

theories,

he mirror

ystem

cquires

ts

properties y

learned ssociations etween

ensory

input nd associatedctions.When heres consistent

co-activation

etween

ensory

nd motor

eurons,

n

time,

hese

neurons

ecome

capable

of

mutual cti-

vation.When

you

wave

your

hand and

you always

Phil. Trans.

R. Soc.

B

(2009)

see

your

and

wave,

directink etween

he

percep-

tion

of a

waving

and and

waving

t

occurs. his

in

turn,

due to

sensitivity

f

both

endogenous

nd

exogenous

timuli

n the

mirror

ystem,

an

leadto

(pre)motor

ctivity

hen

we see

somebody

lse

move

a hand.

Importantly,

his can

also

explain

why

we

sometimes

espond

n a

complementary

ay.

f we

learnn ife hatt shealthierorespondubmissively

to

dominant

eople,

nd

vice

versa,

he

ame

mechan-

isms

of associated

sensory-motor

ouplings

an

explain

hese

utomatic

omplementary

ovements.

Recent

work

by

Catmur

nd

colleagues

Catmur

et l.

2007,

2008)provides

videnceor

his

lexibility

of the

mirror

ystem

Catmur

t

al

2009).

In their

study,

training

aradigm

was

introduced

here

different

ypes

of

sensory-motor

ouplings

were

trained;

ompatible

ombinations

e.g.

responding

with

hand

movement

hen

bserving

hand

move-

ment)

nd

incompatible

ombinations

e.g.

respond-

ing

with

foot

movement

hen

observing

hand

movementr vice versa).Whenparticipantsere

trained

n

incompatible

ombinations,

reversalf

the

ypical

ompatibility

ffectsere ound

n a

reac-

tion imes

measure;

articipants

ere

ctually

aster

n

compatible

ompared

to

incompatible

rials.

In

addition,

sing

fMRI,

the

corresponding

ffect

lso

occurred

nthemirror

ystem.

fter

ncompatible

rain-

ing,

he

ctivation

f he ction

bservation

arts

f he

mirror

ystem

ere

modulated

y

training.

oncep-

tually

imilar

ffects

ere

bserved

n a muscular

evel

using

MS

and a

hand

pening-hand

losing

ask.

Relating

his o the work

n human

unconscious

mimicry

nd

the

finding

hat

mimicry

s

moderated

bya prioriiking f

the

targetor

his/her

roup),

t

would

uggest

hat his ystemsalso sensitiveocon-

text.

raining

rtask

emands

re

ne

type

f

ontext,

but he

haracteristic

f he

erson

hom

we are

bout

to mimic

s another

mportant

ontext.

n

a

sensory

level,

the

behaviour

we

observe s

integrated

n a

more

complex

rray

f stimuli:

ime,

place,

race,

prior xperience,

xpectations

nd the

like.

f the

mirror

ystem

s

flexible

n the

ensory-

ction

oup-

lings,

henthese

peripheral

spects

of

the

sensory

input

could

be

capable

of

influencing

he

type

or

direction

f

ensory-

ction

oupling.

A

possible

mechanism

hat

may elp

o

explain

ow

liking

f

a

target

moderates

mimicry

s

provided

y

Brasset al. (2009). Theydescribehefunctionfa

brain

ircuit,

omprised

ainly

f

anterior

rontome-

dian cortex

aFMC)

and

temporoparietal

unction

(TPJ),

that

plays

crucial

ole

n

distinguishing

elf

from ther.

t is

possible

hat uch

system

lays

n

important

oleboth

n

mimicry

nd

in the

conse-

quences

of

being

mimicked.

he

more

self-other

overlap

we

feel',

he

morewewill

mimic

he

other

and the

more

positive

he

consequences

f

being

mimicked

y

that

other

will be.

Future

tudies

will

be

needed o test

his dea

and

find vidence

or

on-

nections

etween

his different-from-me'

echanism

andthe

brainmechanisms

esponsible

or nconscious

mimicrynd tsconsequences.

Finally,

egarding

he

consequences

f

being

mi-

tated,

hefirst

uestion

hat

needs

o

be addressed

s

how

our brain

detects

we are

being

mitated,

ven



8/10

Social

side

of

mimicry

R.

van

Baarenet

al

2387

though

e do not

onsciously

ealize

t.

Theoretically,

the

difference

etween

eing

nd

not

being

mitated

can

be

conceptualized

s the

presence

r absence

f

compatible

ensory

nd

motor

oncepts.

When

we

are mitated

tmeans

ur

ensory

ndmotor

ctivation

resembleach

other

more

ompared

o

cases

where

e

arenot mitated.

ow

thebrain

etects

his

nd how

that ubsequentlyffectsurprosocial rientations

still

mystery,

lthough

he

suggested

inkbetween

the

neural

ases

of mitation

nd

empathy

Preston

de Waal

2002;

Decety

Jackson

004)

may

e

a start-

ing point

also

see Bastiaansen

t al.

2009).

Both

(automatic)

mitation

nd

empathy

eem

to share

t

least

for

large

art

he same

neuralmechanism.

n

addition,

e

Vignemont

Singer

2006)

describe he

contextual

alleability

f

mpathy,

here ur

mpathie

response

o others

s

modulated

y,

among

others,

individual

characteristics

nd

relational

factors.

Whereas

n

empathie

esponse

o

a

specific

erson

s

something

lse than

a

general

ssimilative

indset,

the onsequences

f

being

mitated

nd

empathy ayshow onsiderableverlap.

Before

losing,

owever,

he

mere act

hat ncon-

scious

mimicry

s so

pervasive

nd

omnipresent

n

humans

s in itself

elevant

o several

hapters

n this

special

ssue.

First

f

ll,

Ferrarit l.

(2009)

describe

two

ossible

mechanisms

y

whichmirror

eurons

an

influence

ehaviour;

'direct'

and 'indirect'

way.

According

o

these

authors,

direct

mitation,

f

which nconscious

mimicry

eems

o be

an

example,

is

only resent

arly

n human

evelopment.

oming

with

ge,

this

direct

ranslation

f

perception

nto

action

s less

and

mirror eurons

nfluence

ehaviour

less

directly.

owever,

his

eems

o be at

odds

with

thereviewf studies n unconsciousmimicrynthis

current

hapter.

One

possible

explanation

s

that

unconscious

mimicry

ccurs

completely

utside

of

awareness

nd

when tdoes become

onscious,

eople

tendto

stop

or control

t

immediately.

he

type

f

imitation

sed

by

Ferrari

tal. and the

vast

majority

of tudies

n

mitation

n

cognitive

sychology

nd

cog-

nitive euroscience

s

notunaware

nd s

not ested

n a

trulycological

alid ocial

ontext.

n

young

hildren,

this

disliking

f conscious

mitation

eems

not to be

apparent,

lthough

his

eeds

more esearch.

In

addition,

Whiten

t l.

(2009)

theorize

bout he

mechanisms

hat

acilitate

umulative

ultural

earning

in humans nd chimpanzeesnddescribe ow auto-

matic

mitation

lays

fundamental

ole

nthis

rocess.

Whereas

himpanzees

re

capable

of

imitation,

hey

seem o

use/apply

t more

onservatively,

hile uman

children

and

adults)

eem

to be 'enthusiastic'

mita-

tors.Our

chapter

orroborates

his

iew,

t least

from

the

human

perspective

n

showing

he

omnipresence

of

mimicry.

A final

oint

f oncern

swhether

nconscious

imi-

cry

s a

high

evel r

ow evel

utomatic echanism.

n

this

hapter,

ehave

epeatedly

tressed

ts

nconscious,

and hence

utomatic

ature.

onversely,

e have

pre-

sented

moderators

hat

eem

to be

more

high-level,

such s self-construalnd iking.We thinkt willbe a

major hallenge

o

explain

ow suchseeminglyigh

level

psychological

onstructs

nteract

ith his

ow

level

motorie

henomenon.

ne

speculative

ossibility

Phil Trans.R. Soc. B

(2009)

is that

we

automatically

mitate

or complement)

nd

we need

nhibitory

ontrol

o

stop

this

phenomenon

(see

Van

Leeuwen

t

al

in

press).

The

higher

evel

moderatorshen

may

work

s

triggers

or

nhibition.

Alternatively,

igh

evel

moderators

perate

efore

he

to-be-mimicked

ction

s

perceived

nd

exert

heir

moderating

nfluence

t

the

eginning

f

he

rocess.

In sum, ocialprocesseslay crucialole nmimi-

cry

nd

most

robably

n

most

ypes

f mitation.t s

now

he ime

o start

o

ntegrate

his

iew

n theories

explaining

he

mechanisms

f

mitation.

ore

mphasis

on the

ecological

ircumstances

nd

context

f

mita-

tion

will

undoubtedly

nspire

ther

disciplines

nd

ultimately

ell

us

more

bout

he

rchitecture

f ocial

interactions,

f

which

mitation

s a

prime

xample.

In the

end,

mimicry

s

a

truly

ocial

phenomenon

where

multiple

ndividuals

re

needed

nd

influence

each

other.

f

we

only

focus

on

the

micro-level

r

intra-individual

spects

f

mimicry,

e

may

ose

sight

of

the affective

nd

emotional

actors

elated

o

it,

hence

he itle

f his

hapter:

here

s

the

ove?

APPENDIX

A

Dependent

ariable

ssimilation.

4

I

_*_*

li fis

Nk- Ew--3

how

imilar

re hese wo

pictures?

(not tall)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(verymuch)

REFERENCES

Asendorpf,

.

B.,

Warkentin,

. &

Baudonniere,

J.

199o

Self-awareness

nd

other-awareness.

I:

Mirror

elf-

recognition,

ocial

ontingency

wareness,

nd

synchronie

imitation.

ev.

Psychol

2,

313-321.

(doi:10.

037/00

2-

1649.32.2.313)

Ashton-James,

.

E.,

van

Baaren,

R.,

Chartrand,

.

L.,

Decety,

.

&

Karremans,

.

C.

2007

Mimicry

nd

me:

the

mpact

f

mimicry

n

self-construal.

oc.

Cogn.

5,

518-535.

(doi:

0. 521/SOCO.2007.

5.4.518)

Bailenson,J. N. & Yee, N. 2005 Digitalchameleons:

automatic

ssimilation

f

nonverbal

estures

n mmersive

virtual

nvironments.

sychol.

ci.

16

10,

814-819.

(doi:10.1111/j.l467-9280.2005.

1619.x)



9/10

2388 R. van Baaren et al Social side

of

mimicry

Bandura,

A. 1962 Social

learning hrough

mitation.n

Nebraska

ymposium

n motivation

ed.

M. R.

Jones).

Lincoln,

E:

University

fNebraska ress.

Bastiaansen,

.

A.

C.

J.,

Thioux,

M. &

Keysers,

. 2009

Evidence

ormirror

ystems

n emotions. hil Trans. .

Soc.

B

364,

2391-2404.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0058)

Bourgeois,

.

&

Hess,

U. 2008 The

impact

f ocial ontext

on

mimicry.

iol

Psychol

7,

343-352.

(doi:10.1016/j.

biopsycho.2007.1 008)

Brass,M.,

Bekkering,

. &

Prinz,

W.2001 Movementbser-

vation ffects ovement

xecutionn a

simple esponse

task.

Acta

Psychol.

06,

3-22.

(doi:10.1016/S0001-

6918(00)00024-X)

Brass,

M.,

Ruby,

. &

Spengler,

. 2009 nhibitionf mita-

tive

ehaviournd

ocial

ognition.

hil.Trans.

. Soc. B

364,

2359-2367.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0066)

Brewer,

. B.

1991The social elf: n

being

he ame nd

different

t the

same time.Pers.

oc.

Psychol.

ull.

17,

475-482.

(doi:10.1

77/0146167291

75001)

Carpenter,

., Uebel,

J.

&

Tomasello,

.

Submitted.

imi-

cry

ncreases

rosocial

ehaviorn 18-month-olds.

Catmur,

, Walsh,

V. &

Heyes,

C. 2007 Sensorimotor

learningonfigureshe humanmirrorystem. urr.

Biol.

17,

1527-1531.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.006)

Catmur, C,

Gillmeister,

., Bird, G.,

Liepelt,

R.,

Brass,

M. &

Heyes,

. 2008

Through

he

ooking lass:

counter-mirror

ctivation

ollowingncompatible

ensori-

motor

earning.

ur.

.

Neurosci.

8,

1208-1215.

doi:10.

111

1/j.

460-9568.

008.06419.x)

Catmur,C,

Walsh,

V. &

Heyes,

C. 2009 Associative

sequence

earning:

he

ole f

experience

n the

develop-

ment f mitation

nd

themirror

ystem.

hil.Trans.

.

Soc.

B

364,

2369-2380.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0048)

Chalfonte,

.

L. &

Johnson,

. K. 1996 Feature

memory

and

binding

n

young

nd older

dults.

Mem.

Cogn.

4,

403-416.

Chartrand,. L. & Bargh, .A. 1999The chameleonffect:the

perception-behavior

ink and social interaction.

J.

Pers.

oc.

Psychol.

6,

93-910.

(doi:

0. 037/0022-

3514.76.6.893)

Chartrand,

. L. & Van

Baaren,

.

B. 2009 Human

mimicry.

Adv.

Exp.

Soc.

Psychol.

Decety,

.

&

Jackson,

. L. 2004

The functionalrchitecture

of human

empathy.

ehav.

Cogn.

Neurosci.

ev.

3,

71-100.

(doi:10.1

77/1534582304267187)

de

Vignemont,

. &

Singer,

.

2006 The

empathie

rain:

how,

when

nd

why?

Trends

ogn.

ci.

10,

435-441.

(doi:

0.101

/j.tics.2006.08.008)

Ferrari,

.

F.,

Bonini,

. &

Fogassi,

. 2009

From

monkey

mirror eurons

o

primate

ehaviours:

ossible

direct'

and

'indirect'

athways.

hil.

Trans.R. Soc.

B

364,

2311-2323. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0062)

Greenwald,

.

G.,

McGhee,

. E. &

Schwartz,

.

K.

L. 1998

Measuring

ndividual

ifferences

n

implicit

ognition:

the

mplicit

ssociationest.

J.

Pers.

oc.

Psychol.

4,

1464-1480.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464)

Heider,

.

D. &

Skowronski,

.

J.

Submitted.

thnicity-based

similarity

ndthe

hameleon

ffect.

Heyes,

C.

M. &

Bird,

G. 2007

Mirroring,

ssociation

and

the

correspondence

roblem.

n Sensorimotor

oun-

dations

f

Higher

Cognition,

ttention

Performance

XXII.

(eds

P.

Haggard,

Y. Rossetti

M.

Kawato),

pp.

461-479.

Oxford,

K:

Oxford

niversity

ress.

Iacoboni,

M.,

Woods,

R.

P., Brass,

M.,

Bekkering,

.,

Mazziotta,

.

C. &

Rizzolatti,

. 1999 Cortical

mechan-

isms of human mitation.cience 86, 2526-2528.

(doi:

0.11

6/science.286.5449.2526)

Ji,

.,

Peng,

K. &

Nisbett,

. E. 2000

Culture,ontrol,

nd

perception

f

elationships

nthe nvironment.

.

Pers.

oc.

Psychol.

8,943-955.

doi:

0. 037/0022-35

4.78.5.943)

Johnston,

.

2002

Behavioral

mimicry

nd

stigmatization.

Soc.

Cogn.

0,

18-35.

(doi:

0.1 2

/soco.20.

.18.20944)

Keysers,

. &

Perrett,

. 2004

Demystifying

ocial

cogni-

tion:

Hebbian

perspective.

rends

ogn.

ci.

8,

501-

507.

(doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.005)

Kuhn,

M. H. &

McPartland,

. S. 1954An

empirical

nves-

tigation

f

self-attitude.

m. Sociol.Rev.

19,

68-76.

(doi:

0.2307/2088

75)

Lakin,J. & Chartrand,. L. 2003 Usingnonconscious

behavioral

mimicry

o

create affiliation

nd

rapport.

Psychol.

ci.

14,

34-339.

doi:10.1

1

1/1467-9280.14481)

Leighton,

.,

Bird,

G.

&

Heyes,

.

Submitted.ocial

ttitudes

modulate

utomaticmitation.

Lieberman,

. 2000

Get

nyone

o

do

anything

nd never

eel

powerless

gain:

psychological

ecrets o

predict,

ontrol,

and

nfluence

very

ituation.

ew

York,

Y: Saint

Martin's

Press.

Likowski,

K.

U.,

Schubert,

T.

W,

Fleischmann, .,

Landgraf,.

&

Volk,

.

Submitted.ositive

ffectsf

mimi-

cry

re imitedo

he

ngroup.

Macrae,

. N. &

Johnston,

. 1998

Help,

need

omebody:

automaticction nd

naction. oc.

Cogn. 6,

400-417.

Massen,C. & Prinz,W. 2009 Movements,ctions nd

tool-use

actions: an ideomotor

pproach

to imita-

tion.

Phil.

Trans. . Soc. B

364,

2349-2358.

(doi:

0.

1098/rstb.2009.0059)

Meltzoff,

. 1990 Foundationsor

eveloping concept

f

self: herole

f

mitation

n

relating

elf o other nd

the

value f ocial

mirroring,

ocial

modeling,

nd

elf-practice

in

infancy.

n The

elf

n transition

eds

D.

Cicchetti

M.

Beeghly),pp.

139-164.

Chicago: University

f

Chicago

Press.

Mussweiler,

.

2003

Comparison rocesses

n social

udge-

ment:mechanismsnd

consequences. sychol.

ev.

110,

472-489.

(doi:10.1037/0033-295X.l0.3.472)

Preston,

. D. & de

Waal,

F.

B.

M.

2002

Empathy:

ts

ultimate

nd

proximate

ases.Behav. rain ci.

25,

1-72.

Prinz,W. 1990A common oding pproachoperception

and action.

n

Relationships

etween

erception

nd action

(eds

O.

Neumann& W

Prinz)

pp.

167-201.

Berlin,

Germany:

pringer-

erlag.

Stel,

M.,

van

Baaren, R., Blascovich,

.,

McCall, C,

Pollmann,

M.

H.,

van

Leeuwen, M.,

Mastop,J.,

Mller,

. C. N. &

Vonk,

R.

Submitted.

imicry

nd

liking:

s t

really

hat

imple?

Suzuki,

., Takeuchi,

, Ishii,

.

&

Okada,

M.

2003 Effects

of echoic

mimicrysing

hummed ounds

on human

computerpeech

nteraction.

peech

ommunication

0,

559-573.

(doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00180-2)

Tiedens,

. Z. &

Fragale,

. R. 2003 Powermoves:

om-

plementarity

n submissive nd dominant onverbal

behavior. . Pers. oc. Psychol 4, 558-568. (doi: 0.

1037/0022-3514.84.3.558)

Uldall,B.,

Hall,

C. &

Chartrand,

. Submitted.

ptimal

distinctiveness

nd

mimicry.

van

aaren,

.

B.,Maddux,

W.

W,

Chartrand,

.

L.,

De

Bouter,

C. &

van

Knippenberg,

. 2003

It

takes wo o mimic:

behavioral

onsequences

f self-construals.

.

Pers. oc.

Psychol.

4,

1093-1102.

(doi:

0. 037/0022-354.84.5.

1093)

van

Baaren,

R.

B., Holland,

R.

W,

Kawakami,

.

& van

Knippenberg,

. 2004a

Mimicry

nd

pro-social

ehavior.

Psychol

ci.

15,

71-74.

(doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.

01501012.x)

van

Baaren,

R.

B.,

Horgan,

T.

G., Chartrand,

. L. &

Dijkmans,M. 20046 The forest,he treesand the

chameleon:

ontext-dependency

nd

mimicry..

Pers.

oc.

Psychol

6,453-459.

doi:

0. 037/0022-35

4.86.3.453)

Van

Leeuwen,

M.

L.,

Van

Baaren,

R.

B., Martin,D.,

Dijksterhuis,

A. &

Bekkering,

H.

In

press.

Phil. Trans.

R. Soc.

B

(2009)



10/10

Social side

of

mimicry

R. van Baaren

et ai 2389

Executive

functioning

imitation:

ncreasingworking

memory

oad

facilitatesehavioral

mitation.

europsychobgia.

Whiten, A., McGuigan,

N.,

Marshall-Pescini,

S. &

Hopper,

L.

M. 2009

Emulation, mitation,

ver-imita-

tion and

the

scope

of culturefor hild and

chimpanzee.

Phil. Trans.

R. Soc.

B

364,

2417-2428.

(doi:10.1098/

rstb.2009.0069)

Wigboldus,

D.,

Van

Gaal,

M., Dotsch,

R. & Van

Baaren,

R.

In preparation. irtualmimicry:mplicitrejudice oderates

the

ffectsf

mimicking.

Wiggins,

J.

S.

1982

Circumplex

models

of

interpersonal

behavior

n clinical

psychology.

n Handbook

of

research

methods

n

clinical

sychology

eds

P. C. Kendall &

J.

N.

Butcher)

pp.

183-221. New

York,

NY:

Wiley.

Witkin,

H. A.

&

Goodenough,

D. R.

1981

Cognitivetyles,

essence,

nd

origins: ield

dependence

nd

field

ndependence.

New

York,

NY:

International

niversity

ress.

Witkin,

.

A., Oltman,

P.

K., Raskin,

E. &

Karp,

S. A. 1971

A manual

for

the

embedded

igures

ests. alo

Alto,

CA:

Consulting sychologists

ress.

Witkin,

H.

A.,

Goodenough,

D. R.

&

Oltman,

P. K. 1979

Psychological

ifferentiation:urrent

tatus.

J.

Pers.Soc.

Psychol. 7, 1127-1145. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.

1127)

Yabar, Y,

Johnston,

.,

Miles,

L. &

Peace,

V.

2006

Implicit

behavioral

mimicry:

nvestigating

he

impact

of

group

membership. .

Nonverbal ehav.

30,

97-113.

(doi:10.

1 07/s 9

1

9-006-001

-6)

Phil

Trans.

. Soc.

B

(2009)

Thi t t d l d d f 137 120 118 241 Th 18 D 2014 04 49 57 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp